Senior Vice President for Aggregates and Mining, The Saint Consulting Group

As the United States fights to free itself from the burden of foreign oil dependency, a new use for coal is being tested by the United States military.  Accelergy, a Houston based company, has developed a fuel that is liquefied clean coal. This will have a positive impact on the coal mining industry as we move forward.

Accelergy has come up with a way to convert the coal into an economical, clear, and arguably clean form of jet fuel.

According to Tim Vail, Accelergy’s CEO, the key is a process fine-tuned at ExxonMobil in the mid-1990s that turns coal or plant matter directly into a liquid. Unlike the often-criticized Fischer-Tropsch process devised in the 1920s, Accelergy’s process does not get convert coal into a synthetic gas before transforming it into a liquid. Eliminating gasification greatly reduces carbon dioxide emissions, as well as the total amount of coal (or biomass) consumed to produce liquids, he said. And it’s cost-effective.

The Chicago Green Technology Examiner has full details.

Christopher Hopkins is senior vice president for aggregates and mining for The Saint Consulting Group, email hopkins@tscg.biz, phone 615-656-3794

The end may be in sight for part of the recession that has devastated sections of the mining industry over the past three years. Cemex and Vulcan Materials both recorded increased sales in April and are projected to have a further increase in May, according to Bloomberg Business Week.

The sales rise by two of the largest limestone producers in the United States was a result of increased housing starts and rail shipments of crushed stone. Production is expected to increase in the second half of 2010 as large portions of the $27 billion in stimulus funds authorized for highway and bridge repair comes on line.

This news comes on top of predictions that metals mining exploration will increase by as much as 40 percent in 2010. The increased spending in exploration is being driven by the stable price of gold and copper worldwide,  according to a Reuters report.

Click here for Bloomberg Business Week article.

Christopher Hopkins is senior vice president for aggregates and mining for The Saint Consulting Group, email: hopkins@tscg.biz, phone 615-656-3794

Earlier this year The Saint Report began publishing case studies called Saint Model Outcomes to give some examples of our experience from 25 years in land use politics.

Actions speak louder than words, and to win land use battles political campaign strategies and tactics gain far more leverage than traditional PR or consultation approaches.

These seven case studies come from projects managed by The Saint Consulting Group, where we identified latent support for a project, or created a counter-voice to balance opposition groups in the planning process. Some used video petitions and canvassing to generate community advocacy. All persuaded elected officials it was in their electoral interest to listen to wider voter sentiment, not just the vocal NIMBY minority.

Each example outlines a business challenge, our approach and the outcome. Out of respect to our clients’ confidentiality, the circumstances of each case study are redacted without obscuring the lesson of each model outcome to help developers:

• find and rally support
• create grassroots coalition 
• use video petitions and canvassing
• win referendum to protect development 
• respond to local concerns
• counter opposition, find your own support
• win community support for a wind farm

You’ll find them all on our blog under Saint Model Outcomes.  You can also contact us at http://tscg.biz/contact if you wish more information about The Saint Consulting Group.

Paul Mindus is director of UK business development for The Saint Consulting Group, email mindus@tscg.biz, phone +44 207 592 7050

By Ben Kelahan,
Senior Vice President for Energy, The Saint Consulting Group

If you are a political professional, it’s high time to chart how various energy industries are utilizing the current environment to promote and prop up their business, or defend against their extinction.  I’ve become an avid onlooker of the chess match between renewable and fossil fuel industries and their political and public relations strategies for getting refineries expanded, biomass facilities permitted, coal-fired power plants fired up or wind farms approved.  Coupled with the current energy bill debate on the Hill, I could entertain myself all day.
 
If you’ve read any of my posts, you’ll know I’m a movie fan and like to quote from some of my favorites, so why break precedent.  “This s—s chess, it ain’t checkers!” Denzel Washington shouts to Ethan Hawke in another of my top tier of films, Training Day, as Washington attempts to bring the rookie investigator in line with the tactics he used to track and take down masters of the L.A. drug trade (OK, murdering them actually for his own purposes, but that’s besides the point). 

Years ago, a mentor of mine in the tobacco industry once described politics as three-dimensional chess, and in many respects he’s right.  And that’s how I tend to look at the political wars between candidates running for office or, closer to our world of land use politics, how industries and applicants plot to get what they need from government bodies to be successful.  No different with renewable wind energy and the fossil fuel-based oil and gas industries.
 
So, when I read this morning how the American Lung Association was advocating at the Maine Land Use Regulation its support for the Redington Wind Farm, I saw a strong move on the chess board by the wind industry, like it or not, orchestrated or not.  Given the increasing use by anti-wind NIMBYs of health and welfare claims about siting wind farms near residents, getting the ALA to testify at a public hearing in favor was a swift stroke.  Getting them and other “body parts” organizations (what we used to call them in the tobacco biz) to endorse wind farms based on global health benefits of clean energy would certainly balance out those claiming that living near wind farms has obstructive health impacts, i.e. wind turbine syndrome and the like.
 
It’s no small measure given the political experience, membership lists and advocacy potential organizations like ALA have.  I’ll be interested to see where they might show up next and whether this is a one-off in Maine or a national trend.  It’s certainly a strong media hit for wind in my view. 
 
How will the fossil fuel players respond?  What is their next move to promulgate the idea that our energy demands of the future will not be met without traditional energy production from oil and gas or coal, and that it can be a healthy part of the mix? 

If you want to participate and identify who’s making all the right moves or just follow more of this chess match, I will be posting articles and commenting more about it on Saint Report and through a new twitter account at politicsVenergy.

Ben Kelahan is senior vice president for energy, The Saint Consulting Group, email kelahan@tscg.biz  phone 703 531-8274

By Ben Kelahan,
Senior Vice President for Energy, The Saint Consulting Group

Looks like land use politics is quickly following on the heels of wind energy’s movement to the mountains and shores of the southeast.  The Carolinas are the new front in the midst of sometimes heated discussions about wind energy in locations considered sacred by many environmentalists, preservationists and avid nature enthusiasts, particularly in the Appalachians. 

The Winston-Salem Journal reports on state initiatives to effectively ban large-scale wind initiatives from the mountains of North Carolina.

The front may be new, but the usual suspects are square in the middle of this battle – anti-coal activists, wildlife advocates, hiking and tourism supporters and economic development boosters.  South Carolina is beginning to focus on wind energy’s potential off its beaches.

The site fights in the southeast, however, take on a particular variety given the region’s traditional reliance on coal-fired electricity, even more so than the country at large.  A political and economic transition to renewables like wind will require an intense lobbying effort at the state capitol and a change of heart in cities and towns that have relied on long-standing energy generation jobs and utilities attached to coal-fired power plants.  Now with the push of green energy jobs, renewable electricity standards and the advent of a cap and trade future, some in the southeast are looking around the corner and jumping on the wind energy wagon and leading by example demonstrating a willingness (literally) and accepting wind in their backyard.

By Ben Kelahan
Senior Vice President for Energy, The Saint Consulting Group

Our third look this week at Saint Model Outcomes from our experience in land use politics focuses on the proposed expansion of an existing hybrid (coal-fired and waste-to-energy) power plant.

The expansion included modifying the facility’s fuel blend to burn more waste, including tires, and upgrading technology in order to maintain compliance with emission regulations. The expansion required a voluntary annexation of land into the city, as well as the rezoning of two vacant parcels and the granting of a special use permit. All three petitions required votes by the Planning Board and City Council.

The facility was located in a residential neighborhood with 37 direct abutters. Twenty years earlier, residents abutting the facility filed a lawsuit alleging nuisance violations. The lawsuit was settled out of court, but many of the original plaintiffs remained in the neighborhood.

Last week, nuclear industry executives and allied interests met in Washington to carve out a role for nuclear power in the U.S. as a stable, base load source of energy generation that is both reliable and “green.”

Hosting several key Capitol Hill speakers, including House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, the event focused intensely on keeping nuclear energy in a position not to be left behind in the Obama Administration’s renewable energy goals and climate change policy endeavors. However, it’s not hard to think that nuclear is getting lost as the political “juice” lies with renewable energy generation like wind, both on Capitol Hill and increasingly at the state and local level.

Most headlines these days are about wind and solar versus coal, oil and natural gas. Even for fossil-fuel base load generation like coal, constant name recognition, albeit mostly negative, may not be a bad thing, especially when you have the protection of coal state congressional leaders that have leverage in the passage of final energy legislation.

Nuclear energy appears sandwiched between trendy wind and clean coal, both with respectable political support. Fortunately, Majority Leader Hoyer has the Calvert Cliffs project in his Maryland congressional district seeking new permits for nuclear generation.

At the local level, progress may be equally challenging. In the 2009 Saint Index survey of community acceptance toward energy uses, nuclear still ranked last (60 percent oppose, 36 percent support) in terms of what local communities want sited in their backyards, with a side note that opposition has dropped 5 percent since 2008.

Given that level of opposition, the nuclear industry should be finding more and more ways to identify passionate local issues to link their nuclear developments to – whether that be jobs or other benefits – to ensure that there is at least a semblance of voters and local residents to counter emotional opposition to new sites. They also need to put the rationality of nuclear power aside. There were many statements made during the various panel presentations about the rational role for nuclear power – its overall public support, its ability to address the intermittency of renewable sources like wind and solar, and how it actually has the support of half the environmental community based on its lack of carbon emissions.

The meritocratic overview concluded with the following statement (paraphrased); “it’s the argument that counts and we have the argument.” We’ll see. When all the opposition has to do is drop stock photos of Three Mile Island (TMI) on leaflets around the neighborhood and utilize the web to dig up every story and opinion about TMI, it could take a bit more than logical reasoning.

Splitting atoms may be the right formula for base load energy generation in the future. But relying on science to site nuclear power plants in local communities defies the laws of nature.

Ben Kelahan is senior vice president for energy, The Saint Consulting Group, email kelahan@tscg.biz, phone 703 531-8274

Where is the passion in polling? There is none. Polling indicates the public’s feelings about a number of various topics on any given day. But it can also be misleading if viewed out of context — especially when it comes to land use issues.

How is it, for example, that most Americans support wind energy in general, but emotive opponents can block transmission lines delivery wind energy or wind farms in some local communities? It can be a dilemma for the wind industry.

Saint Consulting just conducted a survey about whether people support or oppose new, high-voltage transmission lines in their community. A majority of the 1,200 respondents objected. See findings in this recent Saint Report.

We then asked about building those same transmission lines in their community to deliver “clean, renewable electricity from wind,” fewer than 20 percent objected. And our annual Saint Index national survey revealed an overwhelming 82 percent support for a local wind energy project.

So, the jury’s in, right? Everyone loves renewable energy projects. But wait. Communities fight wind farms (onshore and offshore) every day. New York Regional Interconnect recently had its application for transmission lines rejected based on local opposition in many municipalities along the proposed route.

U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer even suggested legislation Capitol Hill to prohibit “bureaucrats” from siting transmission lines in areas over the objections of state and local governments and concerned residents,
Granted, wind farms are also supported in many local communities for such reasons as green jobs, economic development and, of course, energy policy. But the emotional opposition appears to fly in the face of surveys and polls showing national support for clean energy generation and transmission.

What’s going on? Do these polls and surveys lack credibility? No.
In fact, they are spot-on in terms of reflecting how Americans feel about renewable generation and distribution projects and how they may positively impact our communities given the perceived global threats of climate change, greenhouse gases and negative impact to wildlife over time.

Today, based on a solid campaign by climate change advocates, the renewable energy industry, the current Obama administration and constant media pounding, the threat to our economy and the environment posed by carbon-emitting generation sources is very real and frankly easy to grasp. The arguments have been made and, let’s face it, many Americans are buying in.

But it’s easy to support a wind energy project without a real wind turbine or transmission line literally staring you in the face. That’s where rational thinking ends and passionate “defense of the community” (or defense of the children for that matter) campaigns begin. See a recent example of such community opposition in this Leesburg, Va. Today report.

If you want to truly test feelings about how people feel about a very local development, put on a pair of jeans, place a “Wind Developer X” lapel sticker on your shirt, ring a couple doorbells and say, “Hi, I’ve just purchased the property over there and am going to construct a 75 turbine wind-farm. I wanted to introduce myself to my new neighbors.”

It’s a 50-50 bet a flak jacket should have been added to your wardrobe.
Or, even better, shop for a home in a community of interest and share the rumor of a new 765 kV transmission line going across the property down the road, in front of the view of the mountain range. What’s the survey say then? Chances are you may not find majority support, even from residents who responded in the poll you fielded yesterday.

Perhaps at best, polling identifies the size of the silent majority you have on your side when they are under no local threat of changing their daily lives. Winning hearts and minds in a poll won’t necessarily win you a permit at town hall. No matter our political leanings, we’re all not unlike Senator Ted Kennedy’s comments against proposed Danish wind turbines off Hyannisport: Renewable energy is great in our public opinion, just not when it gets in the way of our personal point of view.

Ben Kelahan is senior vice president for energy, The Saint Consulting Group, email kelahan@tscg.biz, phone 703 531 8274.

One of the most heated permitting battles surrounding mining is underway in a very unlikely location. If you were to ask most people to guess where perhaps the largest untapped uranium reserve in the United States and the seventh largest in the world is located, how many would guess southern Virginia? Probably not many. This is where this battle is taking place, Pittsylvania County, Virginia where Virginia Uranium Inc. is attempting to permit a $10 billion uranium reserve.

The first and possibly the most difficult hurdle to overcome is the 27-year-old moratorium on uranium mining in Virginia. Implemented following the Three Mile Island Accident and the movie “The China Syndrome”. The moratorium can only be overturned by a vote of the legislature and the governors signature.

The Virginia Coal and Energy Commission has recommended that a study be conducted to determine the impacts of overturning the moratorium, they are currently putting the finishing touches on what will be included in the study and could vote on this May 21st.

Opponents have come out in force, protesting the specific project and objecting even to conducting a study. For a summary of the issue, see Sue Lindsey’s report for the Associated Press on Forbes.com.

Chris Hopkins is senior vice president for aggregates and mining, The Saint Consulting Group, emaikl hopkins@tscg.biz, phone 615 656 3794

While a majority of Americans oppose new high-voltage transmission lines in their communities, opposition drops precipitously to 17% if those lines are delivering clean, renewable energy from wind, according to a just-released survey from the Saint Consulting Group.

Support for new transmission lines leaps from just 46% to 83% when respondents are asked specifically about high-voltage transmission lines delivering wind power.