EC

ec@lists.wvsierraclub.org

2254 discussions

Fwd: Fracking grant Opportunity, Due march 30??
by James Kotcon 23 Mar '12

23 Mar '12

>>> Ann Payne <Paynestake(a)frontier.com> 3/23/2012 5:44 PM >>> I am guessing most of you already know about this money, but am sending along just in case. The deadline is very tight. Perhaps you know someone who is interested. Best, Ann Begin forwarded message: Bingham Foundation Invites Letters of Inquiry for Environmental Programs to Address Hydraulic Fracturing in New York, West Virginia, Ohio, Maryland, or Virginia A grant of up to $25,000 will be awarded to a nonprofit organization working to address the environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the multi-state Marcellus Shale region.... Posted on March 20, 2012 Deadline: March 30, 2012 (Letters of Inquiry) Ann Reflections: Homage to Dunkard Creek

1 0

Fwd: WV Host Farms - new potential ally
by James Kotcon 23 Mar '12

23 Mar '12

We should reach out to these folks, perhaps plan some joint outings. JBK ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Diane Pitcock <parrotlady(a)hughes.net> To: a_clean_wv(a)yahoo.com Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2012 7:23 PM Subject: info about environmental initiative in WV Hello, Please visit the website below and if you find it appropriate to include info about it in your next newsletter, I would appreciate the promotion of our program. We are a group of concerned landowners being impacted by fracking on or near our lands and the WV Host Farm Program was the result of our desire to invite more environmental research to WV to help improve things here. Please forward this info to your membership via e-mail if you think that any landowners would be interested in participating in the volunteer effort if they are living in areas impacted by Marcellus drilling and fracking. Thanks www.wvhostfarms.org Diane Pitcock 304 873-1932 __._,_.___ Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1) Recent Activity: Visit Your Group Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use. __,_._,___

1 0

NYT ARTICLE ON "ENERGY INDEPENDENCE" -- EXTRAORDINARY, EVEN IF INACCURATE IN PARTS, AND WITHOUT REGARD TO ALLOCATION OF CREDIT/BLAME
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 22 Mar '12

22 Mar '12

The Energy Rush U.S. Is Inching Toward Elusive Goal of Energy Independence Jim Wilson/The New York Times At an Apache Corporation oil well near Hobbs, N.M., workers moved equipment used to monitor the progress on a well being drilled horizontally. Across the country, the oil and gas industry is vastly increasing production, reversing two decades of decline. More Photos »<http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2012/03/22/us/20120322ENERGY.html> By CLIFFORD KRAUSS<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/clifford_kraus…>and ERIC LIPTON<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/l/eric_lipton/in…> Published: March 22, 2012 The Energy Rush *Drilling More and Using Less* Multimedia Slide Show <http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2012/03/22/us/20120322ENERGY.html?ref=ener…> Booming Again in West Texas<http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2012/03/22/us/20120322ENERGY.html?ref=ener…> MIDLAND, Tex. — The desolate stretch of West Texas desert known as the Permian Basin is still the lonely domain of scurrying roadrunners by day and howling coyotes by night. But the roar of scores of new oil<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/energy-environment/oil-petroleu…>rigs and the distinctive acrid fumes of drilling equipment are unmistakable signs that crude is gushing again. And not just here. Across the country, the oil and gas industry is vastly increasing production, reversing two decades of decline. Using new technology and spurred by rising oil prices since the mid-2000s, the industry is extracting millions of barrels more a week, from the deepest waters of the Gulf of Mexico to the prairies of North Dakota. At the same time, Americans are pumping significantly less gasoline. While that is partly a result of the recession<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/r/recession_an…>and higher gasoline prices, people are also driving fewer miles and replacing older cars with more fuel-efficient<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/f/fuel_efficie…>vehicles at a greater clip, federal data show. Taken together, the increasing production and declining consumption have unexpectedly brought the United States markedly closer to a goal that has tantalized presidents since Richard Nixon: independence from foreign energy sources, a milestone that could reconfigure American foreign policy, the economy and more. In 2011, the country imported just 45 percent of the liquid fuels it used, down from a record high of 60 percent in 2005. “There is no question that many national security policy makers will believe they have much more flexibility and will think about the world differently if the United States is importing a lot less oil,” said Michael A. Levi, an energy and environmental senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. “For decades, consumption rose, production fell and imports increased, and now every one of those trends is going the other way.” How the country made this turnabout is a story of industry-friendly policies started by President Bush and largely continued by President Obama — many over the objections of environmental advocates — as well as technological advances that have allowed the extraction of oil and gas once considered too difficult and too expensive to reach. But mainly it is a story of the complex economics of energy, which sometimes seems to operate by its own rules of supply and demand. With gasoline prices now approaching record highs and politicians mud-wrestling about the causes and solutions, the effects of the longer-term rise in production can be difficult to see. Simple economics suggests that if the nation is producing more energy, prices should be falling. But crude oil — and gasoline and diesel made from it — are global commodities whose prices are affected by factors around the world. Supply disruptions in Africa, the political standoff with Iran and rising demand from a recovering world economy all are contributing to the current spike in global oil prices, offsetting the impact of the increased domestic supply. But the domestic trends are unmistakable. Not only has the United States reduced oil imports from members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries by more than 20 percent in the last three years, it has become a net exporter of refined petroleum products like gasoline for the first time since the Truman presidency. The natural gas<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/energy-environment/natural-gas/…>industry, which less than a decade ago feared running out of domestic gas, is suddenly dealing with a glut so vast that import facilities are applying for licenses to export gas to Europe and Asia. National oil production, which declined steadily to 4.95 million barrels a day in 2008 from 9.6 million in 1970, has risen over the last four years to nearly 5.7 million barrels a day. The Energy Department projects that daily output could reach nearly seven million barrels by 2020. Some experts think it could eventually hit 10 million barrels — which would put the United States in the same league as Saudi Arabia. This surge is hardly without consequences. Some areas of intense drilling activity, including northeastern Utah and central Wyoming, have experienced air quality problems. The drilling technique called hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, which uses highly pressurized water, sand and chemical lubricants that help force more oil and gas from rock formations, has also been blamed for wastewater problems. Wildlife experts also warn that expanded drilling is threatening habitats of rare or endangered species. Greater energy independence is “a prize that has long been eyed by oil insiders and policy strategists that can bring many economic and national security benefits,” said Jay Hakes, a senior official at the Energy Department during the Clinton administration. “But we will have to work through the environmental issues, which are a definite challenge.” The increased production of fossil fuels is a far cry from the energy plans President Obama articulated as a candidate in 2008. Then, he promoted policies to help combat global warming<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?…>, including vast investments in renewable energy and a cap-and-trade<http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/g/greenhous…>system for carbon emissions that would have discouraged the use of fossil fuels. More recently, with gasoline prices rising and another election looming, Mr. Obama has struck a different chord. He has opened new federal lands and waters to drilling, signaled a willingness to eventually approve the Keystone XL<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/k/keystone_pip…>oil pipeline from Canada, trumpeted increases in oil and gas production and de-emphasized the challenges of climate change. Mr. Obama’s current policy has alarmed many environmental advocates who say he has failed to adequately address the environmental threats of expanded drilling and the use of fossil fuels. He also has not silenced critics, including Republicans and oil executives, who accuse him of preventing drilling on millions of acres off the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts and on federal land, delaying the Keystone decision and diverting scarce federal resources to pie-in-the-sky alternative energy programs. Just as the production increase was largely driven by rising oil prices, the trend could reverse if the global economy were to slow. Even so, much of the industry is thrilled at the prospects. “To not be concerned with where our oil is going to come from is probably the biggest home run for the country in a hundred years,” said Scott D. Sheffield, chief executive of Pioneer Natural Resources, which is operating in West Texas. “It sort of reminds me of the industrial revolution in coal<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/c/coal/index.h…>, which allowed us to have some of the cheapest energy in the world and drove our economy in the late 1800s and 1900s.” *The Foundation Is Laid* For as long as roughnecks have worked the Permian Basin — made famous during World War II<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/w/world_war_ii…>as the fuel pump that powered the Allies — they have mostly focused on relatively shallow zones of easily accessible, oil-soaked sandstone and silt. But after 80 years of pumping, those regions were running dry. So in 2003 , Jim Henry, a West Texas oilman, tried a bold experiment. Borrowing an idea from a fellow engineer, his team at Henry Petroleum drilled deep into a hard limestone formation using a refinement of fracking. By blasting millions of gallons of water into the limestone, they created tiny fissures that allowed oil to break free, a technique that had previously been successful in extracting gas from shale. The test produced 150 barrels of oil a day, three times more than normal. “We knew we had the biggest discovery in over 50 years in the Permian Basin,” Mr. Henry recalled. There was just one problem: At $30 a barrel, the price of oil was about half of what was needed to make drilling that deep really profitable. So the renaissance of the Permian — and the domestic oil industry — would have to wait. But the drillers in Texas had important allies in Washington. President Bush grew up in Midland and spent 11 years as a West Texas oilman, albeit without much success, before entering politics. Vice President Dick Cheney had been chief executive of the oil field contractor Halliburton. The Bush administration worked from the start on finding ways to unlock the nation’s energy reserves and reverse decades of declining output, with Mr. Cheney leading a White House energy task force that met in secret with top oil executives. “Ramping up production was a high priority,” said Gale Norton, a member of the task force and the secretary of the Interior at the time. “We hated being at the mercy of other countries, and we were determined to change that.” The task force’s work helped produce the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which set rules that contributed to the current surge. It prohibited the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating fracking under the Safe Drinking Water Act, eliminating a potential impediment to wide use of the technique. The legislation also offered the industry billions of dollars in new tax breaks to help independent producers recoup some drilling costs even when a well came up dry. Separately, the Interior Department was granted the power to issue drilling permits on millions of acres of federal lands without extensive environmental impact studies for individual projects, addressing industry complaints about the glacial pace of approvals. That new power has been used at least 8,400 times, mostly in Wyoming, Utah and New Mexico, representing a quarter of all permits issued on federal land in the last six federal fiscal years. The Bush administration also opened large swaths of the Gulf of Mexico and the waters off Alaska to exploration, granting lease deals that required companies to pay only a tiny share of their profits to the government. These measures primed the pump for the burst in drilling that began once oil prices started rising sharply in 2005 and 2006. With the world economy humming — and China, India and other developing nations posting astonishing growth — demand for oil began outpacing the easily accessible supplies. By 2008, daily global oil consumption surged to 86 million barrels, up nearly 20 percent from the decade before. In July of that year, the price of oil reached its highest level since World War II, topping $145 a barrel (equivalent to more than $151 a barrel in today’s dollars). Oil reserves once too difficult and expensive to extract — including Mr. Henry’s limestone fields — had become more attractive. If money was the motivation, fracking became the favored means of extraction. While fracking itself had been around for years, natural gas drillers in the 1980s and 1990s began combining high-pressure fracking with drilling wells horizontally, not just vertically. They found it unlocked gas from layers of shale previously seen as near worthless. By 2001, fracking took off around Fort Worth and Dallas, eventually reaching under schools, airports and inner-city neighborhoods. Companies began buying drilling rights across vast shale fields in a variety of states. By 2008, the country was awash in natural gas. Fracking for oil, which is made of larger molecules than natural gas, took longer to develop. But eventually, it opened new oil fields in North Dakota, South Texas, Kansas, Wyoming, Colorado and, most recently, Ohio. Meanwhile, technological advances were making deeper oil drilling possible in the Gulf of Mexico. New imaging and seismic technology allowed engineers to predict the location and size of reservoirs once obscured by thick layers of salt. And drill bits made of superstrong alloys were developed to withstand the hot temperatures and high pressures deep under the seabed. As the industry’s confidence — and profits — grew, so did criticism. Amid concerns about global warming and gasoline prices that averaged a record $4.11 a gallon in July 2008 ($4.30 in today’s dollars), President Obama campaigned on a pledge to shift toward renewable energy and away from fossil fuels. His administration initially canceled some oil and gas leases on federal land awarded during the Bush administration and required more environmental review. But in a world where crucial oil suppliers like Venezuela and Libya were unstable and high energy prices could be a drag on a weak economy, he soon acted to promote more drilling. Despite a drilling hiatus after the 2010 explosion of the Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico, which killed 11 rig workers and spilled millions of barrels of crude oil into the ocean, he has proposed expansion of oil production both on land and offshore. He is now moving toward approving drilling off the coast of Alaska. “Our dependence on foreign oil is down is because of policies put in place by our administration, but also our predecessor’s administration,” Mr. Obama said during a campaign appearance in March, a few weeks after opening 38 million more acres in the gulf for oil and gas exploration. “And whoever succeeds me is going to have to keep it up.” * An American Oil Boom* The last time the Permian Basin oil fields enjoyed a boom — nearly three decades ago — Rolls-Royce opened a showroom in the desert, Champagne was poured from cowboy boots, and the local airport could not accommodate all the Lear jets taking off for Las Vegas on weekends. But when crude prices fell in the mid-1980s, oil companies pulled out and the Rolls dealership was replaced by a tortilla factory. The only thriving business was done by bankruptcy lawyers and auctioneers helping to unload used Ferraris, empty homes and useless rigs. “One day we were rolling in oil,” recalled Jim Foreman, the general manager of the Midland BMW dealership, “and the next day geologists were flipping burgers at McDonald’s.” The burger-flipping days are definitely over. Today, more than 475 rigs — roughly a quarter of all rigs operating in the United States — are smashing through tight rocks across the Permian in West Texas and southeastern New Mexico. Those areas are already producing nearly a million barrels a day, or 17 percent more than two years ago. By decade’s end, that daily total could easily double, oil executives say, roughly equaling the total output of Nigeria. “We’re having a revolution,” said G. Steven Farris,chief executive of Apache Corporation, one of the basin’s most active producers. “And we’re just scratching the surface.” It is a revolution that is returning investments to the United States. Over several decades, Pioneer Natural Resources had taken roughly $1 billion earned in Texas oil fields and drilled in Africa, South America and elsewhere. But in the last five years, the company sold $2 billion of overseas assets and reinvested in Texas shale fields. “Political risk was increasing internationally,” said Mr. Sheffield, Pioneer’s chief executive, and domestically, he was encouraged to see “the shale technology progressing.” Pioneer’s rising fortunes can be seen on a 10,000-acre field known as the Giddings Estate, a forsaken stretch inhabited by straggly coyotes, rabbits, rattlesnakes and cows that forage for grass between the sagebrush. When Pioneer bought it in 2005, the field’s hundred mostly broken-down wells were producing a total of 50 barrels a day. “It was a diamond in the rough,” said Robert Hillger, who manages it for Pioneer. Mr. Hillger and his colleagues have brought an array of new tools to bear at Giddings. Computer programs simulate well designs, minimizing trial and error. Advanced fiber optics allow senior engineers and geologists at headquarters more than 300 miles away to monitor progress and remotely direct the drill bit. Subterranean microphones help identify fissures in the rock to plan subsequent drilling. Today, the Giddings field is pumping 7,000 barrels a day, and Pioneer expects to hit 25,000 barrels a day by 2017. The newfound wealth is spreading beyond the fields. In nearby towns, petroleum companies are buying so many pickup trucks that dealers are leasing parking lots the size of city blocks to stock their inventory. Housing is in such short supply that drillers are importing contractors from Houston and hotels are leased out before they are even built. Two new office buildings are going up in Midland, a city of just over 110,000 people, the first in 30 years, while the total value of downtown real estate has jumped 50 percent since 2008. With virtually no unemployment, restaurants cannot find enough servers. Local truck drivers are making six-figure salaries. “Anybody who comes in with a driver’s license and a Social Security<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/social_secur…>card, I’ll give him a chance,” said Rusty Allred, owner of Rusty’s Oilfield Service Company. If there is a loser in this boom, it is the environment. Water experts say aquifers in the desert area could run dry if fracking continues expanding, and oil executives concede they need to reduce water consumption. Yet environmental concerns, from polluted air to greenhouse gas emissions, have gained little traction in the Permian Basin or other outposts of the energy expansion. On the front lines in opposition is Jay Lininger, a 36-year-old ecologist who drives through the Permian in an old Toyota Tacoma with a hard hat tilted on his head and a federal land map at the ready. A former national park firefighter, he says he is now battling a wildfire of a different sort — the oil industry. Nationally, environmentalists have challenged drilling with mixed results. Efforts to stop or slow fracking have succeeded in New York State and some localities in other states, but it is spreading across the country. In the Permian, Mr. Lininger said, few people openly object to the foul-smelling air of the oil fields. Ranchers are more than happy to sell what water they have to the oil companies for fracking. Mr. Lininger and his group are trying to slow the expansion of drilling by appealing to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to protect several animal species, including the five-inch dunes sagebrush lizard. “It’s a pathetic little lizard in an ugly desert, but life needs to be protected,” he said. “Every day we burn fossil fuel makes it harder for our planet to recover from our energy addiction.” Mr. Lininger said the oil and ranching industries had already destroyed or fragmented 40 percent of the lizard’s habitat, and 60 percent of what is left is under lease for oil and gas development. The wildlife agency proposed listing the lizard as endangered in 2010 and was expected to decide last December, but Congressional representatives from the oil patch won a delay. Oil companies are working on a voluntary program to locate new drilling so it will not disturb the lizard habitat. But for Mr. Lininger’s group, the Center for Biological Diversity, that is far from sufficient. Brendan Cummings, senior counsel of the center, said protecting the lizard was part of a broader effort to keep drilling from harming animals, including polar bears, walruses and bowhead whales in the Alaskan Arctic and dwarf sea horses and sea turtles in the Gulf of Mexico. “When you are dealing with fossil fuels, things will always go wrong,” Mr. Cummings said. “There will always be spills, there will always be pollution. Those impacts compound the fragmentation that occurs and render these habitats into sacrifice areas.” * A Turn Toward Efficiency* If the Permian Basin exemplifies the rise in production, car-obsessed San Diego is a prime example of the other big factor in the decline in the nation’s reliance on foreign oil. Just since 2007, consumption of all liquid fuels in the United States, including diesel, jet fuel and heating oil<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/h/heating_oil/…>, has dropped by about 9 percent, according to the Energy Department<http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec3_3.pdf>. Gasoline use fell 6 to 12 percent, estimated Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst at the Oil Price Information Service. Although Southern California’s love affair with muscle cars and the open road persists, driving habits have changed in subtle but important ways. Take Tory Girten, who works as an emergency medical technician and part-time lifeguard in the San Diego area. He switched from driving a Ford minivan to a decidedly smaller and more fuel-efficient Dodge Caliber. Fed up with high gasoline prices, he also moved twice recently to be closer to the city center, cutting his daily commute considerably — a hint of the shift taking place in certain metropolitan areas as city centers become more popular while growth in far-out suburbs slows. “I would rather pay a little more monthly for rent than for just filling up my tank with gas,” he said, after pulling into a local gas station to fill up. Mr. Girten is one of millions of Americans who have downsized. S.U.V.’s accounted for 18 percent of new-car sales in 2002, but only 7 percent in 2010. The surge in gasoline prices nationwide — they are already at a record level for this time of year — has contributed to the shift toward more fuel-efficient cars. But a bigger factor is rising federal fuel economy standards. After a long freeze, the miles-per-gallon mandate has been increased several times in recent years, with the Obama administration now pushing automakers to hit 54.5 m.p.g. by 2025. As Americans replace their older cars — they have bought an average of 1.25 million new cars and light trucks a month this year — new technologies mean they usually end up with a more efficient vehicle, even if they buy a model of similar size and power. California has long pushed further and faster toward efficiency than the rest of the country. It has combated often severe air pollution by mandating cleaner-burning cars, including all-electric vehicles<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/e/electric_veh…>, and prodded Washington to increase the fuel efficiency standards. Thousands of school buses, trash trucks, tractor-trailers and street sweepers and public transit buses in the state run on natural gas, which is cheaper than gasoline and burns more cleanly. That switch cuts the consumption of foreign oil, as does the corn-based ethanol that is now mixed into gasoline as a result of federal mandates. Longer-term social and economic factors are also reducing miles driven — like the rise in Internet shopping and telecommuting and the tendency of baby boomers to drive less as they age. The recession has also contributed, as job losses have meant fewer daily commutes and falling home prices have allowed some people to afford to move closer to work. The trend of lower consumption, when combined with higher energy production, has profound implications, said Bill White, former deputy energy secretary in the Clinton administration and former mayor of Houston. “Energy independence has always been a race between depletion and technologies to produce more and use energy more efficiently,” he said. “Depletion was winning for decades, and now technology is starting to overtake its lead.” Clifford Krauss reported from Midland, Tex., and Houston and Eric Lipton reported from Washington and San Diego. John M. Broder contributed reporting from Washington. -- William V. DePaulo, Esq. 179 Summers Street, Suite 232 Charleston, WV 25301-2163 Tel 304-342-5588 Fax 304-342-5505 william.depaulo(a)gmail.com www.passeggiata.com

1 0

Re: [EC] It is impossible to overstate the damage done by Sierra Club's $26 million sell-out to the natural gas industry 3 years ago when this argument could still have been won.
by Paul Wilson 22 Mar '12

22 Mar '12

And I continue to get emails, from other activists at the national level and in other chapters who are equally upset and have been down the same road BEth described. So why some may wish the issue will go away, it doesn't look that way to me, even if some writers think the Club handled this issue better than say the Susan B. Komen Foundation. fyi, paul On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Elizabeth Little <blittle(a)citynet.net>wrote: > Ditto to what Bill said. Plus, it did have an impact on the WV Chapter. > It caused untold pain and anguish, and it took many hours of work to try > and make national understand the realities of the situation. It pitted > members against each other, and I came extremely close to cancelling my > membership. Not that that would be a big loss to the Club, but others may > have felt the same, and some may even have acted on it. > > > > > The issue emphatically is NOT what program the money was spent on.....the > > issue is the fact that it bought silence, at a time when silence was > > deadly. There can be no rationalization, implicit or otherwise, based > on > > the use made of the money. > > > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Jim Sconyers <jimscon(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Paul's comment below illustrates another aspect of this whole brouhaha - > >> not only did most of our own board not know of the $, but even now we're > >> guessing what it was used for. As I've said before, I deeply respect > >> what > >> Carl Pope did for the Club and the world - but he made one FUBAR on > >> this. > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Paul Wilson <pjgrunt(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> It all went to the Beyond Coal Campaign, but we on the Campaign Team - > >>> at > >>> least the 2 volunteers - did not know about it, so it is hard to say > >>> what > >>> it was/is spent on. best, paul > >>> > >>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Yarnell, Karen < > >>> Karen.Grubb(a)fairmontstate.edu> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Did any of that money go to the coal campaign, which may have been > >>>> used > >>>> for litigation in WV?**** > >>>> > >>>> ** ** > >>>> > >>>> *From:* ec-bounces(a)osenergy.org [mailto:ec-bounces@osenergy.org] *On > >>>> Behalf Of *William V. DePaulo, Esq. > >>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 21, 2012 9:44 AM > >>>> *To:* Jim Sconyers > >>>> *Cc:* Energy Committee > >>>> *Subject:* Re: [EC] It is impossible to overstate the damage done by > >>>> Sierra Club's $26 million sell-out to the natural gas industry 3 years > >>>> ago > >>>> when this argument could still have been won.**** > >>>> > >>>> ** ** > >>>> > >>>> I AGREE RE IMPACT ON WV CHAPTER....AND FOR THAT MATTER OTHERS.....I > >>>> REMEMBER CLEARLY THE NEW YORK REP AT THE ANNUAL MEETING THREE YEARS > >>>> AGO > >>>> DEMANDING TO KNOW IF SIERRA'S DIRECTORS HAD ACCEPTED MONEY FROM THE > >>>> NATURAL > >>>> GAS INDUSTRY, AND RECEIVING NOTHING BUT BLANK STARES IN > >>>> RESPONSE.....*** > >>>> * > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Jim Sconyers <jimscon(a)gmail.com> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> **** > >>>> > >>>> The ultimate irony is that the grassroots were (and are) working > >>>> furiously to tame the runaway gas monster while national took the $ > >>>> from > >>>> Chesapeake. I might add that the $ had no effect whatsoever - none - > >>>> on the > >>>> West Virginia Chapter, its finances, or our intense Marcellus/Shale > >>>> Gas > >>>> Campaign.**** > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 8:52 AM, William V. DePaulo, Esq. < > >>>> william.depaulo(a)gmail.com> wrote:**** > >>>> > >>>> *Error! Filename not specified.***** > >>>> Gas it is**** > >>>> Renewables take back seat **** > >>>> > >>>> Bill Opalka <http://www.renewablesbiz.com/author/bill-opalka> | Mar > >>>> 20, > >>>> 2012 **** > >>>> > >>>> *Error! Filename not > >>>> specified.*< > http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.renewablesbiz.com%2… > > > >>>> *Error! Filename not > >>>> specified.*< > http://www.renewablesbiz.com/article/12/03/gas-it&utm_medium=eNL&utm_campai… > > > >>>> **** > >>>> > >>>> *Error! Filename not specified.***** > >>>> > >>>> The shine is off renewable energy and shale gas is the new disruptive > >>>> technology in power generation. > >>>> > >>>> Harnessing Disruption is the theme of this year’s EnergyBiz Leadership > >>>> Forum <http://www.energybizforum.com/> in Washington, D.C. this week, > >>>> and that means gas-fired generation from unconventional sources is > >>>> jumpin’. > >>>> > >>>> Recession, rising energy costs and competing interests that could > >>>> hamstring the power sector all play a role. And renewables are > >>>> sometimes > >>>> seen as a stress point as utilities seek to meet state mandates for > >>>> their > >>>> renewable portfolio standards. The dim prospects for any carbon > >>>> legislation > >>>> for the foreseeable future are responsible, combined with downward > >>>> price > >>>> pressures from the gas glut. > >>>> > >>>> “Low gas pricing is really giving us some breathing room,” said > >>>> Anthony > >>>> F. Earley Jr., chairman and CEO of PG&E > >>>> Corporation<http://www.pge.com/>(NYSE: PG&E). > >>>> > >>>> Renewable energy is competing for attention, and even as its costs > >>>> decline, natural gas dominates the discussion. > >>>> > >>>> Earley, the new executive at the San Francisco utility, is a different > >>>> circumstance than many of his colleagues. With California’s 33% > >>>> renewable > >>>> portfolio standard by 2020, he said that’s effectively 50% as most > >>>> hydropower doesn’t count under the standard. > >>>> > >>>> But there was little talk about state renewable portfolio standards > >>>> this > >>>> year. > >>>> > >>>> Consider some of the headline speakers of the first three forums to > >>>> get > >>>> a sense of how the landscape has shifted. Three years ago Boone > >>>> Pickens was > >>>> touting massive wind farms in the Great Plains. In 2010, > >>>> Representative Ed > >>>> Markey (D-Mass.) was shepherding cap-and-trade legislation through the > >>>> U.S. > >>>> House of Representatives. A year ago, Google caused a stir with plans > >>>> for a > >>>> backbone transmission plan for offshore wind, with the Atlantic Wind > >>>> Connection <http://atlanticwindconnection.com/> outlining its $5 > >>>> billion project. > >>>> > >>>> But now the issue is managing expectations as costs rise and much of > >>>> the > >>>> public is still ill-informed, and sensitive to price shocks as > >>>> gasoline > >>>> tops $4 a gallon. > >>>> > >>>> “A certain part of the public thinks we can get off Mideast oil by > >>>> building windmills, but we only get 1% of power from oil,” said Thomas > >>>> F. > >>>> Farrell II, president and CEO of Dominion <http://www.dom.com/> > (NYSE: > >>>> D). > >>>> > >>>> “The industry has $2 trillion in refurbishment of the grid, as we try > >>>> to > >>>> optimize how we handle our investments of what to build over the next > >>>> two > >>>> decades,” said Nick Akins, president and CEO of > >>>> AEP<http://www.aep.com/>(NYSE: AEP). > >>>> > >>>> Even as recent as a year ago, the choice seemed to be renewables or > >>>> nuclear, with much talk of natural gas as the bridge fuel. Now, gas is > >>>> the > >>>> fuel of choice due to its low cost and quick turnaround in building > >>>> plants. > >>>> > >>>> A slow decline in attention paid by government support may not change, > >>>> as wind and solar are under threat of collapse if tax credits expire, > >>>> particularly for wind, at the end of 2012. > >>>> Regardless of the resource base or the preferred resource of any CEO, > >>>> the detrimental lack of a national energy policy is something on which > >>>> all > >>>> can agree, regardless of the year.**** > >>>> > >>>> The editorial staff at RenewablesBiz.com is passionate about > >>>> exchanging > >>>> ideas and dedicated to promoting ongoing conversation about renewable > >>>> and > >>>> sustainable energy issues. We invite you to join and contribute to our > >>>> online community. If you have an idea for an article or editorial > >>>> contribution, please contact me via email, bopalka(a)energycentral.com, > >>>> or phone, 860.633.0090.**** > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> William V. DePaulo, Esq. > >>>> 179 Summers Street, Suite 232 > >>>> Charleston, WV 25301-2163 > >>>> Tel 304-342-5588 > >>>> Fax 304-342-5505 > >>>> william.depaulo(a)gmail.com > >>>> www.passeggiata.com**** > >>>> > >>>> ** ** > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> EC mailing list > >>>> EC(a)osenergy.org > >>>> http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec**** > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Jim Sconyers > >>>> jimscon(a)gmail.com > >>>> 304.698.9628 > >>>> > >>>> Remember, Mother Nature bats last.**** > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> William V. DePaulo, Esq. > >>>> 179 Summers Street, Suite 232 > >>>> Charleston, WV 25301-2163 > >>>> Tel 304-342-5588 > >>>> Fax 304-342-5505 > >>>> william.depaulo(a)gmail.com > >>>> www.passeggiata.com**** > >>>> > >>>> ** ** > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> EC mailing list > >>>> EC(a)osenergy.org > >>>> http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Paul Wilson > >>> Sierra Club > >>> 504 Jefferson Ave > >>> Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 > >>> Phone: 304-725-4360 > >>> Cell: 304-279-1361 > >>> > >>> "There is no forward until you have gone back" ~Buddha > >>> > >>> "In all things of nature there is something of the marvelous" ~ > >>> Aristotle > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> EC mailing list > >>> EC(a)osenergy.org > >>> http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Jim Sconyers > >> jimscon(a)gmail.com > >> 304.698.9628 > >> > >> Remember, Mother Nature bats last. > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > William V. DePaulo, Esq. > > 179 Summers Street, Suite 232 > > Charleston, WV 25301-2163 > > Tel 304-342-5588 > > Fax 304-342-5505 > > william.depaulo(a)gmail.com > > www.passeggiata.com > > _______________________________________________ > > EC mailing list > > EC(a)osenergy.org > > http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec > > > > _______________________________________________ > EC mailing list > EC(a)osenergy.org > http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec > -- Paul Wilson Sierra Club 504 Jefferson Ave Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 Phone: 304-725-4360 Cell: 304-279-1361 "There is no forward until you have gone back" ~Buddha "In all things of nature there is something of the marvelous" ~ Aristotle

1 0

Re: [EC] It is impossible to overstate the damage done by Sierra Club's $26 million sell-out to the natural gas industry 3 years ago when this argument could still have been won.
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 21 Mar '12

21 Mar '12

The issue emphatically is NOT what program the money was spent on.....the issue is the fact that it bought silence, at a time when silence was deadly. There can be no rationalization, implicit or otherwise, based on the use made of the money. On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Jim Sconyers <jimscon(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Paul's comment below illustrates another aspect of this whole brouhaha - > not only did most of our own board not know of the $, but even now we're > guessing what it was used for. As I've said before, I deeply respect what > Carl Pope did for the Club and the world - but he made one FUBAR on this. > > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Paul Wilson <pjgrunt(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> It all went to the Beyond Coal Campaign, but we on the Campaign Team - at >> least the 2 volunteers - did not know about it, so it is hard to say what >> it was/is spent on. best, paul >> >> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Yarnell, Karen < >> Karen.Grubb(a)fairmontstate.edu> wrote: >> >>> Did any of that money go to the coal campaign, which may have been used >>> for litigation in WV?**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> *From:* ec-bounces(a)osenergy.org [mailto:ec-bounces@osenergy.org] *On >>> Behalf Of *William V. DePaulo, Esq. >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 21, 2012 9:44 AM >>> *To:* Jim Sconyers >>> *Cc:* Energy Committee >>> *Subject:* Re: [EC] It is impossible to overstate the damage done by >>> Sierra Club's $26 million sell-out to the natural gas industry 3 years ago >>> when this argument could still have been won.**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> I AGREE RE IMPACT ON WV CHAPTER....AND FOR THAT MATTER OTHERS.....I >>> REMEMBER CLEARLY THE NEW YORK REP AT THE ANNUAL MEETING THREE YEARS AGO >>> DEMANDING TO KNOW IF SIERRA'S DIRECTORS HAD ACCEPTED MONEY FROM THE NATURAL >>> GAS INDUSTRY, AND RECEIVING NOTHING BUT BLANK STARES IN RESPONSE.....*** >>> * >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Jim Sconyers <jimscon(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> **** >>> >>> The ultimate irony is that the grassroots were (and are) working >>> furiously to tame the runaway gas monster while national took the $ from >>> Chesapeake. I might add that the $ had no effect whatsoever - none - on the >>> West Virginia Chapter, its finances, or our intense Marcellus/Shale Gas >>> Campaign.**** >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 8:52 AM, William V. DePaulo, Esq. < >>> william.depaulo(a)gmail.com> wrote:**** >>> >>> *Error! Filename not specified.***** >>> Gas it is**** >>> Renewables take back seat **** >>> >>> Bill Opalka <http://www.renewablesbiz.com/author/bill-opalka> | Mar 20, >>> 2012 **** >>> >>> *Error! Filename not specified.*<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.renewablesbiz.com%2…> >>> *Error! Filename not specified.*<http://www.renewablesbiz.com/article/12/03/gas-it&utm_medium=eNL&utm_campai…> >>> **** >>> >>> *Error! Filename not specified.***** >>> >>> The shine is off renewable energy and shale gas is the new disruptive >>> technology in power generation. >>> >>> Harnessing Disruption is the theme of this year’s EnergyBiz Leadership >>> Forum <http://www.energybizforum.com/> in Washington, D.C. this week, >>> and that means gas-fired generation from unconventional sources is jumpin’. >>> >>> Recession, rising energy costs and competing interests that could >>> hamstring the power sector all play a role. And renewables are sometimes >>> seen as a stress point as utilities seek to meet state mandates for their >>> renewable portfolio standards. The dim prospects for any carbon legislation >>> for the foreseeable future are responsible, combined with downward price >>> pressures from the gas glut. >>> >>> “Low gas pricing is really giving us some breathing room,” said Anthony >>> F. Earley Jr., chairman and CEO of PG&E Corporation<http://www.pge.com/>(NYSE: PG&E). >>> >>> Renewable energy is competing for attention, and even as its costs >>> decline, natural gas dominates the discussion. >>> >>> Earley, the new executive at the San Francisco utility, is a different >>> circumstance than many of his colleagues. With California’s 33% renewable >>> portfolio standard by 2020, he said that’s effectively 50% as most >>> hydropower doesn’t count under the standard. >>> >>> But there was little talk about state renewable portfolio standards this >>> year. >>> >>> Consider some of the headline speakers of the first three forums to get >>> a sense of how the landscape has shifted. Three years ago Boone Pickens was >>> touting massive wind farms in the Great Plains. In 2010, Representative Ed >>> Markey (D-Mass.) was shepherding cap-and-trade legislation through the U.S. >>> House of Representatives. A year ago, Google caused a stir with plans for a >>> backbone transmission plan for offshore wind, with the Atlantic Wind >>> Connection <http://atlanticwindconnection.com/> outlining its $5 >>> billion project. >>> >>> But now the issue is managing expectations as costs rise and much of the >>> public is still ill-informed, and sensitive to price shocks as gasoline >>> tops $4 a gallon. >>> >>> “A certain part of the public thinks we can get off Mideast oil by >>> building windmills, but we only get 1% of power from oil,” said Thomas F. >>> Farrell II, president and CEO of Dominion <http://www.dom.com/> (NYSE: >>> D). >>> >>> “The industry has $2 trillion in refurbishment of the grid, as we try to >>> optimize how we handle our investments of what to build over the next two >>> decades,” said Nick Akins, president and CEO of AEP<http://www.aep.com/>(NYSE: AEP). >>> >>> Even as recent as a year ago, the choice seemed to be renewables or >>> nuclear, with much talk of natural gas as the bridge fuel. Now, gas is the >>> fuel of choice due to its low cost and quick turnaround in building plants. >>> >>> A slow decline in attention paid by government support may not change, >>> as wind and solar are under threat of collapse if tax credits expire, >>> particularly for wind, at the end of 2012. >>> Regardless of the resource base or the preferred resource of any CEO, >>> the detrimental lack of a national energy policy is something on which all >>> can agree, regardless of the year.**** >>> >>> The editorial staff at RenewablesBiz.com is passionate about exchanging >>> ideas and dedicated to promoting ongoing conversation about renewable and >>> sustainable energy issues. We invite you to join and contribute to our >>> online community. If you have an idea for an article or editorial >>> contribution, please contact me via email, bopalka(a)energycentral.com, >>> or phone, 860.633.0090.**** >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> William V. DePaulo, Esq. >>> 179 Summers Street, Suite 232 >>> Charleston, WV 25301-2163 >>> Tel 304-342-5588 >>> Fax 304-342-5505 >>> william.depaulo(a)gmail.com >>> www.passeggiata.com**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> EC mailing list >>> EC(a)osenergy.org >>> http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec**** >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Jim Sconyers >>> jimscon(a)gmail.com >>> 304.698.9628 >>> >>> Remember, Mother Nature bats last.**** >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> William V. DePaulo, Esq. >>> 179 Summers Street, Suite 232 >>> Charleston, WV 25301-2163 >>> Tel 304-342-5588 >>> Fax 304-342-5505 >>> william.depaulo(a)gmail.com >>> www.passeggiata.com**** >>> >>> ** ** >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> EC mailing list >>> EC(a)osenergy.org >>> http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Paul Wilson >> Sierra Club >> 504 Jefferson Ave >> Charles Town, WV 25414-1130 >> Phone: 304-725-4360 >> Cell: 304-279-1361 >> >> "There is no forward until you have gone back" ~Buddha >> >> "In all things of nature there is something of the marvelous" ~ Aristotle >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> EC mailing list >> EC(a)osenergy.org >> http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec >> > > > > -- > Jim Sconyers > jimscon(a)gmail.com > 304.698.9628 > > Remember, Mother Nature bats last. > -- William V. DePaulo, Esq. 179 Summers Street, Suite 232 Charleston, WV 25301-2163 Tel 304-342-5588 Fax 304-342-5505 william.depaulo(a)gmail.com www.passeggiata.com

1 0

It is impossible to overstate the damage done by Sierra Club's $26 million sell-out to the natural gas industry 3 years ago when this argument could still have been won.
by William V. DePaulo, Esq. 21 Mar '12

21 Mar '12

[image: Inline image 1] Gas it is Renewables take back seat Bill Opalka <http://www.renewablesbiz.com/author/bill-opalka> | Mar 20, 2012 [image: Share/Save]<http://www.addtoany.com/share_save#url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.renewablesbiz.com%2…> <http://www.renewablesbiz.com/article/12/03/gas-it&utm_medium=eNL&utm_campai…> The shine is off renewable energy and shale gas is the new disruptive technology in power generation. Harnessing Disruption is the theme of this year’s EnergyBiz Leadership Forum<http://www.energybizforum.com/>in Washington, D.C. this week, and that means gas-fired generation from unconventional sources is jumpin’. Recession, rising energy costs and competing interests that could hamstring the power sector all play a role. And renewables are sometimes seen as a stress point as utilities seek to meet state mandates for their renewable portfolio standards. The dim prospects for any carbon legislation for the foreseeable future are responsible, combined with downward price pressures from the gas glut. “Low gas pricing is really giving us some breathing room,” said Anthony F. Earley Jr., chairman and CEO of PG&E Corporation <http://www.pge.com/>(NYSE: PG&E). Renewable energy is competing for attention, and even as its costs decline, natural gas dominates the discussion. Earley, the new executive at the San Francisco utility, is a different circumstance than many of his colleagues. With California’s 33% renewable portfolio standard by 2020, he said that’s effectively 50% as most hydropower doesn’t count under the standard. But there was little talk about state renewable portfolio standards this year. Consider some of the headline speakers of the first three forums to get a sense of how the landscape has shifted. Three years ago Boone Pickens was touting massive wind farms in the Great Plains. In 2010, Representative Ed Markey (D-Mass.) was shepherding cap-and-trade legislation through the U.S. House of Representatives. A year ago, Google caused a stir with plans for a backbone transmission plan for offshore wind, with the Atlantic Wind Connection <http://atlanticwindconnection.com/> outlining its $5 billion project. But now the issue is managing expectations as costs rise and much of the public is still ill-informed, and sensitive to price shocks as gasoline tops $4 a gallon. “A certain part of the public thinks we can get off Mideast oil by building windmills, but we only get 1% of power from oil,” said Thomas F. Farrell II, president and CEO of Dominion <http://www.dom.com/> (NYSE: D). “The industry has $2 trillion in refurbishment of the grid, as we try to optimize how we handle our investments of what to build over the next two decades,” said Nick Akins, president and CEO of AEP <http://www.aep.com/>(NYSE: AEP). Even as recent as a year ago, the choice seemed to be renewables or nuclear, with much talk of natural gas as the bridge fuel. Now, gas is the fuel of choice due to its low cost and quick turnaround in building plants. A slow decline in attention paid by government support may not change, as wind and solar are under threat of collapse if tax credits expire, particularly for wind, at the end of 2012. Regardless of the resource base or the preferred resource of any CEO, the detrimental lack of a national energy policy is something on which all can agree, regardless of the year. The editorial staff at RenewablesBiz.com is passionate about exchanging ideas and dedicated to promoting ongoing conversation about renewable and sustainable energy issues. We invite you to join and contribute to our online community. If you have an idea for an article or editorial contribution, please contact me via email, bopalka(a)energycentral.com, or phone, 860.633.0090. -- William V. DePaulo, Esq. 179 Summers Street, Suite 232 Charleston, WV 25301-2163 Tel 304-342-5588 Fax 304-342-5505 william.depaulo(a)gmail.com www.passeggiata.com

4 4

Fwd: "Beneficial" Reuse of Ash in FL: A rural road-paving project becomes an environmental disaster for JEA
by Jim Sconyers 21 Mar '12

21 Mar '12

Awful coal ash story devastating an ordinary homeowner. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Lisa Evans <levans(a)earthjustice.org> Date: Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 10:19 AM Subject: "Beneficial" Reuse of Ash in FL: A rural road-paving project becomes an environmental disaster for JEA To: COAL-COMBUSTION-WASTE(a)lists.sierraclub.org http://www.folioweekly.com/folio0320wkl008.php Road Trip A rural road-paving project becomes an environmental disaster for JEA – with a potentially hefty price tag Folio Weekly, Jacksonville, Florida Written by Susan Cooper Eastman Published March 20, 2012 When Steven Johnson accepted 16 tons of free coal ash from JEA’s coal-powered Northside Generating Station more than two years ago, the agency assured him it was as “safe as sand.” So Johnson spread the pebbly white material liberally over the dirt roads of his 30-acre Black Water Farm in Middleburg. He paved a road through wetlands, a boat ramp into Black Creek, an area near his drinking water well and roads on his neighbor’s property. He says one JEA representative was so impressed with how he applied the material, which JEA markets as EZBase, that he brought prospective clients out to Black Water Ranch to show them how Johnson was using it. But even as Johnson was spreading the stuff around his home, the federal government was considering whether to classify coal ash as a hazardous waste. Although the state of Florida has approved EZBase for a number of road-paving uses, that approval was based on strict compacting standards and application guidelines that are, in practice, not always followed. Loosely applied, the stuff leaches many of the same pollutants that make coal ash toxic, and that have prompted the state to require it be disposed of in a lined landfill. Folio Weekly previously reported about Johnson in the April 13, 2010 story “Road to Hell,” after he and a neighbor were cited by the state Department of Environmental Protection for applying the material in violation of state restrictions. The citation said the EZBase wasn’t properly compacted, meaning it could wash away and contaminate the surrounding area, and was improperly used near wetlands and in residential areas. Johnson insists that the JEA employee who offered him the EZBase rode all over his land with him and didn’t tell him anything about the restrictions. Still, DEP cited Johnson for the violation, and said the material needed to be excavated and removed. (At the time, Johnson wouldn’t talk to the media because he was working out a settlement with DEP and JEA.) Two years later, Johnson’s property is still covered with EZBase. JEA already removed the material from Johnson’s neighbor’s property, but the agency has not yet agreed to remove the material from Johnson’s property or responded to his request that JEA compensate him for the loss of value to his property and attorney fees. A 2010 report that Johnson commissioned from Moran Environmental Recovery that he provided last week to Folio Weekly estimated the cost of removing the 12 tons of EZBase and another four tons of contaminated soil at $653,640. Replacing the soil with clean fill would bring the total cost close to $1 million. Beyond fixed costs, there are intangible ones. A 2010 real estate appraisal from Broom, Moody, Johnson and Grainger Inc. estimated that Johnson’s property was worth $470,000 before he covered it with EZBase, but that it will drop $70,000 in value — even after the EZBase is removed — because of the stigma of contamination. In its current state, the company valued the property as a liability — at a negative –$486,300. “I’m a little guy,” he says. “I ain’t no millionaire like JEA.” Johnson now feels like JEA used his farm as a toxic dump. He worries about allowing his 3-year-old daughter Kelsey to play outside. He fears she’ll ingest poisons, breathe in the EZBase dust or absorb it through her skin. Preliminary tests he had done of the property in 2010 show reason for concern. The arsenic levels in the soil samples were four times the level the state considers safe and the levels of vanadium were 75 times the state standard. “JEA is the ones with the knowledge and the science about how to use this stuff,” he said. “I put it out here thinking I was going to improve my property. After I did my homework on it, I began to see that it’s not good, it’s not good at all.” JEA first began selling EZBase as a paving material in 2005, for $50 a truckload. Like other coal-powered electric generating stations, JEA facilities produce a sludge waste that’s a combination of fly ash and bottom ash from their silos. The ash contains heavy metals like lead, mercury, vanadium and boron, which in high concentrations can cause birth defects, lung disease, cancers, nerve disorders and other illnesses. But when the sludge hardens, it becomes like concrete. If properly compacted, JEA testing shows, the toxins are contained in the hardened material. JEA has promoted EZBase as a means of recycling, and has the strong support of the state DEP, which considers the paving material a beneficial reuse of an otherwise hazardous waste. DEP issued permits for each EZBase application. The federal Environmental Protection Agency also supports reuse, but admitted late last year that there hasn’t been enough testing done to determine the safety of coal ash byproducts. Some utilities recycle their ash into drywall or roofing shingles, bowling balls and even cosmetics. Prompted in part by the catastrophic collapse of a coal pond in Tennessee in 2008, which sent a billion gallons of coal ash sludge into Emory River, EPA has been considering for the past two years whether to classify coal ash as a hazardous waste and require that concentrations of heavy metals in it be reduced before it is dumped. (In January, the legal nonprofit Earthjustice announced it would sue EPA for delaying its decision.) For JEA, the questions surrounding the safety of EZBase have proved costly. DEP has required the utility to remove it or cover it with a top coat at a number of locations in Northeast Florida. JEA spokesperson Gerry Boyce said there is no estimate yet of what it will cost to clear out Johnson’s EZBase, but the agency began removing the four tons of EZBase that Steven Johnson spread on neighbor James Evans’ property in December 2011. The removal cost about $20,000, and raised additional contamination concerns. Neighbors complained that the resulting dust covered everything and that trucks were leaving the property uncovered. “There were probably 20 dump trucks in and out of here every day,” says neighbor Bonnie Smith, who lives down the street from Evans and says she had two attacks of bronchitis during the process. “A white dust covered everything. There was a film on my swimming pool, every day.” If EPA does designate coal ash a hazardous waste, utilities say the increased costs of transporting and handling the material would make recycling cost-prohibitive. They’ve lobbied heavily for states to retain regulatory control over its disposal and reuse. In October, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill that gives the states’ control over permitting and regulating products like EZBase and prevents the federal government from regulating disposal. The companion bill is in committee in the Senate. But even if EPA takes control of coal ash regulation, it will be too late to make much difference at Johnson’s Black Water Ranch. “I have an absolutely beautiful place here,” Johnson tells Folio Weekly. “It’s like a piece of heaven. It’s not some dump where it’s OK for JEA to bring their EZBase in here and poison it up.” Susan Cooper Eastman sceastman(a)folioweekly.com Lisa Evans Senior Administrative Counsel Earthjustice 21 Ocean Ave. Marblehead, MA 01945 T: (781) 631-4119 F: (212) 918-1556 www.earthjustice.org *please consider the environment before printing The information contained in this email message may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think that you have received this email message in error, please notify the sender by reply email and delete the message and any attachments. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe from the COAL-COMBUSTION-WASTE list, send any message to: COAL-COMBUSTION-WASTE-signoff-request(a)LISTS.SIERRACLUB.ORG Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp Sign up to receive Sierra Club Insider, the flagship e-newsletter. Sent out twice a month, it features the Club's latest news and activities. Subscribe and view recent editions at http://www.sierraclub.org/insider/ -- Jim Sconyers jimscon(a)gmail.com 304.698.9628 Remember, Mother Nature bats last.

1 0

Fwd: WV Watershed Assessment Pilot Project Stakeholer Workshop
by James Kotcon 20 Mar '12

20 Mar '12

Anyone else see this? I have teaching conflicts, so if someone is interested in representing us, let me know. Jim Kotcon 304-293-8822 (office) 304-594-3322 (home) >>> Ruth Thornton <rthornton(a)TNC.ORG> 3/20/2012 11:51 AM >>> You are invited to participate in a Stakeholder/Partner Workshop for The Nature Conservancy’s West Virginia Watershed Association Pilot Project. This is the final of three workshops to design the methodology and final products of our watershed assessment project. The purpose of this workshop is to present the results of the first two Watershed Assessments, introduce our proposed end-user products, and request feedback on the structure and methodology of the products, which will include both a report on each watershed and an interactive web mapping application. Two workshops will be held, your participation is requested for one of these: - Tuesday, April 3rd, 2012, 3pm – 5pm. Focus: Monongahela River watershed. Location: Lakeview Resort, 1 Lakeview Drive, Morgantown, WV. Directions: Located off Exit 10 of Interstate 68, 10 miles east of Interstate 79 on scenic Cheat Lake in Morgantown. http://www.lakeviewresort.com/ - Thursday, April 5th, 2012, 3 pm – 5pm. Focus: Elk River watershed. Location: Steptoe & Johnson Office, 707 Virginia St. E., Suite 715, Charleston, WV. Directions are included in the pdf file attached to this email. Some background about this project: The Nature Conservancy, in cooperation with the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, is working on a Watershed Assessment Pilot Project in WV, funded by the US EPA. This is a two- year project conducted in five watersheds. During the first year we are working on the Elk and Monongahela watersheds, and during the second year we will work on the Gauley, Little Kanawha, and Upper Guyandotte. The goals of the project are to: 1) Design and test a process that assesses the condition of aquatic resources and the impacts to those resources within a watershed, including an assessment of cumulative impacts and integration of information with multiple sources within and outside of government agencies. 2) Provide relevant data, strategies/actions, and a decision support tool to assist partners, stakeholders and regulatory staff with decisions affecting aquatic resources. 3) Establish priorities for protection and restoration of aquatic resources, with the goal of a net increase in functional wetland acres and riparian areas in the watershed. 4) Develop common and consistent strategies for various government agencies and non-governmental organizations to partner and utilize various protection and restoration tools to achieve goals established for the watershed. I sincerely hope that you or somebody from your organization will agree to participate. Your guidance and input will help make the objectives of the Watershed Assessment Pilot Project achievable outcomes. For those willing to participate, but unable to attend the workshop, we can make arrangements to talk with you one on one or you can submit written comments. If somebody else from your organization would be more appropriate to attend, please let me know and I will extend the invitation to them. Please let me know by Tuesday, March 27th, if you will be able to attend either of the two workshops. You can contact me by email or phone (listed below) if you have any questions. Thank you, Ruth Please consider the environment before printing this email Ruth Thornton Conservation Information Manager rthornton(a)tnc.org (304) 637-0160 Ext. 102 (Phone) (304) 637-0584 (Fax) nature.org The Nature Conservancy West Virginia Field Office P.O. Box 250 21 Third Street Elkins, WV 26241

1 0

Fossil Fools Day
by Jim Sconyers 19 Mar '12

19 Mar '12

We have declared Sunday, April 1, 2012 as: *Fossil Fools Day!* Plan an event! Have some fun! Go wacky or serious, it's your call! [?][?] Let us know if you want help, what's up, who can come, etc. -- Jim Sconyers jimscon(a)gmail.com 304.698.9628 Remember, Mother Nature bats last.

1 0

Fwd: WVEC Board Meeting 3/24
by James Kotcon 17 Mar '12

17 Mar '12

The WVEC Board meeting is next Saturday, but I am supposed to speak at Mountain Justice Spring Break on Marcellus and Fracking. Is anyone else able to represent the WV Chapter at the WVEC meeting? Jim Kotcon 304-293-8822 (office) 304-594-3322 (home) >>> Denise Poole <deniseap(a)earthlink.net> 3/17/2012 8:30 AM >>> Reminder: The next meeting of the WVEC Board of Directors: Saturday, March 24th - 11 AM - 4 PM Where? The 79er Restaurant, Burnsville, WV Located off I 79, exit 79 (12 miles north of Flatwoods). An agenda will be sent out soon. If you have an agenda item to add, please send to Kevin Smith at a_clean_wv(a)yahoo.com by Tuesday March 20th. We will meet in the Conference / Meeting Room. Lunch can be purchased from the regular menu. Please reply with regrets only. The minutes from our November board meeting are attached. Thanks everyone, Denise Denise Poole, WVEC Coordinator Board member representing Sustainable Living for WV deniseap(a)earthlink.net (304) 617-7073 __._,_.___ Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1) Recent Activity: Visit Your Group Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use. __,_._,___

1 0

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC