<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18928"></HEAD>
<BODY style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" id=role_body
bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 rightMargin=7 topMargin=7><FONT id=role_document
color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial>
<DIV>Kevin and all, </DIV>
<DIV> I'm sure you can remember when rock coal could be
bought by utilities for $5- $10/ per ton by the barge load, $25/ ton for a small
dump truck load of fireplace lump coal. It wasn't that long ago. I remember my
landscape buddies buying road de- icing salt for similar prices from Ohio River
docks in the 1980's . It's hard to believe the price of most fuel (
and other commodities) is so high now. </DIV>
<DIV> Nat Gas, produced from shale is now becoming
DIRT cheap. It's unfortunately being flared on a massive scale in North Dakota
just to get at the oil there. When the Bakkan oil wells run out, they will still
be producing gas for hundreds of years. The new wet gas wells just drilled this
year here in the Ohio Utica shale are some of the most productive in the world.
The first big discovery, Chessapeake's, Buell well, produced 9
million cu ft./ day. It single handedly DOUBLED Ohio's entire state
gas production at the time. Gulfport Energy announced a 29 million cu ft./ day
well discovery in December after two others nearly that big. Many Marcellas
shale wells are shut in instead of producing gas, due to the low prices.
Half of the Marcellas shale wells have untapped Utica shale below the Marcellas.
LNG pumps are already being installed in the South as we speak to replace diesel
fueled semi's. LNG, CNG and propane WILL rapidly replace a lot of
bulk transportation fuels, particularly, smoky diesel fuel. </DIV>
<DIV> Who would burry charcoal, instead of replacing rock
coal, when metallurgic coal is running $100- $200+ per ton? The positive effect
is better, because besides the atmospheric benefits, the elimination or
reduction of mountain top removal, open pits, or underground mining, are even
better goals. I think the carbon credit should apply here as well. Besides why
should we not conserve the rock coal for the distant future if ever needed?
</DIV>
<DIV> I've crossed West Virgina and Pennsylvania quite a
number of times making hot shot deliveries lately. The coal lobby is posting
bill boards everywhere criticizing "Obama's war on coal". The truth
be known, more jobs have been created drilling and producing natural gas there
from Marcellas shale, then have ever been lost reducing coal mining. Coal mining
is mostly done now by a very few men with giant power hungry
machines. Coal is being replaced more by natural gas
than anything due to low price and abundance, not the EPA. </DIV>
<DIV> Charcoal should by buried only when the economics
of the agriculture benefits outweigh the benefits of replacing fossil fuels.
This has to be weighed on a case by case basis. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> Dan Dimiduk </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 1/18/2013 1:49:16 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
kchisholm@ca.inter.net writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial>Dear
Crispin<BR><BR>Thanks very much. Your $6 per tonne CO2 carbon credit provides
an excellent <BR>perspective on the relative value of Carbon Credits, in
comparison to the <BR>value of charcoal/biochar as fuel. Certainly, it is far
more sensible for a <BR>charcoal producer to sell his charcoal as fuel, for
about $200 per tonne, <BR>than to sell it for $20 per tonne, for the carbon
credit payment.<BR><BR>The case for biochar is very interesting. Given that
the charcoal has a <BR>value of say $200 per tonne as fuel, it would have to
have a value of about <BR>$180 per tonne as biochar, plus the $20 Carbon
Credit to justify use of the <BR>charcoal as biochar, rather than as
fuel.<BR><BR>An Australian Government study found that biochar would be
economic for <BR>Farmers if its price was about $50 or less per tonne.
Regrettably, I don't <BR>have a reference to that Report. Perhaps someone on
the list can provide a <BR>reference to it, or, provide references to other
reports showing that <BR>charcoal is worth more as Biochar, than it is as
fuel.<BR><BR>Thanks again for your helpful
perspective.<BR><BR>Kevin<BR><BR></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>