The Energy Blog

Published: May 20, 2009, 12 am

Revised: June 1, 2011, 09 am

Author(s): Cliff Lyon

Topics:

Water,

Environmental Sustainability,

Economic Sustainability,

Human Rights Project,

Democracy

6/1/1

To All,

City Weekly article on Green River reactor project: http://www.cityweekly.net/utah/article-13995-the-nuclear-deal.html

I attended the two Blue Castle Holdings presentations in Price and Green River. Basically, the presentations were PR and BS.

The one in Price was to local Kiwanis Club and friends. BCH was talking about partnering with the College of Eastern Utah to train people. In response to my question about who would bear the costs of community emergency response planning and training, Aaron Tilton said that BCH would.

The Green River meeting had more people, most of whom supported the reactor. There were some good questions, but I did not see anyone there who I know has questioned the reactor.

The focus in Green River was jobs and what the project would do for the community. All pretty vague.

BCH said that they have contacted 18 utilities re participating in the project and equity partners. BCH believes that most of the money would come from these utilities. They would not reveal which utilities these were, but there are only so many in the surrounding states. BCH said that they would apply for an Early Site Permit, then apply for a Combined operating/construction license about 18 months afterwards. I have notes and recorded Price and part of Green River presentations. Don't think that I learned very much.

Sarah

4/18/11

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/15/mining-threaten-america-natural-heritage

Uranium mines threaten Grand Canyon and Mount Rushmore, report warns
Pew Environment Group says national parks and heritage sites are at risk
if Obama lifts mining moratorium

• In pictures: Grand Canyon under threat

Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Friday 15 April 2011 09.54 BST

The Grand Canyon. The report calls on the Obama administration to
overhaul antiquated mining laws and offer permanent protection to
national landmarks. Photograph: AFP

America's most majestic landscapes – from the Grand Canyon to Mount
Rushmore – are at risk because of booming global demand for uranium, a
new report warns.

The report, by the Pew Environment Group, calls on the Obama
administration to overhaul antiquated laws governing the mining of gold
and uranium, and offer permanent protection to national landmarks.

The administration must decide by July whether to extend a two-year
respite on thousands of mining claims in areas around the Grand Canyon,
Mount Rushmore, Joshua Tree national park and the area around Yosemite
national park. If it does not, there is nothing to stop mining interests
from drilling on its claims around the canyon, the report warns.

"These claims are all still active, and there is nothing right now that
the government can do to prevent them from becoming mines," said Jane
Danowitz, who works on public lands protection for Pew.

Obama moved to protect public lands soon after coming to the White
House, calling a two-year halt to mining in sensitive areas.

The interior secretary, Ken Salazar, must now decide whether to extend
the ban. But environmental organisations argue Obama had already
demonstrated reluctance to take on a fight with Republicans over
protecting America's natural heritage.

Under a spending deal reached last week, Obama agreed not to use money
from a newly launched wilderness initiative that would have protected
7.3 million acres of land from drilling.

Critics argued the initiative had only been launched last December, and
had not been allotted funds, so the funding ban would make no impact on
reducing the deficit that Obama is targeting.

The last five years have seen a 2,000% increase in mining claims in the
west. More than 8,000 mining claims have been staked in the Grand Canyon
alone – mainly by major international companies rather than the pick and
shovel claims of yore.

The claims are a legacy of America's antiquated mining laws, which were
written to lure newcomers to the west.

EPA Formally Requests Information From Companies About Chemicals Used in Natural Gas Extraction

As hydraulic fracturing expands across the U.S. to recover gas reserves in hard to reach rock formations, there is a growing concern about the health and environmental impacts of this practice. EPA is undertaking a scientific study at the request of Congress to investigate the impacts that hydraulic fracturing may have on drinking water. EPA will use a transparent, peer-reviewed process and independent sources of information. The results of the study will be announced in 2012 and will be used to inform the public of identified risks and to contribute to evaluating the need for legislative or regulatory reforms.

As part of the study’s information gathering process, EPA has issued voluntary requests for information to help the Agency examine the potential impacts that hydraulic fracturing may have on drinking water. This request will help both provide data where there is a lack of adequate information and contribute to resolving any scientific uncertainties surrounding hydraulic fracturing. The information requested in the voluntary letters includes the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluid, data on the impacts of the chemicals on human health and the environment, and substances released from natural gas wells into the environment after hydraulic fracturing.

To read the press release: http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/d0cf6618525a9efb85257359003fb69d/ec57125b66353b7e85257799005c1d64!OpenDocument

For information on hydraulic fracturing: http://www.epa.gov/hydraulicfracturing

00044

6/25/10

Pictures and summary from John Weisheit's recent visit to the PR Springs Tar Sands site.

6/23/10

John Weisheit Photos of Red Leaf. Here are the pictures.

http://www.riverguides.org/Photos/RedLeaf/RLLookingWest.jpg
http://www.riverguides.org/Photos/RedLeaf/ViewNortheastFromIndianRidge.jpg

As you can see I picked the wrong road. The road I took this picture from is called Indian Ridge. The main access road is called Seep Ridge. I am east of the site.

It was sunset when I arrived and decided to make camp at a developed campsite (Eagle Scout Project). My goal that day was to find the location. I actually spent more time earlier that afternoon at PR Springs, which is right next to Seep Ridge Road. I will send photos of PR Springs momentarily.

I accessed the area from East Canyon via the I-70 Westwater Ranch Exit 221 (Exit 225 works as well). I was in my 1978 Landcruiser. It takes 3 hours to get to the sites from Moab. The roads are in good shape but very dusty. I could have done the trip in any kind of vehicle. This would not be the case if the road was wet from rain or snow.

I left camp a 2 am in the morning to check the wildlife scene as I drove back to Moab. I saw 5 elk, a dozen deer, many nightjars and and one owl. But I don't know if the owl was a Mexican Spotted Owl.

6/21/10

Eco-Fliight interview of Harold Shepherd and Joe Nuehof re: Red Leaf fly over in early June:

At http://vimeo.com/12678683

6/15/10

RRF takes Echo-Flight over Read Leaf facility.

This from Bruce Gordon - The redleaf recon turned out well. We found the area and the site with no problem, thanks Steve. Please view the link below to see the images. I have other images if anyone would like and we are putting together a short video of the flight to be finished
in the near future.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/30325073@N02/sets/72157624157617171/

6/3/10

From the Western Colorado Congress - Western Colorado under attack from energy development.

Oil & Gas Drilling: Fram Operating has submitted a plan to the BLM to drill for gas on some 90,000 acres of public, private and split estate lands in the Whitewater-area of western Colorado.

The proposed Master Development Plan stretches 15 miles southeast of Grand Junction and 8 miles northwest of Delta, in Mesa and Delta Counties. The MDP includes 492 wells reaching a target depth of 4,000 to 5,000 feet.

[Read more...]

Uranium Mill: The Colorado Department of Public Health & Environnment (CDPHE) has received Montrose County's comments on Energy Fuel's proposed Piñon Ridge Uranium Mill in the Paradox Valley, prepared by Pincock, Allen & Holt of Lakewood. CDPHE will hold a meeting on June 8 at 6:00 pm at the Montrose Pavilion in order to take public comment on the report, which found a number of deficiencies in Energy Fuels' Environment Report.

The CDPHE is required by the Atomic Energy Act to develop an environmental analysis of the proposed mill and make the analysis available for public comment. However, CDPHE does not have plans for such a public comment opportunity. Uranium Watch has brought this issue to the attention of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

6/2/10

Danish Flats Environmental Services and Red Rock Forests Agreement regarding Wildlife & Water Issues at the Danish Flats Evaporation Ponds Facility in the Cisco Desert, SE Utah. The Agreement requires DFES to prevent degredation of the watershed, protect environmental values and act as good corporate citizens.

View a copy of the Agreement

View a copy of the Danish Flats Bird Proposal

5/20/10

Looks like the Deseret News printed Red Rock Forest's op-ed below on Water and Energy Development in Utah.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700030456/Energy-projects-threaten-Utahs-water-resources.html
Energy projects threaten Utah's water resources

By Harold Shepherd

Published: Sunday, May 9, 2010 12:15 a.m. MDT

With Shell Oil's recent withdrawal of a water right permit application to divert 375 cubic feet per second of water from the Yampa River in northwest Colorado, one would get the impression that the bubble has finally burst on mass scale, traditional energy development in the West and that the oil industry has finally come to terms with the impact of traditional energy development on rapidly diminishing water resources.

Not so in Utah.

While recently briefing the Utah Board of Oil, Gas and Mining, Dr. Laura Nelson, vice president of the Salt Lake City-based Ecoshale, for example, proclaimed that the company just completed a pilot project that produced a high-quality oil-shale product and, "we did so working closely with the Environmental Protection Agency to make an environmentally sensitive product." Similarly, the National Commission on Energy Policy — a bipartisan group of energy experts — recently stated that climate change legislation currently being considered by Congress must also spur more domestic energy production by extending the production tax credit for new reactors through 2025 and expanding the renewable energy standard to include nuclear.

Such calls for an oil shale and nuclear revival have led to rampant mineral and water speculation in and around Utah and an industry that is practically purring about the shale and uranium rich iconic mountain and canyon country. The rush to develop such resources, however, has caused concern. Audrey Graham, a member of the Grand County Council, states, "For me personally, Utah's rush to use its nonrenewable energy resources, including scarce water supplies, is shortsighted unless there is an overall articulated energy plan for the nation. I can perhaps swallow some carefully planned development of these resources if they are a stop-gap measure until sustainable renewable resources can be achieved."

Graham is in a minority among political leaders in Utah, however, most of whom have proclaimed that Utah is "open for business!" Indeed, a few even want a piece of the action. Aaron Tilton, the CEO for Blue Castle Holdings, the owner of a proposed nuclear power plant to be located near the town of Green River, also sat on the state Legislature while he worked on a lucrative deal with the Kane County Water Conservancy District to lease water to the plant for the power generating process. Tilton's counterpart at the county level is another state representative and ardent proponent of nuclear power development, Mike Noel, who is also the water district's administrator.

A nuclear power plant in Green River could also be the epicenter of any future oil shale boom and the corresponding impacts on water availability in the state.

Many water experts speculate that the already over-appropriated river systems in Utah simply cannot accommodate such development. A case in point is the Green River nuclear plant, which would have access to a 1964 Kane County water right for 29,600 acre-feet per year. If the river drops, the plant would have rights to what remains, placing it ahead of many other water right holders in southern Utah. In addition, adding water diversions for energy development could cause state water courts to cut off existing water users once Utah exceeds its allocation under the Colorado River Compact.

Another Grand County Council member, Chris Baird, addressed the consequences of inserting energy development into the water use equation: "I can't speak for the Grand County Council," he said, "but I personally believe that oil shale and tar sands projects in Utah are highly speculative in a myriad of ways. It would be wise for the state of Utah to consider this in appropriating water rights to the most beneficial use. The cost-benefit scenario for such projects are also highly questionable, and that isn't even considering the environmental costs."

The question for Utahns is, are we paying attention?

Harold Shepherd is the executive director of Red Rock Forests.

Harold Shepherd

Executive Director

Red Rock Forests

P.O. Box 298

Moab, UT 84532

(435)259-5640

4/29/10

A quick update from this today’s University of Utah “Unconventional Fuels Conference” and specifically the remarks made by Steve Black. Generally Steve sprayed these folks down with cold water – deflating an otherwise industry friendly conference. Highlights include:

oil shale is “not ready for prime time”
many unanswered questions about energy input requirements, water requirements, air and GHG issues, socio-economic impacts
highlighted that very little work has been done on RDD Round 1 – nevertheless they still offered Round 2
oil shale cannot be propped up
no more ‘black Sundays’
oil shale will have to compete with $4-6 TCF natural gas
oil shale is a part of the nation’s energy palate – but then emphasized wind, solar, gas

All in all a very satisfying 30” –

4/21/10

Hello All -

At yesterdays GC Council meeting, the Council voted 6-0 to send the attached letters concerning 1) Forest Service treatments and 2) Tar sands mine letter to UDOGM.

Thanks to Chris Baird for spearheading these and to Bob Greenberg for strong support.

The Council also held a workshop on the proposed revisions to the 'produced water ordinance'. Again Chris B. and Bob G. provided critical input, on-point clarification, asked very pertinent questions and requested staff to research a number of items and report back at Council's 5/4 meeting. Thanks to Chris and Bob for sticking to the perspective that the air quality issue is about discerning the effects on and protecting our health, safety and welfare and not limiting the number of facilities in the County. The initial proposed language changes start to get at this.

The public hearing is still open, I believe, until the Chair decides to close it or not on May 4. However, if you want any comments to be included in the Council packet they need to be in 4/28. I would ask that any of you that have been following this to provide additional comments (again!). I think that the revisions the Planning Commission forwarded were an improvement yet there is room for substantially more improvement.

The Council discussed and was concerned about the closure of the moratorium May 3 (or so) - some members are sure that since the Council is in the process of acting on this that any applications that would come in would be subject to the revised ordinance even if the moratorium closes. I was not clear as to whether the Council will take action on the May 4 meeting.

For each of these 3 topics, the Council discussed (argued about) again as to whether the County has authority to regulate via LUC state and federal activities.

Pam

4/19/10

From the Thump Editorial - Salt Lake Tribune:

A better process » The number of potential oil and gas leases on public land in Utah has dropped from 371 parcels nominated by the oil and gas industry in December 2008 to 46 parcels offered up for next month's sale. Just six will be offered in May, after a winnowing process by the Bureau of Land Management for environmental concerns about habitat for threatened species, and for land that has wilderness potential. The hundreds nominated at the end of 2008 caused a storm of protest; fewer than half went on the auction block and none has gone forward. The decrease is partly due to the recession and better potential for finding gas and oil in areas outside Utah. But credit is also due to a much improved process under the Obama administration of vetting parcels before they go up for sale instead of prompting legal action after the fact. We can only hope the wild days of "drill, baby, drill" during the George W. Bush era are finally over.

3/22/10

EPA Initiates Hydraulic Fracturing Study: Agency seeks input from Science Advisory Board

Release date: 03/18/2010

Contact Information: Enesta Jones (MEDIA CALLS ONLY), jones.enesta@epa.gov, 202-564-7873, 202-564-4355, Lina Younes (PUBLIC INQUIRIES ONLY), younes.lina@epa.gov, 202-564-9924

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it will conduct a comprehensive research study to investigate the potential adverse impact that hydraulic fracturing may have on water quality and public health. Natural gas plays a key role in our nation’s clean energy future and the process known as hydraulic fracturing is one way of accessing that vital resource. There are concerns that hydraulic fracturing may impact ground water and surface water quality in ways that threaten human health and the environment. To address these concerns and strengthen our clean energy future and in response to language inserted into the fiscal year 2010 Appropriations Act, EPA is re-allocating $1.9 million for this comprehensive, peer-reviewed study for FY10 and requesting funding for FY11 in the president’s budget proposal.

“Our research will be designed to answer questions about the potential impact of hydraulic fracturing on human health and the environment,” said Dr. Paul T. Anastas, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Research and Development. “The study will be conducted through a transparent, peer-reviewed process, with significant stakeholder input.”

EPA is in the very early stages of designing a hydraulic fracturing research program. The agency is proposing the process begin with (1) defining research questions and identifying data gaps; (2) conducting a robust process for stakeholder input and research prioritization; (3) with this input, developing a detailed study design that will undergo external peer-review, leading to (4) implementing the planned research studies.

To support this initial planning phase and guide the development of the study plan, the agency is seeking suggestions and comments from the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB)—an independent, external federal advisory committee. The agency has requested that the Environmental Engineering Committee (EEC) of the SAB evaluate and provide advice on EPA’s proposed approach. The agency will use this advice and extensive stakeholder input to guide the design of the study.

Hydraulic fracturing is a process that drills vertical and horizontal cracks underground that help withdraw gas, or oil, from coalbeds, shale and other geological formations. While each site is unique, in general, the process involves vertical and horizontal drilling, taking water from the ground, injecting fracturing fluids and sands into the formation, and withdrawing gas and separating and managing the leftover waters.

A federal register notice was issued March 18, announcing a SAB meeting April 7-8.

More information on hydraulic fracturing: http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw000/uic/wells_hydrofrac.html

More information on the SAB and the supporting documents: http://www.epa.gov/sab
--
Robin Broder
Vice President
Potomac Riverkeeper, Inc.
1717 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036
ph 202-222-0706
fax 202-783-0444
robin@potomacriverkeeper.org
www.potomacriverkeeper.org

3/2/10

Really interesting comments from the Chairman of the NRC regarding the review of new nuclear power plants ... here are the parts I liked most (the whole of the prepared remarks is attached):

There, however, have been areas where we have not fully learned the lessons from the past. I’ll discuss a couple of those. First, I believe that it’s clear from our past experience that one of the greatest missed opportunities with our current fleet of reactors was the failure to standardize around a limited number of designs. We currently have 104 operating nuclear reactors in the United States, and we have approximately 104 unique nuclear reactors in the United States. That is not an efficient approach from a regulatory standpoint or an operational standpoint.

We have approximately five different designs in the pool of new reactor applications before the agency. At one point, that number was closer to three. I think that would be a more manageable number. It would provide a diversity of supply without providing an unnecessary and inefficient number of reactor designs to potentially license and regulate. But this is not ultimately up to the agency. It is a decision for vendors and utilities to make. Regardless of the number of designs that are submitted for review, the NRC always will always meet its mission of protecting public safety, security, and the environment in reviewing new applications.

Another area that I will highlight is that – no matter how many designs are put forward by applicants – our past licensing experience shows the importance of having completed designs submitted by applicants as early in the process as possible. The Commission significantly reformed its licensing process based on our past experience – so much so, in fact, that we flipped the application process from ‘build first and then license,’ to a ‘license first and then build’ approach. The old process was something along the lines of building an addition to your house before having the zoning permit approved. Since the cost of preparing a license application is dramatically less than actually pouring concrete and constructing the facility, the current process has taken some of the financial uncertainty out of the decision to build a plant. Unfortunately, applicants have not used this process as the Commission had envisioned.

The agency always understood that the early submission of completed designs would be the key to success under the new process. The Commission had hoped that applicants would then proceed through the various other steps of the application process. Such an approach would put the agency in a position to review the applications as efficiently and thoroughly as possible. Almost no one is following that ideal process. Instead, we are now again in a situation where applicants submit incomplete designs and less than high-quality applications for review. This is certainly allowed under our regulations, but I do not believe it is the most efficient or predictable path forward.

The very first application that the agency received was on hold for a year and a half during which time we could only do minimal work on it. Even today, more than a quarter of all the licensing applications we have received – 5 out of the 18 – are on hold at the request of the applicants. The temptation is to plow on anyway and conclude that if plants got licensed in the 1960s and 1970s under less than ideal conditions, it won’t be the end of the world if the current process begins to look more and more like that one. Again, the decision ultimately rests

with the applicants – not the agency. But I believe that everyone would be better served by focusing on the lesson of those plants that never got built and concentrating on getting designs completed first to ensure that review process proceeds smoothly.

READ FULL TEXT OF COMMENTS

2/27/10

Greetings,
I need your help with this if at all possible. If you know anyone in or near the Augusta or Waynesboro, Georgia area or anyone who has the means to get to Waynesboro on Monday, March 1st. would you ask them to consider showing up to report on this with us.

Fighting the expansion of plant Vogtle, the people of Shell Bluff in Waynesboro, Georgia need us. This is a very small, poor, minority community that finds themselves in the cross-hairs of corporate greed yet again. Years ago, Georgia Power literally stole their land to build plant Vogtle by using the Jim Crow legal system that was and may still be in place there, (the real story is a saga in itself), now the people of that community are living in the shadow of plant Vogtle, the nuclear power plant and all of the radioactive contamination that that implies..

In this day and time, many of them are afraid to speak out for fear of retribution against them, or any family member who may have a local job. It feels like the post Civil War/pre-Civil Rights era there except people don't need protection from night riders (I don't think), or our help to get the right to vote; they need our help to stop the overwhelming corporate contamination from the nuclear power plants, the Savannah River Site, the paper mills that are killing them. So much has been put on their backs because the rich, the privileged, the racists, or those who are simply calloused, see them as disposable, throw-away, expendable...

Community members have died and are dying of painful cancers, they are on well water that they cannot afford to test. They literally live on dirt roads that are so bad that when it rains heavily the school bus can't go down it to pick the children up for school. They are miles away from anything and have until relatively recently felt like they were in a David and Goliath type battle, all alone against Southern Nuclear, Georgia Power, the Georgia Public Service Commission, the Georgia General Assembly, their own local representatives, etc.

It is a long drive to Shell Bluff, and while you are driving there roads and routes to plant Vogtle are so well maintained, then you turn off the main road and start down the red clay road, the contrast is stark, the demarcation is obvious. The real lack of respect for the people of the community is staring you in the face, yet you meet with and talk to the people of the community and they persevere. They move through their lives with dignity. They survive in spite of.

They are strong people who have been fighting this battle alone for decades but now they are reaching out to us and we are reaching out to them. They remind me of who I am, being around them... well, they make my backbone straighter or stronger with my own humanity, they remind me that I will fight with my words, my intellect, and my physical presence for them, with them as my fellow human's keeper. I am my brother and my sister, and they are me and mine.

If you can find a way, please show up if you can. Or if you know someone that may be able to make it there please share this with them.

Hope to see you represented there.
Monday, March 1, 2010 at 12:00 pm
Fairfield Missionary Baptist Church,
Ben Hatcher Road Waynesboro, GA 30830

For additional information about getting there call me at 404.431.9593, or e-mail me at this e-mail address. Or you can contact Bobbie Paul, Georgia WAND, bobbie@wand.org or 678.938.2598

SPEAKING TRUTH TO POWER: A Community Reaction and Open Discussion of the Proposed Nuclear Power Expansion at Plant Vogtle

Georgia WAND will hold this event near nuclear Plant Vogtle in response to growing uncertainty and national attention brought to the Shell Bluff community in Burke County by President Obama’s recent announcement of loan guarantees for Southern Nuclear/Georgia Power for two proposed nuclear reactor builds in Georgia.

WHAT: At noon, groups legally intervening to stop the Plant Vogtle expansion will hold a news briefing to list safety and security issues surrounding the new AP1000 reactor design (now in its 17th revision). Local citizens will have an opportunity to share with the media their concerns on the environmental impacts and health issues surrounding nuclear reactors in their economically vulnerable and rural Georgia community.

WHEN: Monday, March 1, 2010 at 12:00 pm

WHERE: Fairfield Missionary Baptist Church, Ben Hatcher Road Waynesboro, GA 30830

WHO: Hosted by Georgia Women's Action for New Directions (WAND) and members of the Shell Bluff community. In addition to Georgia WAND, attendees will include members of other Georgia groups intervening to stop the licensing of two nuclear reactors including: Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE), Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League (BREDL), Savannah Riverkeeper, and Center for a Sustainable Coast (this group not yet confirmed).

WHY: To expose the risks of nuclear power and the realities facing communities living in the shadow of Plant Vogtle in contrast to the nuclear industry’s self promotion of nuclear energy as clean, safe, and sustainable. President Obama recently announced conditional approval of an $8.3 billion loan guarantee for the construction of two new reactors at the Vogtle site in Georgia. Obama has also proposed tripling the loan guarantee program for new reactors in his FY 2011 budget, to $54 billion.

Peace & One Love Dianne

1/18/09

FYI – lest we oil shale-heads feel left out, note that DOI’s 2009 annual report (http://interior.gov/documents/2009REPORTFINAL.pdf) has a few oil shale tidbits for us:

· Promoting Oil Shale Research
In February, Secretary Salazar withdrew the previous administration’s solicitation for a second round of oil shale research, development and demonstration (RD&D) leases issued just days before leaving office. The leases included several flaws, including locking in a premature commercial regulatory framework establishing a low royalty rate that may shortchange taxpayers in the future, and expanding the new round of lease parcels to four times the size of the current six RD&D leases. Salazar promised a second round of oil shale RD&D leases with more responsible provisions and specific research requirements.

In October, Secretary Salazar proposed additional opportunities for energy companies to conduct oil shale research on public lands in offering a second round of RD&D leases for industry consideration. These new leases of 160 acres each (480 additional contiguous acres could be added for commercial scale development if the RD&D proves successful) contain provisions designed to help address fundamental concerns about water supply requirements, power use, and the environmental and social impacts of commercial‐scale development.

· Reviewing 11th‐Hour Oil Shale Research Lease Addenda
Just five days before leaving office in January 2009, the previous administration added a set of favorable conditions and low royalty rates to six previously approved oil shale research, development and demonstration (RD&D) leases without public notice or comment. Secretary Salazar determined that the timing and circumstances of those last minute modifications of existing RD&D leases merited additional review and requested an Inspector General review of these lease addenda to ensure their propriety.

9/6/09

FRIDAY, JULY 24, 2009Natural Gas and Oil Leases - Controversy in UtahShould we allow natural gas drilling within a few miles of some of the West's most iconic national parks? This is one of the many questions the current administration is wrestling with, inheriting a legacy of what many Western citizens - Democrats and Republicans alike - consider to be years of unbalanced, pro-industry decisions and regulations by federal land management agencies.

Drilling leases (red) just 3 miles from Arches National Park

SkyTruth has produced a gallery of images showing the locations of 77 leases for natural gas and oil drilling, on public land in Utah, that were auctioned off to the oil and gas industry by the Bureau of Land Management in December 2008. These leases were suspended by the federal government in February 2009 pending further review by the Department of the Interior, after receiving over 1,600 complaints from environmental groups, the Outdoor Industry Association, sportsmen organizations, and a collection of river runners, guides, and outfitters.

Several of the leases are adjacent to, or within a few miles of, Dinosaur National Monument, Canyonlands National Park, and Arches National Park.

We've included a few images showing current drilling operations in nearby parts of the Uinta Basin, to give you an idea of how severely the suspended areas could be altered if Interior decides to go ahead and approve the leases.

Typical network of drilling locations, roads and pipelines, and wastewater holding ponds associated with natural gas drilling, seen here in the nearby Uinta Basin of central Utah

Get more background info on drilling in Utah, and keep up with the latest on this issue, at the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance website. Because this fight isn't over yet -- some of these leases may get reinstated.POSTED BY JOHN AT 9:47 AM 0 COMMENTS LINKS TO THIS POST LABELS: DRILLING, NATURAL GAS, UTAH

9/2/09

All:

I'm not a big fan of trying to debunk statements by proponents of the big lie theory of social discourse but am familiar with some of the arguments being offered by whoever is doing the research and writing for the Washington County Commissioners. Those thinking about responding may be interested to know...

An article at http://www.sric.org/voices/2009/v10n1/Need%20for%20New%20U%20Mines.pdf and attached, the third in a series, summaries the data documenting the extreme oversupply of uranium on a global level, which is the market that the AZ Strip uranium companies are participating in and which is reflected by the fall in uranium prices since their peak in 2007.

The "Uranium Red Book" - an annual report of uranium supply, production and demand published by the International Atomic Energy Agency/Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development/World Nuclear Association (IAEA/OECD/WNA) and cited in the article - confidently states that world uranium supplies are sufficient to meet 100 years of projected demand at or near existing production sites and unpermitted mines more 150-200 miles from mills - such as those in the AZ Strip - are not considered at or near existing production sites.

The Uranium Red Book predicts a global uranium oversupply during the 2010-2015 period. Whoever is doing the writing for the Commissioners is an advocate for mining investors not uranium as the US uranium resources are much higher cost per pound produced than the other sources of supply, as the Uranium Red Book figure in my article shows. I compared the fall in the uranium prices with the fall in stock prices for Energy Fuels as they are seeking to permit the first new uranium mill in the US since 1979. That comparison is attached as well.

Denison and Energy Fuels are Canadian companies and Vane is British. I suppose that the Commissioners are advocating Canadian and British ownership of US production. As Cameco - the Canadian company that is largest US uranium producer from its insitu mines in WY and NE - and Dension -with its White Mesa mill - are the largest uranium producers in the US, The Commissioners appear to be advocates for increased control of US uranium production by Canadian firms.

The price for uranium on the spot market is below the $50/pound level currently - $48 as of August 17 at www.uxc.com. Dension stated in a presentation to its 2009 annual general meeting that its price of production for US deposits is $65/pound (and $55/pound for Canadian properties), a discrepancy that has resulted in the shutdown of uranium production at that single operating uranium mill in the US. This data comes from Denison's presentation at its 2009 Annual General Meeting at http://www.denisonmines.com/SiteResources/data/MediaArchive/pdfs/investor_presentations/agm_apr_30_09_web.pdf. See p. 22 for the cost of production information, p. 14 states that the White Mesa Mill being shutdown for for conventional ore processing due to deteriorating market conditions.

All other uranium production in the US is by the in situ method which is not applicable to the AZ Strip deposits.

Of course, it is US utilities who are buying the foreign uranium so I guess the Commissioners are questioning the wisdom of, or conspiracy by, the utility fuel purchasing operations.

It appears that the solar energy falling on Washington County is so intense that the Commissioners fail to see the economic development potential of the vast and sustainable and renewable energy resources in their region and are dependent on Canadian (Dension and Energy Fuels) and British (Vane) for their economic development vision.

Much of the The US's current uranium supply for reactor use comes from blending up of depleted uranium enrichment tailings from Russia and blended down weapons grade uranium from Russia and the US. The blending down of weapons grade material, started by George Bush before the end of the the Soviet Union is an effective non-proliferation strategy that eliminates materials that could be used for future nuclear weapons. I guess the current Commissioners are not as concerned about the downwind effects of nuclear weapons testing as others in the community have been over the years.

Uranium supply and demand has little to do with AZ mine permitting or federal land management but the price of uranium is so high currently that proposed mines are not likely to produce even if permitted unless the prices of uranium rises to above the $65 per pound and the cost of transportation from the mines to the White Mesa mill falls dramatically.

Just a few thoughts...

Paul Robinson
Southwest Research and Information Center
Albuquerque, NM

8/14/09

After I read this, it made me think of my grandmothers who were so passionate for Earth, Honor, Respect and the Great Mysterious Universe (creator).

This is incredible - please share it.

Carl Weisselle

Commencement: Healing or Stealing?

The unforgettable Commencement Address 2009.

By Paul Hawken

When I was invited to give this speech, I was asked if I could give a simple short talk that was “direct, naked, taut, honest, passionate, lean, shivering, startling, and graceful.” No pressure there.

Let’s begin with the startling part. Class of 2009: you are going to have to figure out what it means to be a human being on earth at a time when every living system is declining, and the rate of decline is accelerating. Kind of a mind-boggling situation... but not one peer-reviewed paper published in the last thirty years can refute that statement. Basically, civilization needs a new operating system, you are the programmers, and we need it within a few decades.

This planet came with a set of instructions, but we seem to have misplaced them. Important rules like don’t poison the water, soil, or air, don’t let the earth get overcrowded, and don’t touch the thermostat have been broken. Buckminster Fuller said that spaceship earth was so ingeniously designed that no one has a clue that we are on one, flying through the universe at a million miles per hour, with no need for seatbelts, lots of room in coach, and really good food—but all that is changing.

There is invisible writing on the back of the diploma you will receive, and in case you didn’t bring lemon juice to decode it, I can tell you what it says: You are Brilliant, and the Earth is Hiring. The earth couldn’t afford to send recruiters or limos to your school. It sent you rain, sunsets, ripe cherries, night blooming jasmine, and that unbelievably cute person you are dating. Take the hint. And here’s the deal: Forget that this task of planet-saving is not possible in the time required. Don’t be put off by people who know what is not possible. Do what needs to be done, and check to see if it was impossible only after you are done.

When asked if I am pessimistic or optimistic about the future, my answer is always the same: If you look at the science about what is happening on earth and aren’t pessimistic, you don’t understand the data. But if you meet the people who are working to restore this earth and the lives of the poor, and you aren’t optimistic, you haven’t got a pulse. What I see everywhere in the world are ordinary people willing to confront despair, power, and incalculable odds in order to restore some semblance of grace, justice, and beauty to this world. The poet Adrienne Rich wrote, “So much has been destroyed I have cast my lot with those who, age after age, perversely, with no extraordinary power, reconstitute the world.” There could be no better description. Humanity is coalescing. It is reconstituting the world, and the action is taking place in schoolrooms, farms, jungles, villages, campuses, companies, refuge camps, deserts, fisheries, and slums.

You join a multitude of caring people. No one knows how many groups and organizations are working on the most salient issues of our day: climate change, poverty, deforestation, peace, water, hunger, conservation, human rights, and more. This is the largest movement the world has ever seen. Rather than control, it seeks connection. Rather than dominance, it strives to disperse concentrations of power. Like Mercy Corps, it works behind the scenes and gets the job done. Large as it is, no one knows the true size of this movement. It provides hope, support, and meaning to billions of people in the world. Its clout resides in idea, not in force. It is made up of teachers, children, peasants, businesspeople, rappers, organic farmers, nuns, artists, government workers, fisherfolk, engineers, students, incorrigible writers, weeping Muslims, concerned mothers, poets, doctors without borders, grieving Christians, street musicians, the President of the United States of America, and as the writer David James Duncan would say, the Creator, the One who loves us all in such a huge way.

There is a rabbinical teaching that says if the world is ending and the Messiah arrives, first plant a tree, and then see if the story is true. Inspiration is not garnered from the litanies of what may befall us; it resides in humanity’s willingness to restore, redress, reform, rebuild, recover, reimagine, and reconsider. “One day you finally knew what you had to do, and began, though the voices around you kept shouting their bad advice,” is Mary Oliver’s description of moving away from the profane toward a deep sense of connectedness to the living world.

Millions of people are working on behalf of strangers, even if the evening news is usually about the death of strangers. This kindness of strangers has religious, even mythic origins, and very specific eighteenth-century roots. Abolitionists were the first people to create a national and global movement to defend the rights of those they did not know. Until that time, no group had filed a grievance except on behalf of itself. The founders of this movement were largely unknown — Granville Clark, Thomas Clarkson, Josiah Wedgwood — and their goal was ridiculous on the face of it: at that time three out of four people in the world were enslaved. Enslaving each other was what human beings had done for ages. And the abolitionist movement was greeted with incredulity. Conservative spokesmen ridiculed the abolitionists as liberals, progressives, do-gooders, meddlers, and activists. They were told they would ruin the economy and drive England into poverty. But for the first time in history a group of people organized themselves to help people they would never know, from whom they would never receive direct or indirect benefit. And today tens of millions of people do this every day. It is called the world of non-profits, civil society, schools, social entrepreneurship, non-governmental organizations, and companies who place social and environmental justice at the top of their strategic goals. The scope and scale of this effort is unparalleled in history.

The living world is not “out there” somewhere, but in your heart. What do we know about life? In the words of biologist Janine Benyus, life creates the conditions that are conducive to life. I can think of no better motto for a future economy. We have tens of thousands of abandoned homes without people and tens of thousands of abandoned people without homes. We have failed bankers advising failed regulators on how to save failed assets. We are the only species on the planet without full employment. Brilliant. We have an economy that tells us that it is cheaper to destroy earth in real time rather than renew, restore, and sustain it. You can print money to bail out a bank but you can’t print life to bail out a planet. At present we are stealing the future, selling it in the present, and calling it gross domestic product. We can just as easily have an economy that is based on healing the future instead of stealing it. We can either create assets for the future or take the assets of the future. One is called restoration and the other exploitation. And whenever we exploit the earth we exploit people and cause untold suffering. Working for the earth is not a way to get rich, it is a way to be rich.

The first living cell came into being nearly 40 million centuries ago, and its direct descendants are in all of our bloodstreams. Literally you are breathing molecules this very second that were inhaled by Moses, Mother Teresa, and Bono. We are vastly interconnected. Our fates are inseparable. We are here because the dream of every cell is to become two cells. And dreams come true. In each of you are one quadrillion cells, 90 percent of which are not human cells. Your body is a community, and without those other microorganisms you would perish in hours. Each human cell has 400 billion molecules conducting millions of processes between trillions of atoms. The total cellular activity in one human body is staggering: one septillion actions at any one moment, a one with twenty-four zeros after it. In a millisecond, our body has undergone ten times more processes than there are stars in the universe, which is exactly what Charles Darwin foretold when he said science would discover that each living creature was a “little universe, formed of a host of self-propagating organisms, inconceivably minute and as numerous as the stars of heaven.”

So I have two questions for you all: First, can you feel your body? Stop for a moment. Feel your body. One septillion activities going on simultaneously, and your body does this so well you are free to ignore it, and wonder instead when this speech will end. You can feel it. It is called life. This is who you are. Second question: who is in charge of your body? Who is managing those molecules? Hopefully not a political party. Life is creating the conditions that are conducive to life inside you, just as in all of nature. Our innate nature is to create the conditions that are conducive to life. What I want you to imagine is that collectively humanity is evincing a deep innate wisdom in coming together to heal the wounds and insults of the past.

Ralph Waldo Emerson once asked what we would do if the stars only came out once every thousand years. No one would sleep that night, of course. The world would create new religions overnight. We would be ecstatic, delirious, made rapturous by the glory of God. Instead, the stars come out every night and we watch television.

This extraordinary time when we are globally aware of each other and the multiple dangers that threaten civilization has never happened, not in a thousand years, not in ten thousand years. Each of us is as complex and beautiful as all the stars in the universe. We have done great things and we have gone way off course in terms of honoring creation. You are graduating to the most amazing, stupefying challenge ever bequested to any generation. The generations before you failed. They didn’t stay up all night. They got distracted and lost sight of the fact that life is a miracle every moment of your existence. Nature beckons you to be on her side. You couldn’t ask for a better boss. The most unrealistic person in the world is the cynic, not the dreamer. Hope only makes sense when it doesn’t make sense to be hopeful. This is your century. Take it and run as if your life depends on it.

8-8-09

Maybe there will be someone to talk to about oil shale now.

+++++++++++++

The Senate confirmed President Obama's nominees today for 13 environment and energy posts.

The approvals by voice vote fill vacancies at U.S. EPA, the Interior and Energy departments, and other offices.

Several nominees were bypassed. They will be considered after the Senate returns from its August recess (see related story).

Confirmed today:

Interior

Wilma Lewis, assistant secretary for land and mineral management: She will oversee the Bureau of Land Management, the Minerals Management Service and the Office of Surface Mining. She was U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia from 1998 to 2001 and for the three previous years served as Interior's inspector general, the first African-American in that post. Robert Abbey, director of the Bureau of Land Management: He spent more than 32 years with state and federal land management agencies, including eight as BLM's Nevada state director, before he retired in July 2005. He is currently a partner at Abbey, Stubbs & Ford LLC, where he is a consultant on Western land and resource strategies.

7/31/09

From: Roger Clark <rclark@grandcanyontrust.org>
To: nonewcoalplants <nonewcoalplants@energyjustice.net>
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 4:02:03 PM
Subject: [NoCoal] Analysis of Mohave's Closure

No New Coal Plants! (nonewcoalplants@energyjustice.net)

All:

USEIA has done a report on the effect of the Mohave closure. Two corrections to this statement:

Concern for the environmental impact of the plant on water supplies and air culminated in a 1999 consent decree that provided for the installation of an estimated $1.2 billion of pollution control facilities. The agreement specified that the facilities were to be in place by the end of 2005 in order for the plant to continue operating after December 31, 2005. Following a lengthy controversy over the adverse effects the plant emissions had on visibility in the Grand Canyon …

The cost of scrubbers, baghouses, and other pollution controls were estimated to be $500 million. The cost needed to replace the pumps and 273 miles of a leaking slurry line between Black Mesa Mine and Mohave was $600 million. In addition to concerns about Mohave’s impairment of visibility at Grand Canyon, our lawsuit identified more than 300,000 violations of the opacity standard and the impacts of particulates on the lungs of people living in the Mohave Valley .

Here’s an excerpt followed by a link to the full report:

Emissions Impacts

The closure of the Mohave Generating Station has led to a significant decline in Nevada ’s electricity-related emissions. In 2005, the Mohave plant accounted for 42,000 tons of SO2, 21,000 tons of NOx, and 11,000,000 tons of CO2, which amounted to 79 percent of the State’s SO2 emissions, 48 percent of the State’s NOx emissions, and 39 percent of the State’s CO2 emissions created by the electricity sector. From 2005 to 2006, State electricity-related SO2 emissions dropped 36 percent. NOx and CO2 emissions fell 83 and 20 percent, respectively. Still, the Las Vegas valley is currently designated by the EPA as a non-attainment region for particulate matter and carbon monoxide, although, in part, these emissions are caused by economic sectors besides electricity.

Conclusion

Nevada has seen rapid economic and electricity demand growth over several decades. Due to relatively low natural gas prices, the State expanded its natural-gas-fired electricity supply markedly over the past decade. Meanwhile, Nevada ’s reliance on coal, both due to increased natural gas usage and the closure of the Mohave Generation Station, has waned. Nevada ’s largest electricity supplier, the Nevada Power Company, relied on the Mohave Generation Station for 17 percent of its electricity supply. This loss, however, was made up for by additional natural-gas-fired generation, reduced power exports, and increased imports. Reflecting the loss of relatively low-cost coal generation, electricity prices rose substantially. The shutdown of the Mohave plant, however, had a positive impact upon the State’s electricity emissions.

Ultimately, it was a business decision that led to the closure of the Mohave Generation Station. From the perspective of the plant owners, the significant expenses related to the installation of pollution abatement equipment along with issues related to fuel supply outweighed the incremental costs of finding alternative sources of power. The Mohave Generation Station was closed due to concerns about the high levels of SO2, NOx, and particulate matter resulting from plant operations, a situation common to many of the Nation’s older coal-fired plants.

State and regional programs to limit or reduce emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases and the possible future implementation of a Federal “cap and trade” program for greenhouse gases that is now being considered by Congress could also increase the cost of operating coal-fired plants. The experiences following the closure of the Mohave Station provides some insights into the type of impacts that may occur in regional electricity markets if and when these initiatives result in the closure or reduced utilization of other existing coal-fired generation plants. Even so, the economics of coal-fired generation suggest that closing coal plants will not be achieved without difficult tradeoffs.

http://www.eia.doe..gov/electricity/analyses/nevada/nevada.html

Roger

7/29/09

Traders Blamed for Oil Spike

__________________________________

News Alert

from The Wall Street Journal

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission plans to issue a report next month suggesting speculators played a significant role in driving wild swings in oil prices -- a reversal of an earlier CFTC position that augurs intensifying scrutiny on investors.

In a contentious report last year, the main U.S. futures-market regulator pinned oil-price swings primarily on supply and demand. But that analysis was based on "deeply flawed data," Bart Chilton, one of four CFTC commissioners, said in an interview Monday.

The CFTC's new review, due to be released in August, adds fuel to a growing debate over financial investors who bet on the direction of commodities prices by buying contracts tied to indexes. These speculators have invested hundreds of billions of dollars in contracts that were once dominated by producers and consumers who sought to hedge against oil-market volatility.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124874574251485689.html#mod=djemalertNEWS

7/22/09

A rough assemblage of information about effects on water, soils, vegetation and wildlife of climate change in the Colorado Plateau and Colorado River Basin, from official studies and reports:

The higher elevations of the Rockies in Montana, Wyoming, and Northern Idaho have experienced three times the global average temperature increase of 0.74 degrees Celsius (1.3 degrees Fahrenheit) in the last century. 75 percent of the water for western cities and towns comes from the high elevation winter snowpack. The average winter temperature in the U.S. West has risen about 1.4 degrees Celsius over the last century. With this increase, the amount of snow that accumulates on the mountains (the snowpack) has decreased. The northern Rockies are seeing 15-30 percent less moisture in the spring snowpack (measured according to the amount of water that the snow would produce if melted) since the 1950s, and along the entire range the spring snowmelt is arriving 10-30 days earlier. The Western Water Assessment by the Colorado Water Conservation Board reports a widespread increase in rain over snow throughout the U.S. from 1949 to 2004.

The Rocky Mountains provide more than 75 percent of the water supply for cities, towns, and farms throughout the western states. 80-90 percent of the water goes to agricultural production. Agricultural lands in the Colorado River basin produce about 15 percent of the nations crops and 13 percent of its livestock. The annual flow of the Colorado River is 90-percent dependent on runoff from high-elevation snowpack in Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah. University of Washington researchers predict that as the ambient temperatures in the Colorado River basin continue to increase, moisture levels in the basin snowpack will drop 30 percent by the end of the 21^stcentury and total basin runoff will decrease 17 percent. The U.S. Geological Survey study of the Colorado River Basins future flow prospects under climate change predicted that by 2050, soil conditions on the Colorado Plateau will be worse than those typical of the Dust Bowl era, and that water runoff will decrease by up to 30 percent by the end of the 21^stcentury. The University of Washington study finds that under these conditions the water stored throughout the Colorado River basin will drop by almost half, and the release of water from the upper to the lower basin that is mandated by the Colorado River Compact will only be met between 60 and 75 percent of the time by 2025.

From the U.S.G.S. report on the Colorado Plateau and Colorado River Basin: Soil disturbing activities, including grazing, energy exploration/development, and recreation, are increasing dramatically on the Colorado Plateau. These uses reduce or remove the natural components that stabilize desert soils (live and dead plant materials, physical and biological soil crusts, rocks). This increases soil loss through wind and water erosion...Surface disturbance also enhances the invasion of exotic annual grasses.

Even if climate change produces an increase in total average precipitation per year in the Rocky Mountain region and/or Colorado River basin, climate models show there will still be a net loss in runoff because of increased evaporation due to heat.

In 2006, the International Water Management Institute estimated that 1.6 billion people are living in areas of physical water scarcity, where water is not available either because of an arid climate or because the resources have been overcommitted to multiple users. These areas include the region south and west from the central Rockies to central California and Mexico.

From 1998 through 2003 the Rockies suffered a major drought, the worst in western North America in 500 years. 30 populations of bighorn sheep in the southwest United States became extinct between 1900 and the early 1980s due to increased temperature and decreased precipitation leading to loss of food sources.

On April 26, 2007, Interior Deputy Secretary Lynn Scarlet testified before the House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee that global climate change could dramatically reshape Americas public lands with increased species extinctions and wildfire. Ron Huntsinger, the BLM science coordinator, said, [w]e can anticipate further reductions in the level of allowable uses on public lands due to the loss of productivity and capacity....The results are more fragile ecosystems, a greater susceptibility to the outbreaks of attacks by parasites and disease, increased vulnerability to wildland fire and erosion and an overall reduction in the carrying capacity of the land.

Late in 2008 a federal inter-agency climate change task force released a draft report with a menu of possible abatement actions. Some of these are good; none have been adopted to date. The report is available at <www.usgs.gov/global_change/doi_task-force.aspIn the case of the recharge area of the EPA-designated Sole Source Aquifer that supplies culinary water to both the City of Moab and the customers of the Spanish Valley Water and Sewer Improvement District in Grand County, BLM and USFS managers need to take climate change and effects on aquifer recharge into account in every decision about public land use which causes soil disturbance and/or changes in the vegetative cover on the surface of the recharge area.

>.

7/21/09

WHITE HOUSE: Scientist, expedition leader becomes top climate analyst (07/20/2009)

The White House has selected a University of Rhode Island scientist who has led expeditions to the Arctic and the Indian Ocean to fill a new position as an official climate change analyst.

Kate Moran will advise the White House on issues relating to oceans, the Arctic and global warming. Trained as an engineer, Moran co-chaired a 2004 Arctic expedition that gathered first-of-its-kind core samples from the ocean floor. She led a separate expedition to examine the ocean floor in the aftermath of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami that killed 230,000 people.

She testified last year before the Senate that the evidence between human carbon emissions and global warming is "unequivocal."

"Climate affects all aspects of our life, our food, our energy, our politics," Moran said. "It affects defense, security, and so it's crosscutting" (AP/CNBC.com, July 17). -- PR

7/10/09

Statement of Kenneth L. Salazar
Secretary, Department of the Interior
Hearing on Energy and Climate Legislation
Committee on Environment and Public Works
U.S. Senate
July 7, 2009
Chairman Boxer, Ranking Senator Inhofe and members of the Committee, thank you for
your work on this important challenge facing our Nation.

I am here today to urge this committee to join with the Administration in seeking
strong and effective legislation that will steer our nation toward a new energy
economy that brings new jobs to our nation and improves our energy security. As
the President has said, there is a choice before us: we can remain the world’s
leading importer of oil, or we can become the world’s leading exporter of clean
energy.

Interior is our nation’s largest landowner with jurisdiction over 20% of the land
mass of the United States and 1.75 billion acres of the Outer Continental Shelf
(OCS). As America’s largest water provider and land and wildlife manager, Interior
is already faced with the impacts of climate change on land, water and wildlife.
Interior will thus play a key role in how   the U.S. Government addresses and adapt
to these climate change issues. Interior’s 6,000 scientists and 14,000 land
managers are already documenting these impacts and developing systems to respond to
them on and across public lands.

Interior’s land base includes some of the most productive renewable energy
resources: solar in the Southwest; wind in the Atlantic, on the Great Plains and in
the West; and geothermal in the West. We are working to develop these assets to
help power President Obama’s vision for a new energy economy. Interior’s vast land
ownership also gives it an important role in siting the new transmission lines
needed to bring stranded renewable energy assets to load centers.

As the Secretary of the Interior, I can see the economic opportunity presented by
the new energy economy. Since coming into office, we have prioritized the
development of renewable energy on our public lands and our offshore waters.
American business is responding. Companies are investing in wind farms off the
Atlantic seacoast, solar facilities in the Southwest, and geothermal energy
projects throughout the west. These new energy sources produce no greenhouse gases
and, once installed, they harness abundant, renewable energy that nature itself
provides.

The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee recently reported out legislation
that will help to promote the development of this renewable energy opportunity.
But we will not fully unleash the potential of the clean energy economy unless this
committee, and the Senate, put an upper limit on the emissions of heat-trapping
gases that are damaging our environment. Doing so will level the playing field and
demonstrate that our nation is serious about building a new, clean energy economy.
It will trigger even more massive investment in new clean energy projects
throughout our nation.

In addition to seeing the potential economic opportunity presented by addressing
climate change, the Interior Department is in a unique position to see the negative
impacts that climate change is having on our land, water and wildlife resources.
Our land managers are confronting longer and hotter fire seasons, new incursions of
invasive species, and the early impacts of sea rise; our wildlife managers are
dealing with climate change-induced impacts on wildlife mating and migration habits
and species interactions; and our water managers are factoring new precipitation
patterns into their planning decisions, as snow packs diminish and more extreme wet
and dry periods challenge long-standing water management practices.

The Interior Department is participating actively in the interagency process on
adaptation policy being led by the White House, and I look forward to working with
your committee as well as you consider adaptation strategies that address the
impact that climate change is having on our resources. We have been developing a
unified approach to adaptation challenges through the Department of the Interior,
and we look forward to providing the committee with the benefit of the expertise
that our land, wildlife and water managers can provide on this subject. Our
Department’s developing experience with adaptive management strategies for resource
management can provide a template for future efforts. For example, snowpack
declines in the Northwest and Mountain-West have been accompanied by earlier annual
peaks in river run-off as documented in stream gage monitoring and analyses across
the lower 48 States and throughout Alaska. Land managers facing this reality are
analyzing potentially substantial changes in management requirements for fish and
wildlife and water resources. Interior managers are also learning to be strategic
in rebuilding facilities that are lost to such natural disasters as Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita. The Fish and Wildlife Service has repaired or replaced dozens of
facilities at refuges along the coast damaged by these storms. In the process of
rebuilding facilities for people across the region to enjoy, the Service decided
not to replace some facilities judged to be too vulnerable and has relocated others
to more secure locations.

In all of these activities, the Department of the Interior is putting a premium on
integrating our dual science and land management roles. Scientists in our United
States Geological Survey (USGS), the Fish & Wildlife Service, and the National Park
Service, for example, are working hand-in-glove with our land, wildlife and water
managers who are responsible for the more than 500 million acres of public lands
that we oversee. We are focused on ensuring that our USGS and other agency
scientists are collecting and analyzing data that are providing relevant scientific
information about natural resource conditions, issues, and problems to
decision-makers in the Department, at all levels of government, and the general
public. This is, and needs to be, an interactive process, as our land, wildlife and
water managers work with our scientists and help focus the nature of their research
and analysis on the reality of on-the-ground changes. This information – baseline
scientific information, trends detection, modeling and forecasting, together with
the effective dissemination of information and decision support tools – is key to
understanding and addressing climate change and its effects.

Finally, I look forward to working with the committee as you address the
opportunities for carbon reduction provided by the “biological sequestration” of
carbon in our Federal   lands. As you know, pursuant to section 712 of the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), the USGS has the
responsibility, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy and others,   to
conduct national assessments of biologic carbon sequestration, ecosystem
greenhouse gas fluxes, and potential effects of management practices and policies
on ecosystem carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas emissions. The USGS is well
underway with this work. Combined with the work of other agencies, it will help to
enhance the scientific underpinning needed for a domestic offsets program that
focuses on carbon reductions from land use practices.

I also would like to point out that the Interior Department has been engaged in a
variety of projects that will teach us a great deal about biological sequestration,
ranging from wetlands restoration projects in the mid-Atlantic and southeast, to
afforestation projects in the lower Mississippi Valley, and habitat restoration
projects in the west.
The methodologies that USGS is developing at the direction of Congress, and the
experience of our land managers in pursuing these projects as part of our broader
ecosystem responsibilities, should be useful to the committee as you develop an
offsets program that credits verifiable carbon reductions that are associated
additional and with environmentally sound land management practices.

Madame Chairman, a problem as complex as climate change takes the coordinated
efforts between all the branches of the government and all the governments of the
world. The Department of the Interior stands ready with our shoulder to the wheel
to contribute to this effort.
Thank you. I look forward to answering your questions.

7/8/09

Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-CO5, today delivered his version of the general GOP response to the Clean Energy Act. The party-wide “cap-and-tax” criticism of the bill is based on data produced by the conservative Heritage Foundation, tailored for delivery to home districts across the country. Lamborn says the bill “will inflict widespread economic damage when we can least afford it.” The phrasing almost leads you to believe Rep Lamborn would support the new-energy economy of the future if it just weren’t for the recession– if it weren’t for the recession, that is, and the tantalizing allure of a Colorado oil shale boom!

Lamborn loves the oil shale. He brought a piece with him to D.C. and held it up on the floor of the House last month. “Oil shale!” “Look, here’s a piece!” Click on the photo to watch Lamborn deliver his oil shale pitch.

Oil shale, though, is no substitute for developing renewable energy industries and markets.

What’s more, the Heritage Foundation data being quoted in the fight against the cap and trade bill is matched by data produced elsewhere, by the Political Economy Research Institute and the Center for American Progress, for example, which reports Colorado could see a net increase of about $2.6 billion in investment revenue and 28,000 jobs as a result of the cap and trade policy. Spending on energy efficiency and renewable energy would create four times as many jobs as investing in oil, PERI reports.

The email Lamborn sent around today includes a survey, because this issue is all about credibility and he really wants to know what his supporter-constituents think.

“What will help businesses grow and create more jobs?” he asks. “Higher taxes” or “Lower taxes”?

It’s not a leading question. Really, it’s not. He wants to know.

6/29/09

Dear Harold,

The House of Representatives just passed the American Clean Energy Security Act -- a victory for our planet and a cause for celebration among all Care2 activists!

Together, we've sent hundreds of thousands of letters to Congress, urging them to enact the strong protections against climate change contained within the Waxman-Markey climate bill. Today's victory marks a critical first step in reducing global warming pollution, investing in clean energy technology, reducing our dependence on foreign oil and creating green jobs.

The vote for the American Clean Energy Security Act on the House floor came to an ultimate margin of a mere seven votes, 219-212. Let's pause for a moment to celebrate our success -- and then gear up for what is sure to be a similarly tight vote in the Senate.

Read more about today's victory at Care2's Cause Channels, and leave a comment with your reactions to this sweeping climate bill. Thank you for all you do for our planet and its inhabitants!

Sincerely,

- The Care2 Campaign Team -
Rebecca, LiAnna, Natasha, Jerry, Robyn, Samer, Andrew, Karina and Joe

6/24/09

Center for the American West recently released a report titled "What Every Westerner Should Know About Oil Shale" at http://oilshale.centerwest.org. The author is looking for input from the conservation community. Direct comments to jason.hanson@colorado.edu. I haven’t looked at the report.

6/17/09

Dear Ecoaction Members:

The "Common Person's Guide" to the climate change bill moving through Congress, cited below, provides a good synopsis to its provisions.

Audrey Clement

From: CCAN Newsletter

Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2009 2:02 PM

To: aclement65@hotmail.com

Subject: Local Climate News: White roofs, Congress, and coal

June - July 2009 | Issue #30
Quick Links: Maryland | DC | Virginia | Students

FROM DIRECTOR MIKE TIDWELL
Dear Audrey,

Here's the good news: The U.S. House of Representatives will vote in a few days on historic legislation to finally limit U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. The bad news? The Waxman-Markey bill is not nearly strong enough to meet the climate challenge.

What can you do? First, learn more about the bill from CCAN's "A Common Person's Guide" to the Waxman-Markey legislation. Then add your voice to those demanding a stronger carbon cap! Just take a quick digital photo of yourself or a loved one wearing a favorite hat or "cap" and email it to us. Learn more at www.PutACapOnIt.org

Read more>>

STEP UP YOUR SKILLS

No Coal Plant in Hampton Roads!
Old Dominion Electric Cooperative has proposed building a massive new coal plant in Hampton Roads. This coal plant would cost up to $6 billion and spew nearly 15 million tons of global warming pollution every year! Last month, we put in hundreds of calls to people in the Shenandoah Valley region, who then turned out to their Annual Meeting and asked tough questions about the proposed coal plant. We need your help to call into more key neighborhoods in Virginia. Sign up to join our phone-call team and help stop this massive mistake! Sign up>>

1Sky Climate Leadership Summit!
Join us and our friends at 1Sky in Washington, D.C. on Saturday, June 27th and Sunday, June 28th for two fun-filled and informative days at 1Sky's Leadership Summit. They're teaming up with Wellstone Action, national leaders in organizing training, to provide an opportunity to network with other volunteers making strides on this issue, receive a full policy briefing, and learn how to communicate with elected leaders and reach out to the media: the nuts and bolts of organizing!Register now>>

Tell Congress to PUT A CAP ON IT!
Hundreds of Virginians have already shown their strong support for bold climate change by taking a picture of themselves wearing a cap and calling on Congress to "Put a Cap on it." Have you uploaded your picture yet? Watch the video and upload your picture at PutACapOnIt.org.

STEP UP YOUR SKILLS

1Sky Climate Leadership Summit!
Join us and our friends at 1Sky in Washington, D.C. on Saturday, June 27th and Sunday, June 28th for two fun-filled and informative days at 1Sky's Leadership Summit. They're teaming up with Wellstone Action, national leaders in organizing training, to provide an opportunity to network with other volunteers making strides on this issue, receive a full policy briefing, and learn how to communicate with elected leaders and reach out to the media: the nuts and bolts of organizing!Register now>>

Tell Congress to PUT A CAP ON IT!
Hundreds of Marylanders have already shown their strong support for bold action on global warming by taking a picture of themselves wearing a cap and calling on Congress to "Put a Cap On It." Have you uploaded your picture yet? Watch the video and upload your picture at PutACapOnIt.org.

MOBILIZE FOR BOLD CLIMATE ACTION

Join CCAN's Hill Rapid Response Force!
CCAN's Hill Force is geared towards action. Join the list and we will send you updates from the Hill as the climate bill moves through the House and then goes to the Senate. But we will also use this list to mobilize. There will be many chances to turn out to key votes and hearings in the upcoming weeks and months. We need your help to ensure that Congress is hearing the call for bold action straight from their constituents. Register here and we'll make sure you're plugged in! Sign up>>

1Sky Climate Leadership Summit!
Join us and our friends at 1Sky in Washington, D.C. on Saturday, June 27th and Sunday, June 28th for two fun-filled and informative days at 1Sky's Leadership Summit. They're teaming up with Wellstone Action, national leaders in organizing training, to provide an opportunity to network with other volunteers making strides on this issue, receive a full policy briefing, and learn how to communicate with elected leaders and reach out to the media: the nuts and bolts of organizing!Register now>>

DECLARE INDEPENDENCE FROM DIRTY ENERGY!

Week of Action
It's time to take action. The week before the nation's Independence Day, declare your independence from dirty energy. We need to call on President Obama and Congress to lead us towards strong climate and energy legislation. We're tired of waiting to campaign promises to be fulfilled. We want leadership! Learn more>>

6/12/09

                                                            3018 Old City Park Road
                                                              Moab, Utah 84532-3472
                                                              June 14, 2009
Representative Jim Matheson
1323 Longworth HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Representative Matheson:

The Union of Concerned Scientists, of which I have long been a member, issued Climate Change 2030: A National Blueprint for a Clean Energy Economy. This two-year, peer-reviewed study found that with the right policies in place the United States can dramatically cut the heat-trapping emissions that cause 95.5% of global warming (the other 4.5% is due to natural variations, according to the International Panel on Climate Changes (IPCC) analysis in its Fourth Annual Technical Report) while lowering energy costs in every region of the country.

In my own web-published The Renewable Deal, Plank One of Aspect Two, I summarize the evidence that we can, through systematic application of off-the-shelf Best Available Technology, build a renewables-based, sustainable energy system in the United States by the year 2050 which would require no fossil fuel or nuclear inputs to produce more quads of energy than the U.S. Department of Energy projects will be needed in 2050 under a business-as-usual scenario at a slightly lower cost per quad than U.S. customers were paying for energy from the current portfolio (50% coal, 20% nuclear, etc.) in 2003, in 2003 constant dollars. This energy system would be more stable than our current grid and emit no net greenhouse gases, and building it does not require that we invent anything we dont already have running and proven somewhere on Earth.

Special interests vested in fossil energy are strongly opposed to the nation embarking on a Marshall-Plan-scale conversion of our energy economy to this superior, 21^st century renewables-based energy system. I follow the emerging evidence about the impacts of climate change closely, and global warming is proceeding faster than the worst-case projections of the IPCC in their first four technical evaluation reports. In March 2004, the IPCC climate change models corrected on the basis of actual observations predicted a median global warming by the end of the century which was higher than the worst-case global warming figure published in the Fourth Annual Technical Evaluation Report in February 2004! We need to take strong action quickly to head off run-away secondary global warming effects over which we can have no control, e.g., release of methane from melting permafrost and hydrate deposits on cold ocean floors.

You need to vote for climate change mitigation legislation before Congress that:

1. Reduces global warming emissions swiftly and deeply; with provisions for rapid policy adjustment in response to emerging climate science if deeper cuts are needed. Minimum benchmarks fully supported by current science are to lower emissions 35 percent below current levels by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050.
2. Makes emissions cuts affordable and achievable by making pollution emitters pay. Yes, that will result in higher energy costs for the U.S. consumer, but the alternative is to confront the U.S. consumer with truly staggering costs from the consequences of climate change. See the Stern Report from the United Kingdom for a sober and detailed analysis of costs and benefits of investing in climate change abatement by the U.K.s chief economist, formerly head of the World Bank.

3. Provides for investment in clean energy source and transmission infrastructure development, energy efficiency, and programs to mitigate impacts on consumers and workers of the massive changes in our economic structure involved in making this conversion from a fossil-fueled to a renewables-fueled energy economy.

4. Require at least 25 percent of our nations electricity to be generated from renewable resources by 2025. UCS estimates this would create 297,000 U.S. jobs and save consumers $64.3 billion in energy costs by 2025.

5. Funds programs that reduce global warming caused by tropical deforestation, which accounts for about 20 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions loading the atmosphere. Union of Concerned Scientists analysis found that $20 billion in annual funding could cut deforestation-related emissions in half by 2020. These funds could come from the auction of carbon emission permits CO2 emitters must purchase or from sale of a limited amount of offsets which allow CO2 emitters to meet their emissions reduction targets partly by funding forest conservation initiatives that accelerate sequestration of carbon.

6. Avoids loopholes that enables greenhouse gas emitters to delay or avoid emissions reductions.

There is now abundant published evidence, e.g., the Worldwatch Institutes Green Jobs as well as Union of Concerned Scientists analyses, that demonstrate that this conversion to a renewables-based energy economy will create more good-paying jobs than it causes to be lost, will save consumers and businesses money, stimulate our economy, improve air quality, and decrease our balance of payments deficit as we no longer have to pay for importing fossil fuels.

We have the opportunity to embrace a hopeful, feasible, just, and sustainable future through application of Best Available Technology and Best Available Management Practices. The stakes could not be higher. If we fail to swiftly create a sustainable, renewable-energy-based economy which emits no net greenhouse gases, it is highly probable that we will confront a future in which a large part of our planet becomes uninhabitable by organisms, like homo sapiens and our food sources, which evolved to prosper under Holocene epoch climatic conditions.

Sincerely yours,
Richard Lance Christie

6/11/09

by: Michael T. Klare

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175082

Every summer, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the U.S. Department of Energy issues its International Energy Outlook (IEO) - a jam-packed compendium of data and analysis on the evolving world energy equation. For those with the background to interpret its key statistical findings, the release of the IEO can provide a unique opportunity to gauge important shifts in global energy trends, much as reports of routine Communist Party functions in the party journal Pravda once provided America's Kremlin watchers with insights into changes in the Soviet Union's top leadership circle.

As it happens, the recent release of the 2009 IEO has provided energy watchers with a feast of significant revelations. By far the most significant disclosure: the IEO predicts a sharp drop in projected future world oil output (compared to previous expectations) and a corresponding increase in reliance on what are called "unconventional fuels" - oil sands, ultra-deep oil, shale oil, and biofuels.

So here's the headline for you: For the first time, the well-respected Energy Information Administration appears to be joining with those experts who have long argued that the era of cheap and plentiful oil is drawing to a close. Almost as notable, when it comes to news, the 2009 report highlights Asia's insatiable demand for energy and suggests that China is moving ever closer to the point at which it will overtake the United States as the world's number one energy consumer. Clearly, a new era of cutthroat energy competition is upon us.

Peak Oil Becomes the New Norm

As recently as 2007, the IEO projected that the global production of conventional oil (the stuff that comes gushing out of the ground in liquid form) would reach 107.2 million barrels per day in 2030, a substantial increase from the 81.5 million barrels produced in 2006. Now, in 2009, the latest edition of the report has grimly dropped that projected 2030 figure to just 93.1 million barrels per day - in future-output terms, an eye-popping decline of 14.1 million expected barrels per day.

Even when you add in the 2009 report's projection of a larger increase than once expected in the output of unconventional fuels, you still end up with a net projected decline of 11.1 million barrels per day in the global supply of liquid fuels (when compared to the IEO's soaring 2007 projected figures). What does this decline signify - other than growing pessimism by energy experts when it comes to the international supply of petroleum liquids?

Very simply, it indicates that the usually optimistic analysts at the Department of Energy now believe global fuel supplies will simply not be able to keep pace with rising world energy demands. For years now, assorted petroleum geologists and other energy types have been warning that world oil output is approaching a maximum sustainable daily level - a peak - and will subsequently go into decline, possibly producing global economic chaos. Whatever the timing of the arrival of peak oil's actual peak, there is growing agreement that we have, at last, made it into peak-oil territory, if not yet to the moment of irreversible decline.

Until recently, Energy Information Administration officials scoffed at the notion that a peak in global oil output was imminent or that we should anticipate a contraction in the future availability of petroleum any time soon. "[We] expect conventional oil to peak closer to the middle than to the beginning of the 21st century," the 2004 IEO report stated emphatically.

Consistent with this view, the EIA reported one year later that global production would reach a staggering 122.2 million barrels per day in 2025, more than 50% above the 2002 level of 80.0 million barrels per day. This was about as close to an explicit rejection of peak oil that you could get from the EIA's experts.

Where Did All the Oil Go?

Now, let's turn back to the 2009 edition. In 2025, according to this new report, world liquids output, conventional and unconventional, will reach only a relatively dismal 101.1 million barrels per day. Worse yet, conventional oil output will be just 89.6 million barrels per day. In EIA terms, this is pure gloom and doom, about as deeply pessimistic when it comes to the world's future oil output capacity as you're likely to get.

The agency's experts claim, however, that this will not prove quite the challenge it might seem, because they have also revised downward their projections of future energy demand. Back in 2005, they were projecting world oil consumption in 2025 at 119.2 million barrels per day, just below anticipated output at that time. This year - and we should all theoretically breathe a deep sigh of relief - the report projects that 2025 figure at only 101.1 million barrels per day, conveniently just what the world is expected to produce at that time. If this actually proves the case, then oil prices will presumably remain within a manageable range.

In fact, however, the consumption part of this equation seems like the less reliable calculation, especially if economic growth continues at anything like its recent pace in China and India. Indeed, all evidence suggests that growth in these countries will resume its pre-crisis pace by the end of 2009 or early 2010. Under those circumstances, global oil demand will eventually outpace supply, driving up prices again and threatening recurring and potentially disastrous economic disorders - possibly on the scale of the present global economic meltdown.

To have the slightest chance of averting such disasters means seeing a sharp rise in unconventional fuel output. Such fuels include Canadian oil sands, Venezuelan extra-heavy oil, deep-offshore oil, Arctic oil, shale oil, liquids derived from coal (coal-to-liquids or CTL), and biofuels. At present, these cumulatively constitute only about 4% of the world's liquid fuel supply but are expected to reach nearly 13% by 2030. All told, according to estimates in the new IEO report, unconventional liquid production will reach an estimated 13.4 million barrels per day in 2030, up from a projected 9.7 million barrels in the 2008 edition.

But for an expansion on this scale to occur, whole new industries will have to be created to manufacture such fuels at a cost of several trillion dollars. This undertaking, in turn, is provoking a wide-ranging debate over the environmental consequences of producing such fuels.

For example, any significant increase in biofuels use - assuming such fuels were produced by chemical means rather than, as now, by cooking - could substantially reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, actually slowing the tempo of future climate change. On the other hand, any increase in the production of Canadian oil sands, Venezuelan extra-heavy oil, and Rocky Mountain shale oil will entail energy-intensive activities at staggering levels, sure to emit vast amounts of CO2, which might more than cancel out any gains from the biofuels.

In addition, increased biofuels production risks the diversion of vast tracts of arable land from the crucial cultivation of basic food staples to the manufacture of transportation fuel. If, as is likely, oil prices continue to rise, expect it to be ever more attractive for farmers to grow more corn and other crops for eventual conversion to transportation fuels, which means rises in food costs that could price basics out of the range of the very poor, while stretching working families to the limit. As in May and June of 2008, when food riots spread across the planet in response to high food prices - caused, in part, by the diversion of vast amounts of corn acreage to biofuel production - this could well lead to mass unrest and mass starvation.

A Heavy Energy Footprint on the Planet

The geopolitical implications of this transformation could well be striking. Among other developments, the global clout of Canada, Venezuela, and Brazil - all key producers of unconventional fuels - is bound to be strengthened.

Canada is becoming increasingly important as the world's leading producer of oil sands, or bitumen - a thick, gooey, viscous material that must be dug out of the ground and treated in various energy-intensive ways before it can be converted into synthetic petroleum fuel (synfuel). According to the IEO report, oil sands production, now at 1.3 million barrels a day and barely profitable, could hit the 4.4 million barrel mark (or even, according to the most optimistic scenarios, 6.5 million barrels) by 2030.

Given the IEA's new projections, this would represent an extraordinary addition to global energy supplies just when key sources of conventional oil in places like Mexico and the North Sea are expected to suffer severe declines. The extraction of oil sands, however, could prove a pollution disaster of the first order. For one thing, remarkable infusions of old-style energy are needed to extract this new energy, huge forest tracts would have to be cleared, and vast quantities of water used for the steam necessary to dislodge the buried goo (just as the equivalent of "peak water" may be arriving).

What this means is that the accelerated production of oil sands is sure to be linked to environmental despoliation, pollution, and global warming. There is considerable doubt that Canadian officials and the general public will, in the end, be willing to pay the economic and environmental price involved. In other words, whatever the IEA may project now, no one can know whether synfuels will really be available in the necessary quantities 15 or 20 years down the road.

Venezuela has long been an important source of crude oil for the United States, generating much of the revenue used by President Hugo Chávez to sustain his social experiments at home and an ambitious anti-American political agenda abroad. In the coming years, however, its production of conventional petroleum is expected to fall, leaving the country increasingly reliant on the exploitation of large deposits of bitumen in the eastern Orinoco River basin. Just to develop these "extra-heavy oil" deposits will require significant financial and energy investments and, as with Canadian oil sands, the environmental impact could be devastating. Nevertheless, successful development of these deposits could prove an economic bonanza for Venezuela.

The big winner in these grim energy sweepstakes, however, is likely to be Brazil. Already a major producer of ethanol, it is expected to see a huge increase in unconventional oil output once its new ultra-deep fields in the "subsalt" Campos and Santos basins come on-line. These are massive offshore oil deposits buried beneath thick layers of salt some 100 miles off the coast of Rio de Janeiro and several miles beneath the ocean's surface.

When the substantial technical challenges to exploiting these undersea fields are overcome, Brazil's output could soar by as much as three million barrels per day. By 2030, Brazil should be a major player in the world energy equation, having succeeded Venezuela as South America's leading petroleum producer.

New Powers, New Problems

The IEO report hints at other geopolitical changes occurring in the global energy landscape, especially an expected stunning increase in the share of the global energy supply consumed in Asia and a corresponding decline by the United States, Japan, and other "First World" powers. In 1990, the developing nations of Asia and the Middle East accounted for only 17% of world energy consumption; by 2030, that number, the report suggests, should reach 41%, matching that of the major First World powers.

All recent editions of the report have predicted that China would eventually overtake the United States as number one energy consumer. What's notable is how quickly the 2009 edition expects that to happen. The 2006 report had China assuming the leadership position in a 2026-2030 timeframe; in 2007, it was 2021-2024; in 2008, it was 2016-2020. This year, the EIA is projecting that China will overtake the United States between 2010 and 2014.

It's easy enough to overlook these shifting estimates, since the reports don't emphasize how they have changed from year to year. What they suggest, however, is that the United States will face ever fiercer competition from China in the global struggle to secure adequate supplies of energy to meet national needs.

Given what we have learned about the dwindling prospects for adequate future oil supplies, we are sure to face increased geopolitical competition and strife between the two countries in those few areas that are capable of producing additional quantities of oil (and undoubtedly genuine desperation among many other countries with far less resources and power).

And much else follows: As the world's leading energy consumer, Beijing will undoubtedly play a far more critical role in setting international energy policies and prices, undercutting the pivotal role long played by Washington. It is not hard to imagine, then, that major oil producers in the Middle East and Africa will see it as in their interest to deepen political and economic ties with China at the expense of the United States. China can also be expected to maintain close ties with oil providers like Iran and Sudan, no matter how this clashes with American foreign policy objectives.

At first glance, the International Energy Outlook for 2009 hardly looks different from previous editions: a tedious compendium of tables and text on global energy trends. Looked at another way, however, it trumpets the headlines of the future - and their news is not comforting.

The global energy equation is changing rapidly, and with it is likely to come great power competition, economic peril, rising starvation, growing unrest, environmental disaster, and shrinking energy supplies, no matter what steps are taken. No doubt the 2010 edition of the report and those that follow will reveal far more, but the new trends in energy on the planet are already increasingly evident - and unsettling.

6/10/09

PRESS STATEMENT: For immediate release June 10, 2009

CONTACTS: Richard Peterson-Cremer/Scott Braden – Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance 202/546-2215; Sean Babington – EarthJustice 202/667-4500; AmyMall - Natural Resources Defense Council 720/565-0188; Myke Bybee – The Sierra Club 202/675-2389; David Slater - The Wilderness Society 202/429-8441

Utah Wilderness Coalition (UWC) Congratulates Congressman Matheson, the School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA), and the Grand Canyon Trust on House Natural Resources Committee Mark-up of the Utah Recreational Land Exchange Act of 2009 (H.R. 1275)

WASHINGTON, D.C. (June 10, 2009) -- The Utah Wilderness Coalition today announced its support for the Utah Recreational Land Exchange Act of 2009, which would enable federal government acquisition of state land parcels within the spectacular Colorado River corridor in Utah. Many of the public lands to be acquired by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in this exchange qualify as wilderness and would be managed to preserve their wilderness character, which is not now the case. This bill will protect iconic landscapes near Moab from unfettered oil and gas and other

6/8/09

Luke Cole: An Appreciation

by Turkana

It is with broken heart that I report the death of one of this nation's
most important and innovative environmental attorneys.

Luke Cole graduated with honors from Stanford, and cum laude from
Harvard Law School. He could have done anything. He could have gone to
work for any law firm in the country, and made a fortune. Instead, he
moved to San Francisco and co-founded the non-profit Center on Race,
Poverty & the Environment. As described on their website:

(Embedded image moved to file: pic23901.jpg)

The Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment is an environmental
justice litigation organization dedicated to helping grassroots groups
across the United States attack head on the disproportionate burden of
pollution borne by poor people and people of color. We provide
organizing, technical and legal assistance to help community groups
stop immediate environmental threats. In the 16 years that CRPE has
been helping the poor and people of color resist toxic intrusions and
protect their environmental health, among our many victories we have
beaten toxic waste incinerators, forced oil refineries to use cleaner
technology, beaten a 55,000-cow mega-dairy, stopped numerous tire
burning proposals, helped bring safe drinking water to various rural
communities, stopped a garbage dump on the Los Coyotes reservation in
southern California, and empowered hundreds of local residents along
the way.

His recent work included a groundbreaking case that is succinctly
explained by his law school classmate, Ann Carlson:

Cole was well-known for his work on numerous leading environmental
justice cases, including as counsel for the Native Village of Kivalina
in its pathbreaking case seeking damages from large greenhouse gas
emitters from the melting away of their Alaskan village.

If that sounds like he was tilting at windmills, you didn't know Luke.
He wouldn't have pursued such a case if he hadn't believed he could win
it. His successful pioneering work, taking on the California dairy
industry, made him the cover boy of the February, 2002 issue of
California Law Magazine, in an article titled: Got Manure? How
Environmental Lawyer Luke Cole Brought Dairy Construction in the San
Joaquin Valley to a Standstill.

Luke also was on the advisory board of the Center for Biological
Diversity:

At the Center for Biological Diversity, we believe that the welfare of
human beings is deeply linked to nature — to the existence in our world
of a vast diversity of wild animals and plants. Because diversity has
intrinsic value, and because its loss impoverishes society, we work to
secure a future for all species, great and small, hovering on the brink
of extinction. We do so through science, law, and creative media, with
a focus on protecting the lands, waters, and climate that species need
to survive.

And more about Luke, himself:

Cole was appointed by EPA Administrator Carol Browner to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency’s National Environmental Justice
Advisory Council (NEJAC), where he served from 1996 through 2000
(including chairing NEJAC’s Enforcement Subcommittee from 1998 through
2000). He also served as a member of EPA’s Title VI Implementation
Committee.

In 1997, the American Lawyer magazine named Cole to the Public Sector
45, one of “forty-five young lawyers outside the private sector whose
vision and commitment are changing lives.” Berkeley’s Ecology Law
Quarterly awarded Cole its 1997 Environmental Leadership Award for
“outstanding contributions to the development of environmental law and
policy,” and the American Bar Association’s Barrister magazine named
Cole one of “20 young lawyers making a difference” for his pioneering
legal work. Community organizations have also honored Cole for his
contributions to the environmental justice movement.

Cole is the co-founder and editor emeritus of the journal Race, Poverty
& the Environment. He recently published, with Professor Sheila Foster,
From the Ground Up: Environmental Racism and the Rise of the
Environmental Justice Movement (NYU Press, 2001). His legal
publications include “Empowerment as they Key to Environmental
Protection: the Need for Environmental Poverty Law,” in the Ecology Law
Quarterly, as well as pieces in the Stanford Environmental Law Journal,
the Journal of Environmental Law & Litigation, the Fordham Urban Law
Journal, and the Michigan Law Review, among others. He has taught as a
visiting professor at UC-Hastings School of Law, and also taught
seminars on environmental justice at Stanford Law School, UC-Berkeley’s
Boalt Hall School of Law, and Hastings.

A list of his legal publications can be found here, and he also
co-authored the book From the Ground Up: Environmental Racism and the
Rise of the Environmental Justice Movement.

Luke had bright, sparkling eyes, and one of the easiest and most
heartfelt laughs I've ever heard. He met one of the warmest, most
soulful women in the world, married her, and helped her raise her son.
He threw himself a birthday party, every year, adamantly refused all
presents, and made it an occasion for root beer tastings, having
speciality brands shipped in from all over the country. He also held
chocolate tastings. He loved music, theater, and art, intensely
supported the presidential campaign of the young Illinois Senator who
had been just behind him, at law school, and went to Washington both
for the inauguration and to be consulted on environmental justice
issues.

He was a passionate birder, and traveled all over the world, leading
eco-tourist expeditions to Madagascar. I got a postcard from him, just
last week. He'd seen his first lemurs, including the rare and once
endangered Perrier Sifaka, as well as plenty of new birds. He'd been
bitten by leeches, and had been banged up in low-speed motorcycle
crashes, on Madagascar's ragged back roads. He said my toddler son
would love the place. He was headed to Uganda, to meet his wife and
brother. It was in Uganda that he died, in a car crash. His wife is now
twice widowed, and was herself seriously injured.

The last time I saw Luke was on the last night of my last visit to the
Bay Area. Mrs. T and I had dinner with Luke and his wife. They brought
a toy for our son to play with, on the drive back to Oregon. They were
the perfect couple. He was a genuine hero. I loved and respected him as
much as I've ever loved and respected any man. A world without him is
unfathomable.

6/6/09

It is clear that oil tar is a focus for economic development as an option being grabbed when transition is not defined realistically for renewables. The economics of tar sands are extremely poor though. Rising oil prices once again presents a profitable scenarion for oil sands.http://oilsandstruth.org/ Our energy work needs to have policy tied to it. The damage done to water quality is inherent in oil sands, but the demand is a powerful driving force as other conditions change.

Our presentation needs to demonstrate the capability to move beyond oil and coal for energy production. It has to be more then a list of "can't go there" alternatives. If we don't address the issue of a "green re-industrialization" in a comprehensive manner, the debate is lost before it even begins. Evacuating cities was already tried as a social experiment by the Khmer Rouge. I don't think we should emulate it. (This is not addressed to anyone on the Eco-Action list, but to the academics who negate the political issues that candidates and a party necessarily confront when running for office or implementing policy.)

Mato Ska

6/1/09

Hi Harold,

For nearly a week, the House Energy and Commerce Committee debated the bill that would cap U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. It was tense time, but our efforts paid off and the committee released the bill to the full House.

Now is the time to express your support for a strong global warming bill. »

Make no mistake, this is a landmark bill. It would establish an aggressive cap on America's global warming pollution starting at 17% reductions by 2020 and reaching 83% reductions by 2050. It also calls for 20% of America's energy to come from clean, renewable energy sources by 2020.

This is a moment decades in the making, and global warming's apologists are escalating their fight against meaningful climate change legislation.

Help build on our momentum to fight the forces of Big Oil. »

A new report from the Center for Responsive Politics revealed that in the first three months of 2009, apologists spent $80 million on direct lobbying alone. And to add insult to injury, many of the hired guns working to defeat climate legislation are the same top Bush Administration officials who worked to block action over the last eight years.

We can't let up the pressure. Help us counteract the forces of Big Oil and their allies in Congress. Act today to help pass a strong climate change bill. »

Take action link:http://www.care2.com/go/z/e/AFMRV/zJBK/bb25f

Thanks for taking action!

Samer
ThePetitionSite

5/28/09

Redcorp ordered to clean up B.C. mine

Choose text size

Report typo or correction

May 27, 2009 04:30 AM

Be the first to comment on this article...

Environment Canada has directed insolvent Redcorp Ventures Ltd. to immediately stop acid discharges at the Tulsequah Chief mine in northwestern British Columbia.

The company has been operating under court protection from its creditors and announced Monday that chairman Ken Lowe had resigned and chief financial officer Mike Bardell had left the company.

Later on Monday, Redcorp said it had been served that day with an "inspector's direction" from Environment Canada, dated May 22, 2009. The direction ordered Redcorp to stop the contravention of the Fisheries Act.

Redcorp said it has prepared an environmental works and compliance plan and will ask for court approval at a hearing scheduled for today.

Mining activity at Tulsequah Chief ceased in the late 1950s.

But Redcorp had been trying in recent years to get the mine back into commercial production. 5/22/09

Governors’ Energy and Climate Coalition Calls for Action on Climate, Energy Legislation

Advocates for Active State-Federal Partnership

The newly formed Governors’ Energy and Climate Coalition, representing 30 states and territories, today pledged to work with Congress to pass legislation that will address climate change and provide the nation with a comprehensive energy strategy. The bipartisan group of Governors outlined two principles – supporting comprehensive federal policy and advocating an active state-federal partnership – which the coalition would promote “at every opportunity.”

“States are where the green economy is being built,” the Governors said, pledging to work with Congress and the Administration “to develop a strong state-federal partnership to create and preserve our jobs and industry, keep the United States competitive abroad, and at the same time address climate change threats.”

The coalition represents states from every region of the country, and will work together to inform sound state and federal climate policy. The coalition’s efforts will be facilitated by the Georgetown State-Federal Climate Resource Center at Georgetown Law, which provides policy support for state and federal efforts to address climate change.

The coalition states include: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin, as well as the territories of Guam, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.

“I am proud of Washington state’s leadership in developing strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, lessen our dependency on foreign oil and create thousands of green-collar jobs,” Washington Governor Chris Gregoire said. “We now have a strong partner in the other Washington. I am urging Congress and the Obama Administration to evaluate our state’s successes, and develop a comprehensive energy strategy that further creates a clean energy economy. That type of federal action is overdue.”

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California said: “It is not easy to bring together such a diverse group of governors on any topic, so this coalition speaks loudly to the need to work with states and adopt a federal approach as we work toward our common energy and green economy goals.”‪‪‪

"Our environment and our economy depend on aggressively harnessing and promoting clean energy," said New York Governor David A. Paterson. "A state-federal partnership that makes clean energy a priority will create jobs, keep more dollars in the U.S., and reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions into our environment. We must work together to create policies and programs that accelerate advancements in energy technology and workforce training."

Governor James Douglas of Vermont said: “States have been leaders on the green front – promoting renewable and clean energy, creating jobs and taking concrete steps to address climate change. The Governors’ Energy and Climate Coalition is in a unique position to assist the federal government as it builds out a national energy policy that creates jobs and protects consumers and the environment. Vermont was the first state to sign on to the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), the nation’s first cap and trade program, and I will be working to ensure that federal legislation is consistent with our RGGI goals and supports the effort of Vermont consumers who have achieved the lowest carbon footprint in the nation."

5/21/09

CONTACT:

Diane Derby

Georgetown State-Federal Climate Resource Center

202-494-0139

Care2 subscriber since May 15, 2009

Unsubscribe | Forward to a Friend | Take Action

Dear Harold,

In a disappointing move, the Obama administration has left polar bears poorly protected from one of the gravest threats to the species – global warming.

Rising temperatures are robbing polar bears of vital habitat and melting the sea ice they use for hunting and raising their cubs. Tell Interior Secretary Salazar how disappointed you are in his decision to leave polar bears without protection from global warming »

Unfortunately, the Obama administration's Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has failed to give polar bears the full protection they deserve. Following in the footsteps of the previous administration, Secretary Salazar chose to leave a Bush-era rule in place that limits this ice hunter's protection from global warming and oil and gas development under the Endangered Species Act.

Don't let Secretary Salazar condemn the polar bear to extinction. Urge him to review the science and establish vital protection for polar bears under the Endangered Species Act »

Thanks for taking action!

Natasha
Care2 Campaign Team

Don't Let the Obama Administration Neglect Polar Bears as the Species Slips Toward Extinction!

Even the world's strongest swimmers are no match for global warming. As the Arctic ice melts, polar bears are being driven to extinction. We need your help to win real federal protection for our polar bears!

Forward to a friend >>
Read the petition >>

5/20/09

Chairman's Mark of Climate Change Bill Maintains Marine Spatial Planning in Managing Offshore Renewables

May 19, 2009 by Susan Grymes Lafferty, David L. Wochner, Benjamin Norris

Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) of the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee released yesterday an updated version of H.R. 2454, the House bill designed to promote green energy and address global climate change. The document, called a "Chairman's mark" in Capitol Hill parlance, would require that "ecosystem-based management" of ocean resources serve as the foundation for all marine resource planning, as opposed to resource-based management. The bill also mandates a study of regional marine spatial planning by DOI, FERC, and NOAA that would identify a mechanism for formally installing a marine spatial planning regime and requires the U.S. Council on Environmental Quality to determine whether the approach outlined in the study ought to be followed in developing policies for renewable energy on the OCS. An official with the American Wind Energy Association told E&E [subscription required] that her organization is not opposed to marine spatial planning, but that she is concerned that offshore renewable energy projects currently under development could be delayed as the marine spatial planning policy is developed and implemented.

5/19/09

See also http://www.sdnp.jo/International_Oil_Conference/rtos-A117.pdf

The main utilization and use of [Jordanian] oil shale as energy resource is to produce: -

-Oil and gas by surface retorting methods, chemical extraction and in-situ heating process.

The oil and/or gas could be upgraded and refined to produce petroleum products or the

crude oil could be burned to generate electricity.

-Power generation by the means of direct combustion techniques (i.e. directly burning the

ground oil shale).

jordanian oil shale is oil shale, immature source rock

the bakken formation is a shale formation that has a

narrow pay zone of liquid oil in it....

more on it attached

no resemblance, no similarity

as usual, "oil shale" misnomer confuses the issue

Randy

Add Comment

There are no comments.

You must be logged in to post a comment. Click here to login.

Rate this Blog

Tags

Related Blog Posts