Gas Pump Thievery: Who's Really Behind the Rising Prices at the Pumps?
July 1, 2009-by Jim Hightower in Alternet. As CNBC television's top energy correspondent, Sharon Epperson, reported last month, "It's this money flow -- rather than the fundamental supply-demand data -- that's driving oil prices higher."
Like a Fourth of July crescendo of fireworks, our gasoline prices are rising higher and higher. While this is tough on consumers, we're assured by a covey of tongue-clucking industry analysts that nothing can be done about it, for it's simply the law of supply and demand in action -- so suck it up, and pay up.
But hold your BPExxonMobilShellChevron horses right there. Supply and demand? The supply of crude oil has risen this year to its highest level in nearly two decades, even while the demand for gasoline has dropped dramatically, having fallen this month to a 10-year low. Let's see -- supply up, demand down. That's a classic market formula for cheaper prices at the pump. Yet our prices have steadily moved up, rising by two-thirds since the beginning of the year (and by 60 cents a gallon in the past two months alone).
What's going on here is not the "magic of the marketplace," but some hocus-pocus by brand-name dealers. What might surprise you, though, is that the wheeler-dealers now jacking up our pump prices don't operate under the BPExxonMobilShellChevron brands -- but the logos of Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and other Wall Street traders that have been placing vast, unregulated, secretive bets on the future price of oil. They're playing an electronic casino game in a global "dark market" of exotic derivatives and credit swaps.
If this sounds vaguely familiar to you, it's because this is the same game that Wall Street played with subprime mortgages, leading to the present crash of our economy. And, yes, these are the exact same banksters that you and I are presently bailing out with our trillions of tax dollars. (MORE) Go to Original
Valley Watch Resolution against Waxman Markey
June 25, 2009-Valley Watch officially adopted the resolution below in our board meeting last week. It states our reasons for urging congress to vote AGAINST the "American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009." This bill is very weak and will not get the job done but it could mean lots more coal for Indiana and Kentucky because it lavishes big subsidies on both new and old coal.
Resolution against passage of the Waxman-Markey-American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009
Whereas, legislation is drastically needed in the United States and elsewhere that will significantly restrict greenhouse gas emissions to avert increased global warming, and;
Whereas, the current Waxman-Markey bill ( the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 ) has way too many give aways and promotions to encourage the continued use of coal and other polluting fuels, including free allowances to the most serious greenhouse gas polluters and other subsidies that encourage the use of additional coal well into the future, and;
Whereas, learned scientists like James Hansen have called for a “moratorium” on new coal plant construction until such time as the concept of “carbon capture and sequestration” is actually proven and commercially available and required of all new coal plants of any sort to capture and sequester at least 90% of their greenhouse gas emissions, and;
Whereas, Waxman-Markey specifically strips the USEPA of its current authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act or any other statute, and;
Whereas, Waxman-Markey requires a complex system of offsets and “Cap and Trade” mechanisms that are nearly impossible to verify and audit as well as setting into motion new financial markets that can be easily manipulated nearly without regulation, and;
Whereas, the lower Ohio River Valley, is already the center of the largest concentration of coal plants in the nation, if not the world, and’
Whereas, there are at least seven new coal fueled plants proposed in the lower Ohio River Valley that are more likely to be built if this legislation passes, and;
Whereas, Valley Watch’s stated purpose is “to protect the public health and environment of the lower Ohio River Valley,” and;
Whereas, Valley Watch is actively engaged in stopping all seven of these coal plants in order to serve our stated purpose “to protect the public health and environment,” and;
Whereas, the increased use of coal as encouraged in Waxman-Markey will result not only in additional power plant pollution but also, increased ecological destruction from strip and longwall mining across the US, including mountain top removal mining methods, and;
Whereas, the increased use of coal is generally unwarranted if proper measures are in place to encourage significantly greater energy efficiency, conservation and renewable energy, including wind, solar and geothermal;
Therefore, is it resolved, this 17th day of June 2009 by the Valley Watch, Inc., Board of Directors that we will encourage our members and others, including our members elected representatives and senators to vote against the Waxman-Markey bill as it was passed out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and until such time as that bill is significantly strengthened and those provisions encouraging the additional use of coal are removed.
By the Board, June 17, 2009
John Blair, president-secretary Carol Oglesby, treasurer
Stanley Miguel, member Joseph Nickolick, member
Critters in the garden flourish with the arrival of summer
New study shows coal's costs outweigh benefits in coal country
June 22, 2009-by Ken Ward, Jr. in The Charleston Gazette. "Mortality in Appalachian Coal Mining Regions: The Value of Statistical Life Lost," appears in the July-August issue of Public Health Reports. Ed. Note: Valley Watch has long held that there is no such thing as a prosperous coal community.
Coal mining costs Appalachians five times more in early deaths as the industry provides to the region in jobs, taxes and other economic benefits, according to a groundbreaking new study co-authored by a West Virginia University researcher.
In the latest in a series of papers, WVU researcher Michael Hendryx questions the idea that coal is good for West Virginia and other Appalachian communities, and recommends that political leaders consider other alternatives for improving the region's economy and quality of life.
"Coal-mining economies are not strong economies," Hendryx said in an interview last week. "[Coalfield communities] are weaker than the rest of the state, weaker than the rest of the region, and weaker than the rest of the nation."
Writing with co-author Melissa Ahern of Washington State University, Hendryx reports that the coal industry generates a little more than $8 billion a year in economic benefits for the Appalachian region.
But, Hendryx and Ahern put the value of premature deaths attributable to the mining industry across the Appalachian coalfields at -- by one of their most conservative estimates -- $42 billion.
"The human cost of the Appalachian coal mining economy outweighs its economic benefits," they wrote. (MORE) Go to Original
Duke's Ohio nuke announcement a desperate hoax
June 21, 2009, by Harvey Wasserman, in CounterPunch. The proposed Ohio project, which has received saturation media coverage throughout the US, is years away from getting any kind of license. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has never turned down an applicant. But the line for new permits is long and twisted. Changes are still being made to the designs. Wasserman pictured from CoommonDreams.org
Job-starved southern Ohioans are being promised a shiny new nuclear plant. But the announcement has come with a cruel reminder, and the scent of a desperate hoax.
Using the gargantuan corpse of the shuttered Portsmouth-Piketon uranium enrichment plant as his backdrop, U.S. Senator George Voinovich (R-OH) punctuated his enthusiastic endorsement the new nuke by proclaiming that, with his support, the US government has paid thousands of Ohio workers hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation for the health damage they suffered from being irradiated while working there.
What was he thinking?
Just north of the Ohio River, Portsmouth-Piketon was a mainstay of the nuclear power/weapons complex dating back to 1954 (it shut in 2001). Generations of workers and their progeny suffered a devastating plague of radiation-related diseases from the facility's radioactive fallout, inside and around the plant boundaries. It took decades of brutal, grinding grassroots campaigning to win even a modicum of compensation.
Now the heaviest of nuclear hitters want to use this same site for a 1600-megawatt French-designed plant that would anchor a "Clean Energy Park." In a region devastated by the enrichment plant's shutdown, and by the decimation of the American industrial economy, it would be a flagship for the "nuclear power renaissance."
Protesters climb dragline unfurl banner in West Virginia
June 21, 2009-Climate Ground Zero. “They endanger local communities by exposing them to toxic materials and flooding. They need to be shut down and that needs to happen sooner rather than later. The purpose of the protest was to call attention to the true cost of mining and burning coal,” asserted Mike Roselle, director of Climate Ground Zero.
Mountain Action and Climate Ground Zero have now released dramatic video footage that documents the June 18th protest at Massey Energy’s Twilight mine site.
“By releasing this footage we can clearly demonstrate that protesters were not involved in any violence, did not assault anyone and were even allowed by the operator to climb the stairway leading up the boom,” said Climate Ground Zero director Mike Roselle.
“People can look at this footage and judge for themselves, but we think it proves that Massey’s claims that the protestors were violent are not supported by the facts. It was a non violent demonstration, and like the other peaceful protest that have been held to stop mountain top removal since early February no one was threatened or harmed in any way.”
“These drag lines are destroying the Appalachians and endangering our future.” said Roselle.
“They endanger local communities by exposing them to toxic materials and flooding. They need to be shut down and that needs to happen sooner rather than later. The purpose of the protest was to call attention to the true cost of mining and burning coal.” Go to Original
Duke's Rogers appear on the Colbert Report
June 18, 2009-by John Blair, valleywatch.net editor. Jim Rogers is an enigma. His public persona is one of a concerned corporate executive who is looking out for his customers and the planet. But his actions over the last two years are more designed to protect his corporate bottom line.
Rogers has made decisions lately that belie his public persona including the addition of two new coal plants that are not slated to capture or sequester their carbon emissions although Rogers talks about that unproved technology as if it is vital to the existence of man.
Rogers appeared on the Colbert Report on June 16 and oft looked like a deer in the headlights as Colbert caught on to his inconsistencies and humorously exploited them, much as Rogers exploits the people of southern Indiana with his company's huge levels of pollution.
Coal ash sites too dangerous to reveal their locations
The pollution is so toxic, so dangerous, that an enemy of the United States -- or a storm or some other disrupting event -- could easily cause them to spill out and lay waste to any area nearby.
There are 44 sites deemed by the Environmental Protection Agency to be high hazard, but Boxer said she isn't allowed to talk about them other than to senators in the states affected. "There is a huge muzzle on me and my staff," she said.
"Homeland Security and the Army Corps [of Engineers] have decided in the interests of national security they can't make these sites known," she said.
There are several hundred coal ash piles across the nation, she said, all of them unregulated.
"If these coal ash piles were to fail they'd pose a threat to the people nearby," she said. While keeping it from the public, DHS is alerting first responders as to the location of the piles.
"I believe it is essential to let people know," said Boxer, arguing that if people knew what was in their backyard they'd press public officials to clean it up and protect the area. "I think secrecy might lead to inaction...I am pressing on this."
Boxer is sending a letter, she told reporters Friday, to DHS and the Army Corps, pressing for public release of the information and asking for a more thorough explanation and a comparison of this policy of secrecy to policies around Superfund-listed sites and nuclear sites Go to Original
Some in congress upset over Obama's secrecy in coal ash risk
That's prompted calls by U.S. Rep. John Yarmuth, D-Louisville, and Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., to make them public.
"I would want to know if my house and family was near one of these ash piles," said Yarmuth, acknowledging that his district contains two coal-fired power plants that store ash in ponds, one of which was previously identified as "high hazard" by Kentucky officials. "I don't understand what the great national security interest is. If they are worried about potential terrorists, that would seem to be a stretch."
Kentucky and Indiana are leading producers of ash from coal-fired power plants. Both states have numerous ash sites where the waste is stored, often in ponds near power plants.
He said the secrecy troubles him, especially since the Obama administration has promised a more open government.
EPA spokeswoman Adora Andy said the decision to withhold the list came after the agency received a recommendation from the Army Corps of Engineers. (MORE) Go to Original
Time for feds to regulate coal ash - Institute for Policy Integrity
June 10, 2009- by John Blair, valleywatch.net editor. New study calls for regulation of coal ash with synthetic liners and covers in appropriate landfills to avoid problems like those that occurred in SE Tennessee just prior to Christmas when 1.2 billion gallons of toxic material spilled out of a TVA power plant waste storage site.
"No More Excuses: The Economic Case for Coal Ash Regulation" released today calls for greater regulation of coal combustion waste from power plants.
The brief but careful analysis reveals several compelling findings. Among the most notable:
• If coal ash were required to be stored in dry conditions and in synthetically lined, covered facilities many health risks would be avoided in addition to reducing the likelihood of a major spill like the one in Harriman Tennessee.
• In broad strokes, it is clear that the benefits of regulating coal ash storage facilities would far outweigh the costs.
• The benefits of a regulation like the one described above could save tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars per storage facility.
Too much CO2 is not good for plants or anything else
June 2, 2009, by Peter Sinclair. Once again Sinclair hits the ball out of the park with his thorough analysis of increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Climate deniers have tried to claim that increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are good for crops ands will help improve the amount of food we can grow since CO2 is required by plants to grow.
EPA cites BP for cancer causing benzene emissions
June 2, 2009-by John Blair, valleywatch.net editor. BP managed benzene waste improperly from 2003 to 2008. BP was treated with kid gloves during its permitting on their rebuilt Whiting, IN refinery by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 has cited BP Products North America Inc. for alleged Clean Air Act violations at the company's petroleum refinery at 2815 Indianapolis Blvd., Whiting, Ind.
EPA alleges that for calendar years 2003 through 2008 BP failed to manage and treat benzene waste from the facility as required by the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants. The facility's 2008 report showed that benzene waste was almost 16 times the amount allowed.
These are preliminary findings of violations. To resolve them, EPA may issue a compliance order, assess an administrative penalty or bring suit against the company in federal court. BP has 30 days from receipt of the notice to meet with EPA to discuss resolving the allegations.
Benzene is known to cause cancer in humans. Acute health effects from benzene exposure can include dizziness and lightheadedness; eye, nose and throat irritation; upset stomach and vomiting; irregular heartbeat; convulsions and death. Ecological effects include death in exposed animal, bird and fish populations and death or reduced growth rate in plant life.
Duke ordered to shut down three Indiana coal generators
May 29, 2009-by Andrew M. Harris, Bloomberg Energy. “The court’s conclusion that Cinergy illegally emitted hundreds of thousands of tons of air pollution, and irreparably harmed the public, provide ample support for its order,” Andrew Ames, a spokesman for the U.S. Justice Department, said in an e- mailed statement.
Cinergy Corp., now part of Duke Energy Corp., was ordered by a U.S. judge to shut three units of an Indiana power plant for federal Clean Air Act violations incurred during renovations more than 17 years ago.
U.S. District Judge Larry J. McKinney in Indianapolis issued the directive today, ending the second phase of a 2008 trial at which a jury found Cinergy modified the coal-fired facilities without installing best-available pollution controls.
Citing increased sulfur dioxide emissions from the units, McKinney’s 58-page ruling ordered them shut no later than Sept. 30.
Duke Energy acquired Cinergy three years ago. The units in question are part of its Wabash River power station, located near Terre Haute, McKinney said. The six-unit plant first came on line in 1953, according to the company’s Web site.
A second Indianapolis federal court jury this month found Cinergy had violated U.S. environmental regulations at two power units at its Gallagher Station in New Albany, Indiana, on the north bank of the Ohio River near Louisville, Kentucky.
That jury found in favor of the company on four other plant modifications that the U.S. government said exceeded ordinary maintenance, bringing them within the scope of the emissions regulations.
Duke ‘Disappointed’
“We are disappointed with the court’s decision to accelerate the shutdown,” Duke Energy Chief Legal Officer Marc Manly said in a statement. The company had planned to take the units, which supply 39 percent of the station’s power, off line in 2012. (MORE) Go to Original
Is the Coal Lobby simply too big to oppose?
May 25, 2009- by Marianne Lavelle, The Center for Public Integrity. The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, AKA America's Power. boast several of the same corporate members that the Natural Resources Defense Council and Environmental Defense count as partners at the US Climate Action Project or USCAP including: Alcoa, Caterpillar, Duke Energy and General Electric.
They’ve brought coal above ground.
They’ve put the black rock on billboards in the swing states, and they’ve splashed it on full-page ads in CQ Weekly, Roll Call, Politico, and The Washington Post. They sponsored presidential debates on CNN, and their "clean coal" boosters were a fixture on the campaign trail. They’ve rolled out a series of TV spots from the firm that promised that what happens in Vegas will stay in Vegas.
They’re the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, a collection of 48 mining, rail, manufacturing, and power-generating companies with an annual budget of more than $45 million—almost three times larger than the coal industry’s old lobbying and public relations groups combined. ACCCE (pronounced "Ace") is just celebrating its first birthday, but it has already become a juggernaut shaping the terms of the climate change debate on Capitol Hill—even while weathering a high-profile assault by critics who accuse it of peddling hot air.
ACCCE’s considerable impact will be on display this week at House Energy and Commerce Committee hearings on a new draft climate bill penned by panel chairman Henry Waxman, a California Democrat, and Energy and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Edward Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat. Just a year ago, Waxman and Markey backed a moratorium on new coal-fired electricity plants. But their latest draft would allow new coal plants through 2015, if they are retrofitted to cut carbon dioxide output some 40 to 60 percent within another decade. The technology to do that does not yet exist, but not to worry: the new measure would set up a $1 billion-a-year clean coal research fund to help. (MORE)
Seventeen citizens arrested in Mountain Top Removal protest in W.Virginia
May 25, 2009-Climate Ground Zero. Ed. Note-It is our understanding that bail has been made for all those arrested and no further assistance is needed. Seventeen courageous Mountain Justice volunteers were arrested Saturday, May 23 in a three-part civil disobedience action in our continuing movement to end mountaintop removal.
The Kayford Eight were charged with trespass and conspiracy for walking onto the 12,000-acre-plus Kayford Mountain mine and locking themselves to a giant dump truck. Placing U-locks around their necks, they attached themselves to guardrails and the driveshaft of the truck after hanging a banner on the truck’s grill that read “Never Again!” Here is a statement from the Kayford Eight:
We locked down at the Kayford mountaintop removal site with mud from the Mingo County flood on our boots and now, with the dusty remains of Kayford Mountain on our boots, we stand in solidarity with our sisters and brothers jailed for their actions to oppose mountaintop removal coal mining.
Also before dawn, two brave women, donning hazmat suits and respirators, boated onto the eight-billion-gallon Brushy Fork toxic coal slurry lake and launched a 60-foot floating banner that read “No more toxic sludge!” They were charged with trespass and littering. How can you litter on a giant toxic waste dump? Massey Energy has a permit to blast within 100 feet of this impoundment, which sits atop a honeycomb of abandoned deep mines. In 2000, more than 300 million gallons of coal slurry broke through the bottom of Massey’s Martin Co., Ky., impoundment, and into the deep mines beneath, then exploding into two watersheds, smothering aquatic life over 100 miles of streams. “Someone in jail said something to the effect of ‘I actually work there, yeah that dam’s gonna break,’” Ethan, one of the 17, said. A Brushy Fork failure would be over 23 times larger than Martin County.
Saturday’s two backcountry actions were followed by a picket at the mouth of Massey Energy’s Marfork mining complex, which includes the Brushy Fork dam, where more than 75 Coal River Valley residents and supporters emphasized the deadly danger of that impoundment: the 72-foot peak depth of the sludge at the Head Start facility there should the dam break. Seven people crossed the line onto Marfork’s property and were arrested for trespass. (MORE) Go to Original
Climate Change Bill Suffers From Backroom Dealings, Industry Influence
May 20, 2009-by Tyson Slocum, Public Citizen. The committee's decision to give away most of the pollution allowances for free for the next two decades is unacceptable. This approach hurts working families and average households the most; an Environmental Protection Agency analysis has shown that giving away pollution credits is "highly regressive."
The climate change legislation that will be debated this week is a huge disappointment. Not only will it prove a boon to energy industries, but it won't protect consumers and may very well not even curb global warming. The first draft, penned months ago, was on track to accomplish these goals, and we applauded it as a great start. Since then, however, lawmakers have met in secret with representatives of the coal and oil industries and facilitated industry efforts to gut the bill.
The Obama administration got it right when officials released a budget that would auction 100 percent of pollution allowances. As long as pollution allowances are auctioned, the government will have the revenue necessary to mitigate energy price increases through rebates while having money to invest in the sustainable energy infrastructure we need to end our reliance on fossil fuels.
This was further reinforced by President Obama's selection for the new chair of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Jon Wellinghoff, who said that "we may not need any" new nuclear or coal power plants because we have yet to harness the capacity of renewables and energy efficiency.
But the House of Representatives has not followed the administration's lead. When Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) released a draft climate bill in March, we praised it as a great first step but noted that it needed to be improved during the committee mark-up process.
But instead of a transparent process involving debate and voted-upon amendments, committee leadership conducted closed-door negotiations with polluters. The result: The bill was radically altered to accommodate the financial interests of big energy corporations while giving nothing new for the environment or for working families. (MORE) Go to Original
July 1, 2009-by Jim Hightower in Alternet. As CNBC television's top energy correspondent, Sharon Epperson, reported last month, "It's this money flow -- rather than the fundamental supply-demand data -- that's driving oil prices higher."
June 25, 2009-Valley Watch officially adopted the resolution below in our board meeting last week. It states our reasons for urging congress to vote AGAINST the "American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009." This bill is very weak and will not get the job done but it could mean lots more coal for Indiana and Kentucky because it lavishes big subsidies on both new and old coal. 
June 22, 2009-by Ken Ward, Jr. in The Charleston Gazette. "Mortality in Appalachian Coal Mining Regions: The Value of Statistical Life Lost," appears in the July-August issue of Public Health Reports. Ed. Note: Valley Watch has long held that there is no such thing as a prosperous coal community.
June 21, 2009, by Harvey Wasserman, in CounterPunch. The proposed Ohio project, which has received saturation media coverage throughout the US, is years away from getting any kind of license. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has never turned down an applicant. But the line for new permits is long and twisted. Changes are still being made to the designs. Wasserman pictured from CoommonDreams.org
June 15, 2009-by Ryan Grim, The Huffington Post. Ed Note: Since numerous coal ash impoundments permeate the tri-state of Indiana, Kentucky and Illinois, are we right to believe that we could be in for some serious terror threats? Photo © 2009 John Blair shows some of the numerous coal ash sites locate near Duke's Gibson Power power plant near Princeton, IN.
June 14, 2009-by Jim Bruggers, in the Louisville Courier Journal. "The public's right to know about threats in their communities is critically important," the California senator (Boxer) wrote. "If these sites are so hazardous and if the neighborhoods nearby could be harmed irreparably, then I believe it is essential to let people know."
Photo © 2007 John Blair shows one of the numerous waste pits used by Alcoa to store waste ash at their plant in Warrick County, IN.
June 10, 2009- by John Blair, valleywatch.net editor. New study calls for regulation of coal ash with synthetic liners and covers in appropriate landfills to avoid problems like those that occurred in SE Tennessee just prior to Christmas when 1.2 billion gallons of toxic material spilled out of a TVA power plant waste storage site.
June 2, 2009-by John Blair, valleywatch.net editor. BP managed benzene waste improperly from 2003 to 2008. BP was treated with kid gloves during its permitting on their rebuilt Whiting, IN refinery by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management.
May 25, 2009- by Marianne Lavelle, The Center for Public Integrity. The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, AKA America's Power. boast several of the same corporate members that the Natural Resources Defense Council and Environmental Defense count as partners at the US Climate Action Project or USCAP including: Alcoa, Caterpillar, Duke Energy and General Electric.
May 20, 2009-by Tyson Slocum, Public Citizen. The committee's decision to give away most of the pollution allowances for free for the next two decades is unacceptable. This approach hurts working families and average households the most; an Environmental Protection Agency analysis has shown that giving away pollution credits is "highly regressive."
