Myth's Coal Plant tells
Print- •
-
Share
- Share this item
-
Grab the link
Copy and paste the link:
- Blog about it
- Close
- •
-
Post a Comment
- •
Favorite- •
-
Report error
-
Thank you for your submission.Error report or correction
- Close
-
- •
Dear Editor
Regarding White Stallion Coal Plant’s “myth” that they “will sell to a non-tax paying entity,” here are several other myth/quotes: “Permanent ownership of the project is our primary goal.” “White Stallion has retained a top-tier team to assist us in the preparation of a tax agreement between our project and local authorities in Bay City and Matagorda County.”
Really? When will this agreement be made public? I think the above words without the contract all checked out by our own attorneys is worth a warm cup of spit, to borrow a phrase once used by a Texas politician. And can White Stallion name any other coal plant they own, or have built?
Lead and Mercury: “The totals for lead and mercury and other trace elements were not included because they are measured in pounds per year, not tons, and are not statistically significant in this comparison.” Since this teensy, tiny bit of lead and mercury is not statistically significant, how about a proposal that would require White Stallion to pay $100,000 for each pound of these toxic metals brought into the County but not removed? Would White Stallion publish the amount in the newspapers? This toxic metal money could help the county pay for the increased cost of medical care and the increased special education expenses.
By the way, lead is toxic in micrograms. Please multiply the cost by sixty years which is the usual life of a coal plant. Since I think White Stallion could burn all Pet Coke for fuel, please show this amount also.
Water. I did read that water for the second crop was in doubt earlier this year, also a possible reduced flow to the wetlands. I would think most farmers and people who make their living off the Bay would and should see their livelihood going up in smoke.
Dr. George M. Burlingame, Bay City