MVCAC March 2013

mvcac@lists.osenergy.org

1 participants
5 discussions

Life After Oil and Gas - NYTimes.com. You gotta read at least 5 paragraphs.
by Duane 25 Mar '13

25 Mar '13

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/24/sunday-review/life-after-oil-and-gas.html… Life After Oil and Gas By Elizabeth Rosenthal, New York Times, Sunday, March 23, 2013 WE will need fossil fuels like oil and gas for the foreseeable future. So there’s really little choice (sigh). We have to press ahead with fracking for natural gas. We must approve the Keystone XL pipeline to get Canadian oil. This mantra, repeated on TV ads and in political debates, is punctuated with a tinge of inevitability and regret. But, increasingly, scientific research and the experience of other countries should prompt us to ask: To what extent will we really “need” fossil fuel in the years to come? To what extent is it a choice? As renewable energy gets cheaper and machines and buildings become more energy efficient, a number of countries that two decades ago ran on a fuel mix much like America’s are successfully dialing down their fossil fuel habits. Thirteen countries got more than 30 percent of their electricity from renewable energy in 2011, according to the Paris-based International Energy Agency, and many are aiming still higher. Could we? Should we? A National Research Council report released last week concluded that the United States could halve by 2030 the oil used in cars and trucks compared with 2005 levels by improving the efficiency of gasoline-powered vehicles and by relying more on cars that use alternative power sources, like electric batteries and biofuels. Just days earlier a team of Stanford engineers published a proposal showing how New York State — not windy like the Great Plains, nor sunny like Arizona — could easily produce the power it needs from wind, solar and water power by 2030. In fact there was so much potential power, the researchers found, that renewable power could also fuel our cars. “It’s absolutely not true that we need natural gas, coal or oil — we think it’s a myth,” said Mark Z. Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering and the main author of the study, published in the journal Energy Policy. “You could power America with renewables from a technical and economic standpoint. The biggest obstacles are social and political — what you need is the will to do it.” Other countries have made far more concerted efforts to reduce fossil fuel use than the United States and have some impressive numbers to show for it. Of the countries that rely most heavily on renewable electricity, some, like Norway, rely on that old renewable, hydroelectric power. But others, like Denmark, Portugal and Germany, have created financial incentives to promote newer technologies like wind and solar energy. People convinced that America “needs” the oil that would flow south from Canada through the Keystone XL pipeline might be surprised to learn that Canada produced 63.4 percent of its electricity from renewable sources in 2011, largely from hydropower and a bit of wind. (Maybe that is why Canada has all that oil to sell.) The United States got only 12.3 percent of its electricity from renewables in 2011. Still, many experts say that aggressively rebalancing the United States’ mix of fossil fuel and renewable energy to reduce its carbon footprint may well be impractical and unwise for now. “There is plenty of room for wind and solar to grow and they are becoming more competitive, but these are still variable resources — the sun doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow,” said Alex Klein, the research director of IHS Emerging Energy Research, a consulting firm on renewable energy. “An industrial economy needs a reliable power source, so we think fossil fuel will be an important foundation of our energy mix for the next few decades.” Fatih Birol, chief economist at the 28-nation International Energy Agency, which includes the United States, said that reducing fossil fuel use was crucial to curbing global temperature rise, but added that improving the energy efficiency of homes, vehicles and industry was an easier short-term strategy. He noted that the 19.5 million residents of New York State consume as much energy as the 800 million in sub-Saharan Africa (excluding South Africa) and that, even with President Obama’s automotive fuel standards, European vehicles were on average more than 30 percent more fuel efficient than American ones. He cautioned that a rapid expansion of renewable power would be complicated and costly. Using large amounts of renewable energy often requires modifying national power grids, and renewable energy is still generally more expensive than using fossil fuels. That is particularly true in the United States, where natural gas is plentiful and, therefore, a cheap way to generate electricity (while producing half the carbon dioxide emissions of other fossil fuels, like coal). Promoting wind and solar would mean higher electricity costs for consumers and industry. Indeed, many of the European countries that have led the way in adopting renewables had little fossil fuel of their own, so electricity costs were already high. Others had strong environmental movements that made it politically acceptable to endure higher prices in order to reduce emissions. But Dr. Birol predicted that the price of wind power would continue to drop, while the price of natural gas would rise in coming years, with the two potentially reaching parity by 2020. He noted, too, that countries could often get 25 percent of their electricity from renewable sources like wind and solar without much modification to their grids. A few states, like Iowa and South Dakota, get nearly that much of their electricity from renewable power (in both states, wind), while others use little at all. So as Europeans have grown accustomed to wind turbines dotting the landscape, much of America continues to regard renewable power as a boutique product, cool but otherworldly. When I tell colleagues that Portugal now gets 40 percent of its electricity from renewable power, the standard response is “Portugal is windy.” But many places in America are, too. When I returned from Kristianstad, Sweden, and marveled at how that city uses waste from farms, forestry and food processing plants to make biogas that supplies 100 percent of its heat, the response is likewise disbelief. But I’d venture that a similar plan could work fine in Milwaukee or Burlington, Vt., cities that also anchor rural areas. MAPPING studies by Dr. Jacobson and colleagues have concluded that America is rich in renewable resources and (unlike Europe) has the empty space to create wind and solar plants. New York State has plenty of wind and sun to do the job, they found. Their blueprint for powering the state with clean energy calls for 10 percent land-based wind, 40 percent offshore wind, 20 percent solar power plants and 18 percent solar panels on rooftops — as well as a small amount of geothermal and hydroelectric power. Dr. Jacobson said that careful grid design and coordination of power sources would ensure a stable power supply, although a smidgen of natural gas would be needed for the 0.2 percent of the time that renewables failed to generate sufficient electricity. The report claims that the plan would create 58,000 jobs in New York State (which now imports much of its power), create energy security and ultimately stabilize electricity prices. The authors say the substantial costs of enacting the scheme could be recouped in under two decades, particularly if the societal cost of pollution and carbon emissions were factored in. The team is currently working on an all-renewable blueprint for California. Sounds good on paper, but even Europe is struggling a bit with its renewable ambitions at the moment. Germany, which got 20.7 percent of its electricity from renewable energy in 2011, is re-evaluating the incentives it provides to increase that share to 35 percent by 2020, because of worries that its current approach will drive up power prices inordinately at a time of economic uncertainty. It has had trouble ramping up transmission capacity to carry the wind power generated in the blustery North to the industrial South, where it is needed. Dr. Birol said that natural gas and renewable energy could ultimately be “a good couple” for powering New York State, and elsewhere. But in what mix? If, in 20 years, cars are 50 percent more efficient and New York State could get much of its electricity from wind and solar, should we be more measured in making fossil fuel investments? As Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo considers the boundaries of hydraulic fracturing in New York State and as Secretary of State John Kerry decides the fate of the Keystone XL pipeline, how much we really “need” fossil fuels is worth pondering. Elisabeth Rosenthal is a reporter on environment and health for The New York Times.

1 0

Support for the Doddridge News.com online site
by Duane330＠aol.com 22 Mar '13

22 Mar '13

Hi Folks, Sending this e-mail as a no-obligation request. I hope at least some of you will consider what I'm proposing here.... All of you are familiar with our online news site in Doddridge: _www.doddridgenews.com_ (http://www.doddridgenews.com/) This is an e-news site that was started as result of a volunteer, grass-roots effort by a guy named Monte, who lives in West Union. Many of you probably know him. For those that don't, Monte is one of the "transplants" from out of state who moved here to retire and enjoy life. He's a bit of a computer guru when it comes to internet writing, website development, etc. and does that type of work as a free lancer for supplemental income. After being here in Doddridge for awhile, he realized that we have limited resources for communication throughout the county.... no local TV or radio station focused on our county, and the weekly Herald, but otherwise, not a whole lot of attention from either the Parkersburg or Clarksburg news outlets. So he started the Doddridge News site with ambitions of it being a community online news site where folks could find local and regional news of interest, as well as school events, community calendar, etc. It was also intended to be a "platform" where citizens could submit articles, op eds, blog, or whatever. He has developed this site over the last two years to what it is today. He has quite a following on twitter, google circles, and other networking tools. In effect, his Doddridge News site gets watched by a lot of people including many in Charleston in the legislature and beyond. All that being said, it is a project that requires at least an hour or two a day for Monte to keep the content fresh, and search out local and regional news to post on the site.It is also a valuable tool for us to have when we want to post our articles. For me, and my efforts with WV Host Farms, his news site gives me the opportunity to have him publish an article, op ed, Marcellus at Your Door, or whatever I have to contribute as part of my outreach efforts to educate an unsuspecting community about Marcellus drilling impacts. For others, it's been a platform for articles about county issues, (Co. Commission, budget issues, videos of commission meetings, local event coverage, political news, covering elections, etc. ) Monte maintains this news site for us, but he also has to spend time making a living as well. He's a behind the scenes kind of person. He works from home doing internet content writing, website development, search engine optimization projects, etc., all of which is work that pays him as a freelancer. The time he spends keeping up the Doddridge News site obviously takes him away from the income producing freelance work. While he has been hoping to pick up some advertisers, we all know that this is a county that gives no support to "outsiders" when it comes to business ventures....and especially when it comes to someone whose business venture is a newspaper that promotes open government, accountability, etc. A lot of the content he publishes does just that! The thought occurred to me that if Monte had a "core group" of sponsors for his news site, he would be able to justify the hours he spends on it every day in keeping the content fresh for us. He has a paypal donation button on the home page... underneath a graphic that says "buy the editor a cup of coffee." A means for him to try to raise some funds to compensate for his dedication and his effort in giving us this local county paper/platform to get our stories out that otherwise would go unreported. Hopefully all of us would agree that an occasional $5 donation to Doddridge News site would be a small price to pay for that service. It's an important "platform" we need to maintain with our various outreach efforts (e.g. exposing drilling issues, county political shenanigans, wasteful county spending, etc. When he publishes something on his site, believe me people are taking notice down in Charleston and in the industry. As example, each time I write a "Marcellus at Your Door" article, or he posts some other drilling news-related article like those contributed by Tom Bond, he tells me his "hit meter" on the administrator's page of the site registers sees an almost immediate couple hundred hits within just a few hours of posting these items. And also the DCAA stuff and co. commission reports, Tammy's videos, etc. He publishes, then "tweets" these things to his followers. (many of his twitter followers are WV legislators and industry folks, so they ARE watching us!) Most important in all of this is the fact that when he publishes something for us, it creates a "hotlink" from which we can copy and paste onto e-mails, "share" and move it forward to others in our networks of concerned citizens. I put it up on the twitter for WV Host Farms, and on its fb page to move it forward and it goes all around other states that way who also share marcellus drilling concerns with me. This kind of following and momentum is growing as result. It's the one tool we have to counteract the millions and millions of dollars the industry spends on TV, radio, and newspaper ads. We don't have that financial luxury in getting our message out. Originally, Monte was striving to keep his paper middle-of-the-road on some of these controversial issues facing our county... drilling, commission/budget issues, etc. Hard to do when he doesn't get contributing writers, save for a few of us who are opinionated and not necessarily unbiased. LOL But seeing that our newest media venture in Doddridge appears to many to be less than "independent" in it's content, I have suggested to Monte that he shift his strategy for Doddridge News.com It will be more of a "watchdog" type paper. Somewhat like the state-wide WV Gazette with it's "sustained outrage" branch of that paper. And he will focus on uncovering some of the shenanigans and controversial issues important to those of us here in Doddridge and surrounding counties. I support him on this effort (have already clicked the paypal button to "buy the editor a cup of coffee" )..a couple of cups... . and hope some of you will do the same. Any donation amount is appreciated...$5, 10, $15, $20 ...whatever you think his site is worth to you. The goal is to muster up a group of regular core supporters who every month will click on the paypal to make a small donation to thank him for his efforts in giving us a community voice. I could gladly send out a monthly e-mail to folks reminding folks that Monte needs a cup of coffee. If of all the people I've sent this e-mail out to, we could count on 1 in 5 "buying him a cup of coffee" on the pay pal link, at least have some financial support to compensate for some of the many, many hours he puts into this online news site every month. No obligation for any of you to respond, and your effort is anonymous to anyone else. And you don't need a paypal account either to donate, as the link goes to a form to fill in where you can just use a credit card to donate. Am thinking that if 10 or 20 of us made it a habit to go to the pay pal button every month and click on it to "buy him a coffee" ... $5 ....or more if you are so inclined, he'd have enough "caffeine" to continue to spend the hours and hours he does on this news site each month to serve us. Believe me, I know where he's coming from having been doing this WV Host Farms for the past year and almost as a full time job but being just a volunteer. If everyone across the country who ever looked at my website would have clicked on the paypal button, we'd have afforded a staff of folks to help with all the research, oversight, and postage for mailing info pkts to landowners, mileage expense for those of us who shuttled researchers around the county, etc., etc. Ha! We wouldn't need a WV DEP, since we'd be doing the job for them! But grass roots is never a well-funded effort! So one cup of coffee at a time, I suppose! Hope you all will consider this and not be offended by my solicitation to help out Monte in keeping Doddridge News site in existence. Thanks! Diane Pitcock, WV Host Farms

1 0

: Jim S's Letter to the Editor Is in the Preston County & Morgantown Papers
by Duane 20 Mar '13

20 Mar '13

> Subject: Jim Sconyers' Letter to the Editor Is in the Preston County & Morgantown Papers > > > Jim Sconyers' attached Letter to the Editor ran in the Dominion Post today and the Preston County News on March 9th. The attachment has his Letter in it - so check it out: >

1 0

White House Returns Proposed Rule On Refineries to EPA for More Analysis | Bloomberg BNA
by Duane 19 Mar '13

19 Mar '13

http://www.bna.com/white-house-returns-n17179872825/ White House Returns Proposed Rule On Refineries to EPA for More Analysis By Jessica Coomes, Environment Reporter, March 15, 2013 The White House Office of Management and Budget has sent back to the Environmental Protection Agency a proposed rule to revise air pollution standards for petroleum refineries, BNA has learned. The proposed rule, which would affect about 150 refineries, was intended to address residual risk and technological developments related to air toxics emissions from the sector and to amend new source performance standards to control emissions of a number of pollutants. “OMB returned the rule to the agency so EPA could complete additional analysis for the proposed rules,” EPA said in a statement to BNA March 13. The Bush administration determined in January 2009 that air toxics emissions from refineries did not pose any additional health risks and no new controls were required. However, the Obama administration later withdrew that finding (42 ER 1630, 7/22/11). EPA then surveyed all of the refineries in the country about their emissions in preparation for a new proposed rule. OMB received the proposed rule for interagency review Sept. 5, 2012. The OMB website said the office completed interagency review March 12, and the rule would be withdrawn. The Natural Resources Defense Council criticized the withdrawal March 13. “The Obama administration has allowed these clean air standards for Big Oil to languish for over four years, after the Bush administration before it refused to uphold the law to protect people,” John Walke, clean air director for the environmental group, told BNA in a statement. “Now the White House interferes and offers this non-explanation as explanation for further inaction? That is inexcusable.” Industry Says New Controls Unnecessary The refining industry has opposed new emissions controls. “Imposition of additional regulation of refinery emissions on top of the layers of regulations already imposed on the refinery sector is unnecessary,” Howard Feldman, director of regulatory and scientific policy for the American Petroleum Institute, told BNA in a statement March 13. “EPA's own analyses have demonstrated that petroleum refineries are not 'high risk' facilities and that the public health is already protected with an ample margin of safety. Furthermore, the refining industry is already facing additional regulatory threats from EPA, including Tier III fuels, greenhouse gas regulations, and a tightening of the ozone standards.” Representatives of petroleum refiners told administration officials during an Oct. 4, 2012, meeting on the proposed rule that more stringent air pollution controls on the sector would not reduce the risk to public health (43 ER 2697, 10/26/12). API and several companies had said data that EPA collected from industry show that the risk from refineries is low, which meant EPA should not impose additional control requirements unless they are cost-effective. In materials presented during the OMB meeting, the trade association said the data that EPA collected show that existing regulations have been effective in protecting public health. It also said refineries spent $50 million to comply with the EPA information request in the survey. The now-withdrawn proposed rule was expected to include a Clean Air Act-mandated review of residual risk from the existing national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants for refineries and of the potential for new technology to make further emissions reductions. The rule also was expected to amend new source performance standards for the sector. The petroleum industry also has been lobbying against Tier 3 gasoline and vehicle standards, which API says could be costly for the industry. EPA is expected to propose the Tier 3 standards this month (44 ER 541, 3/1/13). Duane Nichols, Cell- 304-216-5535.

1 0

Consol pouring water into borehole to contain Blacksville mine fire | TribLIVE
by Duane 13 Mar '13

13 Mar '13

http://triblive.com/business/headlines/3652893-74/mine-consol-fire#ixzz2NS0… Consol pouring water into borehole to contain Blacksville mine fire By John D. Oravecz, Pittsburgh Tribune Review Published: Wednesday, March 13, 2013, 2:51 p.m. CONSOL Energy Inc. said on Wednesday it identified the location of an underground fire at its Blacksville No. 2 mine on the Pennsylvania-West Virginia border and began pumping water into a borehole to try to contain it. Working with federal and state officials, Consol said it started an aggressive plan to extinguish the fire with as much water as possible and to monitor carbon monoxide and methane levels in the mine. Cecil-based Consol said Tuesday that smoke from an air shaft at the Blacksville mine prompted the safe evacuation of 121 day-shift workers. Initially, one mine rescue team plus a backup team were sent underground to locate a fire. When the teams felt heat and encountered heavy smoke, they withdrew from the mine, said Mine Safety and Health Administration spokeswoman Amy Louviere. Smoke was detected at 2 p.m. coming out of the mine's Orndoff air shaft. Workers were evacuated through the mine's Kuhntown portal. Both the Kuhntown portal — about 15 miles south of Waynesburg — and the Orndoff shaft are located in Greene County. At midnight, an existing borehole at the Orndoff shaft was opened and by 8:00 a.m. on Wednesday, 125,000 gallons of water had been pumped into the mine, Consol spokeswoman Lynn Seay said in an email. The company is deploying three drilling rigs to drill additional boreholes near the Orndoff shaft to increase the amount of water that can be pumped into the mine, she said. One of the rigs is on-site and began drilling operations at 9:30 a.m. A second rig is expected to arrive on-site by 5:00 p.m. and a third is in the process of being shipped from Consol's Bailey mine in Washington County. In addition, three sampling lines were lowered into the Orndoff shaft to monitor for carbon monoxide and methane. On Tuesday, MSHA Coal Mine Safety and Health personnel were doing inspection work at the mine — considered a West Virginia mine even though the portal is located across the border in Greene County — and ordered an evacuation, Louviere said. The Blacksville mine, which has about 650 total workers, produces steam coal for power plants, with production of 3.2 million tons in 2012. Consol said it cancelled all shifts so that the recovery plan can continue. It is not known when operations will resume. No personnel will enter the mine until it is determined that it is safe to do so, the company said. Blacksville is a town in Monongalia County, W.Va., with a population of 171 as of the 2010 census.

1 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

MVCAC March 2013