Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
That's cute, but not factual.
Several things going on.
From what I have heard, even choi bought back in. lolol
Old news.
It will be late.
Like I said...
narnia1000 Friday, 02/21/14 01:50:33 PM
Re: boiler99 post# 27200
Post # of 27706
More than paper. :)
SFRX
It's time here.
Next week is one trading day away.
All aboard, or chase it.
The fact that a CEO has shares is a normal thing. Nothing "great" about that.
The fact that the LEXG CEO has given himself 20 million more shares is a questionable thing. Why do this when you make no money for the company, and you are diluting all of the holdings of the shareholders?
The fact that LEXG has no revenue, but tries to tie their name to TESLA (a company with plans to use lithium batteries), but they have zero connection to LEXG is a suspect thing. Especially as it comes after the LEXG CEO has issued himself those 20 million shares.
Connect those dots people. LEXG is trying to take you for another ride, and it is not going to be in a TESLA lolol.
Here is where the LEXG CEO lives who just issued himself 20 MILLION more shares:
320 E Fairmont Dr Tempe, AZ 85282
3 beds, 2 baths, 2,000 sqft
Built in 1963.
Does not exactly reek of success.
Should check the Scottsdale business location.
People should be able to see what's going on here with a few things researched.
Laughable pump scam in the making from LEXG?
"Lithium Exploration Group CEO Comments on Tesla's Lithium-Ion Battery Plans"
CEO is alluding to a connection between TESLA, and LEXG by commenting on TESLA's PR news. Lolol.
Not so subtle manipulation underway as LEXG is attempting to recreate their 2011 pump gem imo. Trade this for profit if you will, but do not sit around waiting for what they did in 2011.
Oh, and also note how they released the same PR the past two days. Now why would a company pay twice for the same PR? Because their feeble pump is beginning, and they did not get the hoped-for reaction two days ago, so they released it again imo. Lolol.
Caveat emptor, but position accordingly based on their assumption that everyone has a poor memory. (No, I did not get burned in 2011. I just hate scams that hurt regular working people for their own gain.)
100-nm milestone
POET is moving steadily towards the goal of 100-nm feature sizes for the transistors within the POET platform, and has stabilized feature definition at the sub-200-nm level.
POET anticipates completion of the 100-nm milestone by the end of April 2014.
Nice.
POETF
Missed getting the cheapies?
POETF
My oh my!
We have not seen anything yet either.
Hammering out those milestones.
All aboard!
POETF.
Another milestone reached.
Progression.
POETF
Thank you for the info. Marked you back. :)
More than paper. :)
SFRX
ANOTHER breakout.
In deep, and deeply green.
Has not even started imo.
Watch.
POETF
J3 impressive statement of qualifications:
http://www.j3aet.com/uploads/Statement_of_Qualifications_-_9-13.pdf
That pretty much sums up the analysis of the GTGP attorney himotephe.
Here are a few character qualities that Jim might want to use to select a future attorney:
Veracity.
Professionalism.
Credibility.
Ethics.
Morality.
Decency.
Righteousness.
Deference.
Discretion.
Wisdom.
Virtue.
Tolerance.
Forgiveness.
I hear exactly what you are saying. :)
SFRX
J3's evolution as a new company, and the information that they provide should be of interest to the GTGP shareholders. Conveyance of that information via a cut, and paste tool is my pleasure to provide, and I appreciate your gratitude flatfoot. I will continue to provide the GTGP board with anything relevant to the Ihub board, and shareholders of GTGP. Thank you again for your kind words.
"the company’s Durkee cement plant will meet the US EPA’s NESHAP requirements by the deadline of 9 September 2015."
"We have developed and created a solution and are proud we were able to do that.”
Certainly leans towards that Buc. Just have to wait, and see. Most of the fixes for the requirements seem to be a combination of things, including monitoring equipment. We know that MBS did a stellar job, but whether they are using it, or will be, remains to be seen.
Ash Grove’s Durkee cement plant on track for NESHAP
In a local news report, an official from Ash Grove Cement Co. has confirmed that he believes the company’s Durkee cement plant will meet the US EPA’s NESHAP requirements by the deadline of 9 September 2015.
Minimising mercury emissions
The Durkee plant, located in Oregon, is one of the plants that caused some concern when the mercury limits were first announced, due to the unusually high mercury content in their raw materials. Ash Grove spent some US$20 million on emissions controls in 2010, reducing airborne mercury emissions by 95%, the report says. Further reductions may be necessary, but by comparison with the levels already achieved, these are minimal. In 2012, the plant produced 618 000 t of clinker and released 41 lb of mercury compounds via its air stack; this would need to be reduced to 34 lb at the same clinker production rate in order to meet the 2015 standards..
Meeting the challenge with technology
Plant Manager Terry Kerby told the Baker City Herald that the EPA’s ‘one size fits all’ rule has been very challenging for the plant, whose limestone contains up to 1100 ppb of mercury compared to many other plants where that content may be only 5 ppb. “We have been given an impossible goal,” he said. “We accepted the challenge…We have developed and created a solution and are proud we were able to do that.”.
The plant also has a vote of confidence from the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality’s Doug Welch, who told the newspaper, “I think what they have done (at the Durkee plant) is the best in the country – as far as what I have seen before”.
Opportunities for Mercury Abatement – Part 2
Mercury abatement technologies
The mercury control solutions discussed in this article cover an array of treatment options. Each option has aspects that are both desirable and undesirable, but all focus on trapping the mercury and pulling it from the process. The best solution depends on the process mercury levels and the emissions reduction required.
Mercury removal can be grouped into three categories, targeting pre-process (raw materials), in-process (solids extraction) or after-process (polishing filter). Generally, the level and cost of mercury removal increases as one moves from feed materials to stack. Process complexity and product impact are a major issue when dealing with in-process treatment.
Selective materials sourcing
If the mercury problem originates with an additive raw material then substitution is an obvious solution. It has the least impact on existing operations, but alternative raw materials (if available) are generally more expensive. It is likely that low mercury content materials will be in short supply so this option is generally a short-term solution. If one feedstock is the main source of mercury then replacing it is a viable option. Depending on the material particle size distribution, separate treatment to remove the mercury may be possible with some of the new technologies.
Again, one must consider the oxidation state in the process. Swapping one material for another may adversely impact the oxidation state so reducing one material in favour of another may not provide the results expected. Understanding the mercury cycle is still a first step in the abatement process.
Breaking the mercury cycle
Breaking the process cycle is a well known practice in the cement industry. Many plants have existing alkali or chlorine bypass circuits that interrupt internal process cycles to reduce target compounds. This dust is wasted to manage the cycle at a cost in process equipment and loss of feed in the form of cement kiln dust (CKD). In practice, the bypass removes just a fraction of the target compound.
Fortunately, the mercury cycle is dependent on the absorptive qualities of the raw feed and much of the mercury is captured with the raw feed. This dust can be pulled continuously as in a bypass or where possible removed in a batch purge process. This is especially effective when mercury can be concentrated in a given area. There is existing literature citing removal efficiencies of 30 – 70%.4 The choice of batch versus continuous is case dependant. In both systems the disposition of the residual dust must be addressed since the quantities of slipstream dust can be significant.
Dust shuttling is an accepted means of reducing mercury emissions. The process was studied in detail by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. In addition, the Florida Department of Transportation studied the effect on concrete. Both agencies have accepted the practice. There is minimal equipment required to divert the collector discharge to pneumatic transport and then to the finish mills. The reduction in material (dust) value and annualised capital contribute to a total cost of US$13 200/kg mercury removed.5 For the cost of an additional transport line, one Florida plant included a line to return the feed to the preheater. This was intended for additional process testing once a mercury CEMS was installed.
More recently, the option of processing the dust at an increased rate, removing the mercury and returning the raw feed to the process has been considered. There are a number of roaster technologies available as well as patented processes for mercury removal. All rely on thermal desorption and isolation of the resulting mercury laden gas, with feed returned to the process. This technology could also be applied to raw material treatment should the material be of powder form, lending itself to heating and the release of inherent mercury.
Flue gas mercury capture
There are a number of promising mercury capture options, as well as some new offerings that may eliminate powdered carbon management.
Activated carbon injection (ACI) in the power industry is gaining momentum, although results vary. The process is straightforward and can be evaluated at a given facility through slipstream testing. The need for a polishing filter mandates a significant capital investment. Carbon supply and disposal, combined with the additional fan capacity, increase operating costs as well. Many environmental groups see this as the best option for the US cement sector but there is limited experience with ACI in the industry with only two installations in place. These include polishing filters with mercury removal efficiency near 80%.
To reduce capital costs one could inject powdered activated carbon ahead of the existing raw mill bag filter. This would be done in combination with some level of dust shuttling or require wasting dust. This could be an option should dust disposal be a viable alternative at a given facility. In general, one would not choose to create another process waste stream. Nor would one introduce carbon to the final product.
The introduction of amended silicates provides for future opportunities. Testing indicates this material provides similar results as activated carbon injection using existing ACI equipment. The silicates as a mercury-enriched waste product would permit use in the cement milling process. Amended silicates could possibly be used ahead of an existing baghouse to increase mercury recovery if shuttling dust when the raw mill is offline. The efficiency of amended silicates is similar to ACI but not as efficient. These systems perform best with high levels of oxidised mercury in the gas stream.
Another new technology is the fixed sorbent bed mercury scrubber. This is a polishing filter that provides an operator advantages in terms of simplicity and safety. The system consists of a gas cooling station after the existing dust collector, followed by a fixed array of sorbent-containing modules. The system is being evaluated in slipstream installations with repeatable results in mercury removal. The process requires no powder injection and as a fixed unit is simple to operate. The sorbent modules are expected to operate for years with removal efficiencies tailored to the demand of the facility. Efficiencies in excess of 90% are reported with the benefit of slipstream testing assuring compliance.6 Based on the size and complexity of the modules, one would expect the capital costs to be more than an activated carbon injection system. The system by design has more opportunity to capture elemental mercury and should provide for reliable mercury capture.
The last systems for consideration in mercury abatement are systems designed for flue gas desulfurisation. These are the traditional wet scrubber technology as well as the newer semi-dry scrubbers.
The semi-dry variant of scrubber consists of a reactor chamber where process gas and lime/water slurry are managed to sustain a fluidised bed of reagent. Relying on significant recycling of the absorbent, this system reportedly provides significant emissions reduction with measured removal of mercury in excess of 90%.7 A number of systems are operating in the power industry, with one as a polishing filter in cement. This technology bears some consideration for mercury abatement if one is considering ACI. These systems are relatively compact, simple to operate and adaptable to changing process conditions. Depending on the process, the unit could be installed between the raw mill and bag filter with significant savings by negating the additional polishing filter.
The standard for flue gas desulfurisation is a wet scrubber using lime or ground limestone as an absorbent. Although there is evidence of excellent performance regarding the reduction of oxidised mercury in the utility industry, performance is process dependent and needs installation specific assessment in cement plants.
The US EPA initiated a study to evaluate the effectiveness of wet scrubber systems on mercury removal that found performance to be system dependent.8 Over 20% of the coal-fired utility boiler capacity in the US uses a PM control device upstream of the wet FGD scrubber for SO2 control. The study of these facilities found mercury removal efficiencies of 29 – 98% depending on the system configuration and source of coal. As in most absorbent based systems the removal efficiencies dropped with an increase in elemental mercury in the gas stream. Generally, high mercury capture was attributed to the configuration of the fabric filter ahead of the scrubber, where increased oxidisation and capture of Hg in the FF increased the system performance. Wet scrubbers require a very high first investment, as well as having significant operating costs. Management of the process waste is significant unless the sulfur content in the gas stream provides synthetic gypsum. Other lower cost alternatives should be considered if mercury control is the sole objective.
Conclusion
Over half of the US cement industry will need to invest in improved emissions control. All plants need to understand the mercury cycle in their process and evaluate the best system designed with their individual needs in mind. They should not accept emissions control systems designed for the power utility industry. Activated carbon injection and wet scrubbers may be a solution, but the related costs and subsequent waste streams mean a better solution could be found.
If ever there was a place for innovation it is in the development of a mercury capture system that is suited to the cement industry. Between a low and high cost installation there exists the ideal solution for any cement plant. It could be one of the new technologies, or a combination of any two. Whatever system is employed it should enhance the ability to produce a quality product with minimal environmental impact. It will be interesting to see what new solutions the mandated mercury reductions, effective from September 2015, will bring.
Written by Daniel Crowley, Titan America, USA. This is an abridged version of the full article, which appeared in the January 2014 issue of World Cement. Subscribers can view the full article by logging in.
Opportunities for Mercury Abatement – Part 1
US mercury regulation and the cement industry
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollution (NESHAP). These standards were first applied to the US cement industry in 1999 with a focus on particulate matter, visible stack opacity, total hydrocarbons and dioxin/furans. The first mercury emissions limit was proposed in 2006 at 41 µg/dscm at 7% O2 (34.5 µg/Nm3 at 10% O2) based on an annual 3-hour stack test. During the following years this rule was challenged by industry and environmental groups.
On 20 December 2012, in response to a federal court decision, the EPA finalised amendments to the air toxic’s rule for Portland cement manufacturers. Based on industry petitions and technical information, the Agency amended the rule, thereby saving the industry an estimated US$52 million in implementation costs.1 The NESHAP emission levels, set using a MACT (Maximum Achievable Control Technology) approach, limit annual mercury emissions in existing cement facilities to 55 lb/million t of clinker (8 – 13 µg/Nm3) and 21 lb (3 – 5 µg/Nm3) for new kilns. Emissions must be continuously monitored when the cement NESHAP regulations take effect on 9 September 2015.
The US EPA estimates that the regulations will result in a 92% reduction in annual mercury emissions and calculates that the emissions restrictions will cost the industry US$350 million a year to implement.2 The Portland Cement Association puts the cost of compliance at US$3.4 billion.3
The rule requires 30-day compliance using continuous emissions monitoring (CEMS) or traps. Due to the complex procedures to correct for “over-span” readings with CEMS, many are considering the use of CEMS for daily process control and traps for annual certification. Mercury emissions from a process bypass or separate coal mill stack require continuous flow monitoring and annual mercury testing.
Many cement facilities are presently managing mercury, with states such as Florida initiating mercury limits on all new kilns built after 2005. Other plants with significant mercury emissions have installed control devices as well. To date, the reliance on dust shuttling and in more severe cases activated carbon injection, is common practice. Testing continues on alternative reduction strategies.
Mercury process challenges
Mercury emissions levels and the mercury cycle in the pyroprocess are known to vary considerably by plant. Considering the present level of mercury emissions for active cement plants and the target emission level of 55 lb/million t of clinker production, over 50% of the industry will need some form of mercury management, with 29 plants facing a reduction in excess of 40%. Knowing the mercury inputs from raw materials and fuels provides the mercury source data. However, this combined with intermittent emissions data is not enough to develop a mercury abatement strategy.
Only after modelling the inputs, the mercury cycles and continuous emissions, can an appropriate strategy be developed. The total mercury at various points in the process must be known. More importantly, the types or speciation of the mercury throughout the process must be understood. Understanding the level of ionic mercury in the process is critical to developing a successful mitigation plan.
Will be done. Only a matter of time. On the pinks we have plenty of that.
"BULLSHIT"! lol
SFRX
Right person at the right time imo.
GTGP
Scott. is showing .0173 on the close today. Do not know what is up with Ihub.
Shift-4, I like your name. I'm a Shift-3/5 SMA crossing person myself. Keep a close eye on the futures at the same time. :)
SFRX lurker.
SFRX
Forwarding some good information.
POET & NASA & Defense apps
Currently, the POET platform is being utilized within a NASA deep space probe initiative.
...
After testing, the Air Force Commercialization Pilot Program (“CPP”) selected POET’s ultraviolet/infrared/visible imaging technology project as their candidate for an AFRL grant to fund the POET transition program and Phase III effort. Utilizing AFRL funding, the Company and BAE have entered into a transition program to jointly produce the POET platform and take it to production. Furthermore, BAE and other military prime contractors have expressed interest in using the POET platform in systems/subsystems for their Department of Defense customers. Additionally, a qualifier for receiving CPP funding is the acknowledgement of the firm’s willingness to commercialize a portion of the funded technology, thus providing commercial customers access to packaged parts, enabling the technology to be adopted for commercial and military systems.
J3...not bad for their first 10 months in business:
News/Announcements
January 3, 2014 – Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (pnnl.gov), a Department of Energy’s national laboratory, requested J3 partner on a presentation highlighting critical capabilities in environmental remediation, compliance, and monitoring that are necessary for remediation of abandon mines. The presentation will be delivered to the Federal Facility Cleanup Committee by PNNL and J3 during the first quarter of 2014 in Washington, DC.
December 2013 – MBS Team requests Oak Ridge soil samples for landfill experiments (Oak Ridge Mercury Timeline)
11-2013 – White Shield, Inc.
A Non-Disclosure and Teaming agreement is in place with White Shield, Inc. a Native American company (www.whiteshield.com).
11-1-2013 – New Vice President.
Jim Fallacaro, President, has named R. Chip Johnson as the Vice President of Corporate Finance for J3 as of November 1st.
10-2013 – S.M Stoller Corp.
J3 Non-Disclosure Agreement in place with S. M. Stoller Corp (www.stoller.com).
9-20-13 – Garnet Mine Dust Collection Retrofit
J3 signed a contract with Garnet USA for the retrofit of Garnet’s dust collection system at their mine located in Alder, Montana. ... additional information
9-17-13 – Contaminated Chrome Soil Treatability
J3 was able to successfully treat soil to non-detect levels and is currently working with the company on the advancement of the soil treatment.
8-2013 – J3 Non-Disclosure Agreement in place with General Electric Infrastructure - Water & Process Technologies (www.gewater.com).
8-22-13 – Lead Slag Treatment
Lead slag samples were successfully treated to below the RCRA regulatory limit using a 5 wt% MBS application.
8-7-13 – Idaho Mine Water Treatment
Water collected by U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) (http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en.html) personnel from a mine adit in Idaho was successfully treated using MBS in quantities ranging from 5.55 g/L to 6.35 g/L. ... additional information
6-4-13 – Sorbent Certification Testing
J3 signed a contract with M2 Polymer in June 2013 to perform certification testing for their Waste Lock 770 sorbent roll material and for their tea bag sorbent socks. ... additional information
5-7-13 – Montana Mine Water Treatment
J3 treated water from a mine in Montana collected by Tetra Tech (http://www.tetratech.com/) personnel and treated the sample with MBS in quantities ranging from 1.05 g/L to 1.5 g/L.
I hear you IronPantz. lol
I keep looking for someone to mention it someplace too. Probably afraid that the price for MBS will go up.
GTGP
Probably just a matter of time before there is a contract of some kind with Ash Grove.
GTGP
They are a joke, no comparison to mbs at all. M2 Polymer has the same thing. That is why they did the deal with GTGP as it takes care of heavy metals permanently.
Movement of their stock does not in any way give weight to what they are selling.
Cement Manufacturers to buy Emission Monitors for Compliance with EPA's MACT Rule
Email
Printer
Friendly
Share:
facebook ? More
smaller Text larger
FARMINGDALE, N.Y., Jan. 7, 2014 /PRNewswire/ -- (OTC:CTEI) Cemtrex Inc. (www.cemtrex.com) announced today that it is experiencing increased level of inquiries in its emission monitors from cement companies. On July 18, 2012, the EPA had proposed amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for the Cement Manufacturing Industry and set a compliance deadline date of September 9, 2015. With this compliance date fast approaching Cement manufacturers are preparing to install monitoring instruments that would measure Mercury (Hg), Hydrogen Chloride (HCl), Particulate Matter (PM) and Total Hydro Carbons (THC) discharging from their stack.
Cemtrex is well positioned to offer a complete monitoring package enabling these facilities to meet the compliance targets at minimum cost. The Mercury CEMS that Cemtrex have installed in the past at Cement Kilns, are specifically designed for the complex cement manufacturing process since other competitive monitoring systems in the market today are found to have issues with over reporting of mercury emissions. The Cemtrex systems have passed several site approvals already. The back scatter technology that Cemtrex employs for PM Monitoring is also ideally suitable for Cement operations and offers both opacity and mass concentration measurements as an added benefit. The HCl and THC are combined in Cemtrex's IntelliCEMS package that also seamlessly interfaces with the Hg and PM CEMS to meet the Cement industry MACT compliance objectives. Cemtrex estimates that each system will cost approximately $0.50 million and there are about 156 kilns that will be affected by this EPA MACT Rule in USA.
About Cemtrex
Cemtrex is a technology company that operates in a wide array of business segments and provides solutions to meet today's industrial challenges. The Company provides electronic manufacturing services of printed circuit board assemblies, provides instruments & emission monitors for industrial processes, and provides industrial air filtration & environmental control systems.
Cemtrex through its wholly owned subsidiary ROB Cemtrex GmbH provides electronic manufacturing services, which includes printed circuit board assemblies and completely assembled electronic products. The Company through its Monitoring Instruments and Products (MIP) division manufactures sells, and services instruments, software and systems for monitoring emissions of Greenhouse gases, hazardous gases, particulate and other regulated pollutants used in emissions trading globally. Cemtrex also markets technologies for generating carbon credits from low temperature catalytic oxidation of methane ventilating from coal mines. Cemtrex also provides Green Direct Control Ventilation (DCV) systems for commercial buildings to provide energy efficiency of up to 40% on existing and new installations. The Company sells air filtration and environmental control products through its subsidiary Griffin Filters LLC.
Safe Harbor Statement
This press release contains forward-looking statements. Actual results could differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements as a result of a number of risks and uncertainties. Statements made herein are as of the date of this press release and should not be relied upon as of any subsequent date.
Contact:
Aron Govil
516-816-1400
Email
Saagar Govil
Read more news from Cemtrex.
SOURCE Cemtrex, Inc.
/Web site: http://www.cemtrex.com
http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20140107-906229.html
Ash Grove 'cautiously optimistic' it can meet 2015 mercury rules
Written by Joshua Dillen/Baker City Herald September 06, 2013 08:51 am
S. John Collins / Baker City Herald file photo Ash Grove is continuing efforts to control mercury emissions from its Durkee plant.
S. John Collins / Baker City Herald file photo Ash Grove is continuing efforts to control mercury emissions from its Durkee plant.
By Joshua Dillen
jdillen@bakercityherald.com
An official from Ash Grove Cement Co. said he is “cautiously optimistic” that the company’s Durkee plant can meet federal limits on airborne mercury emissions slated to take effect in two years.
“I’m glad we have till 2015. It appears we will (meet the EPA’s regulations),” said Curtis Lesslie, corporate vice president of environmental affairs for Ash Grove, which is based in Overland Park, Kan.
The company’s plant near Durkee, along Interstate 84 about 27 miles southeast of Baker City, had been Oregon’s largest producer of airborne mercury before Ash Grove spent $20 million to install emissions controls in 2010.
There are no current federal standards for mercury releases from cement plants.
The equipment Ash Grove installed at the Durkee plant in 2010 has reduced mercury missions by about 95 percent.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has set a deadline of Sept. 9, 2015, for all Portland cement manufacturers to meet a standard limiting emissions to 55 pounds of mercury for each million tons of clinker.
(Clinker is the material that is crushed and ground to produce cement powder. Limestone, shale and clay from a quarry near the plant are mixed with iron ore and iron containing materials and heated in a massive kiln to produce clinker.)
In 2012 the Durkee plant produced 618,000 tons of clinker and released 41 pounds of mercury compounds via its air stack, according to an EPA report and Doug Welch, a permit engineer with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).
Based on the EPA regulations that take effect in 2015, if Ash Grove produced the same amount of clinker — 618,000 tons — the Durkee plant would have to reduce its mercury emissions that year to about 34 pounds — 7 pounds less than the 2012 total.
Jim Pew, staff attorney for the nonprofit environmental public interest law organization Earthjustice (formerly the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund), said he understands the challenges Ash Grove faces with its Durkee plant.
The limestone the company quarries at the site contains higher-than-usual concentrations of mercury.
“It’s an unusual plant. It has naturally high mercury emissions,” Pew said. “It is the highest releaser of mercury compounds in the country.”
Terry Kerby, who manages the Durkee plant, said Ash Grove has invested considerable time, as well as the $20 million, to deal with keeping the highly toxic metal out of the environment.
He explained that limestone at Durkee contains up to 1,100 ppb (parts per billion) of mercury compared to other cement plants whose materials may contain only 5 ppb.
“That’s one of the things that makes it difficult -— not everyone is on equal ground,” Kerby said.
He said the EPA’s “one- size-fits-all rule” has put his plant in a unique situation.
“We have been given an impossible goal. We accepted the challenge,” Kerby said. “We have developed and created a solution and are proud we were able to do that.”
In 2011, the Durkee plant released 85.51 pounds of mercury. The highest release year in the EPA report was 2006, when 2,581.07 pounds of mercury was released. This information is available at http://iaspub.epa.gov/enviro/tris_control.tris_print?tris_id=97905SHGRV330CE.
The cement production process creates dust that is treated by the control system, which captures the mercury using activated carbon that is then shipped to a waste facility.
Ash Grove officials intend to further refine and improve the highly technical process over the next two years to meet EPA regulations.
Although Pew acknowledges Ash Grove’s progress in reducing mercury emissions, he contends the company can do better.
Pew said many other Portland cement plants are using well-established mercury reduction technology.
“The process involves removing the mercury compounds from the cement kiln dust,” Pew said.
Dust can be treated and then disposed of rather than putting it back into the system, he said.
Combining this process with the current technology Ash Grove has installed at Durkee should bring the plant into compliance with the 2015 rules, Pew said.
“They claim it is cost-prohibitive,” Pew said. “They have lower costs to control hydrogen chloride emissions, so this should offset the cost of mercury removal.”
Kerby disputed Pew’s claims.
“I don’t think Pew has been to a plant in his life,” Kerby said, “so I don’t value his opinion about how to operate a kiln.”
Lesslie responded to Pew’s reasoning that the costs involving hydrogen chloride emissions offset mercury removal costs.
“It’s a strange line of logic to me,” he said.
“I think what they have done (at the Durkee plant) is the best in the country -— as far as what I have seen before,” Welch said.
The Durkee plant is among Baker County’s larger private employers, with 110 employees and an annual payroll of $6.2 million, Kerby said.
Ash Grove also is among the county’s larger property taxpayers, with an annual bill of about $760,000.
“A lot of that money goes to local entities,” Kerby said.
http://www.bakercityherald.com/Local-News/Ash-Grove-cautiously-optimistic-it-can-meet-2015-mercury-rules
EPA fines Ash Grove US$2.5m
Friday 21 June 2013
US: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has fined Ash Grove Cement US$2.5m and is forcing the American cement producer to invest US$30m in pollution controls at its plants in nine US states that are alleged to have violated the Clean Air Act.
The EPA and the US Department of Justice announced the penalty jointly on 19 June 2013. The EPA said that the action would reduce thousands of tonnes of harmful pollutants at plants in Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Texas. In addition Ash Grove Cement will spend US$750,000 towards mitigating the effects of past excess emissions.
Ash Grove acknowledged the agreement in a statement and said that it is striving to comply with environmental regulations at all its facilities. It disputes that it violated the Clean Air Act, saying it opted to enter this agreement with federal regulators rather than face rising costs in time and financial resources that would have accompanied further discussions with the EPA.
"The agreement with the EPA will allow Ash Grove to move forward and provide an environmentally sustainable product that is the foundation of our economy," said Charles T Sunderland, the company's chairman and chief executive officer.
The EPA said that its agreement with Ash Grove Cement, lodged on 19 June 2013 in the US District Court for the District of Kansas, is the first settlement with a cement producer that also requires injunctive relief and emission limits for particulate matter, a combination of combustion gasses and fine dust. There is a 30-day public comment period before final court approval.
The US$2.5m penalty will be distributed to eight states and one agency that took part in the agreement: Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Oregon, Utah, Washington and the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency. Ash Grove will also spend US$750,000 on a project to replace old diesel truck engines at its facilities in Kansas, Arkansas, and Texas, estimated to reduce smog-forming nitrogen oxides by approximately 27t/yr.
Jim's demise is at hand (imo).
Hopefully the moves he makes to secure his family's future will do the same for the GTGP shareholders.
Be nice to hear from Beloyan again as nothing since 11/20.
Seems like many things going on, and each will play its part in our outcome. Jim is human, but appears to be making every effort to turn things around for all of us, him included. For any with short memories, J3 was started in lieu of consummating the purchase of MSE. J3 is every bit a part of GTGP, tho it is not as readily apparent as a consummated purchase of MSE would have been to the GTGP shareholders. Clarity is coming. If the emotions of the past events are ignored, and we instead, view current events with out intellect, then clarity is somewhat easier to have, and Jim will confirm a clear picture for us when the time is right. Even with a more liquid market, I do not think that many would be selling down here with the things that we see are happening.
Maybe, maybe not:
J3: Lead Slag – lead slag samples were obtained from a battery recycling center located in the southeast area of the United States. The samples were successfully treated to below the RCRA regulatory limit using a 5 wt% MBS application.
Do you consider Exide Battery in Frisco, Texas, U.S.A. to be "southeastern"? If so, then this might be the location of the lead slag that J3 ran MBS tests on at the EPA Certified lab.
The Exide Battery Recycling Center (Frisco, Texas) is a former lead acid battery recycling complex. Exide Technologies (Exide), the current owner, and its predecessors operated the facility for this purpose from 1969 to November 30, 2012.
It processed used lead-acid batteries and other lead-bearing materials into several lead products. The process produced a lead slag, which was processed and disposed of in a Class II landfill on-site. The process also produced battery-case chips, which were disposed of off-site, and waste acid, which was treated through the on-site wastewater-treatment system.
This project includes investigation, remediation, and certification of the remedy for the Exide Former Operating Plant. The Former Operating Plant consists of the Exide Frisco Recycling Center’s former production/operation area (battery recycling and secondary lead smelting facility), four landfills (three closed landfills and one landfill that is active and designated the “Open Landfill”), and ancillary facilities.
If J3 successfully treated the samples, then there could be a remediation contract to follow.
Question for you, as to the source of "false" information?
Thanks for your assistance.
Probably the type of NDA work that J3 (GTGP/MBS) is doing for GE:
http://www.gewater.com/metals-removal.html?cid=ApplicationsNavBar
Read the J3 website. Jim is speaking to us.
GTGP
Yes Buc, tested, proven, and a huge market. MBS is going to make a lot of money between J3 (working for GTGP), and GTGP.
GTGP