Grays Harbor Energy

to GHPUD | to Daily World
"Black" Liquor exclusion | Built before 1999 | Penalties
subglobal5 link | subglobal5 link | subglobal5 link | subglobal5 link | subglobal5 link | subglobal5 link | subglobal5 link
subglobal6 link | subglobal6 link | subglobal6 link | subglobal6 link | subglobal6 link | subglobal6 link | subglobal6 link
subglobal7 link | subglobal7 link | subglobal7 link | subglobal7 link | subglobal7 link | subglobal7 link | subglobal7 link
subglobal8 link | subglobal8 link | subglobal8 link | subglobal8 link | subglobal8 link | subglobal8 link | subglobal8 link

I-937 Qualification

small logo

"Black Liquor"

Initiative937 excludes "(ii) black liquor byproduct from paper production"

The commisioners argue that red liquor is not explicitly excluded and thus qualifies under I.937. Clearly you are  fundamentally burning wood solids of identical origin in either scenario.  Furthermore, the black liquor recovery process is likely more efficient in terms of clean air emission and chemical yield as it comes out in a smelt instead of having to recover chemical out of the air stream like one does in a red liquor scenario.  If black liquor is disallowed then what's the argument for allowing red liquor?

The commisioners claim that they have official approval in the form of a letter from the department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED), but in fact they have nothing, as the letter from CTED states, the State Auditor is responsible for implementing I.937, not CTED. Futhermore Ms. Wilkerson only states "you may very well have grounds to claim" hardly an approval

 

About Us | Site Map | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | ©2008 GraysHarborEnergy.com