Will someone please explain to me how this quote about the Mesaba coal gasification (IGCC) project doesn’t prove that it’s not what they say it is? That it’s NOT the be all and end all of emissions! Must be a boy thing…

Here’s what he said, really:

“…the project may have to be grandfathered in in some form on the emissions in the future so there would be a net zero or net gain.”

Photo stolen from the DFL site — well, I guess they’re good for something — they must have really worked for this one! He’s kinda got that Tom Dunnwald look…


Let’s shine the sun on this! And I’m worried that the DFLers and enviros won’t know anybetter than to give them more, everyone join in, people all over the state, join hands, it’s a love train… oh, barf… It’ll go like this, “How can we pass CO2 legislation that’s as ineffective as possible, something that’s not too bad and so we won’t get screwed too bad? Let me think… how ’bout “Cap & TRADE” yeah, that’s it, TRADE, we can just shift it around and let only the ones with the deep pockets pollute… oh, I forgot, they’re the major offenders already… oh well, at least it will look like we’re doing something. And those who’ve commodified CO2 will come out like bandits. Maybe we can get some…” right… what a load o’ bull…

PUH-LEEEZE, Just CAP, or if you must, CAP & TAX… oh, wait, CAP & FEE! Yeah, that’s it, CAP & FEE!
Anyway, here’s the Gov:

Would coal gasification project fit in Pawlenty plan?
Governor remains supportive; Range lawmakers, Excelsior CEO pleased; opponents are not

Bill Hanna
Mesabi Daily News

Saturday, December 16th, 2006 09:27:46 PM

ST. PAUL â?? Gov. Tim Pawlenty wants a much more aggressive, more â??greenâ? energy policy for Minnesota. He wants the state to tap into renewable sources for 25 percent of all its energy use by the year 2025.

He outlined that policy change in a speech on Tuesday and then carried the message to a legislative forum with reporters at the State Capitol. The message was clear: More renewables, a lower level of emissions harmful to the environment and â??significantâ? penalties for utilities that do not conform.

So what would that mean for the proposed Excelsior Energy coal gasification project for the Iron Range, Pawlenty was asked.

â??Iâ??ve been supportive of the project and still am. But the project may have to be grandfathered in in some form on the emissions in the future so there would be a net zero or net gain,â? the governor said.

State Sen. David Tomassoni, DFL-Chisholm, was pleased to hear of the continued support

â??Iâ??m hoping he will remain supportive and we wonâ??t have to do something grandiose for the project,â? he said.

Tomassoni said that the coal gasification technology is crucial to the stateâ??s overall long-term energy policy.

â??Renewables are certainly going to be an important supplement to our energy needs. But itâ??s unrealistic to try to completely get away from coal-based sources. We have to look at alternative technologies for clean-coal sources. And this (coal gasification) is it,â? he said.

Tom Micheletti, co-president and CEO Excelsior Energy, said the proposed coal gasification project is the right fit for any energy policy seeking cleaner utilities.

â??The technology weâ??ll use will reduce emissions dramatically compared to other coal-fired plants and remove virtually all mercury for the coal,â? he said.

The Excelsior Energy Web site states that the new technology will reduce emissions by two-thirds compared to the next cleanest coal technology.

Excelsior wants to build six units on the Iron Range, with the first one slated for construction beginning in 2008 and to be online in the Bovey/Taconite area of Itasca County in 2011. It is projected to create 105 to 110 permanent jobs, with construction jobs peaking at 1,200 to 1,400.

The total anticipated cost of the first unit is â??about $2 billion,â? according to Micheletti. The cost had previously been reported as $1.2 billion, a figure also provided by Micheletti. But he said the $1.2 billion was the initial cost figure and has since been increased to â??about $2 billionâ? to factor in financing, permitting and other preliminary costs of the project.

However, a Red Wing, Minn., attorney for Public Utilities Commission intervenor and opponent mncoalgasplant.com., sees the Excelsior initiativeâ??s price tag quite differently.

â??The cost of this project has been escalating, and last May, Excelsiorâ??s DOE (Department of Energy) agreement reported the cost at $2,155,680,783, which doesn’t include ancillary services, transmission network system upgrades and infrastructure costs paid by the county, cities or others. The ultimate cost will be much higher,â? said Carol Overland.

She also doesnâ??t grasp Pawlentyâ??s backing of the project.

â??I donâ??t understand the governorâ??s support. Mesaba (which the project is also known as) doesnâ??t fit the plan for renewables, conservation and aggressive reduction of CO2 because itâ??s fueled by coal and requires constructing a plant and buying electricity that Xcelâ??s customers donâ??t need,â? she said.

2 Responses to “Pawlenty on Excelsior’s Mesaba Project”

  1. Legalectric » Blog Archive » Pawlenty and Coleman look out! And what about “our Amy?” Says:

    […] But hearing that Pawlenty wants to “grandfather in” Mesaba if there’s restrictive CO2 legislation… whatever is he thinking? That’s going too far! We’re way overdue in holding these guys accountable, we’ve been letting these guys be such Excelsior toadies — and what’s up with Amy anyway? As they’re saying on the Range, “Not OUR Amy?!?!?” We’ll see, seems to me she’s surfing that learning curve and “needs more information.” […]

  2. Legalectric » Blog Archive » $2,155,680,783 - Cost of Mesaba Says:

    […] Would coal gasification project fit into Pawlenty’s plan (now archived) but you can find it here: http://legalectric.org/weblog/1083/Â […]

Leave a Reply