Post by jonsdigs on Nov 9, 2006 11:13:12 GMT -5
Christian County residents concerned about fuel plant
Ozark Newstand
11/08/2006
OZARK-Melissa Staats lives in Christian County. She's concerned about the ethanol plant proposed by Gulfstream Bioflex Energy, LLC, just across the line in Webster County.
"They are wanting to do this in a karst region," she said. "We are loaded with sinkholes. I am wondering why DNR hasn't put some dye into the sinkholes to see where it goes."
Staats is concerned about many of the unknown ramifications of situating an ethanol plant in the bucolic corner of Webster, Christian and Greene counties.
"It is a lot of water," she said. "What are job benefits?"
Many of Staats' questions could have been answered by going to one place-the Webster County University of Missouri Extension's Web site. That's where Bob Schultheis, a natural resource engineering specialist, with the extension office posted resource information about the proposed plant and its location, including results from the five-member Webster County Groundwater Impact Committee, which he chairs.
Political pressure
But last week, Schultheis was ordered by his superiors at MU to take down the information. Why?
"Political pressure," he said.
Rick Mammen, Southwest Region Director, concurred.
"This issue has become political and emotional," Mammen said when verifying that the order to take down the Web site came from top officials at the university.
"The administration asked for people in community development to look at the Web site and to evaluate what is opinion and what is research-based information," he said. He said it was the extension office's role to provide unbiased research based information and that some had viewed at least some of the information as opinion not fact.
Dr. Mary Leuci, assistant dean and community development program director, said she was asked to view the information on the site.
"I was asked to review it as part of a team because I direct community programming," Leuci said. " We bring the science-based knowledge to deal with public issues. Our mission was to facilitate that process.
"Upon reviewing the Web site, it looked to us that the ability to maintain neutrality was compromised. If you take a stance then you are no longer maintaining neutrality."
The Citizens for Ground Water Protection who opposed the plant released a statement Nov. 3 decrying MU's actions.
"The recent action taken at the direction of the University of Missouri Extension administration to remove this information from the Web site was totally inappropriate and derelict in their responsibility to the local taxpayers. We feel that we are entitled to an explanation of how a public land-grant institution that prides itself in journalism would allow its staff to be unduly influenced by outside political pressure."
Bryan Wade with Husch & Eppenberger, LLC, Springfield, attorneys for GBE, said the site should have been taken down.
"It would be completely inappropriate for Mr. Schultheis to use the University of Missouri Extension to advocate against or for a position, if that is not the official position of the University of Missouri," he said. "He should not be using the Web site to advocate a (personal) position."
Wade said the University has actually advocated in favor of constructing ethanol plants.
Groundwater Impact Committee results
The results from the committee's work, or the stance that Leuci referred to, was posted at the Web site and do point to problems in locating the plant at the Fordland location.
"There are a lot better locations than this one," Schultheis said. "This is a geologically dangerous location sitting near sinkholes and losing streams. There's no secondary source of water."
Schultheis said the plant's proposed four deep wells on the 200 plus acres could potentially draw water away from shallower wells.
Why should Christian Countians be concerned?
"Christian County is not too far away from where this plant would be located," Schultheis said. "The state geologist has told us, it could influence wells up to two miles away, and could affect folks in Christian County."
Wade disagrees with that assessment. He said there's no evidence that the aquifer would be impacted.
"Jim Vandike (DNR) said he doesn't know of any adverse effect it will have on the aquifer here," Wade said "There are trillions of gallons of water in this aquifer and we've been taking water since the 1900s with no adverse impact."
But Vandike, a geologist with DNR in Rolla, said the impact is unknown.
"Anytime you extract hat amount of water there will be some impact," he said. "There are many wells in southwest Missouri where similar types of demand are made and successfully. That is why the test well is done. It is to establish what the hydraulic characteristics of that aquifer."
Vandike said residents should be concerned enough to pay attention to the data.
"There's nothing wrong with being concerned," he said. "The only way to know what effects (it may have)is to do adequate testing."
Schultheis confirmed what Christian County Commissioner John Grubaugh said was one of his concerns.
"The other possibility is when they discharge the water it would be running down through the James River watershed," Schultheis said. "At this point we haven't got information back from the company on what materials might be in that water. It may have a number of minerals in it. Because we don't know the process they would use. And each (plant) uses a slightly different process.
"We are wondering about chlorides and sulfates and rust inhibitors. Until the plant submits an application to DNR, there is no way of knowing what is coming out of that. That would be one of those issues people would be concerned about."
Schultheis went on to say that the area has a series of losing streams, like the Finley, where the water goes underground and the region contains fault lines and sinkholes. That means any water on the surface can get into the groundwater without much filtration making the threat of pollution more serious.
But Wade says DNR regulates discharge and would not permit the plant to release harmful effluent.
Recent history
Opponents of the plant managed to get a temporary restraining order against the company to stop test-drilling for a well. A legal maneuver by GBE's attorneys lifted that order by requesting another judge hear the case for a permanent injunction. Drilling began on the property last week. The Missouri Supreme Court named a judge and the hearing for a permanent injunction is scheduled for Nov. 20 in Columbia according to information from Citizens for Ground Water Protection. .
The site is located on 252 acres northeast of the junction of U. S. Highway 60 and Porter Crossing Road.
Mt. Vernon resident Greg Wilmoth serves as GBE's CEO. He's a native of Lawrence County and, according to information from Schultheis' now defunct Web site, Wilmoth's family has been in the oil business for more than 50 years. According to information provided to the committee at a meeting on Aug. 30 with GBE, the other two principals in company are Jeff Negre, vice-president and Charles Luna, vice-president. GBE is a limited liability company organized May 12, 2006 according to documents from the Missouri Secretary of State. Only Wilmoth's name appears on the articles of organization. Wade stipulated that Negre and Luna are officers, but Luna has no ownership of the business and acts as a consultant.
The four wells proposed by GBE will be capable, according to information from that Aug. 30 meeting, of extracting 2,000 gallons per minute of groundwater. GBE estimated it would used only about 880 GPM or 1.26 million gallons a day.
The information available states that Wilmoth does not "believe GBE has any responsibility to provide financial assistance" to those nearby residents who may have to drill deeper wells because of the increased water usage.
Wilmoth has stated, according to information from Schultheis, that when completed plant would employ from 35-45 people and create a $2.1 million annual payroll. The construction phase of the project is estimated to bring in 200 to 300 outside workers.
The committee's research shows that because Webster County rolled back its portion of a general revenue property tax when a sales tax was passed, the county would not receive any direct revenue from the plant.
It would, however, benefit from any additional spending in the county resulting from the new industry.
The players and their finances
A recent story published by the Springfield Business Journal (Oct. 23) looked at the three principals of GBE. According to that report, Luna has a colorful past that dates back to the 70s and is dotted with litigation and financial difficulties. He was the target of a murder-for-hire plot stemming from a fraud investigation.
A three-page letter from GBE's attorneys addressed to "To Whom It May Concern" and provided to the Headliner News contends the SBJ story was "extremely misleading and filled with many inaccuracies" and accuses the publication of only wanting to "sell more newspapers."
The letter states that Wilmoth and Negre are Mt. Vernon businessmen "who have long been associated with the transportation and fuel distribution industries.
The firm stipulated to the fact in the SBJ story that Luna has filed a "voluntary bankruptcy petition" with respect to certain creditors and that that isn't unusual because "(B)usinesses often resort to bankruptcy filing when they are unable to reach an acceptable settlement with certain creditors." And, that Luna's "prior business activities are simply not relevant."
The attorneys say that Luna is "merely a consultant on the GBE project, not an owner," and that "funds for the construction and operation of the ethanol plants will come from senior lenders, subordinated lenders and private equity funds not located within Missouri."
Corn-the new black gold.
According to information from GBE's attorneys, the proposed plant would produce 100,000,000 gallons per year of fuel-grade ethanol and related by products. But how efficient is the biofuel?
Consumer Reports recently wrote that "mileage takes a hit with ethanol blend." And E85 may only be economic when gasoline prices are considerably higher than ethanol because fuel efficiency drops with the 85 percent ethanol blend. Ed Wallace recently wrote in Business Week that "numerous studies have found that ethanol creates less energy that is required to make it."
Other studies have shown that ethanol can create slightly more energy then used in its creation, but when factoring in the negative fuel efficiency it may not be the silver bullet to remedy America's addiction to oil.
Kevin Hassett, director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute and a former advisor to Sen. John McCain said that ethanol is a big scam and the most attractive part of it is the billions of dollars the government provides in subsidies for corn production. He sites a study by Cornell University that revealed it takes "29 percent more energy to make ethanol from corn than contained in the ethanol itself."
And one study suggested the amount of corn it takes to make enough ethanol to fill up one SUV one time would feed a family of five for a year.
So while the available evidence doesn't look favorable on the cost and environmental benefits of ethanol production, the facts of constructing an ethanol plant in Webster County don't look any better to Schultheis.
"The committee looked at the facts and for this location," he said. "The list of disadvantages appears to be longer than the list of advantages."
Greg Wilmoth did not return calls seeking comment for this story.
Sidebar: Missouri has no water rights law. According to Jim Vandike, geologist at Rolla, there is nothing in the statutes that gives DNR any authority regulate the amount of water pumped out of the aquifer. Missouri follows riparian law that means property owners have the right to use the water beneath them. There is no limit, he said, unless it adversely impacts another user and that is left up to the courts to decide.
A hearing is scheduled for Nov. 20 in Columbia to address the opponents request for a permanent injunction against the company.
Article
Ozark Newstand
11/08/2006
OZARK-Melissa Staats lives in Christian County. She's concerned about the ethanol plant proposed by Gulfstream Bioflex Energy, LLC, just across the line in Webster County.
"They are wanting to do this in a karst region," she said. "We are loaded with sinkholes. I am wondering why DNR hasn't put some dye into the sinkholes to see where it goes."
Staats is concerned about many of the unknown ramifications of situating an ethanol plant in the bucolic corner of Webster, Christian and Greene counties.
"It is a lot of water," she said. "What are job benefits?"
Many of Staats' questions could have been answered by going to one place-the Webster County University of Missouri Extension's Web site. That's where Bob Schultheis, a natural resource engineering specialist, with the extension office posted resource information about the proposed plant and its location, including results from the five-member Webster County Groundwater Impact Committee, which he chairs.
Political pressure
But last week, Schultheis was ordered by his superiors at MU to take down the information. Why?
"Political pressure," he said.
Rick Mammen, Southwest Region Director, concurred.
"This issue has become political and emotional," Mammen said when verifying that the order to take down the Web site came from top officials at the university.
"The administration asked for people in community development to look at the Web site and to evaluate what is opinion and what is research-based information," he said. He said it was the extension office's role to provide unbiased research based information and that some had viewed at least some of the information as opinion not fact.
Dr. Mary Leuci, assistant dean and community development program director, said she was asked to view the information on the site.
"I was asked to review it as part of a team because I direct community programming," Leuci said. " We bring the science-based knowledge to deal with public issues. Our mission was to facilitate that process.
"Upon reviewing the Web site, it looked to us that the ability to maintain neutrality was compromised. If you take a stance then you are no longer maintaining neutrality."
The Citizens for Ground Water Protection who opposed the plant released a statement Nov. 3 decrying MU's actions.
"The recent action taken at the direction of the University of Missouri Extension administration to remove this information from the Web site was totally inappropriate and derelict in their responsibility to the local taxpayers. We feel that we are entitled to an explanation of how a public land-grant institution that prides itself in journalism would allow its staff to be unduly influenced by outside political pressure."
Bryan Wade with Husch & Eppenberger, LLC, Springfield, attorneys for GBE, said the site should have been taken down.
"It would be completely inappropriate for Mr. Schultheis to use the University of Missouri Extension to advocate against or for a position, if that is not the official position of the University of Missouri," he said. "He should not be using the Web site to advocate a (personal) position."
Wade said the University has actually advocated in favor of constructing ethanol plants.
Groundwater Impact Committee results
The results from the committee's work, or the stance that Leuci referred to, was posted at the Web site and do point to problems in locating the plant at the Fordland location.
"There are a lot better locations than this one," Schultheis said. "This is a geologically dangerous location sitting near sinkholes and losing streams. There's no secondary source of water."
Schultheis said the plant's proposed four deep wells on the 200 plus acres could potentially draw water away from shallower wells.
Why should Christian Countians be concerned?
"Christian County is not too far away from where this plant would be located," Schultheis said. "The state geologist has told us, it could influence wells up to two miles away, and could affect folks in Christian County."
Wade disagrees with that assessment. He said there's no evidence that the aquifer would be impacted.
"Jim Vandike (DNR) said he doesn't know of any adverse effect it will have on the aquifer here," Wade said "There are trillions of gallons of water in this aquifer and we've been taking water since the 1900s with no adverse impact."
But Vandike, a geologist with DNR in Rolla, said the impact is unknown.
"Anytime you extract hat amount of water there will be some impact," he said. "There are many wells in southwest Missouri where similar types of demand are made and successfully. That is why the test well is done. It is to establish what the hydraulic characteristics of that aquifer."
Vandike said residents should be concerned enough to pay attention to the data.
"There's nothing wrong with being concerned," he said. "The only way to know what effects (it may have)is to do adequate testing."
Schultheis confirmed what Christian County Commissioner John Grubaugh said was one of his concerns.
"The other possibility is when they discharge the water it would be running down through the James River watershed," Schultheis said. "At this point we haven't got information back from the company on what materials might be in that water. It may have a number of minerals in it. Because we don't know the process they would use. And each (plant) uses a slightly different process.
"We are wondering about chlorides and sulfates and rust inhibitors. Until the plant submits an application to DNR, there is no way of knowing what is coming out of that. That would be one of those issues people would be concerned about."
Schultheis went on to say that the area has a series of losing streams, like the Finley, where the water goes underground and the region contains fault lines and sinkholes. That means any water on the surface can get into the groundwater without much filtration making the threat of pollution more serious.
But Wade says DNR regulates discharge and would not permit the plant to release harmful effluent.
Recent history
Opponents of the plant managed to get a temporary restraining order against the company to stop test-drilling for a well. A legal maneuver by GBE's attorneys lifted that order by requesting another judge hear the case for a permanent injunction. Drilling began on the property last week. The Missouri Supreme Court named a judge and the hearing for a permanent injunction is scheduled for Nov. 20 in Columbia according to information from Citizens for Ground Water Protection. .
The site is located on 252 acres northeast of the junction of U. S. Highway 60 and Porter Crossing Road.
Mt. Vernon resident Greg Wilmoth serves as GBE's CEO. He's a native of Lawrence County and, according to information from Schultheis' now defunct Web site, Wilmoth's family has been in the oil business for more than 50 years. According to information provided to the committee at a meeting on Aug. 30 with GBE, the other two principals in company are Jeff Negre, vice-president and Charles Luna, vice-president. GBE is a limited liability company organized May 12, 2006 according to documents from the Missouri Secretary of State. Only Wilmoth's name appears on the articles of organization. Wade stipulated that Negre and Luna are officers, but Luna has no ownership of the business and acts as a consultant.
The four wells proposed by GBE will be capable, according to information from that Aug. 30 meeting, of extracting 2,000 gallons per minute of groundwater. GBE estimated it would used only about 880 GPM or 1.26 million gallons a day.
The information available states that Wilmoth does not "believe GBE has any responsibility to provide financial assistance" to those nearby residents who may have to drill deeper wells because of the increased water usage.
Wilmoth has stated, according to information from Schultheis, that when completed plant would employ from 35-45 people and create a $2.1 million annual payroll. The construction phase of the project is estimated to bring in 200 to 300 outside workers.
The committee's research shows that because Webster County rolled back its portion of a general revenue property tax when a sales tax was passed, the county would not receive any direct revenue from the plant.
It would, however, benefit from any additional spending in the county resulting from the new industry.
The players and their finances
A recent story published by the Springfield Business Journal (Oct. 23) looked at the three principals of GBE. According to that report, Luna has a colorful past that dates back to the 70s and is dotted with litigation and financial difficulties. He was the target of a murder-for-hire plot stemming from a fraud investigation.
A three-page letter from GBE's attorneys addressed to "To Whom It May Concern" and provided to the Headliner News contends the SBJ story was "extremely misleading and filled with many inaccuracies" and accuses the publication of only wanting to "sell more newspapers."
The letter states that Wilmoth and Negre are Mt. Vernon businessmen "who have long been associated with the transportation and fuel distribution industries.
The firm stipulated to the fact in the SBJ story that Luna has filed a "voluntary bankruptcy petition" with respect to certain creditors and that that isn't unusual because "(B)usinesses often resort to bankruptcy filing when they are unable to reach an acceptable settlement with certain creditors." And, that Luna's "prior business activities are simply not relevant."
The attorneys say that Luna is "merely a consultant on the GBE project, not an owner," and that "funds for the construction and operation of the ethanol plants will come from senior lenders, subordinated lenders and private equity funds not located within Missouri."
Corn-the new black gold.
According to information from GBE's attorneys, the proposed plant would produce 100,000,000 gallons per year of fuel-grade ethanol and related by products. But how efficient is the biofuel?
Consumer Reports recently wrote that "mileage takes a hit with ethanol blend." And E85 may only be economic when gasoline prices are considerably higher than ethanol because fuel efficiency drops with the 85 percent ethanol blend. Ed Wallace recently wrote in Business Week that "numerous studies have found that ethanol creates less energy that is required to make it."
Other studies have shown that ethanol can create slightly more energy then used in its creation, but when factoring in the negative fuel efficiency it may not be the silver bullet to remedy America's addiction to oil.
Kevin Hassett, director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute and a former advisor to Sen. John McCain said that ethanol is a big scam and the most attractive part of it is the billions of dollars the government provides in subsidies for corn production. He sites a study by Cornell University that revealed it takes "29 percent more energy to make ethanol from corn than contained in the ethanol itself."
And one study suggested the amount of corn it takes to make enough ethanol to fill up one SUV one time would feed a family of five for a year.
So while the available evidence doesn't look favorable on the cost and environmental benefits of ethanol production, the facts of constructing an ethanol plant in Webster County don't look any better to Schultheis.
"The committee looked at the facts and for this location," he said. "The list of disadvantages appears to be longer than the list of advantages."
Greg Wilmoth did not return calls seeking comment for this story.
Sidebar: Missouri has no water rights law. According to Jim Vandike, geologist at Rolla, there is nothing in the statutes that gives DNR any authority regulate the amount of water pumped out of the aquifer. Missouri follows riparian law that means property owners have the right to use the water beneath them. There is no limit, he said, unless it adversely impacts another user and that is left up to the courts to decide.
A hearing is scheduled for Nov. 20 in Columbia to address the opponents request for a permanent injunction against the company.
Article
