Legalectric

Just an aside, the PolyMet Letter of Intent to buy a lot of land near the Mesaba “East site” does not include the land or the infrastructure of the Mesaba “East site.” “There’s plenty of room for Mesaba.” OK, here we go…

Sit! Speak! Roll over! Xcel pushes and Excelsior rolls over.
Thursday wasn’t only about the CapX2020 transmission lines from hell. Right after that, we moved on to a Motion Hearing on the Excelsior Power Purchase Agreement. You can find most of the filings at our site at www.mncoalgasplant.com.

Xcel had asked the ALJ to Order Excelsior to comply with the Protective Order (here’s the scoop on that! We won, and got access.) Xcel’s problem is that it can’t get at info it believes it should be able to get. They argued the same things I’d argued before, that the Order is way overbroad and doesn’t work like a Protective Order should, and instead reverse the burden and Excelsior should have to demonstrate why very NARROW parts of the information should be non-public. I raised issues here too, because the reality of that Protective Order is that it … well, it isn’t arbitrary… it’s targeted… and it applies only to mncoalgasplant.com. There are three participating parties who are non-utility and non-power producer parties, but for some odd reason, we’re the only ones who have to demonstrate need — even though the Order says that non-utility and power producer parties SHALL NOT have access to non-public information unless they demonstrate need, and the Order has a specific procedure for those who want other treatment. It turns out Excelsior has been sending the non-utility intervenors all the info, and then the other day, one of the non-utility Intervenors served pleadings, ones containing non-public references that they were not supposed to have access to, and then they served the other parties and didn’t serve us! TWO violations of the protective order. And they were not at the table for the discussion Thursday. Hmmmmmm…

Anyway, the day before the hearing, Excelsior produces large amounts of data as “public” and so most of the PPA Petition is now public. As for the Dsicovery, most of that will be made public too, and they’re “working on it” and there are two things I want made public, focusing on costs because we’re in a cost docket here:

1) Infrastructure costs: Rail; Roadways; Transmission – Generator Outlet and Network System Upgrades; Water – Water supply and intake, Water conveyance, Water Outfall (all), Wastewater treatment; Gas Pipeline. If the public knew the full costs of this project, and if the public knew how much of the infrastructure was to be paid by Excelsior, and how much was to be paid by “NON-EXCELSIOR,” they’d see this is a shifty project — as Xcel argues, the risk, the costs, are being shifted away from Excelsior to someone, anyone else!

2) CO2 capture and sequestration costs. This project is touted as “capture ready” but all that means is that the flanges are on whatever parts, ready to accept equipment, right? What does it cost to actually capture CO2? What’s the efficiency loss? What percentages capture and cost for each? What does it cost to transport it to wherever, all costs included? What does it cost to sequester it — land acquisition or lease or whatever, equipment? If they want to tout “CO2 benefits,” we will look at costs.

If the public knew the costs, they wouldn’t be able to get away with this. There’s no CO2 benefit to this project. It’s not workable. It’s not feasible. And the argument that “it’s too early to know if it’s feasible” is a lie, we know full well it ISN’T happening here, we know it CAN’T happen here, and we know it costs so much it won’t happen HERE, or ANYWHERE ELSE, so let’s just have a little honesty here. Let’s get the information out into the public, and let’s stop this “IGCC is the way,” and “IGCC is good with capture and sequestration,” because we know enough to know it isn’t.

For those interested in sequestration, they should talk with my client Nancy Prehn, who lives on the gas dome in Waseca, where they store 7 BILLION c.f. of gas underground, under 10 suare miles, under 8,400 acres. This is the only natural gas storage in Minnesota and it is Minnesota’s best kept secret. Read “Gas Migration: Events Preceding Earthquakes” by Khilyuk, Chilingar, Endres and Robertson. You can get it at www.abebooks.com, just search for “Gas Migration.”

Gas moves around, so don’t expect it not to! Injection also has an impact on water — ask Nancy about her water when they’re injecting, and there was a woman in National Geographic showing the impacts of injection on her water! YUCK! Now, granted migrating CO2 won’t have the same impact as migrating natural gas, BOOM, downtown Hutchinson and a trailer park on the edge of town blew up. Google Hutchinson and gas. Here’s a link for a video! The association of gas migration with faults was demonstrated not long ago in Oklahoma, where gas was burbling up in a river along a fault. Here’s my prior post on that.
CO2 doesn’t go BOOM. But if it won’t say where it’s put, what’s the point?

Sequestration map again, and remember this is POTENTIAL, not real:

Carbon capture and sequestration:

1) It’s costly beyond belief, and we know roughly the costs and of course those touting it won’t talk about it! Because to talk about it is to admit it and know it’s not feasible.

2) Sequestration could/might be done in only a few places, none of which are anywheres near here — see map above. Pretending it is physically and economically possible to sequester is against evidence here in Minnesota.

3) Gas migrates and sequestration has seismic and hydrologic impacts. Has no one paid attention to the water problems in Wyoming?

Let’s not be delusional about capture and sequestration. From Excelsior’s delusional and illusory “capture potential” “benefits” to enviros “IGCC is great if we capture and sequester” –it’s nonsense — we know better.

The real question is: WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO STOP GENERATION OF CO2? If you look at the BSII in South Dakota, that answer is: “Not much!” All the CO2 talk in the world will only generate more CO2 if the talk isn’t effective in stopping construction of new coal plants.

To see the great water photo, go here to National Geographic’s Mulitmedia tab, and select “Drilling the West” and see “Bad Water.”

Here’s a Letter to the Editor from today’s Duluth News Tribune:

Excelsior power project rooted in politics

It may be that coal gasification will play an important role in the
future of energy production, but it’s clear that Northeastern Minnesota is a grossly inappropriate locale for the experiment, despite the rhetorical blandishments of Excelsior Energy and the politicians it has in tow.

First, the chief advantage of coal gasification is the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions by sequestering them underground. But our regional geology prevents that, and Excelsior’s plan would emit 10 million tons of the pollutant every year.

Second, Minnesotans are far from the potential consumers of the potential energy, necessitating hundreds of miles of wasteful transmission lines. That would surely involve issues of eminent domain, not to mention extensive destruction of forests and wetlands.

Third, the Minnesota Legislature, in an action reeking of pork and self-serving politics, attempted to mandate the purchase of the potential energy where there is no market or demand. Can you spell boondoggle?

Fourth, the plan is an insult to intelligence and thoughtful energy planning, and would have been rejected out of hand if not for purely political traction. Sen. Tom Bakk had the arrogance to say of the Iron Range, “It’s an area that’s comfortable with smokestacks.” Translation: the Range is expendable.

Bakk should speak only for himself. I was born and raised here, and I’m decidedly uncomfortable with the Excelsior folly. It’s an artificial, non-market-based, environmentally destructive proposal driven only by shortsighted politics instead of necessity or common sense.

PETER M. LESCHAK
SIDE LAKE

Amen, brother!!!!

Speaking out because I want the good things to survive me
Column: Dear North
Cook County News-Herald

Matthew Miltich
Contributing columnist

Whitecaps race across the bay ahead of me. Wild wind tears fine spray from curling tops. This big, inland lake is stirred up. Bits of aquatic vegetation, torn loose from their moorings, roll in the blue-green surf.

The season is turned on its ear, too. Against the dark green of summer foliage, the quaking aspens are turning gold, and here and there a sugar maple has given up its summer work, and gone crimson. Ash leaves, curled and brown already, lie in a watery windrow along a windward shore. The air isnâ??t chill, but itâ??s not warm either.

A big weather front approaching from the west is whipping up this wind, and behind it, much cooler air advances. I can feel this in my bones as I bounce across the waves in my fishing boat. Might this be my last fishing campaign of the summer season? Already Iâ??ve touched-up my old bluebill decoys with new paint, and begun training my Labrador retrievers in earnest.

When I begin to troll along a drop-off, I hook and land a stout little bass, unhook and release it. Minutes later, a bigger fish strikes. The line angles up quickly, a sure sign the fish is about to jump. He breaks water, shakes his head wildly, and sends my plug flying, which makes me laugh. Itâ??s fun to feel the strength of such a fish, no shame to lose it thus, and in any case, Iâ??d not keep one so big.

I feel a little different about the trout that strikes as I round the tip of a sharp point. It runs toward the boat just as the full force of the wind hits the bow. Iâ??m alone aboard my craft; the bow is a little light, and the boat is hard to control in this wind. I canâ??t quite keep tension on the line as the big trout porpoises from one wave into the next, its unmistakable shape and color framed for an instant in the space between the rollers, and then the line goes slack.

For a moment, I feel the pang of its loss. Had I landed it, would I have released the trout, or kept it for my supper? I confess, I donâ??t know, but even in the few seconds between the strike and the fish breaking free, I feel tension in the choice.

I do know that as I grow older, my desire to conserve our precious wild resources grows stronger, though my family and I eat much fish and wild game, and I love to fish and hunt as much as ever. For some unfathomable reason, I want the good things I myself have enjoyed in my native land, to survive me, to endure for my children and grandchildren, and for all those who live after me.

This impulse finds its way into my writing, into my conversations, into the experiences I share with others in the outdoors. Recently, it led me to speak at a public meeting about a proposed, coal-powered electricity generating plant, to be sited, if approved, on the Mesabi Iron Range in northern Minnesota, in either the Lake Superior watershed or the upper Mississippi.

Understand, Iâ??d rather never speak in public. I shy away from public gatherings for the same reason that Iâ??m alone on the lake this day: I love solitude (shared sometimes with friends), prefer the country to any town or city, and desire peace.

Even so, as a conservationist, and as a matter of conscience, I attended the public meeting and spoke against the Mesaba Energy Project because I think the project puts northern Minnesota at risk. The proposed plant would be a giant â?? one of the largest power facilities in the world â?? requiring an endless succession of trains loaded with dirty coal. Excelsior Energy, Inc. would condemn private land and homes, both for its site and for new transmission lines to the Twin Cities. The electricity produced would not be used in northern Minnesota; the proposers have been exempted even from showing any need for the power. Presently, the Twin Cities has no such need.

Sold as a â??clean coal initiative,â? the coal gasification process they proffer creates many poisons. The plantâ??s proposers intend to bury toxic waste in landfills in our good country, underlain everywhere by the cleanest water in the world, and contribute deadly mercury, which persists forever, to northern Minnesota lakes, poisoning our fish, our wildlife, and us. Also, of course, though weâ??re awakening this very moment to the actual onset of global warming, the proposed giant would produce huge volumes of carbon dioxide, and no way to sequester it.
The proposers are not backers or entrepreneurs in the traditional sense. They expect to fund their private enterprise with monies collected from taxpayers: $55.5 million awarded to them, so far, in public funds, including $10 million Minnesota dollars earmarked for solar, wind, and renewable energy; $800 million promised to them in guaranteed federal loans; $12 million borrowed by the state for public infrastructure to support Excelsiorâ??s private, for-profit venture.
They sell their project as a boon to northern Minnesotaâ??s economy and the rural poor, but itâ??s clear that the few new long-term jobs it creates will go to outsiders, that the real beneficiaries will be the already wealthy proposers, while the poor will remain poor, and be worse off than before because their very homeland will be despoiled.
How could this come to pass? Imagine that, instead of being shaped by forward-thinking conservationists, federal policy for migratory waterfowl had been written by market hunters. Just so, todayâ??s energy policies were fashioned by lobbyists from coal and power companies.
My solitude on the lake is disturbed by thoughts about this. Iâ??d rather not think about it, not speak up, just keep on fishing, but for me and others like me, the price of keeping the peace may be the loss of our country.

I anchor the boat in calm water, sheltered from the fierce wind by steep shore, and switch to minnows, hoping to take some walleyes for supper. I catch a couple of keepers and put them on ice, but next cast I tie into a fish that bends my rod in half. After a long battle I bring it alongside the boat. Itâ??s a smallmouth, six pounds if itâ??s an once, bronze and beautiful. Itâ??s not only the biggest smallmouth Iâ??ve ever caught, itâ??s the biggest Iâ??ve ever seen.

Itâ??s the easiest decision to release it and watch it disappear unharmed into the depths, but what does such a gesture amount to in the face of threats like the proposed power plant? Why should I, or anyone, act responsibly in the outdoors if a company like Excelsior Energy is given the go-ahead to kill our land and poison our water? Is conservation itself now irrelevant?

Am I myself, like Don Quixote, merely a madman tilting at windmills?

And how are we to power our civilization if we disallow developments such as the Mesaba Energy Project? I look to the treetops, the wind tearing through the leaves, the rollers on the lake. The answer, it appears to me, is in the wind.

Photo from standing room only meeting in TaconiteÂ

Hot off the press on Excelsior’s Mesaba project! Public Comments from the Commerce meetings up north, and written Comments are now on line:

 Hearing Transcript: August 22 in Taconite

Hearing Transcript: August 23 in Hoyt Lakes

 DNR Staff Comment (REQUIRED READING)
 Written Comments received