Kerr / Buggs Island Visitors Fishing Reports
This message board has been closed, please visit our
new board by clicking here.
Chew on this site for a while jfo, if you haven't already.
http://www.ethanolrfa.org/
Personally, I don't think this is such a horrible thing if it comes to pass, especially if the power source for the distillation comes from Kerr hydroelectric itself since that is the purest form of clean energy. In addition, if it was mandated that the feed source (corn probably) come from VA, then it would also benefit many of the farmers that are suffering from cheap asian food imports, not to mention the 150 jobs. I don't see anywhere in the list of all the EtOH factories in the US where industrial waste is used as the primary feedstock. Ethanol, while not innocuous, is 100% biodegradable, so if a tanker dropped off the new bridge into the lake the diesel in the truck tanks would do more harm than the actual cargo.
I support anything that can chip away at importing middle eastern oil, even if its an imperfect solution, its a start.
I do understand your concern, though. Its not my backyard. Good luck!
I just don't understand all this talk about environmental issues and anti-ethanol.
Current vehicles burning gasoline and the oil refineries cause 100% more damage to our environment and us, than ethanol production would ever do. Not only that, but when are we going to stop feeding cash to those crazy Middle Easterners?
My folks are from the Midwest and have been burning ethanol since the early eighties. At that time it was the lower percentage ethanol but I'm sure by now they have the 85% available on the market. They switched for two reasons. 1. To burn cleaner fuel 2. To help our farmers in the US. Who would you rather help US citizens or Middle Easterners? Why does it have to be cheaper to change? Isn't cleaner air and the reduction of supplying Middle Eastern crazies with cash enough??? I just don't get where you are coming from when you start using the term "Big Corporations" will get the money.
Big Corporations? Are you kidding? Many have helped produce these in the first place. How many of you shop at Wally World? If you do, then you have no place to talk of the fear of Big Corporations, because you're helping to fuel them. Do you have any idea how many Mom & Pop shops Wally World has put out of business in it's life time? I flat out refuse to stop there!!
How many of you invest in stocks? Do you think those stocks are for Mom & Pop businesses? You help support Corporations if you're invested in stocks so how can you talk bad about something you give your money to? Do you want it both ways?
We (whole US) should have been burning 85 ethanol ten years ago and we should demand it NOW and get our men and women out of the Middle East!
Heck, if it wasn't for the drunks, we could burn 100% ethanol and not need any gasoline for our vehicles. But someone out there would try to pull up to a filling station and start drinking out of the hose! 
I went this morning to the Mecklenburg Counrty Supervisors meeting and then this afternoon to the Chase City meeting where Osage energy presented the plan for a "proposed" ethanol plant. I will list several areas below as updates based on new inputs, research and some errors in assumptions and so on:
- Water input. The Water is requested at 1.5 Million gallons per day. 1.5 Million gallons per day is less than 1% of the staunton flow at 832 (math error above) and it is less than 1 1/100th a percent of the water over the dam...its not going to affect lake levels in a major way even in a drought year. The 1.5M is part of 4.18M allocation already in the Roanoke River Service Authority's (RRSA) water production so its already in the COE plan (I'm doublechecking that). Water flow would be from Gaston via Boydton to Chase City. The pipeline project to service the need is planned to cost 3.6M dollars total per county statement. There are already 1.5M and 1.0M grants requested via EDA and Tobacco Commission respectively with county staff "looking all over" to find the rest of the money should the project move forward. So, the amount of water used by the plant does not appear to me to be an issue, we'll monitor the infrastructure funding process.
- Water output, sewage. Osage stated bluntly and clearly three times that water output from the ethanol process would always divert back into the ethanol manufacturing process. The proposed plant would be have zero effluent from production. Sewage from offices, restrooms and so on would go to Chase City Waste Treatment. So I do not have an issue with wastewater pollution if the givens are held and true.
- Air emmissions. This is my biggest concern due mostly to smells and the smells impact on our lake. Firstly, the Osage team confirmed that thermal oxidizers would be used. My study generally says that when these are employed that the larger of smell offense is removed as, btw, are most cancer causing agents (keep-it-simple's point). So, if this is held and true, I would not have an issue. Note that a local bufferzone on the property is present but at the end some of the local residents are less than a mile from the plant. Downwind folks chould monitor this closely IMHO. Were I to have one silver bullet on this project I would use it here to ask that they adhere to more stringent EPA guidelines (generally for plants emitting over 250tons of gunk per year). This would be voulentary on their part since their estimate of 40-60 tons puts them in a fairly slack regulatory environment. The clean-air act was just relaxed in this area in the last weeks.
- Traffic Patterns. They will use their own truck fleet to transport the product. As such local storage will be less than if RR was used. They stated bluntly today that they plan to widen 92 at Osage expense but even with that comment that traffic flow, hours and so on were not worked out. At a questioners request, they agreed that traffic flow would be worked out to local government satisfaction.
- The CEO stated that Osage had not been offered any tax abatements.
- Fire and Emergency. Here the statements were that they would work with local fire depts to co-operate on a plan acceptable to them. Further, that this Osage would provide training accordingly. I do see this as a risk area. A comprehensive plan for capital equipment and training must go in up-front. I entered into the minutes today at MK BOS that I looked for this plan to be up-front and that I did not want to be paying for extra fire-fighting gear etc with higher taxes (But of course I want our firefighters to have the right gear). The downwind danger zone is currently defined as 800meters or 1mile (my notes let me down). Either way, with the toxics in this puppy I see this as pretty short. But I'm not educated on this so I think it'd pay downwind folks and firefighter first-responders within 50 mile radius to go to school on case-histories of ethanol fires, evacuations etc.
- Noise and nightglow were discussed in the public meeting with the property bufferzones anticipated to totally solve. As a cat-man I can tell you that night glow goes for tens of miles in overcast. This is an issue for local residents to attack if they object. Regarding noise, the company stated clearly that the tanker trucks are noisy as they move around.
- The company stated that there would be no feed-lot co-located on the property. The plant is designed to use barley, corn and some other grown stuff but barley is the most of the discussion.
- Osage said they would hire locally wherever possible. I know from experience that some jobs will have to be sourced outside due to expertise.
- Plant manager and key executives will be required to live very near the site or in Chase City. Some discussion of a house on the property being the plant manager house.
- Plant would run 50 weeks, 24/7.
- Plant location by rail (for barley when local production not adequate) and pipeline (for gas when other fuels not available).
- CEO stated that the business case on this plant was effective without subsidies (there are subsidies now) and down to oil in mid $20's. This to answer a concern about abandonment.
- I asked Meck BOS to ensure VDGIF, VDEQ, & COE were involved to keep the ecosystem health in mind but the answers above, if held and true, would result in minimal impact to Kerr's water IMHO.
So at the end, I learned a lot. Maybe my conclusion is wrong. I feel for the closeby residents but I am not against this plant based on the facts I see. I'm sure there's a lot I don't see, and I think the fire/emergency and evac plan and the air emmissions are to be watched closely but I can't say I'm against this plant. It'll make a few jobs, it'll put some NC/VA acreage into winter crops, it'll make some taxes (and likely raise mine), and it'll reduce our dependence on foreign oil by some very small amount. I can't be for it until we sniff it but today I can't put myself against it either. This is my 2 cents on this unless someone has a specific question I might know from being at the meetings.
From an angler point of view, the water questions are pretty much put to bed IMHO. That comment added to make this last part about fishing jfo
Very nice summary jfo. Thanks.
One point about the 800 meters --it is ~1/2 mile and was said to be the minimum required. In all cases, the the minimum was exceeded (I think the closest to any of the was > 1 mile, but my notes may have failed me.)
I had the opportunity to speak with Mr. Richter and Mr. Spruill after the meeting. One potential by-product that was not addressed was spent yeast. I asked about this and there is the potential for this to be a usable by-product. Yeast extract is a component of microbiological media -- think when you have a swab of your throat and it is streaked on a plate. It is also sold in health food stores --loaded with B vitamins. And those crazy Aussies salt it down and turn it into vegi-mite.
All in all I thought it very informative and the Osage folks gave a nice presentation. Kudos to the BOS for holding this meeting (I'm sure there will be others).
I was leaning in favor going to this meeting, and nothing changed my point of view.
And as far as 'Big Oil', the CEO or VP ( I forget which) stated the plant would be profitable to $20/ barrel of oil. I don't think we'll see $20/ barrel any time soon.
To make it a fishing report, skunked over the 12' brush pile the last two nights.
Roe
