working hard to expose scammers
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.
No I didn’t miss them. As for minutes check with city hall. As for your other questions, they have been answered many times. Sorry if you missed those responses or did not find them satisfactory.
Well I live here now and talk to neighbors and fellow residents on daily basis.
The fact is there is disconnect between what Laidlaw supporters have been led to believe and reality.
Perhaps you missed this post?
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=36167845
“The company hopes to have all its necessary local and state permits in hand to allow it to break ground on the plant this spring with a target date of December 2010 to be in operation.”
Site Plan Review - Clean Power Development LLC, continued from January
http://www.berlinnh.gov/Pages/BerlinNH_PlanningAgendas/I0236510C
The only explanation I have for that is, obviously you are not as well “connected” as you believe to be. ;)
Perhaps you missed this post?
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=36167845
“The company hopes to have all its necessary local and state permits in hand to allow it to break ground on the plant this spring with a target date of December 2010 to be in operation.”
Perhaps ISO is not “far behind”. But that is pure speculation. And should have no bearing on their project.
You = Berlin. We still live in a democracy where majority rules. The majority has spoken against biomass on the mill site.
"the state is burdened enough and will want to ween Berlin from the welfare tit"
Good Council meeting with the State Department of Resources and Economic Development last night. Commissioner Bald stated “the State will not force anything you don’t want down your throat.
That’s what we like to hear. :)
Thankfully Rich, the "first to apply, first to connect" will no longer apply to the ISO-NE queue!
Really? Where do you get that information?
“Laidlaw is working on their state permit”
They may be “working on it” but have they applied? We would have heard if they had. Remember the process itself takes minimum 9 months. If I recall Laidlaw stated they have no set date in mind when they planned to submit the application to start the process. They said it might not even be this year. My guess is by the time they submit the application, Clean Power could be well into the construction phase or beyond.
Slow and steady. Or as some here put it, patience. ;)
BERLIN — Clean Power Development appears before both the zoning and planning boards this week as it seeks to wrap up local approval for its proposed biomass plant. The Concord-based firm is proposing to build a 22-27 megawatt biomass plant south of the city’s wastewater treatment plant. Company President Mel Liston said Clean Power has retained its position in the ISO New England interconnection queue. Last month, ISO-NE informed Clean Power it was withdrawing its interconnection request because the company had not responded to ISO-NE’s request for additional data for the Berlin project. Clean Power had 15 business days to provide the information to retain its position in the queue. Liston yesterday said Clean Power complied before the March 10 deadline and provided confi rmation of that fact from ISO-NE. “We are definitely still in the queue,” he said. Clean Power is currently second in the queue in Coos County behind the Granite Reliable Power’s proposed 99-megawatt wind farm project. Clean Power is ahead of Laidlaw Environmental the company proposing a 66-megawatt biomass plant in Berlin. Position in the queue is important because the current Coos transmission loop has limited capacity to accept additional generation. Clean Power submitted its site plan application to the planning board in January. The board tabled the application and requested Clean Power obtain four necessary special exceptions from the zoning board – for stack and fence height, number of parking spaces, and renewable energy projects. The zoning board sought a peer review of Clean Power’s wood study under the renewable energy exception. Sarah Smith, professor/specialist, Forest Industry for UNH Cooperative Extension, conducted the review. Clean Power is set to return to the zoning board Wednesday night on its request for the four special exceptions. The following night, it will go back to the planning board to complete its site plan application. The company hopes to have all its necessary local and state permits in hand to allow it to break ground on the plant this spring with a target date of December 2010 to be in operation.
http://www.laconiadailysun.com/BerlinPDF/2009/3/10B.pdf
I spoke to an acquaintance who is in the biomass business. He owns and is co owner of several. I asked him if the mill site in Berlin was a good location for a 66 MW boiler. His answer was “anyone smart enough to know what is required to operate a 66 MW biomass plant would know better then to build one that big in the middle of a community like Berlin”
We both laughed at the thought. Go figure.
Big difference between being close to downtown (like Clean Power) and being downtown.
Ambiguous Assertion:
a statement is made, but it is sufficiently unclear that it leaves some sort of leeway. For example, a book about Washington politics did not place quotation marks around quotes. This left ambiguity about which parts of the book were first-hand reports and which parts were second-hand reports, assumptions, or outright fiction.
Of course, lack of clarity is not always intentional. Sometimes a statement is just vague.
If the statement has two different meanings, this is Amphiboly. For example, "Last night I shot a burglar in my pyjamas."
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#ambig_assertion
Thank You Spence. I appreciate you sharing your dd. It clearly shows a company with financial issues and raises concerns about their desire to open about those issues. Please keep up the great dd and keep me informed on what you find. It’s good to have someone who is objective in their view of Laidlaw. Are there any ongoing investigations being undertaken either by NY or NH authorities that you are aware of? You are a great asset to this forum thank you.
The Berlin City Council has voted to send a letter to Governor John Lynch stating that the proposed Laidlaw biomass facility or any industrial development on the former mill site lacks wide public support. Mayor Dave Bertrand drafted the letter to clarify the city’s position on the mill site and asked the council to support sending the letter during Monday night’s work session. The City Council voted 7-2 to support the mayor and send the letter to Lynch. The genesis for the letter follows a conversation Bertrand said he had with Lynch regarding the public’s opinion on the Laidlaw development on the mill site. Bertrand said Lynch told him that the word around Concord is there is wide support for the project. Bertrand said he felt it was important to communicate to the governor the sentiment regarding the project as expressed by the city council. “I felt I needed to set the record straight in Concord,” said Bertrand. Councilor Tom McCue said the fact this letter needs to be drafted is troubling. He added the council should to speak with the local legislators to discuss the issue. Councilor Tim Donovan said that it’s pretty clear there’s only a small, vocal group in favor of the development. Councilors Tim Cayer, Tom McCue, Donovan, Dave Poulin, Ron Goudreau, Lucy Remillard and Bertrand voted in favor of sending the letter. The only two councilors to vote against sending the letter were Mark Evans and Richard Lafleur. Evans said he planned to vote against the letter, but doesn’t want to depose the project. He added that he is still against the development on the mill site. Lafleur said he still plans to remain neutral on the matter of Laidlaw, and is waiting to form an opinion until he sees some more information on the project. Cayer asked Lafleur what additional information he needs to see before passing judgment. Lafleur said that he would like to see a business plan from the company. Laidlaw is not necessarily required to provide the council with a business plan, said Bertrand, and it’s part of the state’s permitting process. Both Donovan and Remillard voiced reservations whether the project will even come to fruition. Remillard said that rather than see a business plan, she wants to see Laidlaw verify they have the funding. “I’m convinced they don’t,” said Remillard. Donovan said that he’s seen information reportedly alluding to the ailing health of the company. He added that he’s gathered the proposed biomass facility may not go through. “It ain’t got a snowball’s chance in Hell of happening,” said Donovan. Aside from several reservations regarding the Laidlaw project, the council said it’s objective isn’t specifically against Laidlaw but rather in opposition to an industrial development on the mill site. Bertrand agreed and said that even if a different company, such as Clean Power, was looking to develop a biomass plant on the site he would be opposed. “It’s about a different vision for the city,” said Goudreau. Goudreau said that there are other opportunities for the property beyond industrial development. He added for concerns about the site’s environmental issues, some of the land can be sapped to allow other development. “As long as the stack is there, the opportunity isn’t,” said Goudreau.
http://www.laconiadailysun.com/BerlinPDF/2009/3/4B.pdf
Wish to speculate as to when you expect to see the permit for Berlin? TIA
The board’s next meeting is March 11, at which time they are expected to rule on Clean Power Development’s request for four special exceptions for its biomass plant. Clean Power met with both the planning and zoning boards last month. The zoning board tabled the application to seek an independent peer review of Clean Power’s wood study. The review was made public Monday. The zoning board hired University of New Hampshire Extension Professor and Forest Industry Specialist Sarah Smith to conduct the peer review as part of Clean Power’s request for a special exception under the city’s renewable energy facilities ordinance. Smith found the study, done last spring by Innovative Natural Resources Solution LLC, used the most relevant data available and was thorough. The study estimated there is enough biomass fuel available in Coos County at a reasonable price to supply a 30 megawatt biomass plant. As a result, Clean Power reduced the size of its project from 50 megawatts to 29. Smith wrote she felt Innovative Natural Resource Solutions did a good job “outlining the demand and supply constraints in light of the incredible complexity and short-term volatility in the market”. She said most of the wood that went to the Fraser pulp mill found a home in the regional market after the mill closed. Smith said Innovative Natural Resources also explained how the whole-tree chip market is dependent on high value products such as saw logs to make timber sales viable. If there is less demand for pulpwood, she said logging contractors may be willing to reconfigure equipment and produce more whole-tree chips for woodto-energy markets. Markets, she stressed, are “complex, shifting, and volatile”. Since the report, Smith said the state’s 2006 Report of Cut is available as well as maybe the 2007 report. Smith said the only thing she would recommend adding to the report is information on the nature of trucking radii - road networks, trucking arrangements, and competition. Under some conditions, such as good roads and businesses connections, she said wood can flow 150 miles in one direction. As the company digs deeper in the process, Smith said she expects it would seek additional information on wood availability from large land owners and managers. Smith mentioned in the report that she is also familiar with the wood study performed for the state Department of Resources and Economic Development by LandVest. That study estimates a range of 280,000 tons to 1 million tons of low grade wood available annually in northern New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine. The issue of wood supply has become a topic of debate with two biomass plants and a wood pellet plant proposed for Berlin alone. Laidlaw Energy is proposing a 66-megawatt biomass plant that would consume about 725,000 tons of low grade wood a year. Greenova is proposing a wood pellet plant that would use about 400,000 tons of wood annually when it is completed. Clean Power’s plant would require 300,000 tons of wood a year. In addition to the energy facilities special exception, the company needs special exceptions for the height of its fence, the height of its stacks, and the number of parking spaces.
http://www.laconiadailysun.com/BerlinPDF/2009/2/25B.pdf
In NH, the jurisdiction for approval or denial of the proposed Laidlaw-Berlin project is with the State government in Concord and not the local town government...
By the admission of Laidlaw’s own attorney who specializes in the SEC process, Berlin must play a significant role in the approval/denial process. He said the first hearing will be held in Berlin. Which explains why Laidlaw is suddenly trying to make nice with Berlin. If they didn’t need Berlin they would be submitting the application without trying to reach out to them. Mr. Bartoszek admitted they still need to do a wood study. They have no time line for submitting the application with the SEC. And only have what amounts to a verbal agreement with PSNH. You are right about one thing though Tom, Patience. ;)
The point of bringing up the status of the NY case was only intended to question why a company that says it has enough money to build a multi-million dollar plant in Berlin, can’t afford to pay it’s attorney fees in NY. Something I would think their NH attorneys must be keenly aware of. And the community of Berlin should also be aware of.
Hopefully the original author of the quote below won’t mind that I borrow it for this response. Since it shows that the community will get opportunities to be involved throughout the process. So while the process will be in the hands of the State, I suspect the community will have more influence on the process then some would believe.
Also, Amy Ignatius (State Energy Office Director) was responsive to an email I directed to her yesterday as follows:
"The public has a right to intervene in a case before the SEC, which you may want to do if the Laidlaw project reaches that stage. (Nothing has been filed.) The public also has the right to make a statement, without full intervention. And when an application is filed and deemed "complete" the review process officially starts with a public hearing in the area in which the project would be built. That is, for a Berlin proposal the full Committee would take a site visit to see the property and hold a day or evening hearing in Berlin to hear comments, pro and con, and questions of concern, brought forth by the community."
http://2much2do4now.typepad.com/
It was a tad complex getting to it. But then some of the best dd generally is. May as well just wait for it to hit the papers at this point. Of course you could always ask Sage to verify it also.
Factually, it is not a rumor.
http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/
But suit yourself if you prefer to hear it right from Mr. Bartoszek. Although I can understand why he might not want to mention it.
Yet they can’t afford to pay the attorney who is in the middle of a 10 million dollar lawsuit? Why would an attorney walk on a case like that, unless he thought there was no chance of winning?
But isn’t the project fully funded? How can they be broke?
Your guess would be wrong, but then it’s not your fault since you don’t know any of them.
Are you suggesting they are being paid by someone other then the city?
Won’t deny there is some support for Laidlaw, at the moment. There are also many who want Mayor and Council to provide the facts as presented by experts and officials, not just Laidlaw. So that they can make up their own minds. It’s not just Mayor and Council and a hand full of NIMBY’s as some would believe.
Lorraine Leclerc Biomass Communication.
Ms. Leclerc suggests that the Mayor and Council hold a public forum to educate the people on the subject of biomass. She thinks the citizens should hear both sides of the story.
Mayor Bertrand replied that Lorraine has a great idea and it will be given serious consideration. Nothing is formalized yet but the Mayor and Council are taking steps in the right direction.
Councilor McCue added he thinks a public forum should be handled by the private sector and not the Mayor and Council.
Councilor Goudreau stated that we have public forums every week. There is a specific work session each month and the public is always welcome to attend. He is not against a public forum but affirmed that the Mayor and Council conduct a public forum each and every week for those who wish to attend. Councilor Goudreau appreciates Ms. Leclerc’s letter and encouraged her to not only attend meetings but to push others to attend as well.
Mayor Bertrand concurred and added there is too much information to be absorbed in just one night. It makes sense to break the info down into manageable bits.
Lorraine affirmed that the Mayor and Council are doing a great job and added that City Manager Pat MacQueen is an asset to the city. She explained that the reason for her letter is to get the Mayor and Council to keep an open mind and hear both sides. It seems as though they want Clean Power and are not giving anyone else a chance. Ms. Leclerc wants the Mayor and Council to stay open minded and concluded that we have to do anything we can to attract new business to this area.
Mayor Bertrand agrees with that sentiment and that the public has a right to know both sides. He personally thinks, for future generations, there is a better use for that property. A biomass just is not the right fit for the heart of the city.
Councilor Remillard remarked that Clean Power has been informative from the start and we know where we stand with them. It is hard to support Laidlaw since they have not provided the city with any information along the way.
http://www.berlinnh.gov/Pages/BerlinNH_CouncilMinutes/I022FE947
PS King, for the record, there’s another link for you.
Could you please provide a link where the State officially says it is supporting this project? TIA
Relax. I am talking about the State hearings.
Well here is a perfect example.
Laidlaw Completes Acquisition of Berlin, New Hampshire Pulp Mill Facility & Closes Related Financing for 66 Megawatt Biomass
Who “owns” the property? By own I mean, who’s name is on the title?
www.nhdeeds.com
Only the issues that could potentially (eventually IMO) derail the project, since nothing else really matters. Those who believe everything said to date, have nothing to worry about.
This is what so many have been waiting for. The meetings and hearings to come are only the beginning of the end. The question is, for who?
This is where the rubber hits the road so to speak. Time to see if past PR’s will live up to their hype IMO.
IMO the meeting(s) will clarify facts. From which positions will then be decided.
Perhaps you need help with your dd Sage?
http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/
Enjoy. I did. ;)
We now know where some of the investors money has not been going.
“It appears that the law firm that represented Laidlaw in Ellicottville NY petitioned the court and was granted permission to walk away from Laidlaw. It seems that Mr. Bartoszek and company didn’t pay their bills and have no means to pay them in the future. More than likely this will result in the $10 million suit against Ellicottville to be thrown out of court.”
http://2much2do4now.typepad.com/
Perhaps Berlin Mayor and Council are correct for being concerned about a company who can’t even pay their attorney fees. Which is a relatively small amount according to public records.
"At long last, Laidlaw to meet with city council"
http://www.laconiadailysun.com/BerlinPDF/2009/2/6B.pdf
This implies that they have yet to meet with them as previously stated by Bartoszek. I wonder if the new property owners will be attending also?
It should be interesting. Who else here plans to attend?
Thanks Elton. Please understand it is not my intention to try and convince anyone of anything. I am simply trying to provide readers the perspective of a majority of Berlin residents who believe the mill site is not the best location for a biomass plant. And will continue to fight this so long as there is a chance at stopping it. Will they be successful, who knows? But to believe that only a handful of residents with ulterior motives are trying to stop this is inaccurate. At the very least you shouldn’t surprised when the opportunity comes for them to voice their opinion on the matter at the State hearings.
I thought this was a place for investors to discuss the investment potential of LLEG. Not just the good, but also the bad and the ugly. Perhaps some investors appreciate the view of a resident investor who can give them a different perspective. If that’s not the case, then I will stop posting here. All I am trying to share with investors, who have only been getting one side of the story IMO, is that the opposition is formidable and influential IMO. Who better to get that information from then a resident? Do what you choose with the information. But in the end, you will have no one to blame for not being informed of what many believe LLEG is up against.
Those who believe Concord will put the State before Berlin, have nothing to fear from those opposing the project. I tend to believe that if the decision makers in Concord thought that, there would be no requirement to hold hearings. I believe Concord will get an earful from a long list of highly influential individuals from Berlin who oppose the project. So while investors money is on LLEG, many folks in Berlin have their money on their elected officials and the process set up to consider their wishes. IMO Time will tell. GLTY
Isn’t it about “profit stake” on all sides? For LLEG and their investors it’s about financial gain. For Berlin residents on either side of the issue it’s about the direction of their community. They have the most at stake IMO. And will ultimately pay the price either way. Concord is aware of the opposing views in Berlin. And (unfortunately) will once again make the final decision about Berlin’s future, for the residents of Berlin. But certainly not without Berlins input. If the final outcome in LLEG’s favor were a forgone conclusion, as some believe, Concord would have already let Berlin know by now IMO. Given that, and what I know about those who oppose biomass on the mill site, (which goes well beyond Jon, Katie and the Mayor and Council, and includes many well respected residents and business leaders) I would say this is still far from a done deal. Laidlaw has shown their hand. Now it’s time to see Berlin’s and Concord’s. Don’t blink. IMO For whatever its worth. GLTA
City: shortchanged by state on economic development
"McCue also asked Lamontagne to make sure (Governor) Lynch is aware that the city is opposed to the Laidlaw biomass plant but supports the Clean Power Development biomass proposal."
http://www.laconiadailysun.com/BerlinPDF/2009/1/28B.pdf
Council affirms opposition to Laidlaw
BERLIN — The city council Monday night restated its belief that the proposed Laidlaw biomass plant does not advance the city’s long-term economic revitalization. The discussion began in work session when Mayor David Bertrand suggested with two different biomass plants proposed for Berlin - the council may want to hear from experts on wood supply, capacity of the transmission line, impact on property values, and tax revenues. Bertrand said he would like information on the impact the Laidlaw biomass project would have on the value of surrounding neighborhood properties. He questioned whether the 40 jobs created will offset the long term impacts of the project. He asked whether the council wanted to set up a separate forum on the whole biomass issue. Councilor David Poulin said the issue for him is not wood supply or transmission capacity but rather the future of the city. He said he does not want the stigma of having a huge industrial boiler in the middle of the downtown. He said there are better uses for the 120-acre former mill site. “It’s more about having a vision and where we want the city to go,” he said. He urged people to view the city through the eyes of a visitor and see how the natural beauty of the city is impacted by the sight of the boiler. Councilor Tom McCue said he is worried that the city will be struck with the boiler. He said the issues have been publicly discussed for two years and it is time for the city to develop an action plan. McCue said Laidlaw reported it is preparing its application to the state Site Evaluation Committee to construct and operate the biomass plant. He suggested the council look into the SEC process. Councilor Lucie Remillard said she would like more information on the financial impacts of the two projects. Councilor Mark Evans revealed he has not made up his mind on the biomass issue. Councilor Ron Goudreau said the issue is more than a biomass plant. He said he wants to see the smokestack go down. The councilors agreed they would like to hear from experts on wood studies, property values, and the Public Utilities Commission. But they nixed a separate meeting and will schedule experts during upcoming work sessions. Laidlaw came up again during the regular council session when three members of the public offered opinions. George Aubin urged the council to keep an open mind on the Laidlaw project. Aubin said he retired after 39 years at the pulp mill and warned that the site has some environmental issues. He said he does not believe the project is that bad. Joe Vigue also spoke in favor of the Laidlaw project. In addition to the 40 direct jobs it would create, he said there would be indirect jobs in the forest products industry. He said the plant would generate less odor than is created by homes that burn wood in the city. Vigue said he circulated the petition in favor of the project and told officials there were 57 signatures on non-Berlin residents. Sill he said he collected over 500 signatures in a week. “I understand your vision. A lot of us have different visions,” he told the council. Vigue said he agreed that Laidlaw has not done a good job of communicating with city officials. But he pointed out the company did not own the boiler until recently. In this tough economy, Vigue said he thinks the city has to look at the jobs and tax revenues the Laidlaw plant would provide. He said he does not oppose the Clean Power Development project. He said he would like to see both. Arguing the opposite viewpoint was Jonathan Edwards. He said he has done a lot of research on the Laidlaw and Clean Power projects. He said he agreed with Poulin that the Laidlaw plant would create the wrong image for the city. Furthermore, he said the public does not support industrial use of the mill site. “They do not want a biomass on that site,” he said. During council comments, Goudreau said he and most of the council ran on a platform opposing the biomass plant. He said people he talks to overwhelmingly oppose the Laidlaw plant. Bertrand said he did not buy the argument that Laidlaw has not met with the council because it only recently purchased the mill property. He noted Clean Power has met with the council even though it does not own the site of its proposed plant. The site is owned by the city. Bertrand said he looks forward to meeting with Laidlaw officials but is not ready to sacrifice the city’s future for 40 jobs.
http://www.laconiadailysun.com/BerlinPDF/2009/1/21B.pdf