We need to think this one through very carefully.
On the one hand, Bill is correct in that WV-DEP is almost certain to issue a permit. They view their job as issuing permits, not denying them. In that respect, it is a much harder agency to work with than the PSC.
On the other hand, several local and state environmental groups are going to oppose this, and I predict that this will become very "political". The argument that "this is only a test" will not fly among those citizens who will have to live with the dangers of this in their back yard. How do we respond to the argument that, if we like it so well, do the test in our backyard?
I am perfectly OK with us taking some heat for supporting this, if we do our homework and are truly convinced that it is the right thing to do. I am against a knee jerk response in either direction where we lose credibility by supporting or opposing something without having considered all available facts.
I am inclined to suggest a "sequestration subcommittee" of the Energy Committee to prepare a comment letter, so that we do not all get bogged down in every issue.
Any volunteers?
JBK
"William V. DePaulo, Esq." william.depaulo@gmail.com 1/5/2009 12:01 PM >>>
Duane
I understand your opposition in general. But the position you outline basically requires the Sierra Club to refuse to subject its position on carbon sequestration and storage (CSS) to any test. The reality is that DEP is VERY LIKELY BORDERING ON CERTAIN to grant the permit as drafted. Why not acknowledge that it is a test of the hypothesis and simply condition the issuance on full access to all technical data.
Ask the technical question: *How will AEP or anybody else determine whether or not CSS works?*
There have got to be objective outputs that say "YES" or "NO" to that question.
If we oppose this as a test, what is our response when they say we just don't want to confront any "inconvenient truths" that contradict our preconception?
Why not let them *prove* us right?
Yes, it's likely that, regardless of the data, AEP will report the test as a "sucess", but if we have equal access to the data, we will be in a position to independently assess it and draw our own conclusion.
I think that is the most advantageous posture to be in, especially if the permit is going to be issued anyway.
Bill
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 11:52 AM, Duane330@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 1/3/2009 2:41:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, william.depaulo@gmail.com writes:
I have stated earlier my belief that we should not object, per se, to the issuance of the permit. However, I believe we should insist on complete transparency, i.e., total access by all to the data collected to see if this well effectively captures CO2.
Please let me know what thoughts you have on this issue.
BILL, ET AL........... SEEMS TO ME THAT SOMEONE OR SOME ORGANIZATION SHOULD OBJECT BECAUSE OF THE FOLLOWING CONSIDERATIONS.
I BELIEVE THAT CO2 SEQUESTRATION HAS NOT BEEN DEMONSTRATED TO BE AN AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY (TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE), PRACTICAL (ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE), SAFE ( NEAR TERM RELIABLE), OR PERMANENT (LONG TERM RELIABLE).
THEREFORE, IF THIS APPROACH WERE APPROVED BY THE P.S.C., IT WOULD BE AT SUBSTANTIAL PERIL TO THE STATE. IT WOULD INDICATE TO THE WORLD THAT OUR STATE IS OUT OF TOUCH WITH REALITY. SUCH APPROVAL WOULD MAKE IT POSSIBLE FOR A.E.P. TO BUILD THE FACILITY AND THEN TAKE THE POSITION THAT THEY WOULD THEN PRACTICE SEQUESTRATION AS SOON AS IT BECOMES FEASIBLE AND RELIABLE, AND WHO KNOWS WHEN OR WHETHER THIS WILL EVER BE THE CASE.
duane nichols
New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making headlineshttp://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026 .