<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Crucians In Focus &#187; Alpine</title>
	<atom:link href="http://cruciansinfocus.com/category/alpine-energy-group/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://cruciansinfocus.com</link>
	<description>&#34;We knew the job was dangerous when we took it.&#34;</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 04:59:58 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>SEA Exec Paul Chakroff Responds To CIF Article On Donors, Support Of Alpine Proposal</title>
		<link>http://cruciansinfocus.com/2012/01/19/sea-exec-paul-chakroff-responds-to-cif-article-on-donors-support-of-alpine-proposal/</link>
		<comments>http://cruciansinfocus.com/2012/01/19/sea-exec-paul-chakroff-responds-to-cif-article-on-donors-support-of-alpine-proposal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2012 20:48:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Website Administrator</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Alpine]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cruciansinfocus.com/?p=13632</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Crucians In Focus has received the following response from Paul Chakroff, Executive Director of the St. Croix Environmental Association, to an article entitled “Conflicts, Contradictions Abound In Alpine Support System; Why Is The SEA Testifying In Favor Of AEG?” We have printed his response in its entirety. The sections in italic represent excerpts from the CIF article to which Chakroff is responding. Michael Springer, President Crucians in Focus Dear Michael, Thank you for publishing the Crucians in Focus article Conflicts, Contradictions Abound In Alpine Support System; Why Is The SEA Testifying In Favor Of AEG? I am happy to address the issues you have raised. Below I have addressed your statements or questions (in ital.) point by point. Why would Paul Chakroff, Executive Director of St. Croix Environmental Association (SEA) testify in favor of the Alpine Energy Group (AEG)? St. Croix Environmental Association (SEA) has endorsed waste-to-energy (WtE) and the technology proposed, not Alpine Energy Group. The Legislature is holding hearings on the latest AEG proposal Tuesday on St. Thomas and Wednesday on St. Croix. Hearings on both islands begin at 6 p.m…. A review of the testifiers reveals all the usual participants, and one that caused us to question [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://cruciansinfocus.com/2012/01/19/sea-exec-paul-chakroff-responds-to-cif-article-on-donors-support-of-alpine-proposal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>128</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why Is Alpine The Only Option?</title>
		<link>http://cruciansinfocus.com/2012/01/13/why-is-alpine-the-only-option/</link>
		<comments>http://cruciansinfocus.com/2012/01/13/why-is-alpine-the-only-option/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Jan 2012 18:21:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Website Administrator</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Alpine]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cruciansinfocus.com/?p=13520</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Commentary by Michael J. Springer, Jr., President, Crucians In Focus   Do we have a solid waste problem? Yes. Are our energy costs too high?  Yes. Is the Alpine Energy waste-to-energy proposal the answer to these problems?  No. There are a lot of reasons the Senate should say no to the Bovoni lease that would allow Alpine to initiate its project. We will focus on the two we believe are most critical. Cost The minimum cost of this project is $20 million a year. The minimum. That’s the amount the Virgin Islands Waste Management Authority would be contractually bound to pay Alpine for the next 20 years. That amount does not include the hidden revenue losses from Alpine’s EDC status, that will exempt it nearly from all of the taxes it would otherwise pay the government. Nor does include the additional fees WMA has stated it would impose to fund its portion of the project. What’s the $20 million for? Well 35% of it will pay back the loan that the Alpine investors are going to use to build their facilities. So once again, we’re paying someone to build their factory here. Another 45-50% will go to operating expenses and [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://cruciansinfocus.com/2012/01/13/why-is-alpine-the-only-option/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>34</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Conflicts, Contradictions Abound In Alpine Support System; Why Is The SEA Testifying In Favor Of AEG?</title>
		<link>http://cruciansinfocus.com/2012/01/10/conflicts-contradictions-abound-in-alpine-support-system-why-is-the-sea-testifying-in-favor-of-aeg/</link>
		<comments>http://cruciansinfocus.com/2012/01/10/conflicts-contradictions-abound-in-alpine-support-system-why-is-the-sea-testifying-in-favor-of-aeg/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2012 11:55:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Website Administrator</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Alpine]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cruciansinfocus.com/?p=13430</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why would Paul Chakroff, Executive Director of St. Croix Environmental Association (SEA) testify in favor of the Alpine Energy Group (AEG)?  The Legislature is holding hearings on the latest AEG proposal Tuesday on St. Thomas and Wednesday on St. Croix. Hearings on both islands begin at 6 p.m.  A review of the testifiers reveals all the usual participants, and one that caused us to question why an organization that was forcefully against the original Alpine proposal would now stand in favor of their newest plan. A visit to the SEA website may have provided part of the answer to this question. If you were an organization committed to the preservation of the environment of the Virgin Islands, would you accept donations from some of the donors on this list? Hawksbill Sponsors Anonymous The Buccaneer HOVENSA, LLC The Palms at Pelican Cove VI Waste Management Authority (WMA) Green Turtle Sponsors Diageo USVI James River Capital Corporation Michael &#38; Suzanne Masters Seven Seas Water Corporation USVI St. Croix Renaissance Group On this list are the Territory&#8217;s biggest polluter (Hovensa); the Waste Management Authority, who has signed contracts with AEG; the St. Croix Renaissance Group, upon whose land Diageo is built and the Alpine trash [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://cruciansinfocus.com/2012/01/10/conflicts-contradictions-abound-in-alpine-support-system-why-is-the-sea-testifying-in-favor-of-aeg/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>33</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Questions Of Legality, Financial Impact Should Compel Legislature To Reject Alpine Energy Group Proposal</title>
		<link>http://cruciansinfocus.com/2011/12/18/questions-of-legality-financial-impact-should-compel-legislature-to-reject-alpine-proposal/</link>
		<comments>http://cruciansinfocus.com/2011/12/18/questions-of-legality-financial-impact-should-compel-legislature-to-reject-alpine-proposal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Dec 2011 16:21:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Website Administrator</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Alpine]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cruciansinfocus.com/?p=13108</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Q. Why should the Legislature reject the Alpine Energy Group (AEG) proposal on Monday? A. Because based on documents we&#8217;ve read,  Alpine should never have been allowed to bid on the project in the first place. Q. Why else should the Legislature reject the Alpine Energy Group proposal on Monday? A. Because if they don’t, the Diageo deal may never provide the return on our investment that was promised. Stay with us. The answer to the first question is simple mathematics. AEG did not meet one of the basic initial requirements of the original Request for Proposal from the Water and Power Authority for the project. According to documents on file in the Colorado Office of the Secretary of State (CSOS), AEG, incorporated in September, 2007, had not been an established business for three years prior to bidding on the job in December of that same year and had no relevant experience. There is no record of a “parent” or “affiliate” company related to AEG on the CSOS website and nothing to indicate any prior entity from which AEG could have been formed to establish the required “history.” This is not a new issue but during its AEG’s first attempt [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://cruciansinfocus.com/2011/12/18/questions-of-legality-financial-impact-should-compel-legislature-to-reject-alpine-proposal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>242</slash:comments>
<enclosure url="http://cruciansinfocus.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/hugo_hodge_1.mp3" length="301225" type="audio/mpeg" />
<enclosure url="http://cruciansinfocus.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/don_hurd_1.mp3" length="376875" type="audio/mpeg" />
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Just What Did Cornwall Tell The Senate About The New Alpine Plan?</title>
		<link>http://cruciansinfocus.com/2011/08/30/just-what-did-cornwall-tell-the-senate-about-the-new-alpine-plan/</link>
		<comments>http://cruciansinfocus.com/2011/08/30/just-what-did-cornwall-tell-the-senate-about-the-new-alpine-plan/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 2011 01:22:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Website Administrator</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Alpine]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cruciansinfocus.com/?p=12240</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There will be new jobs, the environment will improve, scholarships will flow and we will never have to build a landfill again.  That’s essentially what Executive Director of the VI Waste Management Authority May Adams Cornwall told the Senate in the private forum August 15, in her pitch for approval of the waste to energy projects now in process on St. Thomas and St. Croix.  The attached presentation outlines her description of the project that includes 35 new jobs, revenue generation from the sales of recyclable materials, and “enhancements” for the agriculture and rum industries in the Territory.  Also attached for your review is the latest information from Alpine, outlining the “no pet coke” approach to its power generation efforts. According to their information, which states that 100% of the projected $210 million project cost will be invested by Alpine, the following benefits will come from their new approach:  • Approximately 400,000 barrels of oil per year will be displaced • Positive effect on LEAC and 20% hedge against oil price fluctuation • EPA and FAA requirement that Anguilla and Bovoni landfills be closed. Alternative cost of waste disposal up to three times larger • Approximately 40% of the power [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://cruciansinfocus.com/2011/08/30/just-what-did-cornwall-tell-the-senate-about-the-new-alpine-plan/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>80</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Will It Be Alpine Energy After All?</title>
		<link>http://cruciansinfocus.com/2011/08/20/will-it-be-alpine-energy-after-all/</link>
		<comments>http://cruciansinfocus.com/2011/08/20/will-it-be-alpine-energy-after-all/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Aug 2011 18:07:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Website Administrator</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Alpine]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cruciansinfocus.com/?p=12146</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Once again the airwaves are full of talk of the Anguilla Landfill, and with the talk, and a new federal deadline of January 31, 2012 to shut it down, there is once again talk of Alpine Energy. And after checking the Alpine website, it seems that plans are much farther down the road than this week’s conversations have indicated. The website states, “After careful consideration, Alpine will maintain the St. Croix power project at 16.5MW, while ceasing the development of the larger power plant on St. Thomas. The RDF (refuse derived fuel) facilities on both islands will remain as agreed with WMA, and the combination of household waste from both islands will allow pet coke to be eliminated. &#8220; These projects will allow the USVI to address mounting waste management problems, while also providing a renewable energy solution. The power generation project will also be capable of using other alternative fuels, such as energy crops, tire derived fuel and rum bottoms. Alpine is currently working with both WMA and WAPA to construct these very important projects and expects to break ground by the summer of 2011.&#8221; During the past week, representatives of the Waste Management Authority testified in front of a [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://cruciansinfocus.com/2011/08/20/will-it-be-alpine-energy-after-all/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>231</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Alpine Postpones Sept. 28 Hearing To Revise Power Project Proposal</title>
		<link>http://cruciansinfocus.com/2010/09/24/alpine-postpones-sept-28-hearing-to-revise-power-project-proposal/</link>
		<comments>http://cruciansinfocus.com/2010/09/24/alpine-postpones-sept-28-hearing-to-revise-power-project-proposal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Sep 2010 12:36:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Website Administrator</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Alpine]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cruciansinfocus.com/?p=8291</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Alpine Energy Group has temporarily withdrawn its application for the AEG Anguilla Power Project on St. Croix and has postponed the public hearing originally scheduled for September 28 while that proposal is revised. According to Andy Hixon, Vice President of Environmental &#38; Permitting, “the primary reason for the delay is to give Alpine time to work with WAPA to revise certain contract provisions with respect to the use of petroleum coke,” he said.  “It is our hope that petroleum coke can be removed from the project entirely.” “Once these revisions are complete, Alpine will notify DPNR of the changes and continue the application process,” he said.  Attached is a copy of the letter submitted to Mr. Norman Williams (DPNR-CZM) requesting the temporary withdrawal of our application for the AEG Anguilla Power project on St. Croix.  It is anticipated that the public hearing will be rescheduled sometime in mid to late November.  Once a new hearing date has been set, Alpine will publish a public notice 30 days prior to the hearing. Alpine Letter to DPNR Share on Facebook]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://cruciansinfocus.com/2010/09/24/alpine-postpones-sept-28-hearing-to-revise-power-project-proposal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>38</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Alpine And WAPA Focus Of Significant Meetings On Sept. 28</title>
		<link>http://cruciansinfocus.com/2010/09/16/alpine-and-wapa-focus-of-significant-meetings-on-sept-28/</link>
		<comments>http://cruciansinfocus.com/2010/09/16/alpine-and-wapa-focus-of-significant-meetings-on-sept-28/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Sep 2010 00:47:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Website Administrator</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Alpine]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cruciansinfocus.com/?p=8151</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[September 28 is going to be a big energy day in the Virgin Islands. While the Public Services Commission is meeting on St. Thomas to consider an extension of the current Levelized Energy Adjustment Clause (LEAC) rate, Alpine Energy Group will be holding a public hearing at 6 p.m. at the University of the Virgin Islands on St. Croix to unveil its new waste-to-energy proposal. Individuals interested in testifying at the Alpine hearing should call 340-773-1082 to register. In summary, here’s what’s on the agenda for both meetings. PSC The PSC will consider a request from the Virgin Islands Water and Power Authority to extend the current LEAC rate of $.26 per kilowatt hour “past September 30, 2010.” The price of a barrel of crude oil is expected to fluctuate between $79 a gallon in October to a high in the next six months of $86 a gallon in December, 2010 and January, 2011, and returning to $81 per gallon by April, 2011. The absence of alternative energy programs is a significant link to the high cost of energy in the Virgin Islands. At the time of the most recent US Inspector General’s report, the LEAC represented 70% of the consumer’s bill. Between [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://cruciansinfocus.com/2010/09/16/alpine-and-wapa-focus-of-significant-meetings-on-sept-28/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>50</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Senate Denies Alpine Lease For St. Thomas Waste To Energy Plant</title>
		<link>http://cruciansinfocus.com/2010/03/08/senate-denies-alpine-lease-for-st-thomas-waste-to-energy-plant/</link>
		<comments>http://cruciansinfocus.com/2010/03/08/senate-denies-alpine-lease-for-st-thomas-waste-to-energy-plant/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 00:49:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Website Administrator</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Alpine]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cruciansinfocus.com/?p=4436</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Virgin Islands Legislature voted Monday to deny a lease to Alpine Energy Group for land to construct a waste to energy plant in the Bovoni area on St. Thomas. In a vote of 11 against and 4 in favor, the action sends the Territory back to the drawing board for an acceptable solution to the issue of solid waste. Those opposing the lease cited community resistance to the potential public health and environmental concerns raised by the use of petcoke. Those in favor cited the need to close the Territory’s landfills to avoid sanction by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that has mandated that landfills on St. Thomas and St. Croix be closed within a specified time to avoid  hefty fines. And Sen. Sammuel Sanes, who voted in favor of the lease, chastised those activists on St. Croix who opposed the deal for not mounting the same level of opposition to the Hovensa refinery. alpine sanes tirade The lease under consideration was for the land Alpine was going to use to construct the plant that would convert solid waste into Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF). A second lease for the land to be used to construct the power generation plant, the process [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://cruciansinfocus.com/2010/03/08/senate-denies-alpine-lease-for-st-thomas-waste-to-energy-plant/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>48</slash:comments>
<enclosure url="http://cruciansinfocus.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/alpine_sanes_tirade.mp3" length="662464" type="audio/mpeg" />
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Not In Our Backyard, Senators!</title>
		<link>http://cruciansinfocus.com/2010/03/07/not-in-our-back-yard-senators/</link>
		<comments>http://cruciansinfocus.com/2010/03/07/not-in-our-back-yard-senators/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Mar 2010 15:04:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Website Administrator</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Alpine]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cruciansinfocus.com/?p=4403</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Editor&#8217;s Note: Since the public hearing on St. Croix last month, there have been rumblings that some revision of the Alpine Energy deal is in play. According to statements on radio by Sen. Craig Barshinger, the revised plan would  all but eliminate the use of pet coke from the waste to energy process.  There are few other details on this &#8220;new&#8221; plan so there&#8217;s not much more we can tell you. What we do know is that Alpine has begun some construction activity on St. Thomas and whatever plan they&#8217;re following, that causes us some concern. In the meantime, until some official information is released, we must continue to stay focused on the issues of the plan as we know it. Mr. Payne&#8217;s editorial addresses a key point in his article here. The Alpine St. Thomas leases are on Monday&#8217;s Legislative agenda. By Clarence Payne There is startling information within the Information Packet submitted by Alpine to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that must be discussed. This particular concern has flown under the radar and probably for good cause. Or because the other components of the Alpine Project are so alarming that we didn’t tackle this issue; however, it is about [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://cruciansinfocus.com/2010/03/07/not-in-our-back-yard-senators/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>41</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

