Emissions for the poor, tax breaks for the wealthy
The Harper government is sometimes accused of favouring the rich while ignoring the poor – even cozying up to wealthy oil barons at the expense of regular Canadians.
It would be nice if Harper could say it wasn’t so. Unfortunately, there’s enough evidence in the climate change file alone to make the case.
Soon after coming to office, the Harper government abruptly eliminated a $500 million program, the Energuide for Low Income Households, designed to help poor families do home retrofits to reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. In stark contrast, the government’s last budget effectively assured wealthy oil and gas corporations that all of the federal tax breaks they currently enjoy, amounting to about $1.4 billion each year, would remain in place until at least 2010.
Read the entire story here:
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/306147
WY State CBM Study: Sometimes, Water is More Precious than Gas
Coal bed methane production in Wyoming sometimes doesn’t produce any gas, but does produce plenty of controversy because of the large volumes of water that come from the projects. A new scientific review from the Wyoming State Geological Survey shows some of that controversy could be avoided because the water/gas ratios can be predicted.
The agency also recommends production be banned in some areas, because there is so little gas. Jill Morrison, with the Powder River Basin Resource Council, agrees. She’s hopeful the science can help manage development to avoid legal wrangling and politically-charged skirmishes.
Read the entire story here:
http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/4368-1
Sourse: WY State CBM Study: Sometimes, Water is More Precious than Gas
Coal prices to double in 2008?
First $100 a barrel oil. Soon $100 per metric ton coal?
Citigroup is forecasting the price of thermal coal to nearly double in 2008-09 from its current price of $55 per ton. And that doesn’t reflect the cost of anticipated carbon regulation. The price spike has more to do with weather than climate. A harsh, snowstormy winter is chilling mining activity in China and flooding has washed out production in Australian mines.
It’s the second batch of bad news for coal to come from the bank in less than a year. In July, a Citigroup analyst advised against investing in coal companies due to a variety of concerns. It noted that natural gas is grabbing a bigger share of power-generation, and that new “clean-coal” technologies have failed to develop and remain a decade or more away. (more…)
Citigroup, J.P Morgan Chase and Morgan Stanley impose new environmental standards for coal.
In spite of the climate change skeptics and the US reluctance to sign up to Kyoto, financial realities are finally bringing about change. Jeffrey Ball of The Wall Street Journal has reported that three of Wall Street’s biggest investment banks Citigroup Inc., J.P.Morgan Chase and Co., and Morgan Stanley have announced that they are imposing new environmental standards that will make it harder for companies to get financing to build coal-fired power plants in the U.S.
The new policy shows that these financial institutions are facing the reality that the future incoming administration will legislate to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Much has changed in last few years. Individual states are now requiring utilities to “account for potential emissions in new-plant plans.” Effectively banks are protecting themselves from the financial impost that these will have.
The banks developed the Carbon Principals over nine months in consultation with leading power companies and the environmental groups, Environmental Defense and the Natural Resources Defense Council.
The Citibank press release said it all:
“Leading utilities and financial institutions understand that the rules of the road have changed for coal,” said Mark Brownstein, managing director of business partnerships for Environmental Defense, one of the NGOs that advised with the banks in creating the Principles. “These principles are a first step in facilitating an honest assessment of electric generation options in light of the obvious and pressing need to substantially reduce national greenhouse gas pollution.”
Dale Bryk, senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council added, “Expectations are rising fast for this industry. Global warming is changing the competitive landscape. Clean power is the name of the game today. Conventional coal facilities are already facing intensive scrutiny. We think the serious money is increasingly going to be on clean, efficient solutions.”
The new carbon principles that the banks have developed can be read here:
The inevitability of the need for change is becoming clearer as the US government is studying which of the Cap-and Trade systems it chooses in an effort to limit greenhouse gas emissions. As Ball says, “the banks say they don’t want to be involved with debt that goes bad as a result of government emissions caps that require the power plants they finance to buy large numbers of extra pollution allowances.” As the science emerges and populations demand it, change will inevitably overtake old polluting energies, even if only in response to market forces and financial realities.
In fact, the US has just pulled out of the FutureGen clean coal project, an obvious setback for the Australian coal industry’s plans to embrace clean-coal technology.
Soon we may be able to say, old king Coal is dead, long live the renewable energy king.
The days of conventional coal really are over!
Sourse: Citigroup, J.P Morgan Chase and Morgan Stanley impose new environmental standards for coal.
Banks have doubts about coal future
The Wall Street Journal reported today that three of the biggest US investment banks are getting cold feet about financing new coal power plants as they expect US policy-makers to introduce a carbon capture-and-trade system in the future. The environmental standards which the three banks will lay down could mean that coal plants without carbon capture and storage could have a hard time to get financed.
The news follows close upon another setback for the US coal industry. On 29 January, the US Department of Energy decided to withdraw funding for the US’ biggest carbon and capture demonstration plant FutureGen (see Wikipedia) because of costs overrun.
The bad news comes at a time of rising prices for coal as a result of supply problems from South Africa and Australia. In China, coal stocks have dwindled to emergency levels. Although the current supply problems are not geological, there are more and more experts who are starting to have doubts about the future reserves of coal. I reported on this in earlier posts. An excellent summary of the coal reserves issue (”The great coal hole“) has recently been published by David Strahan, the author of the must-read book “The last oil shock”. As the world is starting a new rush on coal (see the latest IEA World Energy Outlook 2007), the question of the real coal reserves will become one of the key questions for the future energy/climate debate. US author Richard Heinberg has just published a new article on this Great Coal Rush (and why it will fail) on Global Public Media.
Sourse: Banks have doubts about coal future
Presidential Debates Brought to You By Coal
Watching the GOP debate tonight and the Democratic party debates tomorrow? Just a reminder that as in other debates so far and noted earlier by Jeremy here, they are brought to you by Americans for Balanced Energy Choices (ABEC), a front for the coal industry. Read our previous post and count the questions about global warming during the debates.
Sourse: Presidential Debates Brought to You By Coal
coal special interest dollars (coming soon to a town or TV near you)
A group backed by the coal industry and its utility allies is waging a $35 million campaign in primary and caucus states to rally public support for coal-fired electricity and to fuel opposition to legislation that Congress is crafting to slow climate change.The group, called Americans for Balanced Energy Choices, has spent $1.3 million on billboard, newspaper, television and radio ads in Iowa, Nevada and South Carolina.
One of its television ads shows a power cord being plugged into a lump of coal, which it calls “an American resource that will help us with vital energy security” and “the fuel that powers our way of life.” The ads note that half of U.S. electricity comes from coal-fired plants.
Coal mining company forced to pay $20 million in fines for over 4,600 Clean Water Act permit violations
EarthJustice
January 17, 2008
Washington, D.C. — In an agreement announced today, Massey Energy will pay $20 million in fines levied against them by the U.S. EPA for thousands of Clean Water Act permit violations associated with their mining operations. The agreement comes after the federal government found that Massey illegally dumped coal slurry waste, rubble, wastewater […]
Sourse: Coal mining company forced to pay $20 million in fines for over 4,600 Clean Water Act permit violations
Coal Impoundment Area! Catchment Pond, Coal Slurry!
Coal Impoundment Area! Have a Look!
A coal slurry impoundment consists of solid and liquid waste and is a by-product of the coal mining and preparation processes.
Mining generates enormous amounts of solid waste in the form of rocks and dirt. This refuse is used to dam the opening of a hollow between adjacent mountains.
After the dam is built, the void behind it is typically filled with millions of gallons of waste slurry from a coal preparation plant. This impounded liquid waste can sometimes total billions of gallons in a single facility.
I have been at a drill site next to an coal impoundment area for some time. It’s December and we had lot of snow! It looks beautiful but makes the drilling really difficult specially in the morning if you have frozen water in “water trucks”! Anyways, it has been a great experience as I had a chance to look at the coal alurry i mpoundment area very closely. “Impoundment” area just means a place where the mining companies dump their waste. In our case it is coal waste which may include bone, shale, dark shale, clay, coal dust, some mining parts and so on. The whole impoundment area looks just black just because of too much of coal dust in it. Once I was there during a rain event. I was just black slurry coming down as small springs from the impoundment area. They had “catchment ponds” which are built to catch the black slurry before it gets to the river at the foot of the hill.
Just go through the series of the pictures and you will sort of realize what actually goes with the impoundment areas!! Hope you enjoy the post!
Drilling with snow!
The Coal waste is generated at the coal preparation plant.
Conveyor Belt Brings the coal to the Coal Impoundment Area.
The Coal is dumped as a pile at the impoundment area using the conveyor belt. Large Bull Dozers spread the pile of waste materials over the impoundment area.
Here is the Bull Dozer Spreading the coal over the impoundment area.
Catchment Ponds are built to catch black slurry coming down via springs after storm events. You can see how black the water in the pond is!
I have two more videos too:
1. Black water coming down from the catchment area after storm event!
2. Bull Dozer in Action Video: I feel bad for the poor guy. His job is to spread the coal waste over the impoundment area all day and everyday!
Sourse: Coal Impoundment Area! Catchment Pond, Coal Slurry!
Massey Energy to Pay Largest Civil Penalty Ever for Water Permit Violations
Massey Energy Company, Inc. has agreed to pay a $20 million civil penalty in a corporate-wide settlement to resolve Clean Water Act violations at coal mines in West Virginia and Kentucky, the Justice Department and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced. This is the largest civil penalty in EPA’s history levied against a company for wastewater discharge permit violations.
“This is a landmark settlement for the environment, and raises the bar for the mining industry,” said Granta Nakayama, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. “Today’s action reiterates the message that EPA will enforce environmental laws.”
“The measures required by this settlement represent a significant step forward in the way that mining facilities currently address Clean Water Act compliance,” said Ronald J. Tenpas, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Justice Department’s Environmental and Natural Resources Division. “This settlement will greatly benefit citizens in West Virginia and Kentucky and improve many of our nation’s waters for years to come.”
As part of the settlement, Massey, the fourth largest coal company in the United States, has agreed to take measures at all of its facilities that will prevent an estimated 380 million pounds of sediment and other pollutants from entering the nation’s waters each year. These compliance measures are unprecedented in the coal mining industry.
In a complaint filed on May 10, 2007, the government alleged that Massey violated its Clean Water Act permits more than 4,500 times between January 2000 and December 2006. The complaint alleged that Massey discharged excess amounts of metals, sediment, and acid mine drainage into hundreds of rivers and streams in West Virginia and Kentucky. Many of the pollutants were discharged in amounts 40 percent or more than allowed. Some pollutants were discharged at levels more than 10 times over the permit limits.
The complaint also alleged that Massey spilled large amounts of slurry, which is waste containing metals and sediment, into local waterways numerous times. Sediment can clog streams and harm fish habitats. The spills occurred as a result of failures in the processing, storage, and transportation of coal slurry.
In addition to the penalty, Massey will invest approximately $10 million to develop and implement a set of procedures to prevent future violations. Massey will implement an innovative electronic tracking system that allows the company to quickly address compliance problems and correct any violations of permit limits. This measure fits within a comprehensive environmental compliance program that Massey has agreed to implement, which includes in-depth internal and third-party audits, employee training, and a plan to prevent future slurry spills.
Massey will also set aside 200 acres of riverfront land in West Virginia for conservation purposes and protection from future mining. The company is also required to perform 20 projects downstream from mining operations.
Massey, the largest coal producer in Central Appalachia, owns and operates approximately 33 underground mines and approximately 11 surface mines in West Virginia, Kentucky and Virginia, with corporate headquarters in Richmond, Va. Massey controls 2.3 billion tons, or approximately one-third, of the coal reserves in Central Appalachia.
The company holds hundreds of state-issued wastewater discharge permits. The permits allow the company to discharge certain pollutants in limited amounts to rivers, streams, and other water bodies. Some pollutants must be treated with chemicals prior to discharge, while others must go through a settling process. Massey is required to monitor discharges regularly and report results to the state agency. Permits are issued for a five-year term.
The consent decree, lodged in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, is subject to a 30-day public comment period and approval by the federal court.
About
This site about power resources in any possible way.