Saturday, December 13, 2014

Meeting: Mountain Valley natural gas pipeline : Dec. 15, from 5:30 p.m. to 8 p.m. at the Hampton Inn on McBride Lane in Gretna.

Overall Pipeline


Meeting:  Mountain Valley natural gas pipeline :   Dec. 15, from 5:30 p.m. to 8 p.m. at the Hampton Inn on McBride Lane in Gretna.

Pipeline meeting planned

By TIM DAVIS
Star-Tribune Editor | Posted: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 9:22 am 

            
Pittsylvania County residents can learn more about the proposed Mountain Valley natural gas pipeline at a community open house Monday, Dec. 15, from 5:30 p.m. to 8 p.m. at the Hampton Inn on McBride Lane in Gretna.

The public will have an opportunity to ask questions and talk with project team members about the 300-mile pipeline.

EQT Corp. and NextEra Energy announced plans for the pipeline earlier this year and are seeking approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

The pipeline would run from Wetzel County, W. Va., through southwest Virginia to Pittsylvania County and connect with Williams’ Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Company’s compressor station in Chatham.

Estimated to cost $3 billion to $3.5 billion, the pipeline would pass through Giles, Montgomery, Roanoke, Franklin, and Pittsylvania counties.

Community meetings also are scheduled Dec. 16 at the Harvester Performance Center in Rocky Mount, Dec. 17 at Salem Civic Center, and Dec. 18 in Blacksburg.

Additional open houses will be scheduled in January 2015, the companies said.

Natalie Cox, a spokesman with EQT in Pittsburgh, Pa., said the project includes 15 to 20 miles of pipeline in the county and will affect about 120 landowners.

She said company representatives are looking forward to starting a dialogue with property owners.

“We work very hard to develop a relationship with landowners,” Cox said. “We’re here to answer their questions. We encourage a two-way dialogue.”

Cox said Mountain Valley is seeking permission to walk properties and stake the proposed pipeline route. A final route is expected next spring.

Coates Field Services in Beckley, W.Va., is doing the fieldwork. Cox said representatives carry Mountain Valley Pipeline identification.

Cox said the pipeline will use as many existing utility transmission corridors as possible and try to avoid environmentally sensitive areas.

FERC review and approval takes 10 to 12 months.

Construction of the 36-inch to 42-inch diameter steel pipeline is scheduled to begin in late 2016 and will take two years.

The pipeline, which will buried at least three feet underground, will require approximately 75 feet of permanent easement and 125 feet of total easement for temporary work space.

Property owners are entitled to fair compensation for having the pipeline on their land, and the companies said eminent domain — a legal taking of land — is a last resort.

Company officials said the pipeline will be equipped with remote-controlled shut-off valves and will be monitored 24 hours a day through EQT’s gas control center.

Scheduled to go into service in late 2018, the pipeline will deliver 2 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day from the Marcellus and Utica natural gas supplies to markets in the southeastern United States.

Chris Sherman, a representative of EQT and NextEra, outlined the pipeline project at a Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors meeting in October.

Supervisors had plenty of questions.

Westover District Supervisor Coy Harville wanted to know how many local jobs the pipeline will bring.

“I don’t hear anything where you will create jobs in Pittsylvania County,” the supervisor said.
Sherman said the pipeline is expected to create 3,000 jobs in Virginia, mostly during construction, and the companies try to use local labor when available.
Harville asked for proof.

Staunton River District Supervisor Elton Blackstock wondered whether the pipeline would supply natural gas for economic development in the county.

He suggested running the pipeline down Route 40 from Rocky Mount to Gretna and along U.S. 29 to Chatham.

Transco’s natural gas pipeline, built in the late 1940s, cuts through the heart of the county, but provides no local natural gas distribution.

“I think its paramount we don’t make the mistakes we made in the past,” Blackstock said.

“With the amount of natural gas coming in this county, there’s no reason why we shouldn’t have access. We need to hold their feet to the fire and get on top of this.”

Sherman said local access points are possible along the pipeline, especially if installed during construction.

Once the high-pressure pipeline is in operation it becomes more difficult and expensive to tap into the line, he said.

For more information, visit mountainvalleypipeline.info or call 844-MVP-Talk.
tim.davis@chathamstartribune.com
434-432-2791

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/149c5b119422442b

Friday, December 12, 2014

Community meeting targets Mountain Valley gas pipeline: Dec. 12, from 6 p.m. until 8 p.m. at El Cazador restaurant in Chatham/ Roanoke Co. supervisors oppose natural gas pipeline



 
Community meeting targets Mountain Valley gas pipeline

Posted: Wednesday, December 10, 2014 9:22 am
By SUSAN WORLEY
Star-Tribune Staff Writerchathamstartribune.com

 
Area residents interested in information about how other communities have and are dealing with natural gas pipelines have an opportunity Friday evening to hear about issues in Dickenson County.
  Michael Yates, commissioner of the revenue in Dickenson County, has a pipeline on his property and will talk about how he and the county have tried to ask the right questions, make wise decisions and support individual and county rights.

The event is scheduled, Friday, Dec. 12, from 6 p.m. until 8 p.m. at El Cazador restaurant in Chatham.

Yates will share information about ordinances that help control the gas industry, benefits of a pass through tax, the importance of getting the state legislature involved, and the possibility of benefiting from a gross receipt tax.

He will also share his experience of dealing with a pipeline on a personal level.

Yates has been quoted as saying natural gas hydro-fracking is a two-edged sword.

“It is wonderful for the gas industry and the country’s need for energy, but most people who have dealt with it say they wish they had never heard or seen the gas companies,” he said.

Dickenson and Buchanan counties are reportedly the state’s two largest gas producers, but that has resulted in complaints, disputes and lawsuits.

The event is sponsored by Piedmont Residents in Defense of the Environment.

Roanoke Co. supervisors oppose natural gas pipeline


Posted: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 6:30 pm
By Duncan Adamsduncan.adams@roanoke.com981-3324roanoke.com

The joint venture that wants to build the interstate Mountain Valley Pipeline got off to a bad start this fall with members of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, who first learned from constituents or the news media that the natural gas pipeline’s proposed route would take it through the county.

Chairman Joe McNamara and supervisors Butch Church and Jason Peters referenced that early dearth of communication during discussion Tuesday afternoon that preceded the board’s 4-to-1 vote to pass a resolution expressing its opposition to the proposed pipeline.

The supervisors said a presentation to the board by pipeline executives in mid-October was disappointing. McNamara said pipeline officials seem to be available only after realizing that the Mountain Valley Pipeline is on the board’s agenda.
 
“Where were you the last three weeks when we were trying to get information?” McNamara asked rhetorically.
 
Although Supervisor Al Bedrosian cast the lone “no” vote, he joined his colleagues in voicing concerns about the buried pipeline’s current route, which would take it close to the Spring Hollow Reservoir, an important regional source of drinking water, as well as to Camp Roanoke and Bottom Creek.
 
Bedrosian also expressed dismay that Mountain Valley could ultimately acquire rights-of-way across reluctant property owners’ land through eminent domain.
 
But he said he voted against the resolution because he felt it was not specific enough in citing the concerns underlying the opposition it expressed. Bedrosian said he supports the right of private companies to earn a profit and noted that nearly everyone relies on an energy source that uses a fossil fuel.
 
Natalie Cox, a spokeswoman for Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC, said that the proposed pipeline’s current routing would travel “just under 10 miles” in Roanoke County.
 
Cox said about 70 property owners in Roanoke County have been contacted by a pipeline subcontractor seeking permission to survey their land for a possible route. She said about 55 percent of those property owners have granted permission. That figure compares with about 82 percent granting permission along the pipeline’s full 300-mile route, according to Mountain Valley.
 
In recent filings with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Mountain Valley, a joint venture of EQT Corp. and NextEra Energy, reported that the company is considering siting an above-ground compressor station at milepost 224, which would be within Roanoke County. Milepost 224 is about 2,000 feet from the Spring Hollow Reservoir.
 
Mike Mayo, who owns property in the vicinity of the reservoir and Camp Roanoke, attended the supervisors’ meeting. He said afterward that he has refused permission for his property to be surveyed and intends to stick to that position.
 
During the meeting Mayo sat next to Maurice Royster, manager of government relations for EQT Corp. Mayo said Royster visited his property several weeks ago and was cordial and professional during the visit.
 
Royster declined to comment after the supervisors’ vote, deferring to Cox, who was not immediately available Tuesday night.
 
Dan Crawford, group chairman of the Roanoke Group of the Sierra Club, said he was pleased by the vote.
 
“I’m delighted,” Crawford said, noting that the board’s opposition reflects its apparent understanding that the pipeline ultimately is not in the best interests of the county, the region, the state or the nation.
 
As proposed, the Mountain Valley Pipeline would travel through several counties in West Virginia and five counties in Virginia: Giles, Montgomery, Roanoke, Franklin and Pittsylvania. The pipeline would terminate at a Transco pipeline in Pittsylvania County.
 
The interstate pipeline would transport natural gas at high pressure through buried, 42-inch diameter steel pipes. The source of the natural gas would be hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, of drill wells in the Marcellus and Utica shale formations in Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia.
 
If FERC approves the pipeline project, Mountain Valley would have access to eminent domain to obtain rights-of-way across private property.
 
Proponents say the pipeline would help transport abundant natural gas to markets, support conversion of coal-fired power plants to natural gas, stimulate economic development and more.
 
Opponents say the project threatens the environment, property values and safety, and lends continued support to a fossil fuel extracted via fracking, a controversial practice.
 
The company is in the early stages of seeking FERC approval. Related community open houses are set to begin Dec. 15 in Pittsylvania County. For the schedule, go to mountainvalleypipeline.info.
 
Meanwhile, Preserve Roanoke and Preserve Bent Mountain will host a “Pipeline Pushback” meeting Wednesday night to discuss tactics to oppose the pipeline. The meeting is scheduled to begin at 7 p.m. at the Bent Mountain Center on Tinsley Lane.

http://www.roanoke.com/news/local/roanoke_county/roanoke-co-supervisors-oppose-natural-gas-pipeline/article_a6d32794-0170-5f7c-a9bb-34e4cd089ed5.html

Wednesday, December 3, 2014

Stunning Aerial Photos Show How Factory Farms Ravage the Earth

| November 28, 2014 2:59 pm
 
Industrial-grade production of livestock animals has become the norm in the U.S. with 99 percent of all farmed animals raised on giant factory farms or CAFOs (Confined Animal Feeding Operations).
 
Tascosa Feed Yard- Bushland- Texas_900
Tascosa Feedyard, Bushland, Texas. Photo credit: Mishka Henner

 
These feedlots confine thousands of animals in small spaces before they are slaughtered, leading to a litany of abuses: the confinement inflicted on the animals, the use of preventive antibiotics to control the spread of diseases in such close quarters, poor working conditions and worker abuse, destruction of rural communities, small towns and family farms, overconsumption of resources, legendary “manure lagoons” stinking up the countryside holding animal waste unsuitable for fertilizer because of the way they are raised and fed
 
Randall County Feedyard- Texas_900-1
Randall County Feedyard, Texas. Photo credit: Mishka Henner
British artist Mishka Henner, who has had a longtime fascination with the interaction of human activity and the landscape, was flying over the country looking for satellite images of oil fields when the feed lots caught his eye and he began to photograph them and learn more about them. His photos combine an abstract visual beauty with a visceral revulsion to the activities they depict.
“The feedlots are a brilliant representation of how abstract our food industry has come,” Henner told Business Insider. “It’s an efficient system for extracting the maximum yield from animals. That’s the world we live in now. We want to extract the maximum yield from everything, no matter what business you are in.”

Conorado Feeders- Dalhart- Texas_900

Seven states now have so called “ag-gag” laws which prohibit any kind of filming or recording of these farms, after videos by groups like Mercy for Animals produced an outcry of demands for laws ending the abuses of the CAFOs. Henner did not physically set foot on any of the farms, but he says he’s been warned that his photos might violate these laws and that they are one reason they have not been more widely seen. But you can find out more about his photos and purchase prints herehttp://ecowatch.com/2014/11/28/factory-farms-photos-mishka-henner/

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
How Ecological Farming Builds Resilience to Climate Change
Cowspiracy Exposes the Truth About Animal Agriculture
Court Rules Rampant Misuse of Antibiotics on Factory Farms Can Continue

Monday, December 1, 2014

Radiological Hazards of Uranium Mining & Related Considerations: Canadian authorities have consistently misled Canadians



Radiological Hazards of Uranium Mining & Related Considerations:  Canadian authorities have consistently misled Canadians

Comments:  Thanks for all your hard work:  Dr. Gordon Edwards!

Friends:
The following is an abbreviated summary of a supplementary submission I sent today to the Panel investigating Uranium Mining in the province of Quebec.  It deals with the elevated lung cancer rates associated with the permissible levels of radon exposure in homes and in uranium mines in Canada.

This summary can be found at  http://ccnr.org/radon_standards_short.pdf .
The full text of the supplementary submission is at http://ccnr.org/radon_standards.pdf .

Earlier submissions to the Uranium Inquiry from Gordon Edwards and the CCNR are:

"Too Heavy A Price To Pay" -- http://ccnr.org/CCNR_BAPE_2014.pdf 

together with two slide shows:
 
Gordon Edwards.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of Supplementary Submission:
 
Radon Standards should not be portrayed as “safe levels”
Canada’s regulatory standards for radon exposure, both for workers (in uranium mines) and for the public (in homes), are neither safe, nor are they as low as reasonably achievable. In fact they pose a significant risk of lung cancer for those so exposed.
 
(1) Previous standard for radon in homes: 800 Bq/m3 (becquerels per cubic metre)
As noted in the 1998 publication “Le Radon à Oka”, people living in radon-contaminated homes and exposed at Health Canada’s permissible level of exposure over an extended period of time would experience a tripling of lung cancer rates.  For smokers, the lifetime rate would go from 50  to 150 lung cancers for every 1000 people chronically exposed at that level of radon.  For non-smokers, the rate would go from 5 to 15 lung cancers per 1000.
Since that time, under pressure from provincial health authorities, Health Canada’s permissible level of exposure to radon in homes was reduced fourfold in 2007. The fact that the Canadian government would regard the previous standard as “acceptable” for so many years is an indictment of the degraded “safety culture” at the federal level when it comes to public exposures to atomic radiation.
 
(2) Current standard for radon in homes: 200 Bq/m3.
Reducing radon exposure fourfold will reduce the number of radon-caused lung cancers fourfold. So for people chronically exposed at the new permissible level of radon in homes, there would be a 50 percent increase in lung cancers.  For smokers, the rate would go from 50 to 75 lung cancers per 1000, and for non-smokers the rate would go from 5 to 7.5 lung cancers per 1000.  Altogether, the lung cancer rate in society would go from 55 per 1000 to 82.5 per 1000, if people were chronically exposed at the current permissible level of 200 Bq/m3.
This standard is far from safe, and it is far from acceptable – especially for new homes. The WHO, in recommending a limit of 100 Bq/m3 for ALL homes in 2009, made a special plea for new homes – saying that all countries should be “implementing radon prevention in building codes to reduce radon levels in homes under construction”
 
(3) Thirty Years of Inaction – The Evidence Was There in 1978
The current federal standard for radon in homes is twice as high as that now recommended by the World Health Organization. Before 2007 the federal standard was four times higher than that.  Yet the government knew 36 years ago that chronic exposure to even the present permissible levels of radon gas in homes would cause a major increase in lung cancer rates. 
In 1978, I testified at the Ontario Environmental Hearings on the proposed radon standards for new housing projects in Elliot Lake. The Ontario Ministry of Housing was at that time proposing an “acceptable” level of radon in entire subdivisions of brand-new homes being built.  This level was about 25 percent LESS than the current federal standard.
 
Using mortality figures provided by the Ministry, I demonstrated to the panel that if people were chronically exposed at the proposed radon standard, one would expect to see at least a 31 percent increase in lung cancer – that’s about 17 extra lung cancers per 1000.  So instead of 55 lung cancers per 1000 (smokers and non-smokers combined), one would see 72 lung cancers per 1000.  To me, this did not seem an acceptable standard for brand new homes.
 
A summary of my testimony can be found at http://ccnr.org/lung_cancers.html . The Panel accepted my analysis and recommended a totally independent review of the proposed radon standard for homes.  However, no such independent reassessment ever took place. 
 
The Atomic Energy Control Board (AECB) maintained that there would be no risk associated with the radon limits proposed by the Ministry of Housing.  Indeed, that same limit had earlier been promulgated by the AECB as the clean-up criterion for homes in Port Hope Ontario that had been contaminated with radioactive wastes from the Eldorado uranium refinery.
During the 1980 Royal Commission of Inquiry into Uranium Mining in British Columbia, the BC Medical Association (BCMA) was shocked by the disconnect between alarming medical data on the one hand and unfounded reassurances from the regulatory agency on the other hand. They called the AECB an agency that is “Unfit to Regulate”. See http://ccnr.org/bcma.html . 
 
“The present average allowable exposure to the public [to radon in homes] could result in 200-300 extra cases of lung cancer per 10,000 people per lifetime. In light of current knowledge, this might be considered tantamount to allowing an industrially induced and publicly sanctioned epidemic of cancer.”
 
“That the AECB consistently and seriously neglected its statutory responsibility for the regulation of uranium mines is obvious to the most casual observer.”
from the BCMA Report, “Summary of Major Points”
 The BCMA concluded that the proposed standard for radon in Elliot Lake homes would result in 20-30 additional lung cancer deaths per 1000, rather than the 17 per 1000 that I had calculated.
 
(4) The Thomas/McNeill Report, Commissioned by the AECB
Stung by the BCMA’s public criticism, AECB commissioned an independent review of the health effects of radon, radium, and other alpha-emitting materials.  They hired a McGill epidemiologist, Duncan C. Thomas, and a physicist from the University of Toronto, K.G. McNeill, and told them to use only raw data from studies of exposed populations to arrive at the best scientific estimates of cancers caused by radon, radium, and other alpha-emitting materials.
 
The Thomas/McNeill Report, entitled “Risk Estimates for the 
Health Effects of Alpha Radiation”, was published by the AECB in 1982 as INFO-0081.  They concluded that the proposed radon standard for Elliot Lake homes could increase the lifetime lung cancer risk by about 40 percent – 22 extra lung cancers per 1000.  See http://ccnr.org/thomas_report.html .
The Thomas/McNeill Report also found that if uranium miners were to work at the regulatory limit for 11 years, the number of lung cancer deaths in that group of people would double. “Our best estimate of the effect of a 50-year occupational exposure [at the maximum permissible levels] is 130 excess lung cancer deaths per 1000 . . . with a range from 60 to 250 per 1000.” 
 
If workers were to average only 1/10 of that limit in their radon exposures, then the number of excess lung cancers would also be reduced by a factor 10.  Still, the Thomas/McNeill “best estimate” would yield an increase of 13 lung cancers per 1000 miners so exposed, and their most pessimistic estimate would give 45 extra lung cancers per 1000.  
 
(5) Estimated radon-induced lung cancer deaths among uranium miners today
The CNSC has testified that under modern working conditions in the Canadian context, the radon exposures of uranium miners are so low that no “discernible” lung cancers would occur. 
The CCNR agrees that if CNSC refuses to gather health statistics on the exposed miners, or fails to update those records for many decades to come, then the excess lung cancers that will occur among these workers will surely not be discernible.  This protects the industry, but it does not protect the miners who are likely to experience at least 10 to 20 radon-induced lung cancers per 1000 workers during a 50-year working lifetime. The toll may in fact be much higher.
 
According to CNSC publication INFO-0813, the average 2006 radiation exposure for Canadian workers in underground uranium mines was 1.74 millisieverts (mSv).  If this annual exposure rate were to persist for 50 years, the cumulative average exposure for underground uranium miners would be 1.74 x 50 = 87 mSv during a 50-year working lifetime.
 
According to the finding of the Thomas/McNeill Report that level of radon exposure would cause a 40 percent increase in lung cancer incidence (77 per 1000 as opposed to 55 per 1000).
 
Conclusion
Canadian authorities have consistently misled Canadians – including uranium workers, members of the public, decision-makers and their official advisors – about the extent of the dangers of radon as well as other alpha emitting radioactive materials.  In particular, existing standards of radon exposure in homes as well as existing levels of radon exposures in uranium mines pose serious health risks to those exposed for their working lifetimes. 
 
 

Friday, November 28, 2014

Supervisor to host meeting on Mountain Valley Pipeline


Overall Pipeline

Supervisor to host meeting on Mountain Valley Pipeline

Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors member Jerry Hagerman will host a community information meeting on the proposed Mountain Valley natural gas pipeline Saturday, Nov. 29, from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. at Gretna Volunteer Fire Department.

Hagerman, who represents the Callands-Gretna District, said Norfolk attorney Joseph T. Waldo will discuss and answer questions about landowners’ rights.

Hagerman met Waldo, who specializes in property rights and eminent domain, at a Preserve the New River Valley meeting on the pipeline in Blacksburg and invited the attorney to speak in Gretna.

“Several people have called me wanting more information about the pipeline,” Hagerman said. “A lot of the questions, I didn’t really feel qualified to answer.”

The supervisor said landowners want to know how much compensation they can expect and what their rights if they don’t want the pipeline on their property.

Hagerman said he hasn’t contacted Mountain Valley Pipeline representatives, but the company is welcome to attend the meeting.

EQT Corp. and NextEra Energy, which plan to build the 300-mile pipeline, have scheduled a community open house Monday, Dec. 15, from 5:30 p.m. to 8 p.m. at the Hampton Inn on McBride Lane in Gretna.

The public will have an opportunity to ask questions and talk with project team members about the pipeline.

EQT and NextEra announced plans for the pipeline earlier this year and are seeking approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

The pipeline would run from Wetzel County, W. Va., through southwest Virginia to Pittsylvania County and connect with Williams’ Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Company’s compressor station in Chatham.

Estimated to cost $3 billion to $3.5 billion, the pipeline would pass through Giles, Montgomery, Roanoke, Franklin, and Pittsylvania counties.

Community meetings also are scheduled Dec. 16 at the Harvester Performance Center in Rocky Mount, Dec. 17 at Salem Civic Center, and Dec. 18 in Blacksburg.

Additional open houses will be scheduled in January 2015, the companies said.

Natalie Cox, a spokesman with EQT in Pittsburgh, Pa., said the project includes 15 to 20 miles of pipeline in the county and will affect about 120 landowners.

For more information, visit mountainvalleypipeline.info or call 844-MVP-Talk.
tim.davis@chathamstartribune.com
http://www.chathamstartribune.com/news/article_e6a5b5b0-74b2-11e4-a5c8-c7028c37fee8.html?mode=print
434-432-2791

Monday, November 10, 2014

Officials question pipeline benefit / Poultry study spurs interest, concerns



 Officials question pipeline benefit / Poultry study spurs interest, concerns

Officials question pipeline benefit

By TIM DAVIS
Star-Tribune Editor | Posted: Wednesday, November 5, 2014 8:59 am

The Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors peppered an EQT Corp. and NextEra Energy representative with questions during a presentation on the companies’ proposed Mountain Valley natural gas pipeline Monday night in Chatham.

The 330-mile pipeline would run from Wetzel County, W. Va., through southwest Virginia to Pittsylvania County and connect with Williams’ Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Company’s compressor station in Chatham.

The pipeline, estimated to cost $3 billion to $3.5 billion, would pass through 16 counties in West Virginia and Virginia, including Giles, Montgomery, Roanoke, Franklin, and Pittsylvania counties.

Natalie Cox, a spokesman with EQT in Pittsburgh, Pa., said the project includes 15 to 20 miles of pipeline and about 120 landowners in Pittsylvania County.

Cox said companies are seeking permission to walk properties and stake the proposed pipeline route.

EQT and NextEra representative Chris Sherman gave supervisors an overview of the pipeline project Monday night. It was the first public presentation; earlier, the companies met privately with one to two supervisors to avoid triggering a public meeting as required under Virginia’s Freedom of Information law.

According to Sherman, preliminary surveying is underway with a final route expected in April or May of 2015.

Westover District Supervisor Coy Harville questioned how many local jobs the pipeline will bring.

“I don’t hear anything where you will create jobs in Pittsylvania County,” the veteran supervisor said.

Sherman said the pipeline is expected to create 3,000 jobs in Virginia, mostly during construction, and the companies try to use local labor when available.

Harville asked for proof.

Staunton River District Supervisor Elton Blackstock wondered whether the pipeline would supply natural gas for economic development in the county.

Transco’s natural gas pipeline, built in the late 1940s, cuts through the heart of the county, but provides no local natural gas distribution.

“I think its paramount we don’t make the mistakes we made in the past,” Blackstock said.

“With the amount of natural gas coming in this county, there’s no reason why we shouldn’t have access. We need to hold their feet to the fire and get on top of this.”

Sherman said local access points are possible along the pipeline, especially if installed during construction. Once the high-pressure pipeline is in operation it becomes more difficult and expensive to tap into the line.

The proposed pipeline also generated questions and concerns from the public.

Karen Maute, a well-known local advocate for the environment, wondered whether the pipeline might disturb uranium deposits, especially those close to the surface.

“I’m hoping you will watch this very closely,” she said.

Mara Robbins, a Floyd County resident and representative of the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League and Piedmont Residents in Defense of the Environment, also addressed supervisors.

Robbins accused EQT and NextEra of violating landowners’ property rights and expressed concerns about the effects of the pipeline on insurance and mortgage rates.
“Many landowners feel their rights have been compromised because they don’t get to decide,” she said.

Robbins said the pipeline will mean little benefit to the area and few local jobs because pipeline construction is highly specialized work.

She also cited concerns about air pollution, alleging natural gas compressor stations emit formaldehyde.

Robbins asked for an environmental impact study on Williams’ Chatham compressor station, which is the end point for the Mountain Valley Pipeline.

The pipeline will be governed by the U.S. Natural Gas Act, which requires a certificate of convenience and necessity from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission before construction can begin.

The FERC review and approval takes 10 to 12 months, and will involve a series of community information meetings, including one in Chatham in December.

Construction of the 36-inch to 42-inch diameter steel pipeline is scheduled to begin in late 2016 and take two years.

The pipeline, which will buried at least three feet underground, will require approximately 75 feet of permanent easement and 125 feet of total easement for temporary work space.

Landowners are entitled to fair compensation for having the pipeline on their land, and the companies said eminent domain — a legal taking of land — is a last resort.

Company officials said the pipeline will be equipped with remote-controlled shut-off valves and will be monitored 24 hours a day through EQT’s gas control center.



For more information, visit mountainvalleypipeline.info or call 844-MVP-Talk.
tim.davis@chathamstartribune.com

 

Poultry study spurs interest, concerns

By TIM DAVIS
Star-Tribune Editor | Posted: Wednesday, November 5, 2014 8:56 am

A chicken processing plant could employ 1,200 people and bring more than $300 million in investment to the region, according to a consulting firm working on an integrated poultry industry study for Pittsylvania County.

Despite the economic benefits, however, some residents are concerned about a poultry complex’s impact on water and air quality and public services, including schools.

The county held two meetings last week — one for farmers interested in becoming chicken contract growers and a second for the general public.

About 125 people from five counties attended the first meeting and around 50 were at the second.

Both meetings took place at the Olde Dominion Agricultural Complex in Chatham.

Both presentations included a presentation followed by a question-and-answer session and survey to provide more input on the ongoing poultry study, said Fred Wydner III, the county’s director of agricultural development.

The meetings were part of a study funded by the state and county to determine the feasibility of bringing an integrated poultry industry to the county.

The county put up $5,000 in cash and $5,000 in in-kind services and received a matching $10,000 grant from the Governor’s Agriculture and Forestry Industries Development Fund to fund the $20,000 poultry study.

A poultry complex would include a hatchery, feed mill, processing plant, and approximately 100 contract growers within about a 50-mile radius of the feed mill and processing plant.
The study will take into account infrastructure, workforce, environmental impact, potential contract grower base, and public acceptance, Wydner said.

According to Wydner, the county’s Agriculture Development Board identified poultry as a potential opportunity for increased employment and income.

The county already has about a half dozen chicken houses that raise birds in various stages for the poultry industry.

Wydner said the study will look at what poultry companies are expanding, how and where a poultry complex could be located, and what is attractive to the industry.

The study is expected to be completed by the end of the year.

County Administrator Clarence Monday said the purpose of the study is to determine if the poultry industry would be a good fit for the county.

“Nothing is a done deal,” Monday said. “The only thing the county has done is put together a feasibility study.”

The county looked at a chicken processing plant in Chatham in the late 1980s, but eventually abandoned the project.

Burt Bock with BR Bock Consulting Inc., which is conducting the study, said poultry offers farmers a way to diversify.

According to Bock, a chicken processing facility would cost about $140 million

A separate feed mill would require 25-50 acres and access to rail.

The consultants stressed that the poultry industry is highly regulated, and processing plants, which use 300,000 to 500,000 gallons of water a day, have their own wastewater treatment plants.

The consultants said modern poultry houses and processing plants produce little odor and observe strict setback restrictions from wells and property lines.

Lawton concurred. “It affects the whole community because money does trickle down,” he said.

Monday said the county welcomes public input on the study. The county administrator encouraged residents to contact supervisors or speak at board meetings.

“The Board of Supervisors is taking this very seriously,” he said.

Karen Maute, an outspoken advocate for the environment in the county, questioned the purpose of the study.

“It seems more like you’re selling integrated poultry rather than conducting a feasibility study,” she said.

tim.davis@chathamstartribune.com
434-432-2791
http://www.chathamstartribune.com/news/article_8aea0eb6-64f3-11e4-8b60-07e310389953.html

Friday, November 7, 2014

Animal waste threatens water supply / Addressing climate change starts at home, supermarket

 
 
Comment:  Two great letters but who in the heck is Cabbon Sudeko, I think is not a real name but great meanings!
 
Cabbon

The name Cabbon is a baby boy name.Biblical Meaning:
The name Cabbon is a
Biblical baby name. In Biblical the meaning of the name Cabbon is: As though understanding.    

SoulUrge Number: 7 People with this name have a deep inner need for quiet, and a desire to understand and analyze the world they live in, and to learn the deeper truths.
Expression Number: 1 People with this name tend to initiate events, to be leaders rather than followers, with powerful personalities. They tend to be focused on specific goals, experience a wealth of creative new ideas, and have the ability to implement these ideas with efficiency and determination. They tend to be courageous and sometimes aggressive. As unique, creative individuals, they tend to resent authority, and are sometimes stubborn, proud, and impatient.
http://www.sheknows.com/baby-names/name/cabbon

What does Sudoku mean?

There are lots of theories as to what this means, but most state that this is an abbreviation of a sudoku term.

Loosely translated, it seems to be something about numerals that can go only in a single place.

This is because 'su' apparently means 'number' and 'duoku' is a bachelor. If you know any different, then let us know!

http://www.clarity-media.co.uk/puzzle-strategy/what-does-sudoku-mean
In Japanese it is written sūdoku (数独). The characters mean "number" () and "single" (doku). It is pronounced like "sue dock". However, the word "sudoku" is not in common use for these puzzles in Japan, and the word sūdoku is actually an invention.

Animal waste threatens water
Posted: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 9:51 am
To the editor,
Last weekend the drinking water of 400,000 Toledo, Ohio, residents was fouled by animal waste.
With unfettered growth of animal agriculture and ineffective discharge regulations, it will happen again in our own state.
The problem has become pervasive. Waste from chicken farms has rendered the ocean off the East Coast unfit for fishing.
Waste from Midwest cattle ranches carried by Mississippi River has created a permanent “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico larger than that of the infamous 2010 BP oil spill.
Animal agriculture dumps more pollution to our waterways than all other human activities combined.
Principal pollutants are animal manure, fertilizers, as well as soil particles, organic debris, and pesticides from feed cropland.
Manure and fertilizers promote growth of toxic algae that poison drinking water supplies.
Organic matter feeds microorganisms that deplete oxygen and kill fish.
Effective regulations to limit dumping of animal waste into water supplies have been blocked by the meat industry.
Fortunately, every one of us has the power to stop this outrage three times a day by saying “no” to polluting meat and dairy products.
Our local supermarket offers ample alternatives.
Entering “live vegan” in a search engine provides useful recipes and transition tips.
Cabbon Sudeko
Chatham
http://www.chathamstartribune.com/opinion/article_05dc9dcc-22f1-11e4-bdc5-001a4bcf887a.html

Addressing climate change starts at home, supermarket

Posted: Wednesday, November 5, 2014 9:16 am
Recently, hundreds of thousands marched throughout the world demanding action on climate change.
Some 120 world leaders gathered in New York for the United Nations’ Summit on Climate Change.
What can we do?
A 2006 U.N. report estimated that meat production accounts for 18 percent of manmade greenhouse gases.
A 2009 article in the respected World Watch magazine suggested that the contribution may be closer to 50 percent.
The meat industry generates carbon dioxide by burning forests to create animal pastures and by combustion of fossil fuels to confine, feed, transport, and slaughter animals.
The much more damaging methane and nitrous oxide are discharged from digestive tracts of cattle and from animal waste cesspools, respectively.
In an environmentally sustainable world, wind, solar, and other pollution-free energy sources must gradually replace polluting fossil fuels.
Similarly, vegetables, fruits, nuts, and grains must replace polluting meat and dairy products.
The large variety of widely available plant-based entrees, lunch meats, veggie burgers, cheeses, and ice creams can certainly help.
Our next trip to the supermarket is a great opportunity to start the transition to a sustainable world.
Our favorite Internet search engine offers ample product lists, recipes, and dietary tips.
Cabbon Sudeko
Chatham
http://www.chathamstartribune.com/opinion/article_6a7301c6-64f6-11e4-bef3-cf7944588cef.html?mode=print