lies told by energy companies


All these carbon capture systems are just stupid. Generating poisons through industrial processes has never been a good idea. It just generated profits for the rich and the elites. But now with humanity on the line with global warming we have to just give it up. Right now and shift to renewables.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/uciliawang/2014/07/15/nrgs-1b-bet-to-show-how-carbon-capture-could-be-feasible-for-coal-power-plants/

Ucilia Wang

Ucilia Wang, Contributor

NRG’s $1B Bet To Show How Carbon Capture Could Be Feasible For Coal Power Plants

Green Tech|
7/15/2014

NRG Energy NRG -1.28% said Tuesday it’s building a $1 billion project to capture carbon dioxide emissions from a coal power plant in Texas and ship them 82 miles away to help boost an oil field’s production.

The Petra Nova Carbon Capture Project, a joint venture between NRG and JX Nippon Oil & Gas Exploration in Japan, will be the largest in the world to use a process that scrubs away the carbon dioxide after coal has been burned to produce electricity, the companies said.

Carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas, would vent into the atmosphere and contribute to climate change if it’s not removed beforehand.

“This project is such a game changer because  it acts like a bridge between the power and oil industry,” said Arun Banskota, president of NRG’s carbon capture group. “Carbon dioxide is something we need to increasingly manage. There is a huge shortage for carbon dioxide for enhanced oil recovery.”

:}

Go there and read. More next week.

:}

that the Species of Homosapien would be burned off the face of the planet. I figured that would happen in maybe 30 years. People wrote in and said I was exaggerating. They said I was doing my cause “no good” by stating things so radically. I believe the same thing now, but I think it is coming more rapidly and could have a significant impact by 2020. Yes! Everything is speeding up.

http://www.ipcc.ch/

Fifth Assessment Report (AR5)

 

The Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) provides a clear and most up to date view of the current state of scientific knowledge relevant to climate change. It comprises of three Working Group (WG) reports and a Synthesis Report (SYR) which integrates and synthesize material in the WG reports for policymakers. The SYR will be finalized 31st of October 2015. Further information about the outline and content and how the AR5 has been prepared can be found in the AR5 reference document and SYR Scoping document, AR5 page and on the websites of the WGs.

Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change

 

The Working Group III contribution assesses the options for mitigating climate change and their underlying technological, economic and institutional requirements. It transparently lays out risks, uncertainty and ethical foundations of climate change mitigation policies on the global, national and sub-national level, investigates mitigation measures for all major sectors and assesses investment and finance issues.

Quick Link to Report and other AR5 volumes
Working Group III Report website

Summary for Policymakers (English)

 

Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability

The Working Group II contribution considers the vulnerability and exposure of human and natural systems, the observed impacts and future risks of climate change, and the potential for and limits to adaptation. The chapters of the report assess risks and opportunities for societies, economies, and ecosystems around the world.

Video
Quick Link to Report and other AR5 volumes
Working Group II Report website

Summary for Policymakers (English)

 

:}

Go there and get really scared. More next week.

:}

I asked the question last week about how these recent river pollutions reflect on the “environment be damned” attitude that you find in much of the South East. I mean really everyone in the world knows that America is one of the great violators of the environment worldwide. But hell, it is not like the other major countries care. Russia and China are nothing but open sores on the Earths skin and they have been at it longer than we have. Still, when you have the interface between a major polluter and local government like North Carolina then bad things are bound to happen.

http://grist.org/business-technology/ash-decisions-north-carolina-helped-river-ruining-duke-energy-duck-pollution-complaints/

 

Ash decisions: North Carolina helped river-ruining Duke Energy duck pollution complaints

coal-ash-river-north-carolina
Duke Energy

Last year, North Carolina’s top environmental regulators thwarted three separate Clean Water Act lawsuits aimed at forcing Duke Energy, the largest electricity company in the country, to clean up its toxic coal ash pits in the state. That June, the state went even further, saying it would handle environmental enforcement at every one of Duke’s 31 coal ash storage ponds in the state — an act that protected the company from further federal lawsuits. Last week, one of those coal ash storage ponds ruptured, belching more than 80,000 tons of coal ash into the Dan River.

Now, environmental groups and former regulators are charging that North Carolina Republican Gov. Pat McCrory, who worked for Duke for 30 years, has created an atmosphere where the penalties for polluting the environment are low.

The Associated Press reports that McCrory’s Department of Environment and Natural Resources blocked three federal Clean Water Act suits in 2013 by stepping in with its own enforcement authority “at the last minute.” This protected Duke from the kinds of stiff fines and penalties that can result from federal lawsuits. Instead, state regulators arranged settlements that carried miniscule financial penalties and did not require Duke to change how it stores the toxic byproducts of its coal-fired power plants. After blocking the first three suits, which were brought by the Southern Environmental Law Center, the state filed notices saying that it would handle environmental enforcement at every one of Duke’s remaining North Carolina coal ash storage sites, protecting the company from Clean Water Act lawsuits linked to its coal waste once and for all.

:}

Go there and read. More next week.

:}

I get this question all the time. The argument is always the trade off argument. We get jobs and cheap fossil fuels but  the environment is degraded. And boy and how. Destroyed is more like it but we do not even get the results that the fracking industry promised. Did I mention it is cold outside?

http://www.startribune.com/business/241382091.html

Record high prices for propane, natural gas in some markets as cold snap saps fuel supplies

  • Article by: JONATHAN FAHEY , Associated Press
  • Updated: January 21, 2014 – 6:12 PM

NEW YORK — A second fierce blast of winter weather is sapping fuel supplies in many regions and sending prices for propane and natural gas to record highs.

Higher natural gas prices are also leading to sharply higher wholesale electricity prices as power utilities snap up gas at almost any price to run power plants to meet higher-than-normal winter demand.

Propane users will get pinched the most. Those who find themselves suddenly needing to fill their tanks could be paying $100 to $200 more per fill up than a month ago. Homeowners who use natural gas and electricity will see higher heating bills because they’ll use more fuel. But prices won’t rise dramatically because utilities only buy a small portion of the fuel at the elevated prices.

A swirling storm with the potential for more than a foot of snow clobbered the mid-Atlantic and the urban Northeast on Tuesday. The snowstorm will be followed by bitter cold as arctic air from Canada streams in, causing homeowners to crank up the thermostat.

Record high prices for propane, natural gas in some markets as cold snap saps fuel supplies

  • Article by: JONATHAN FAHEY , Associated Press
  • Updated: January 21, 2014 – 6:12 PM

NEW YORK — A second fierce blast of winter weather is sapping fuel supplies in many regions and sending prices for propane and natural gas to record highs.

Higher natural gas prices are also leading to sharply higher wholesale electricity prices as power utilities snap up gas at almost any price to run power plants to meet higher-than-normal winter demand.

Propane users will get pinched the most. Those who find themselves suddenly needing to fill their tanks could be paying $100 to $200 more per fill up than a month ago. Homeowners who use natural gas and electricity will see higher heating bills because they’ll use more fuel. But prices won’t rise dramatically because utilities only buy a small portion of the fuel at the elevated prices.

A swirling storm with the potential for more than a foot of snow clobbered the mid-Atlantic and the urban Northeast on Tuesday. The snowstorm will be followed by bitter cold as arctic air from Canada streams in, causing homeowners to crank up the thermostat.

Michael McCafferty, a propane expert at Platts, an energy information provider, said the wholesale spot price of propane rose 70 percent between Friday and Tuesday to a record $2.45 per gallon. Both the size of the jump and the price itself he called “unprecedented.”

:}

Go there and read. More next week.

 

:}

If you can find them you can engage in direct action.

 

Day 44   12/28/13

Topic: Directional Drilling Plan

Comment:

This comment addresses inadequacies in two sections:  Sections (245.210(a)(4)) Directional Drilling Plan and Section (245.210(a)(7)) Scaled plat maps, diagrams, or cross sections,

These sections do not explicitly require that the applicant provide a map that depicts the exact location of the wellbore, i.e., draws it on the map from beginning to end. This information is critical to specific notice and standing, which reference persons within 750 feet of the wellbore.

Revisions Needed:  Require a map depicting the exact location of the wellbore.

To remove your name from this email list click here. To unsubscribe from all emails from us click here.

510 E. Washington St. Suite 309
Bloomington, IL 61701
United States

 

:}

Go there and comment. More tomorrow.

:}

Thanks IDNR for placing the burden of proof on the people of Illinois. Maybe they should rename these regulations as the Rape and Pillage of Illinois.

 

Day 35   12/19/13   

Topic:  Burden and Standard of Proof should be on applicant not persons requesting a public hearing.

Comment:

245.270.i states that parties requesting the public hearing and, if applicable, petitioning to participate in the public hearing shall have the burden of establishing the validity of their objections and concerns through the introduction of credible evidence. The standard of proof is the preponderance of the evidence.

The provision concerning burden of proof in this subsection does not make sense in context.  In fact, it reverses the burden that otherwise applies to permit applicants; it is the permit applicant who must demonstrate that they are entitled to a permit. It should not be the hearing requestor’s burden to prove that the issues they raise are worthy of consideration.  To the extent that the person or persons requesting the hearing raise legitimate questions as to whether a permit should be issued—or issued with particular conditions—it must be the applicant’s responsibility to address those questions to the satisfaction of the Department.

To remove your name from this email list click here. To unsubscribe from all emails from us click here.

510 E. Washington St. Suite 309
Bloomington, IL 61701
United States

:}

Go there and comment. More today.

:}

What the hell would the public know about their own self interest. Everybody outside of Chicago is just dumb hicks anyways.

Day 29 12/13/13 

Today’s Topic:  Who a potentially affected party must petiton in order to participate in a hearing.

Section 245.270 Public Hearings

The Act’s provision affording public hearings are critically important to ensuring that the public has the ability to fully understand hydraulic fracturing permits that may affect them, and challenge them if appropriate. We are therefore concerned that some aspects of the draft rules governing hearings could potentially undercut the robust public participation envisioned in the statute.

Section 1-50(b) of the Hydraulic Fracturing Regulatory Act says any person having an interest that is or may be adversely affected [by a fracking permit], can petition the Department for participation in a hearing.

But Subsection 245.270(a)(6) of the Rules raises the bar, requiring the request for hearing to be served upon the Hearing Officer, the Department, and the ap

I do not know about the Dirty Dozen concept but the points are important and well made.

 

 

Four weeks ago today, IDNR released their weak fracking rules.  Many of you have been making comments every day.  THANK YOU!

For today’s comment, we’re switching things up a bit.  As we prepare for the Decatur, IL hearing and meetings with JCAR, we have put together what we are calling the “Dirty Dozen.” We believe these are the most egregious rules that pose a significant risk to public health, aquatic life, wildlife, or the environment. Read our “Dirty Dozen” and choose any one of them to make your comment for the day.  If you aren’t sure which radio button to choose or which Section is appropriate, just make your best guess.  IDNR tells us they will not reject a comment for being in the wrong Subpart or Section.

COME TO THE DECATUR IDNR MEETING

The Decatur hearing will be this coming Tuesday, December 17, at the Decatur Civic Center from 6:30-8:30.  Are you coming?   We have buses coming from Peoria, Bloomington and Springfield.  If you want to ride the bus, scroll down for information on the buses.

Will you testify?  Please consider testifying using one of the “Dirty Dozen” as the base of your testimony.  Choose a comment from the list, tell the IDNR Hearing Officer what is wrong with that Rule and then explain why this is personal to you in your own words.  For example,

  • “I am a nurse and the issue of keeping chemicals secret from medical professionals is an issue to me because it will impact the kind of care I can give someone who lives near a fracking operation and comes in with symptoms but doesn’t know what fracking chemical they were exposed to.”  OR
  • “I am a farmer and I need to protect my farmland from migrating water pollution from horizontal drilling legs that could run under my farm.” OR
  • “I am a grandmother and I want to make sure the water my grandchildren drink isn’t laced with chemicals and radioactivity.”

Translate the talking points into your own voice. Write it down so that you can submit it to IDNR at the end of the hearing.  Don’t worry about not being an expert on the subject.  You are an expert in your own life and IDNR needs to hear that citizens throughout Illinois aren’t happy about what’s happening with fracking.

BUSES

These are the times that buses will LEAVE for the hearing, so please, plan to arrive 15 minutes prior to departure with empty bladders and printed copies of your testimony!  Please eat before you come or bring a sack dinner.

  • 4:00 pm- Peoria – U.U. Church of Peoria – 3000 W. Richwood Blvd.
  • 5:00 pm- Bloomington – IPA Office -510 E. Washington
  • 5:00 pm- Springfield – First Presbyterian Church – 321 S. 7th St.

To remove your name from this email list click here. To unsubscribe from all emails from us click here.

510 E. Washington St. Suite 309
Bloomington, IL 61701
United States

 

:}

Go there and comment. More today.

:}

Why are we even messing around with this stuff. Colorado already demands recycling and Oklahoma make drillers bottle the natural gas. Why are we providing a lower standard of treatment of the Earth then other places.

 

Today’s Topic:  Discrepancies between the law and the rules on how long open-air pits can be used to store flowback.
  • Go to: http://www.dnr.illinois.gov/OilandGas/Pages/OnlineCommentSubmittalForm.aspx
  • Click the button: Subpart H: High Volume Horizontal Hydraulic Fracturing Preparations and Operations (245.800-245.870)
  • In the “Section” dropdown box, click: Section 245.850  Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid and Hydraulic Fracturing Flowback Storage, Disposal or Recycling, Transportation and Reporting Requirements
  • Submit your comment/s (below)
  • Click “Submit”
Section 1-75 of the Hydraulic Fracturing Regulator Act mandates that “excess hydraulic fracturing flowback captured for temporary storage in a reserve pit as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection must be removed from the well site within 7 days.”
But Section 245.850 of the proposed rules states, “Any excess hydraulic fracturing flowback captured for temporary storage in a reserve pit as provided in Section 245.825 must be removed from the well site or transferred to storage in above-ground tanks for later disposal or recycling within 7 days after completion of high volume horizontal hydraulic fracturing operations.”
Problem:  The amendment of “after completion of high volume horizontal hydraulic fracturing operations” opens the door for the potential abuse of emergency pits.  Storage in closed tanks can be costly for the industry.  An unscrupulous operator wanting to cut costs could simply claim that there was more flowback than expected and end up using open pits for storage for the duration of the fracking process.
The clear intent of the statute is to ensure that wastewater is stored in tanks except in the emergency event of an unforeseeable overflow, in which case it is preferable that the overflow go to a pit than simply spill on the ground. But in such event, the overflow is expressly required in the statute to be removed within a week. Through omission and misinterpretation, the regulations are not implementing this statutory directive.
Section 245.210(a)(11), requires that an applicant submit a Hydraulic Fracturing Fluids and Flowback Plan.  The plan does not include requirements to ensure that tank capacity is accurately calculated. Without such method, there is nothing in the regulations to prevent operators from underestimating the size of the tanks they need, so as to make routine use of the reserve pit for the resulting overflows. Operators presumably have an economic incentive to do so in order to hold down the cost of tank storage.
Compounding this incentive is the Department’s weakening of the statutory directive that fluids deposited in a reserve pit be removed within 7 days (Section 1-75(c)(5). The regulations fail to require such prompt removal, allowing, at subsection 245.850(c), the overflow to remain in the reserve pits until 7 days “after completion of high volume horizontal hydraulic fracturing operations.” Certainly on a multi-well pad, hydraulic fracturing operations can continue for a month or more, meaning that the flowback fluid could be left sitting in the reserve pit, creating environmental risk, for much longer than a week.
Revisions needed:  First, require that drillers anticipate appropriate sized tanks for sufficient storage of flowback and produced water by establishing a method for tank capacity calculation. Second, clarify that wastewater must be removed from the pit within 7 days of the event that triggered the use of the pit rather than 7 days after fracking operations are complete, in accordance with the law.
To remove your name from this email list click here. To unsubscribe from all emails from us click here.
510 E. Washington St. Suite 309
BloomingtonIL 61701
United States

 

:}

Go there and comment. More tomorrow.

:}

When we got in the faces of the 5 renegade environmental groups, they claimed that IDNR would tighten up things to take in our concerns. So far that ain’t been ahappening. We will just have to see what happens after the comment period closes.
Today (Tuesday, 12/10/13)  is Day 26 of the Comment Period of IDNR.   Getting tired of making comments?  We understand.  But if we don’t fight, the industry will win because their fingerprints are all over these rules.  Fight back.  Make a comment today.
Today’s Topic:  IDNR’s Duties and Responsibilities to Protect the Citizens of Illinois
Comment:
In Section 1-130 of the regulatory statute, the legislature granted IDNR authority to adopt rules to carry out the legislature’s purposes.
There are at least two legislative purposes in the regulatory statute:
  1. To allow horizontal fracking in Illinois,
  2. To approve horizontal fracking conditionally based on the safeguarding of public health and public safety, and the protection of the environment.
This purpose is set forth explicitly in two places in the regulatory statute–Section 1-75(a)(2) and Section 1-53(a)(4).  IDNR has acknowledged 1-75 verbatim, in Section 245.800(2) of the proposed rules: “All phases of high volume horizontal hydraulic fracturing operations shall be conducted in a manner that shall not pose a significant risk to public health, life, property, aquatic life, or wildlife.”
But IDNR has changed the legislature’s language in Section 1-53(a)(4) of the proposed rules, lowering the standard explicitly created by the legislature.  Section 1-53(a)(4) of the legislation states: “The Department shall issue a high volume horizontal hydraulic fracturing permit, with any conditions the Department may find necessary, only if the record of decision demonstrates that: the proposed hydraulic fracturing operations will be conducted in a manner that will protect the public health and safety and prevent pollution or diminution of any water source.”  The key phrase there is”will be conducted”.  Clearly the intent of the statute is that fracking will only be allowed if it is conducted in a safe manner.
IDNR’s proposed Section 245.300 changes the legislative words “will be conducted” to “as proposed, are reasonably expected to be conducted”.  This lowers the standard and is inconsistent with the legislature’s stated purpose.  “Will be conducted” is a mandate; “reasonably expected to be conducted” is not.
If hydraulic fracturing outcomes in Illinois mirror effects of other states, we can “reasonably expect” that the industry will cut corners and violate standards.  There have been over 3000 violations in PA since 2009 and they are not minor violations.  They involve infractions such as:
  • 224 violations of “Failure to properly store, transport, process or dispose of residual waste.
  • 143 violations of “Discharge of pollutional material to the waters of Commonwealth.
  • 140 violations of “Pit and tanks not constructed with sufficient capacity to contain pollutional substances.
The residents of Illinois are depending on IDNR to protect their health, their safety, and the safety of their water, air, and soil.  IDNR needs to return the legislation’s intent and mandate that hydraulic fracturing operations will only be conducted in a manner that will protect the public health and safety and prevent pollution or diminution of any water source.”
To remove your name from this email list click here. To unsubscribe from all emails from us click here.
510 E. Washington St. Suite 309
Bloomington, IL 61701
United States

alt

:}

Go there and comment. More tomorrow thank God.

:}

Next Page »