Is Berlin a third world example of forest liquidation?

Sometimes it amazes me how important this little northern NH city is when it comes to world wide discussions pertinent to global warming, and the push towards green energy in efforts to keep our world from falling apart.

The recent Copenhagen climate change summit meeting is in the news a lot these days and today it reached the Berlin Daily Sun. For our children's sake, I'd suggest everyone read the New York times article on page 4 and 5 of the link below entitled "Clear Cutting the Truth about Trees" very very carefully. Our world leaders are meeting to discuss the very issues that plague our north country with liquidation harvesting over the years and the importance of well managed forests and the key word to our very survival being "forest sustainability". Anyone who tells you that there is plenty of wood to go around amidst numerous wood studies that show otherwise is really risking a great deal in the following quote from this article.

"This is horrifying. The world’s forests are
a key to our survival, and that of millions of
other species. Not only are they critical to
providing us with building material, paper,
food, recreation and oxygen, they also ground
us spiritually and connect us to our primal
past. Never before in earth’s history have
our forests been under such attack. And the
global-warming folks at Copenhagen seem
oblivious, buying into the corporate view of
forests as an exploitable resource"

As the holidays are a time of giving, let's remember that we gave birth to our children and need to plan for their survival going into the future. If anyone ever refers to you as a tree hugger, smile and wish them a happy new year. Clearly all of us need to understand the value of the forest as there is a world of corporate greed acting against our children's future and it is our responsibility to understand we don't own the land we walk on, we simply borrow it from our children. With care, our children will enjoy many more happy holidays after we're gone.

http://www.laconiadailysun.com/BerlinPDF/2009/12/22B.pdf

Bullet Holes in Laidlaw's application?

Some concerns evident with the Laidlaw application of note:

1.Appendix P deals with fuel availability. In it, Landvest (Laidlaw's wood study
company) states conclusively that there is already 6,000,000 annual tons of
biomass being used by existing paper mills and energy plants, and that there is
710,000 additional supply within the 100 mile radius. The Laidlaw project will
require approximately 750,000 tons of fuel annually therefore the study would
imply not quite enough fuel. More telling is the aspect that this is all the
fuel available with the existing mix of users. Therefore if Laidlaw goes forward
there will be no fuel for any expanded paper mill consumption, for any of the
other proposed new biomass energy facilities, for any use by municipalities for
schools or district heating,  or any potential left for wood pellet production
with the 100 mile radius. Bravakis suggests that harvesting ratio related to
annual re-growth be increased from 50% to 70% to make more biomass available.
This is exactly the opposite of what the growing concern related to forest
sustainability will require. The Landvest study confirms and Laidlaw depends
upon a New Hampshire state approval that Laidlaw alone will be anointed to 
utilize 100% of the biomass potential within the 100 mile radius and that all
other uses of merit need not apply. Bravakis' testimony assumes 70% of
utilization which is more than the industry standard and the entire application
assumes that this higher number is the magical way for Laidlaw to exist and
utilize all available biomass grade wood at the expense of all other potential
uses. Good luck with this approach.

2.Appendix M deals with environmental concerns.  There seems to be almost a
complete disregard that this is a brownfield site. In the application it seems
studies of contamination are completely ignored, that the company simply plans
to dig and store materials dug up on site, with no plans for a study to
determine what impact disturbing the ground may have on mercury contamination or
the like that may be currently pooled but upon disturbing the ground could leach
into newly formed cracks creating huge issues downstream on the Androscoggin
river.

3.Pertinent to carbon neutrality with significantly more harvesting and long
distance deliveries planned by Laidlaw, missing from the application are any
analysis of carbon footprint or analysis of just how sensitive this approach
will be should there be a sharp increase in diesel fuel cost.

4.Ownership:  Northstar Ownership is 25%.  The application does not state who
the individuals or entities are who make up Northstar.  I wonder about conflicts
of interest that may come out later.

5.If Laidlaw is assuming it will utilize all the remaining supply of wood, they
must figure they will be able to pay more for biomass fuel than any of their
competition. Laidlaw apparently assumes an open ended pass thru on fuel cost to
PSNH. Will the NH PUC consider such fuel pass through advantage for Laidlaw to
be in the best interest of the rate payer? Most recently a PSNH lawyer stated
that Laidlaw has no deal with PSNH. But even if a deal develops it is unlikely
that the NH PUC would approve such an arrangement that would be bad for the
consumer and a monopoly utility backed competitive edge for one merchant energy
producer over all others.

The following post was provided by a poster by the name of "Sundowner" who posts frequently on Yahoo's message board on Laidlaw Energy. It is interesting to note that some locals are betting that the following track record is not an indication of future performance.

information provided by Sundowner


"Some have started to question the time line for Laidlaw to move forward in Berlin or MA. Actually, their current performance is fully in keeping with the company's history of making announcements and then not delivering.

Dec. 1999 - Acquired Ellicottville Energy
Oct. 2002 - Ellicottville in receivership and closes shortly after
Dec. 2004 - Announcement of receiving a $1 million NYSERDA grant to restart Ellicottville. Actually receive less than $200,000 of that grant.
Sep. 2005 - Announcement that Ellicottville will restart in 2006
Jan. 2006 - Announcement of a new joint venture with EcoPower
Feb. 2006 - Announcement of a 20 MW project in New Bedford, MA
Feb. 2006 - Announcement of a 20 MW project in Alexandria, NH
Oct. 2006 - Announcement of a 16 MW project in NH with start up in 2007
Jan. 2007 - Announcement of plans to obtain 1,000 acres of land in western NY to grow willows for closed loop project
Apr. 2007 - Announcement of plans to develop 50MW project in Berlin, NH an commence operations in 2008
Jun. 2007 - Announcement of a joint venture with Triangle Equities to develop the Berlin Project
Aug. 2007 - Announcement of Berlin plant being 60 MW, with operations commencing 2008
Jan. 2008 - Announcement of plans to move up to the OTCBB (from the pink sheets)
Jan. 2008 - Announcement of plans to complete purchase of the Berlin site by the end of the year
May 2008 - Announcement that Berlin site would be purchased within 90 days
Jun. 2008 - Announcement of a 20 MW project in Henniker, NH
Jan. 2009 - Announcement that Laidlaw would shortly be applying for permits through EFSEC, with commercial operations in 2010

There is more that could be listed, but that's enough for now.

Given the history, is it any surprise that the EFSEC application has yet to be filed, despite multiple announcements that it would be filed early in 2009, by the end of summer, within 6 weeks, etc.?

As always, just the facts. You make the decision, is this the type of company you want to trust with your investment?"

America needs a truthful answer

Could Berlin be part of the Cause of Global Warming by allowing a massive 66MW plant into the city?

Interesting reading from http://www.massenvironmentalenergy.org/press.html

"The best and most credible science indicates that greenhouse gas emissions should be
reduced in the next decade to avoid the most catastrophic effects of climate warming.
How does biomass burning, and the associated emissions from deforestation, wood
cutting, grinding, and transport over hundreds of miles in trucks that get less than five
miles to the gallon qualify as reducing greenhouse gas emissions? How does building a
plant with greater carbon emissions than many fossil fuel-burning plants and a lifetime
measured in decades get us closer to our goal? Repeating the mantra that biomass is
carbon neutral is not sufficient, because given the need for immediate reductions in
emissions, this statement is only true if the carbon equivalent of all the emissions
associated with biomass burning is immediately re-sequestered in forest plantings.
MassDEP should respond to show upon what basis biomass burning for energy can be
considered carbon neutral. On what basis does the agency make this conclusion?
It is of the utmost urgency that the state adopt a “reality-based” standard for what
constitutes carbon neutrality and air quality impacts, starting with requiring a full
accounting of greenhouse gas emissions from biomass projects – the stakes are too high
for human and environmental health to be entrusted to semantic manipulations. With
regard to emissions, MassDEP must truly scrutinize the assumptions and data behind the
air quality modeling before allowing a precedent-setting project of this magnitude to go
forward, and ensure that the Town of Russell is not be made a sacrifice area for air
quality just because the state needs to achieve a certain number of so-called “renewable”
fuels projects – at any cost.
Thank you for your consideration,
Mary S. Booth
13"

Fraser filing for bankuptcy protection

Fraser Papers is expected to file for bankruptcy protection in Ontario Canada sometime this week, and it's unclear what that means for the Gorham Mill according to a new release from WMUR this morning.

Here's where efficient plants such as Clean Power blow Laidlaw completely out of the water.

y Gerald Warner Politics Last updated: November 26th, 2009

208 Comments Comment on this article

Just a few considerations in addition to previous remarks about the explosion of the East Anglia Climategate e-mails in America. The reaction is growing exponentially there. Fox News, Barack Obama’s Nemesis, is now on the case, trampling all over Al Gore’s organic vegetable patch and breaking the White House windows. It has extracted some of the juiciest quotes from the e-mails and displayed them on-screen, with commentaries. Joe Public, coast-to-coast, now knows, thanks to the clowns at East Anglia’s CRU, just how royally he has been screwed.

Senator James Inhofe’s Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has written to all the relevant US Government agencies, acquainting them with the nature of the e-mails. But the real car crash for Obama is on Capitol Hill where it is now confidently believed his Cap and Trade climate legislation is toast. It was always problematic; but with a growing awakening to the scale of the scientific imposture sweeping the world, as far as the Antipodes, the clever money is on Cap and Trade laws failing to pass, with many legislators sceptical and the mid-term elections looming ever closer.

At the more domestic level, the proposed ban on incandescent light bulbs, so supinely accepted in this servile state of Britain, is now provoking a huge backlash in America. US citizens do not like the government coming into their houses and putting their lights out. Voters may not understand the cut and thrust of climate debate at the technical level, but they know when the Man from Washington has crossed their threshold uninvited.

The term that Fox News is now applying to the Climategate e-mails is “game-changer”. For the first time, Anthropogenic Global Warming cranks are on the defensive, losing their cool and uttering desperate mantras such as “You can be sceptical, not denial.” Gee, thanks, guys. In fact we shall be whatever we want to be, without asking your permission.

At this rate, Copenhagen is going to turn into a comedy convention with the real world laughing at these liars. Now is the time to mount massive resistance to the petty tyrants and hit them where it hurts – in the wallet. Further down the line there may be, in many countries, a question of criminal prosecution of anybody who has falsified data to secure funds and impose potentially disastrous fiscal restraints on the world in deference to a massive hoax. It’s a new world out there, Al, and, as you may have noticed, the climate is very cold indeed.

Boston.com recent article

"Wood-fired power plants are no environmental cure-all

November 28, 2009

IT ALWAYS seemed bizarre to think that cutting down trees and burning them for fuel could be a good way to reduce carbon emissions. And yet both the Kyoto climate change treaty and a key bill in the US House look favorably on generation not just from biofuels such as ethanol but also from so-called biomass, including wood. Fortunately, scientists are beginning to consider biomass with a more skeptical eye. Late last month, Massachusetts launched a study on whether biomass power-generation plants are sustainable - the crucial question in the debate on four plants proposed for the western part of the state.

These plants could burn wood left over from landscaping, milling operations, and forest-thinning projects. But these unobjectionable sources might not be enough to feed the plants; their operation, critics worry, would require major cuts in private and public woods, reducing the forests’ ability to absorb carbon dioxide. The state’s study, which will be reviewed by an independent advisory panel, should ensure that the state does not give a boost to biomass plants that harm both the atmosphere and the state’s forests.

Biomass and biofuels have won privileged status in global warming agreements in part because the carbon dioxide they absorb from the atmosphere would return to it no matter what - either through burning or through natural decomposition over time. But only recently has it begun to sink in that, far from lowering emissions, leveling a forest full of carbon-absorbing trees adds to emissions - whether the trees are burned in a power plant or simply removed to clear land for biofuel crops like corn or soybeans.

In the future, utilities will be required to obtain an increasing percentage of their power from renewable sources. The Massachusetts study will inform new state regulations on whether and how biomass and biofuels facilities will qualify to meet that rule. Thanks to good marketing and good lobbying by agribusiness and forestry interests, biomass and biofuels are prominent in many discussions about green energy.

But Massachusetts should make sure that supposedly renewable energy sources don’t make a global climate problem worse."

A Divided Berlin

I'm interested in hearing from Laidlaw and Clean Power on some answers to some questions and encourage their input as well as input from experts within the biomass field.


1. I have heard that a fluidized bed boiler is very noisy due to significant fan exhaust and that toxins are emitted during use. This is also true of other boilers. What plans do you have to notify residents of these toxins though they may be within State safety limits and what plans do you have to mitigate noise from the boiler and truck traffic? If you have chosen to utilize a fluidized bed boiler why would you do so, and if you are not using a fluidized bed boiler what are your reasons for not using one? Is an alternative design less toxic?

2. Since the closure of the Burgess Mill, tourists and locals are enjoying crystal clear skies. Is there a way to capture all or part of the steam permeating from cooling towers? How much steam do you actually expect to come from these cooling towers? Will this steam have an impact on icing roadways, visibility? If this steam is not utilized for another synergy what happens to this steam?

3. What has been your experience with businesses locating next to biomass facilities. What types of businesses should we expect to locate next to your facility? Can we expect an attractive array of businesses to move next to the Burgess mill site based on your experience among other biomass plants?

4. Do you believe that free enterprise surpasses quality of life?

5. Based on the current complaint Clean Power has against PSNH and all the requests the PUC is seeing for intervenor status do you think this complaint will simply focus on the legality of the complaint or will it in fact become a sounding board for what is in the best interest of the 2025 initiative for the State of New Hampshire evaluating the highest use of its wood supply? If not, how would the PUC effectively analyze the complaint without taking wood supply into consideration?

6. How many regional businesses do you feel may be forced to go out of business if fuel chip price increases?

7. How large of a biomass plant can this area support without starting to effect currently operating wood commodity businesses?

Sierra Club signals alarm on PSNH/Laidlaw relationship while acknowledging its support for the Clean Power Development Proposal

excerpt from the minutes of the prehearing conference of Clean Power's complaint against PSNH


"MR. CUNNINGHAM: I'll be brief,
{DE 09-067} [Prehearing conference] {11-03-09}
44
1 Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much, members of the
2 Commission. We particularly like this Clean Power
3 Development from a policy point of view for the Sierra
4 Club, because it's sustainable. We're concerned about
5 forest practices. We're, obviously, concerned about
6 renewable energy. We think that the Clean Power
7 Development project fits the Sierra Club criteria for
8 appropriate projects in this day and age.
9 We ask this -- we ask the Commission to
10 very, very carefully, very carefully examine the good
11 faith issue that's been suggested here by the Commission
12 this morning. I've heard some disturbing facts this
13 morning that I hadn't heard before about this Laidlaw
14 relationship. So, I would ask the Commission to very
15 carefully and very thoroughly investigate that issue, in
16 terms of Public Service Company of New Hampshire's conduct
17 with respect to this Clean Power Development project.
18 And, we wish to participate in that review. Thank you."

I think answers to Bisash's questions deserve a new post, as these questions lead to actions or inactions that are central to a New Berlin, to the region, New Hampshire, New England, the USA.

Though PSNH is claiming Laidlaw has no power purchase agreement with Laidlaw, Laidlaw has claimed that such an agreement exists and that within that agreement Laidlaw can not provide power to the city or other industry opting to locate next to their facility. That eliminates a huge reason to locate next to a plant that would be belching out steam and toxins within steps of your employees. Additionally, with a tractor trailer arriving or departing every six minutes with noise created by back up beepers, loaders moving chips constantly, and fans running constantly as part of the fluidized bed boiler, could you imagine enticing a business to locate nearby? Can you clearly see the negative impact that such a business could create if it were placed at the entrance to the Pease tradeport, or for that matter to witness its negative impact such a plant could have on the entrance way to a New Berlin Burgess mill site?

As to wood supply, interestingly, the parties seeking intervenor status in the Clean Power complaint against PSNH are mostly from outside of Coos county and are focusing on this already as the very reason for PSNH not to do business with Laidlaw, and to do business with Clean Power because Clean Power will not consume the wood supply that can be used for better purposes. Keep in mind that at the recent tour of the McNeil station in Vermont, it was pointed out that when the Burgess mill was running, wood supply was tight at the McNeil facility at times which goes to show why we have a huge regional concern for wood supply. McNeil station is three hours away from Berlin and yet they felt the effect of our pulp mill's usage of wood. Keep that in mind.

The main element of the Clean Power complaint against PSNH is about legality of reasons PSNH has to refuse to entertain a power purchase agreement proposal with a least cost provider, yet the focus has clearly been demonstrated by those looking to intervene, that protection of the forest is intertwined and equally as important. To see the likes of close to a dozen legislators intervening on this subject as well as a town, a city, businesses and organizations at this early stage should be a comforting sign to those looking to synergize through the efficient use of biomass for fuel.

If Laidlaw goes on line, one can say that would be akin to the State of NH thumbing its nose at efficient use of the State's wood supply at the expense of NH businesses, municipalities, and citizens forever losing the opportunity to use their own wood supply for more efficient uses, let alone the risk of business closure as the result of chip price increase.

Yesterday I heard from a source but have yet to confirm that PSNH sent their representatives to meet with the Winchester board of selectmen that morning to discuss why Winchester, (the other town Clean Power is developing a biomass plant around their waste water plant), was intervening in the Clean Power complaint against PSNH in Berlin.

When questioned by the one of the selectmen regarding their agreement with Laidlaw in Berlin the response from the PSNH rep was apparently: "There is no agreement, no contract, nothing with Laidlaw. It’s my understanding that we’re at the very beginning of starting to discuss things with them and if, in the end, when they set a price, if it’s around 7cents per kwh, then we’ll take it."

There was then a follow up question where the selectmen asked then to confirm that there was no agreement. The PSNH response was reportedly: "None, nothing whatsoever with them."That meeting just happened yesterday, so the minutes are not yet available, but I will provide a link or provide them when they become available.

One has to wonder if there is no such agreement, why Laidlaw would go on record at a council session stating Laidlaw can not provide power to the city of Berlin or businesses due to an agreement with PSNH. Why would Laidlaw risk stating such a disadvantage if one didn't clearly exist?

These are simply examples of how closely Berlin's development of biomass is being watched by the rest of the state and rightfully so. Wood needs to remain sustainable in one of the country's most forested states, but also needs to be sustainably used efficiently if we are truly striving towards the governor's 2025 initiative.

A better idea for the Burgess Mill Site

I understand that Max Makitas' tour of the McNeil biomass plant was an eye opening event where the tour guide was very honest that such a plant doesn't belong in close proximity to an area's population and mentioned that opinion on several occassions. Apparently it was also mentioned that the type of boiler that Laidlaw had suggested, (fluidized bed) was not the type of boiler they'd recommend.

So what better use for the Burgess mill site? Berlin is the largest city in a 75 mile radius.The city should become the hub of the economy that supports the people within the new vision ofNew Hampshire's Grand tourism branding initiative. Berlin doesn't need to just count on tourism. It can be the "working city" that tourists find charm in visiting just like Portsmouth. It can be the city in the mountains just as Portsmouth is the city by the Sea. In this day and age of computers, transportation is not the key to business success for all businesses. Many successful companies operate without a need for a specific location, but do need a population base to begin with.

The transformation of Pease Airport base to Pease Tradeport is a perfect example of what could happen to Berlin's Burgess mill site on a smaller scale. The following excerpts from the tradeport's history show how it can be financed, how hazardous waste doesn't keep development away, and what impact an environmentally friendly atmosphere can have on an area's job base, State revenue, and draw to the area. Interestingly, one of the developers of Pease, Greg Whalen, is also involved currently with the Burgess mill site in at least as much he is an officer of the LLC of record. Ask yourself, would Pease be as successful as it is with a boiler spewing steam, toxins, and noise along with a 300 foot smokestack at its entrance?


The history of Pease's transformation and success can be viewed at http://www.peasedev.org/about_us/history.asp but in an effort to simplify some data here's how Pease came to be Pease Tradeport.

excerpts from Pease transformation to a Tradeport:


1." the law provided a $250 million bonding capacity ($50 million obligation bonds and $200 million of revenue bonds)."

2."The board's mission was and is "to capitalize on the unique opportunities the Pease facility affords for economic benefit while preserving New Hampshire's quality of life and environment."

3."One of the practical effects of the FFA was to coordinate cleanup of the 43 hazardous waste sites identified by the USAF as part of their ongoing Installation Restoration Program (IRP) with redevelopment efforts, allowing both processes to occur simultaneously."

"Since the original transfer in April of 1992, 2,100 new jobs have been created with a projected number of 3,745 by the year 2000. Over 510,000sq ft of new construction has been built and approximately 1,000,000 sq. ft of existing buildings have been occupied."

"After getting off to a slow start, things began to move at what became the New Hampshire International Tradeport at Pease with the arrival of Celltech, a British firm later acquired by Lonza Biologics. Lonza now employs more than 700 workers at Pease and is one of several biotech and other high-tech firms at a tradeport that includes manufacturing firms, office buildings, a hotel, half a dozen restaurants, the Red Hook brewery and a variety of retail and service establishments."

"Today, Pease International Tradeport has 256 companies occupying 4.4 million square feet and employing roughly 7,000 workers. There is still room for development on about 60 acres, and at full build-out the site will likely have some 10,000 employees, Mullen said."

Mill Days Are Gone

Berlin NH is currently experiencing a cancer unlike other cancer created by the paper mill in the past. Where the cancer used to be the one caused by emissions killing Berlin citizens, it is now a political posse lead by county commissioners/ mayor elect Grenier, and James Brady. These politicians are like old school boys riding bucking broncos through six gun city in an effort to completely disregard a progressive future designed by professionals of a branding initiative to move us into a new economy, a new Berlin if you will. These cowboys need to be challenged in a big way. Their apparent lack of enthusiasm for the potential this area has to offer needs to change. The industrial nature of this city needs to change for purposes of curb appeal to attract people to this area. Industry needs to be moved away from the city center.

One of the key elements to any city center is a positive perception. The curb appeal of Main St. will be enhanced dramatically by focusing on two remaining segments; the Cote block and the Rite Aid blocks. If you take those two blocks out of the mix, Berlin's Main St. has already come a long way. With the addition of numerous businesses looking to build around the waste water treatment plant, the Burgess mill site no longer needs to be Berlin's industrial base and the city can enjoy a toxin limited city center as it should be where the area's population resides.

New England is becoming educated to the fact that big biomass plants that threaten forest sustainability and higher efficiency uses of biomass are not the bandade fix to the woods industry they were cut out to be.

Articles are appearing everywhere regarding efficient use of biomass within our cities and towns while proposals for large biomass plants offering no more than 25% efficiency are being questioned. It is good to see questioning prior to poor forestry practices much of New England has already endured through absence of law to protect sustainability. Perhaps we've learned a lesson this time around?

Remember, before you read any further that there will only be one biomass plant in Berlin.

Let's assume everyone ends up choosing the more efficient proposal around the wastewater treatment plant. Here's what could happen: Clean Power would build a plant that would look like a working farm. Chips would be housed in Silos. Loggers would be put back to work. 25+ jobs would be created through Clean Power. Additionally Steam from the plant would be supplied to nearby industrial facilities, such as the paper mill in Gorham. A variety of industrial users could tap into that steam at their desired pressure at a reasonable cost, without the capital cost of their own steam generating system, or the operational cost of oil, maintenance or staff. Synergistic companies are partnering with Clean Power to provide more jobs to a location (a waste water treatment plant) that couldn't ask for a better use.

Now the Burgess mill site. Numerous people have asked, what would you do with a Brownfield site like that if the last stack were to fall? Where would you get the money?
This author has researched the players behind the Burgess mill site and they are not just Laidlaw. These professional developers are well acquainted with developing the entire brownfield site into a center for a New Berlin. A Pease Berlin Tradeport if you will. A connector for ATV and Snowmobile access East to West. Home to computer age businesses not reliant on road access. A toxin safe, 60 acre, fresh slate to build upon with prestine presidential mountain views absent of any industrial eyesores within viewing distance. A rebirth of Berlin.

November 14, 2009 3:52 AM

Post a Comment