My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2008-06-20_REVISION - C1980007
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
Revision
>
Coal
>
C1980007
>
2008-06-20_REVISION - C1980007
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 3:33:23 PM
Creation date
6/23/2008 9:47:20 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980007
IBM Index Class Name
REVISION
Doc Date
6/20/2008
Doc Name
Request of Rocky Mountain Clean Air Action for Formal Hearing on the Proposed Decision
From
EarthJustice
To
DRMS
Type & Sequence
TR111
Email Name
TAK
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
147
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Agency for Int'1 Development, "U.S. Government Accomplishments in Support of the Methane <br />to Markets Partnership" (Sep. 2007), excerpt attached as Exh. 32.19 <br />Further, the Project FEIS dismissed the option of capture in part on the grounds that the <br />distance between the gas wells and a pipeline - "over 10 miles" - suggested that "the quantity of <br />gas potentially available may not warrant the investment in a pipeline." Project FEIS at 46. <br />However, the Forest Service provides no data, estimates, or models to test this theory. <br />Additional study might well show such an approach to be economical, given that numerous <br />mining operations capture gas for transport to pipelines. See EEI Geophysical Report at 3, 5. <br />The Forest Service also rejected the option of "using coal mine vent gas for electrical <br />generation" since BLM could not find data on gas volume and equipment requirements on those <br />websites showing that electrical generation was possible. Project FEIS at 46. In other words, <br />because the Forest Service could not discover the information it needed via a few web searches, <br />it concluded there was not sufficient data to consider using captured methane on-site to generate <br />electricity. This is an arbitrarily low bar to set for dismissing an alternative, particularly given <br />the ample evidence that a major American corporation - Caterpillar - is building scores of <br />engines that turn coal mine methane at working mines into power around the world, including in <br />China. 20 General Electric is also building engines used to generate power from working mines in <br />19 The Forest Service apparently does not argue that technological or safety barriers <br />prevent capture and use of methane. It could not do so, given the experience at the Aberdeen <br />Mine in Utah, the Jim Walter Mine in Alabama, and numerous mines around the world. See also <br />EEI Geophysical Report at 1 ("the collection of methane has for over 20 years been routinely <br />undertaken at US and international coal mines with no adverse affects to coal operations"). <br />20 See "Caterpillar Powered Coal Methane Gas Project In China Will Be Largest In The <br />World" (Sep. 2006), available at <br />http://www.cat.com/cda/components/fullArticle?m=37523&x=7&id=606907 (last viewed Apr. <br />27, 2008) (Caterpillar will supply "60 methane-gas-powered generator sets to produce 120 <br />megawatts of power at the Sihe Coal Mine in Jincheng City, Shanxi Province, China," and <br />stating that "The power plant project is expected to improve methane gas ventilation at the mine <br />APPEAL OF E SEAM METHANE DRAINAGE WELLS PROJECT, APRIL 28, 2008 PAGE 29
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.