Evergreen Energy is having water problems at its Ft. Union, Wyoming gasification plant. Why am I not surprised? It’s hard to tell from the article, but this is NOT gasification, it’s drying out coal to increase its burnability, essentially. But it’s another piece in the saga of coal and water not mixing.
Remember Wabash River’s water problems, that it was “routinely” in violation of its water permit for selenium, cyanide and arsenic?
Click here: Wasash River Final Technical Report

Remember the Beulah, ND synfuel plant and that it’s a hazardous waste site?
Click here: Report on Beulah water contamination

Here we go again…

Although Evergreen — formerly KFx — made several shipments to customers and recorded successful test burns in both the industrial and utility markets, troubles with water handling have prevented the Fort Union plant from achieving full production of 750,000 tons per year.

As Evergreen reconfigures an entirely new water handling system, it also must resolve issues with the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality over alleged illegal dumping of wastewater.

And note they talk about coal gasification at Coal Creek? is Great River Energy getting into coal gasification (IGCC)? NOOOOOO! It’s a reference to their coal drying efforts. Click here for GRE COAL DRYING. I have visions of them doing laundry and ending up with a mess like I have only worse! Anyway, the odds are good that new generation is coming out there given the new Coal Creek to Wisconsin transmission line coming through Minnesota!


Clean coal’s canary
Star-Tribune energy reporter Sunday, December 31, 2006
GILLETTE — Believers of “advanced coal” processes are fighting to win over the “old coal” investment community, which is under a deluge of information from opponents who say the technology either won’t work in Wyoming, or won’t achieve commercial profitability.
For these reasons, Evergreen Energy Inc.’s Fort Union plant serves as clean coal’s canary in Wyoming, and its start-up in 2006 seems to have yielded mixed results.Although Evergreen — formerly KFx — made several shipments to customers and recorded successful test burns in both the industrial and utility markets, troubles with water handling have prevented the Fort Union plant from achieving full production of 750,000 tons per year.But Evergreen Energy’s K-Fuel process doesn’t just cook 8,300 British thermal heating unit coal into a 11,000 Btu, low-pollution, super-compliant product. It also turns lemons into lemonade, according to CEO Mark Sexton.Sexton said every hitch at the archetype plant results in fine-tuning to create a better K-Fuel blueprint for wide deployment.”We continue to make improvements at the facility there in Gillette,” Sexton said in a recent interview. “Though the plant isn’t running at full capacity today, it continues to operate while we simultaneously make improvements and make changes.”

Listed on Evergreen’s success side this year are tentative agreements to build mine-mouth K-Fuel plants at the Buckskin and Coal Creek mines in the Powder River Basin. Next, Evergreen plans to deploy K-Direct, suited to achieve water and heating efficiencies alongside electrical generators themselves.

The difference between today’s K-Fuel plant and the one that made only a brief appearance in Wyoming 15 years ago is that it operates in a completely different world of market fundamentals. Sexton said financials demand a more efficient product, and environmental concerns demand a cleaner product.

“Demand clearly exceeds our ability to produce the product right now,” Sexton said.

Clean coal debut

Lack of investor enthusiasm forced Clear Energy Solutions to table its hopes for a coal-to-liquids project in Converse County in 2006, yet DKRW Energy LLC made sure-footed strides toward its Medicine Bow coal gasification and liquefaction project in Carbon County. And the state received more than a dozen formal proposals from parties interested in partnering in Wyoming’s first integrated gasification combined cycle plant.

Yet for all the talk, speculation and real work toward finally advancing Wyoming’s primitive shovel-and-ship coal industry to cleaner and more “value-added” processes, only one company actually produced tangible results in Wyoming this year.

Only Evergreen Energy Inc. actually fired up two Lurgi coal gasifiers at its new Fort Union K-Fuel plant here in 2006 after more than 15 arduous years of trying to take the process from laboratory to the commercial market.

The fact that Evergreen secured the millions needed to launch its first K-Fuel plant without any government subsidies was a milestone in and of itself. Martin Malloy, investment analyst with Hibernia Southcoast Capital Inc., said despite encountering water handling troubles, Evergreen seems to have weathered the expensive start-up phase rather well.

“It’s a step in the right direction. They’ve been able to fund the start-up of this plant and still have more than $100 million cash on the balance sheet with minimal debt,” said Malloy, who does have a “buy” rating on Evergreen Energy stock. Hibernia has done investment banking for the company in the past 12 months.

Still, Evergreen’s 2006 start-up didn’t come without missteps that provided naysayers with plenty of fodder. Some customers experienced dusting issues with the product, which resulted in tinkering with a treatment process utilizing molasses to prevent dust-ups in the transportation and handling of the product.

More lemons into lemonade, according to Sexton. Cause for caution, say others.

“The start-up is much slower than anybody expected, about a year longer than expected,” said Phil Dodge, investment analyst for Standford Group Co.

The biggest challenge, by far, is handling the water that’s stripped from the coal. A $2 million reverse osmosis water treatment facility at the plant failed to perform as expected. Only one of the two Lurgi gasifiers is currently in use as the other is refitted with a different water piping regime.

Dodge said having a good deal of cash on the balance sheet buys Evergreen some time to work out the water kinks. Introducing any new fuel product to the market is extremely rough, but Evergreen seems to have a good shot at finding a home in the market.

“It really takes a long while, if not forever, to get one of these (alternative fuels) up and running commercially,” Dodge said. “This is the one that seemed to have the best shot, because the product is a desirable one.”

Regulatory issues

As Evergreen reconfigures an entirely new water handling system, it also must resolve issues with the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality over alleged illegal dumping of wastewater.

Evergreen is involved in two separate “notices of violation,” which are yet to be resolved. For the most serious — an alleged illegal dumping in the plant’s mine pit — DEQ Director John Corra recommended a $35,000 penalty. Evergreen disputes that alleged violation, and said it fired a contractor involved in a second illegal dumping.

“As a company with a strong environmental theme to our business, we make great efforts to comply with environmental regulations and do not believe that any violation took place,” said Evergreen Energy spokesman Paul Jacobson.

A start is a start

Rob Hurless, energy adviser to Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal, works closely with energy officials to bring clean coal technologies to the state. He said a rocky start-up is not unexpected for any new technology.

Evergreen’s Fort Union plant is the first of what is likely going to be a wide array of clean coal efforts in the state.

“I think that’s a normal process,” Hurless said. “These are significant technical advancements. When you’re working at that level of complexity in a marketplace that is itself complex, those are rough-and-tumble places.”

Hurless said Wyoming’s sub-bituminous coal hasn’t been the first-choice fuel source for such processes. But because Wyoming’s coal production is the cheapest and most prolific in the nation, there’s great interest to pair the resource with the emerging technologies.

“Any product or process faces challenges in its own marketplace. Some challenges are financial; some of them are market challenges,” Hurless said. “Fortunately, you have entrepreneurs up there who said, ‘OK, we’re going to take a chance, put our money in this and do the best to produce the product.'”

Energy reporter Dustin Bleizeffer can be reached at (307) 682-3388 or dustin.bleizeffer@casperstartribune.net.

Coal, coal gasification – don’t they get it?
It’s NOT the panacea…
How long will we go on flogging the dead canary?


It’s that time of year again here in nuclear land. Each year we get a calendar with the emergency details that inquiring minds want to know, that most of us would rather not be reminded of… like evacuation routes, pottasium iodide distribution, OH, I FEEL SO SAFE NOW! We even get a new “NOTIFIED” card each year to leave in the door when we evacuate, “as if we’re going on vacation.”

Last year they sent out a cheezy brochure, and this year, I’m sure in response to all the complaints, they’re back to a calendar. And of course, I thanked Michael Wadley profusely!

Here’re the zones — I’m in 10SE, and the evacuation routes, well, given that up here on the bluff I’ve got a full frontal exposure to the plan. this could be a problem! Anyway, if there’s an “emergency,” if we’re supposed to evacuate, here’s what we’re supposed to do:

  • Close all doors and windows. Pack a few personal items and prepare your home as if you were leaving on vacation.
  • Position the NOTIFIED sign found in the back of this brocuure (below) to an easily seen front window or door so authorities will know you have evacuated.
  • Assist neighbors, if possible, if they need transportation out of the area.
  • Follow radio instructions to evacuate to the emergency reception center.
  • See the evacuation route map for directions to the reception center in your state.
  • Drive the most direct route to proceed to the reception center.
  • During a General Emergency while evacuating, you will be directed to take potassium iodide. Do not delay your evacuation to locate or administer KI.


And here’s the evacuation route — there will be a test… this is only a test… were it not a test… Again, given that I’m up here on the bluff, I think I’d hightail it out Hwy, 58, to get out of the valley fast, and then west and north ASAP. But too many of the planned evacuation routes go right by the plant! Go figure! where do we stay? Look! Supposedly we all go past the plant and up to Cottage Grove, or across the river and to the east. Now why not Farmington, Eagan or lakeville? To the west and north, opposite the way the wind usually blows. Well, that’s my belief, though it would be good to see a wind rose for the area.

Time for another cup of coffee…


Today I was doing my doggie domestics, got food and treats — at Chuck & Don’s they were giving out stuff, including calendars and these great “baseball cards” of the County K-9 dogs, how cool!

titan1.jpg titan2.jpg

Next I dumped off some recycling, and then stopped by the Goodhue County Humane Society to give them some $$$$ and there are TWO sheps in there, a brother and sister. They’re under a year old and beautiful and cute AND WAITING FOR YOU!

And remember, if you’ve already got a dog, and need dog boarding now and then like I do, call and book a room for your pooch!

Goodhue County Humane Society
1213 Brick Rd.
Red Wing, MN 55066

(651) 388-5286

Here’s Katana, dangerous for me to be around her because she’s a female shep with a name that starts with “K” so quick, stop by and see her because I just can’t have another dog:

gchskatana1.jpg gchskatana2.jpg

Look how much she looks like Krie! Sable with short short wiry hair, and that gleam in her eye! She’s just been spayed, still a little pink on her belly, but it’s not slowing her down.

Here’s Brutus, his coloring is sable but weird, with light markings around his eyes:

gchsbrutus1.jpg gchsbrutus2.jpg

The blurb says he doesn’t like cats, but I’ll bet he likes them too much!

Goodhue County Humane Society
1213 Brick Rd.
Red Wing, MN 55066

(651) 388-5286

And here’s Leo, a big guy, formally deemed “Extra Large.” He was a stray, out running for a while, had some mats and was hungry until he got into the shelter with three hots and a cot, and now he’s filling out, Lynn’s training him in on the clerical work, and he’s so at home that he’s getting possessive of everyone at the shelter — what a big lumbering sweetie. Check out the size of his paws:



Click logo for link to Environmental Integrity Project

A lawsuit, a power plant moratorium, doctors standing up for the health of their communities… is this sounding familiar?
Here’s the TXU site to see what they’re planning:

Reliable Texas Power

In the words of an industry guy with an interest in seeing more power plants:

“For now at least, it would seem that the ‘fast track’ process is toast.”

I’m just not so optimistic, but this is an important step — they cannot get away with this.

Issues continue to brew in coal-fired plant process

Associated Press

AUSTIN â?? The Sierra Club, represented by the Austin office of Environmental Integrity Project (EIP), took legal action today to stop the â??unprecedented, unreasonable, and … illegalâ? plan by Governor Rick Perry to â??fast trackâ? administrative hearings for construction of up to 18 dirty coal-fired power plants in the state. Most of the plants in question are being proposed by the Dallas-based utility giant TXU.

EIP Austin Office Counsel Ilan Levin filed the petition on behalf of the Sierra Club to intervene in a state district lawsuit originally brought by Environmental Defense over the processing of coal plant permits. Todayâ??s legal action by Sierra Club stems from a recent state agency decision to consolidate six proposed TXU coal plant permits into one hearing, and to set those permits for a speedy decision. The lawsuit seeks to halt Perryâ??s controversial executive order of October 27, 2005, directing the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) to accelerate consideration of permit applications and the Texas State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) to issue unusually fast decisions on air pollution permits for new electric power plants.

EIP Austin Office Counsel Ilan Levin said: â??Today, Sierra Club is asking a judge to overturn a Governorâ??s executive order that imposes unfair burdens on regular people simply trying to avail themselves of the common-sense environmental protections built into state and federal laws. Weâ??re saying that speeding up the required decision process for major new sources of smog and other air pollution is illegal and unfair, especially to citizens trying to participate.â?

Rita Beving, Conservation Co-Chair for the Dallas Sierra Club Group, whose areaâ??s air quality would be impacted by coal plant emissions, said: â??This legal action is a critical step in the fight by Texas citizens to assert their rights to protect their health and environment from an ill-considered rush to permit these polluting coal-fired power plants, whether we need them or not. The tragedy is that we could meet our energy needs through greater efficiency and renewable energy, without subjecting our cities to further air pollution from coal plants.â?

The lawsuit notes: â??The executive order imposes an unreasonable schedule to thoroughly develop the required technical and legal issues for one major air permit of the type being considered, let alone six of them … The Governorâ??s Executive Order RP 49 infringes on the rights of Texas citizens to participate meaningfully in the environmental permitting arena. The right of any affected party to participate in agency permitting decisions is rooted in the constitutional right to due process. The Governor lacks authority to unilaterally alter this system. Further, the Governor lacks the authority to dictate to an administrative law judge exactly how much time is allowed for a judicial administrative decision, and to do so violates the doctrine of separation of powers.â?

The Perry fast-tracking scheme has huge consequences. The Sierra Club petition notes: â??To put the magnitude of the six TXU permits in context, it is worth noting the additional greenhouse gases associated with these new coal plants. While not addressed in the permits, the new units will emit an additional estimated 51 million tons of carbon dioxide per year into Texas skies. In 2005, all existing Texas power plants emitted 255.4 million tons of carbon dioxide.â?

The Sierra Club contends that a full and deliberate hearing process on each of the power plant applications is crucial due to the serious health and environmental consequences associated with coal-fired power plants, such as increased sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury pollution.

For example, the legal filing points out: â??Sulfur dioxide … interacts with nitrogen oxides to form nitric and sulfuric acids, commonly known as acid rain, which damages forests and acidifies soil and waterways. Harvard School of Public Health studies have shown that SO2 emissions from power plants significantly harm the cardiovascular and respiratory health of people who live near the plants. According to U.S. EPA studies, fine particle pollution from power plants causes more than 20,000 premature deaths a year.â?

On the topic of mercury pollution, the EIP/Sierra Club petition notes: â??Coal-fired power plants are the single largest source of mercury air pollution, accounting for roughly 40 percent of all mercury emissions nationwide. Mercury is a highly toxic metal that, once released into the atmosphere, settles in lakes and rivers, where it moves up the food chain to humans. The Centers for Disease Control has found that roughly 10 percent of American women carry mercury concentrations at levels considered to put a fetus at risk of neurological damage.â?

Another major pollutant — nitrogen oxide — is a major contributor to ozone smog-forming pollution, which has been a major problem for ambient air quality in the Dallas/Fort Worth and Austin areas.

Usually each power plant application would be considered separately with a full review of the risks associated with its additional pollution impact. The new plants also would be examined to verify that that are using the best available technology in order to not degrade air quality.

From PR Newswire


Here’s one County standing up to TXU, initiating a moratorium:



County OKs moratorium

By Jerrie Whiteley
Herald Democrat

Grayson County commissioners Monday voted to approve a moratorium on power plant permitting in the state until a court decides the appropriateness of the expedited process currently under way for pulverized coal-fired plants.

However, the decision was not a quick or unanimous one. Commissioners listened to more than an hour of comments both for and against the plant planned for Savoy before taking a vote. Commissioner Johnny Waldrip, Precinct 1, declined to vote on the issue saying he has family members who are employed by TXU.

That left four members of the court with votes. Jackie Crisp, commissioner from Precinct 3, made a motion that commissioners support the moratorium. David Whitlock, commissioner for Precinct 2, said â??I donâ??t have a problem signing the resolution … I donâ??t know if it will do any good.â?

Whitlock and other commissioners urged those who are opposed to the power plant or who want the process slowed down to go to the law makers who can do something about their concerns. Those law makers, commissioners said, work in Austin.

Whitlockâ??s vote put Gene Short, commissioner for Precinct 4, in the hot seat. Short stared at his hands and the desk in front of him while he apparently thought about the issue. He looked up a time or two and then back down.

Just as he seemed about to answer, a Denison man reminded him from the audience that Shortâ??s television ads for his recent re-election efforts had featured his grandchildren. Several people who spoke out against the power plant or at least against the fast-tracking, urged the commissioners to think about future generations.

â??My first inclination is to vote No,â? Short said, â??But I will go ahead and go along with it.â?

His vote set the record at three to one abstention. Judge Tim McGraw didnâ??t vote. It was McGrawâ??s last court session as county judge.

Before the vote, commissioners heard from a number of area residents, some more than once, on their opinions about the proposed power plant. At the end of all of the comments, Short asked, â??Are you all wanting to kill the project?â?

A loud round of â??Noâ? filled the air and then several people at once tried to explain that what they really wanted was more time.

â??We want to get to know what is going on,â? someone called from the back. Grayson County Clerk Wilma Blackshear Bush repeatedly told people they have to come to the front of the room and give their names before talking, but by the end of the time set aside for the comments, that rule broke down.

So did the one about only speaking for five minutes. Most of the people who spoke Monday have addressed the issue wih commissioners before. Some were at the commissionerâ??s meeting last week and others have discussed the matter at area city councils.

One of the people who went over his five minutes and addressed the commissioners more than once, Dr. Stanley Feld, said the commissioners canâ??t get lost in the confusion about what is allowable by Environmental Protection Agency standards and what will actually hurt people.

â??Last week I felt like I didnâ??t communicate with you,â? Feld said. He said he asked himself what he had missed when he talked to them about the potential dangers of mercury poisoning and the problems that could result from other chemicals the proposed changes to the plant in Savoy could produce. He explained the amount of mercury that the EPA says a plant can produce and not hurt the people who live around it is not, in his understanding, a healthy amount. He said converting the metric amount to the standard of measurements most average people will understand is hard and hiding behind that is a ploy used by TXU.

Whitlock asked Feld if he thought commissioners should join the Texas Clean Air Cities Coalition.

â??No. I think you should take a stand. You gotta understand TXU says (it will be) better than EPA (requirements) but EPA stinks. It takes advantage of us not understanding the difference between metric (measurements) and pounds.â?

Dr. George Diggs said he asked that the item be put on the commissionerâ??s agenda. He said he, and many of the others present, â??Just wants to be able to look at it better. We want Grayson County to be a successful, healthy place to live.â?

He said to make that happen, he thinks the residents of the area need as much information about the proposed pulverized coal burning plant. People must know the pros and cons for both sides before they can make rational decisions.

Not everyone who spoke was against the plant. Pat Hillard, Fannin Count commissioner Precinct 4, showed up to explain why that countyâ??s court voted in favor of the plant. Hillard said it wasnâ??t just about economics. â??It is because of the light switch,â? he said. He explained he wants electricity when he goes to a switch to turn it on.

â??I am not going to tell TXU how to build a power plant,â? Hillard said. He said he wouldnâ??t want them telling him how to do his business. He added that if the counties â??bullyâ? TXU into building the plant the way the counties want it built, â??Where is the responsibility for a disaster there?â?

He hinted that the responsibility might fall to the counties. Hillard said one thing is sure, if the area loses out on power, it will lose out on industry and economic gain. Hillard said he and other Fannin County commissioners did their homework on the issue and he urged Grayson County to the same.

Chip Brusard of Bells said he is favor of the plant and the fast track. He said slowing the process down will cost more money and that cost will be passed along to the utility costumers.

TXU representative Tom Rose said he couldnâ??t possibly address all of the questions about the proposed plant that the commissioners heard Monday. He did say if the company didnâ??t add to its power production the state would be below reliable reserves by 2009 or 2010. He said that is because of the stateâ??s increase in population and power consumption. He also said the power consumption is related, at least in part, to economic improvement. â??People make more money and they go out and buy Plasma TVs,â? Rose said. He said those appliances use more power than regular televisions.

Rose said the company continually adds improvements to its existing plants as new technology comes along. However, when asked point blank if TXU were likely to change the Savoy plant over to coal gasification later on down the line, he said it would be a very costly process.

In the end, the commissioners passed the resolution in support of the moratorium, but urged those present to take their fight to the legislators in Austin.

Jobs… jobs on the range…

December 29th, 2006


There’s a new electrical generation project that’s been fired up in Virginia, Minnesota. Let’s see if I’ve got this right:

Virginia and Hibbing Biomass project
$80 million, 70+ jobs

Excelsior’s Mesaba Project
$2,155,680,783 ($2.2 BILLION), 107 jobs

What’s the better community investment opportunity?
Where do we get more bang for our tax dollar?

$80 million – 70 jobs v. $2.2 billion – 107 jobs

Now I may be in the 44th percentile in math, but DUH!

Info here: Virginia Public Utilities Biomass Project

And from VPUC, here are the numbers:

– up to 70 jobs (at Virginia and Hibbing Public Utilities) retained for 20 years

– 65-100 new jobs created in the wood processing portion of the project

– $52 million in new development at Virginia and Hibbing Public Utilities

– $10 million invested in wood yard and harvesting equipment

– $19.2 million in biomass fuel will be spent annually within 75 miles of Virginia and Hibbing

– predictable steam rates for 3,600 residential and commercial steam customers in Virginia and Hibbing

– cost avoidance of up to $20 million in steam conversions for customers

– environmental benefit of using biomass instead of coal

– pollution control cost avoidance due to using less coal

– new market for region’s loggers and landholders

– $20 million annual community economic value (labor, fuel, materials); $1.2 billion over 20 years

And in the Mesabi Daily News:

Biomass generation begins

Jim Romsaas
Last Updated: Friday, December 22nd, 2006 10:55:40 PM

VIRGINIA â?? The smell of freshly cut trees was in the air and smoke was finally coming out of the smokestack Friday on the long-awaited biomass project at the Virginia Public Utilities.

The smoke from the initial firing was nearly lost in an extensive stream of steam, though, which was being blown through the new biomass boiler lines to make sure they were clean of debris.

The Virginia steam blow on the $80 million biomass energy project was to be done by midnight Friday and commercial operation will follow on Jan. 1. Despite a few minor bugs, everything was going as planned Friday.

â??Quite honestly this startup has gone very well for us,â??â?? said Doug Ganoe, director of power production.

Not only will the biomass project, which includes a similar boiler in Hibbing, preserve high-paying utility jobs (32 in Virginia alone) and stabilize steam heat costs for 20 years, it will also help the local timber industry.

Beset by problems this year, the timber industry will benefit from a $2 million Iron Range Resources grant to the Laurentian Energy Authority, the governing agent for the biomass project. The grant to the LEA is to reimburse the joint entity for product purchased from loggers in the Taconite Tax Relief Area in the first six months of 2007. Reimbursements will be limited to 1,000 cords for each eligible logger.

Virginia utility General Manager Terry Leoni said the effort is a 50-50 partnership with the IRR to try and bridge the downturn in the timber industry by prebuying until, hopefully, Ainsworth Lumber Co. gets back up and running.
Ainsworth closed a Bemidji mill in August and laid off 150 workers at each of the companyâ??s oriented strand board plants in Cook and Grand Rapids in September.

The Ainsworth problems, a downturn in the national housing industry and the high price of raw materials in Minnesota combined to literally shut down the stateâ??s logging industry for a good part of 2006, said Scott Dane, Associated Contract Loggers and Truckers executive director.

â??Itâ??s actually been quite devastating to the timber industry,â??â?? he said. â??Weâ??re in a survival mode at this time.â??â??

From here, the industry has to protect and preserve the logging infrastructure thatâ??s already in place, Dane said. Assistance from the county, state and federal levels is also being sought, he added.

The LEA project will help by using biomass from a tree farm in Aitkin, as well as right of way clearings. Biomass (such as wood) can be combusted directly to produce steam for electricity of it can be converted into a gas to power a turbine.

The boilers will produce 20 megawatts of biomass electricity in Hibbing and 15 megawatts in Virginia, which will all be sold to Xcel Energy under a contract with LEA.

â??This will be a new direction for the Virginia and Hibbing utilities,â??â?? Leoni said, â??one that I hope will reap the benefits that we have been looking forward to out of this project.â??â??

Revenue projections call for about $700 million in gross revenues to the utilities over the 20-year span of the power purchase agreement with Xcel Energy. The revenue will help maintain jobs, create 60-100 construction jobs in Virginia and Hibbing, stabilize steam rates, maintain the local power plants and steam systems, and help customers avoid costs of converting to another heating source.

The potential benefits have been discussed for the last four years and are now coming to fruition. A 24-hour supply of wood is on site and the rest is just a few miles away at the Mountain Iron woodyard.

â??Itâ??s really a great feeling when it all starts up,â??â?? Ganoe said. â??Itâ??s a new world for the guys here.â??â??