Count Down to Qatar: Qatar?

Qatar?

Over the next several months, I intend to share my process in manifesting an international job change in what is now four and a half months.  I am calling this series "Countdown to Qatar."

Information About Qatar

Let me first start with some information about Qatar.

National Goals

According to one guide for expats, the King and his administration seek to make Qatar "the Middle Eastern flagship for social development and intellectualism."  "[I]t has worked hard to create a 'knowledge economy,' and to promote ventures like the Museum of Islamic Art and a massive Education City."

Location

The country extends into the Arabian Gulf off the Arabian Peninsula.  It shares a border with Saudi Arabia. 



Economy

Qatar is one of the smallest countries in the world ranking 164 out of 234 countries, by area.   But, it has the highest per capita income in the world at about $101,000 per person.   

This wealth is largely generated by a well-developed petroleum industry that contributes about 70 percent of government revenues, 85 percent of export earnings, and 60 percent of GDP.  

That industry mostly focuses on natural gas production.  The third largest natural gas reserve in the world lays under Qatar and extends offshore under the Persian Gulf in Qatar's waters. Experts estimate that the reserve should produce natural gas for another 157 years.  

It exports the gas as liquefied natural gas, in specially designed ships. Recent reports suggest that, in 2006, it became the leader in these exports, having surpassed the volume exported by Indonesia. 

As a former energy lawyer, I find this geology fascinating. 

As an employee of the state university, I am pleased to see that the government has significant resources to devote to education.  More about that in a later post.

Population

The country comprises 2 million people, most of whom live in the capital of Doha. Only 278,000 people are native Qataris. The vast majority of residents are expatriates from all over the world. Many people from poorer countries come to work in low paying construction and other labor-related jobs.  

Expatriates from former British colonies often hold positions in education, banking, finance, and commerce, although the Qatar government is quickly trying to fill all these better jobs with educated Qataris.   

Bird Deaths at Wind Farms (Part 5)

2013 Canadian Bird Mortality Study

In 2013, J. Ryan Zimmerling, Andrea C. Pomeroy, Marc V. d'Entremont, and Charles M. Francis published their study: Canadian Estimate of Bird Mortality Due to Collisions and Direct Habitat Loss Associated with Wind Turbine Developments. 

The abstract of the study states: 

We estimated impacts on birds from the development and operation of wind turbines in Canada considering both mortality due to collisions and loss of nesting habitat. We estimated collision mortality using data from carcass searches for 43 wind farms, incorporating correction factors for scavenger removal, searcher efficiency, and carcasses that fell beyond the area searched. 

On average, 8.2 ± 1.4 birds (95% C.I.) were killed per turbine per year at these sites, although the numbers at individual wind farms varied from 0 - 26.9 birds per turbine per year. Based on 2955 installed turbines (the number installed in Canada by December 2011), an estimated 23,300 birds (95% C.I. 20,000 - 28,300) would be killed from collisions with turbines each year.

The researchers estimated direct habitat loss based on data from 32 wind farms in Canada. On average, wind farms caused total habitat loss per turbine of 1.23 hectares (ha), which corresponded to an estimated total habitat loss due to wind farms nationwide in Canada of 3635 ha. 

Based on published estimates of nest density, this loss could represent habitat for  about 5,700 nests of all species. If the researchers assumed that nearby habitats were saturated, and that the wind farms displaced two adult birds per nest site, they concluded that the effects of direct habitat loss were less than that of direct collision mortality. 

If installed wind capacity increases more than 10-fold over the next 10-15 years in Canada, as predicted, the researchers estimated direct mortality of approximately 233,000 birds/year, and displacement of 57,000 pairs through habitat loss.

Bird Deaths at Wind Farms (Part 4)

Smithsonian-Sponsored Study of Bird Deaths at Monopole Wind Farms 

In a study published in December 2013, three scientists have attempted to estimate the number of bird deaths associated with tower design and height. See Scott R. Loss, Tom Will, Peter P. Marra, Estimates Of Bird Collision Mortality At Wind Facilities In The Contiguous United States. 

The sponsors of the study included the Migratory Bird Center, Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, National Zoological Park; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Birds, Midwest Regional Office; and the Oklahoma State University

The study suggests that the trend toward taller towers could be leading to more deaths. On the other hand, the new research also reveals that siting fewer new turbines in California and more in the Great Plains – where the wind resource is rich and increasingly being exploited – could decrease the risk to birds.

This study did not focus at the species level, but instead analyzed available data to model bird mortality in an era in which lattice towers have largely given way to monopole towers with turbine hub heights often 80 meters or higher, and with longer turbine blades.

The researchers estimated that between 140,000 and 328,000 birds are killed annually by the monopole turbines, “which comprise the vast majority of all installed U.S. wind turbines.” Their median of 234,000 is thus a good deal lower than the Smallwood study earlier in 2013 that put the figure at 573,000.   

But in one of a barrage of caveats contained in the study, the authors said their assumption that all turbines are monopole could affect their total predicted fatalities.

Finally, the authors predict annual mortality estimate of roughly 1.4 million birds if the U.S. reaches its goal of relying on wind energy for 20 percent of its electricity supply.

Abstract of Smithsonian Study:

Wind energy has emerged as a promising alternative to fossil fuels, yet the impacts of wind facilities on wildlife remain unclear. Prior studies estimate between 10,000 and 573,000 fatal bird collisions with U.S. wind turbines annually; however, these studies do not differentiate between turbines with a monopole tower and those with a lattice tower, the former of which now comprise the vast majority of all U.S. wind turbines and the latter of which are largely being de-commissioned.

We systematically derived an estimate of bird mortality for U.S. monopole turbines by applying inclusion criteria to compiled studies, identifying correlates of mortality, and utilizing a predictive model to estimate mortality along with uncertainty. Despite measures taken to increase analytical rigor, the studies we used may provide a non-random representation of all data. Requiring industry reports to be made publicly available would improve understanding of wind energy impacts. Nonetheless, we estimate that between 140,000 and 328,000 (mean = 234,000) birds are killed annually by collisions with monopole turbines in the contiguous U.S.

We found support for an increase in mortality with increasing turbine hub height and support for differing mortality rates among regions, with per turbine mortality lowest in the Great Plains. Evaluation of risks to birds is warranted prior to continuing a widespread shift to taller wind turbines. Regional patterns of collision risk, while not obviating the need for species-specific and local-scale assessments, may inform broad-scale decisions about wind facility siting.

Smithsonian Study Findings:

After accounting for varying proportions of the year being sampled, annual per turbine mortality was modeled to be highest in the East (median = 8.16 birds), followed by California (median = 4.82 birds), the West excluding California (median = 3.64 birds), and the Great Plains (median = 2.43 birds). The researchers estimate that 46.4% of total mortality at monopole wind turbines occurs in California, 23.1% occurs in the Great Plains, 18.8% occurs in the East, and 11.6% occurs in the West ( Table 2).

On a per MW basis, California had a mean collision rate of 18.76 birds per MW (95% CI = 9.68–27.84), followed by the East (3.86 birds/MW; 95% CI = 3.05–4.68), the West (2.83 birds/MW; 95% CI = 2.05–3.62), and the Great Plains (1.81 birds/MW; 1.00–2.62). Regional differences based on the additive region-height model are different from those based on the univariate region model because the latter were calculated independently of turbine height data.

More interesting, perhaps, is the tentative link the researchers draw between turbine height and avian risk. The researchers said their data set had hub heights ranging from 36 to 80 meters and as height increased, “annual model-predicted mortality increased nearly ten-fold (from 0.64 t 6.20 birds per turbine).”

Bird Deaths at Wind Farms (Part 3)

The Smallwood Study Presents Highest Estimate of Bird Deaths to Date

The Research

In an earlier post, I mentioned the current research on bird deaths at wind farms. Scientists/industry have conducted five major studies to date:

• 2013 Smallwood Study: 573,000 bird deaths per year.

• 2013 Canadian Bird Mortality Study: 233,000 bird deaths per year, and habitat displacement of 57,000 breeding pairs.

• 2009 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Study: 440,000 per year.

• 2013 Smithsonian-sponsored Study: 140,000 to 328,000 per year (limited to monopole turbines).

• Wind Industry Estimate: 58,000 per year.

Over the next several days, I'll discuss each study.  

The Smallwood Study:

In March 2013, biologist K. Shawn Smallwood published his study in the March 2013 issue of the Wildlife Society Bulletin. His estimate of bird fatalities at wind farms is the highest to date. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wsb.260/abstract 

He estimates that, in 2012, turbines across the United States killed 573,000 birds, including 83,000 raptors. Smallwood’s number of bird deaths represents a 30 percent jump over the 440,000 fatalities estimated by a 2009 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service report.

Smallwood is featured in this video on the Altamont Pass wind farm. 

Bird Deaths at Wind Farms (Part 2)

Finding Dead Birds at the Base of Wind Turbines: The Protocol

In my last post, I listed the studies estimating bird deaths at wind farms. I plan to discuss each of them over the next week. 

Research Protocol:

But first, I want to describe the methodology for most of these studies. You can see these procedures in action in the video about bird deaths at the Altamont Pass wind farm here.  The discussion runs from 9:56 to 11:00 minutes into the clip. 

The developer/operator should place wildlife biologists into the wind farm on a regular basis to do a carcass count. Ideally, assuming the developer devotes the needed resources, the biologist should conduct the fatality searches within a radius of 50 meters of the turbine base. The searcher should mark out 100 meter square plots to record carcass findings for study longitudinally. 

Scientists studying bird fatalities recommend the use of a search protocol involving 120 meter long transects spaced at 20 meter intervals or circular transects extending out to 45 meters from the turbine tower or base. 

Each study area should consist of 10-15 turbines. For large wind farms, the searcher should focus searches on turbines close to landscape features that birds likely use. The searcher can also randomly select additional turbines to survey. The turbines surveyed should vary to assess whether one part of the farm creates more fatalities than other parts of the farm.

The searcher designers must attempt to account for variations in landscape (cliff edge) and vegetation conditions (very dense scrub), which might affect visibility or accessibility to carcasses. They should make the search area smaller or section off those more difficult areas from the search area so the searcher can cover the same area easily from search to search.

The searcher should check each turbine daily for small wind farms or every 5 days at larger farms. The carcass surveys should begin at dawn or one hour after dawn to limit loss to day time scavengers. The study should attempt to account for carcass loss based on overnight scavenger activity. One study showed that scavengers cart off a very large number of dead birds overnight.

The searcher should use a slow and regular pace spending 30 to 90 minutes at each tower designated for search.

The searcher should record:

• GPS coordinates for the carcass,
• Direction to the wind turbine the bird was found,
• Distance to the tower the bird was found
• State of the carcass,
• Type of wounds or injuries observed,
• Vegetation height were the bird was found,
• Species,
• Sex (if known),
• Age (if known),
• Date and time of finding, and
• Condition of carcass ( intact, scavenged, dismembered).

In addition, the searcher should:

• Photograph the carcass, and
• Map its location on a detailed map.

Depending on the scope of the survey, the searcher may:

• Do a field necropsy,
• Collect carcasses for a lab necropsy, or
• Take samples of carcasses for a lab necropsy.

Taken together, this data, collected on a regular basis, can help wind farm operators decided when to shut down farms to protect migrating birds -- either by hour, day, or season.  The data can also reveal whether a certain turbine is especially dangerous to birds.  If so, the operator can dismantle the turbine. This video discusses that option at 6:00 to 7:30 minutes into the clip.

Based on my reading of the literature, we still know very little about bird deaths associated with wind farms.  These types of fatality surveys are key to gaining that knowledge.  Obviously, they are expensive to conduct, even if the operator/developer uses graduate students to do the survey work. 

Bird Deaths at Wind Farms (Part 1)

Growth of Farms Puts More Birds At Risk

Introduction

A 2008 Department of Energy report calls for the U.S. to generate 20% of its electricity from wind by 2030. By then, experts expect wind turbines to kill at least one million birds each year, and probably significantly more, depending on how many turbines developers build over that time. Wind farms are also expected to impact almost 20,000 square miles of terrestrial habitat, and over 4,000 square miles of marine habitat by 2030, some critical to threatened species.

Deaths will come to birds who hold our identity and imagination, like Bald Eagles and other raptors. Turbines also kill birds listed as threatened or endangered unless developers carefully plan and implement wind farms. Onshore, these species include Golden Eagles, Whooping Cranes, sage-grouse, prairie-chickens, and many migratory songbirds. Offshore, species at risk include Brown Pelicans, Northern Gannets, sea ducks, loons, and terns, among other birds.

Scientists poorly understand the relationship of current fatalities to the demographics of bird and bat populations, but some experts do not see a problematic link between current wind farm fatalities and declines in bird populations (NAS 2007). My earlier post shows that other man-made structures cause far more bird deaths.  Domestic and feral cats pose the greatest risk to bird populations.

However, as wind energy facilities increase in number, fatalities and thus the potential for biologically-significant impacts to local populations increases (NAS 2007; Erickson et al. 2002; Manville 2009).

Mechanics of Wind Turbines

Early turbines were mounted on towers 60–80 feet in height with rotors extending 50–60 feet in diameter. The blades turned 60–80 revolutions per minute (rpm).
Today's land-based wind turbines are mounted on towers 200–260 feet in height with rotors 150–260 feet in diameter. The blade tips reach over 425 feet above ground level. Rotor swept areas now exceed 1 acre. Engineers expect the reach of the blade sweep to cover nearly 1.5 acres within the next several years. 

Under the current design, the speed of rotor revolution has significantly decreased to 11–28 rpm, but blade tip speeds have remained about the same. Under normal operating conditions, blade tip speeds range from 138–182 mph. 

For some disturbing video about bird deaths at wind farms, see here (Altamont Pass) and here (bird strike).

Wider and longer blades produce greater vortices and turbulence in their wake as they rotate, posing a potential problem for bats and small songbirds.

Engineers have reduced the number of turbines needed to produce a megawatt of electrical power by increasing the efficiency of each turbine. Accordingly, developers can generate power equivalent to older farms using fewer turbines that are more widely spaced. 
Still, Manufacturers are developing larger turbines.The one pictured here seems to be large enough for a helicopter landing pad and is destined for offshore use. 

The Research

In future posts, I'll discuss the current research on bird deaths at wind farms. Scientists/industry have conducted five major studies to date:

• 2013 Smallwood Study: 573,000 bird deaths per year.

• 2013 Canadian Bird Mortality Study: 233,000 bird deaths per year, and habitat displacement of 57,000 breeding pairs.

• 2009 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Study: 440,000 per year.

• 2013 Smithsonian-Sponsored Study: 140,000 to 328,000 per year (limited to monopole turbines).

• Wind Industry Estimate: 58,000 per year.

Our Tolerance for Bird Deaths at Energy Facilities

Significant Losses at Power Plants 

and Transmission Lines

Bird Populations Slumping:

Since the release of bird status reports at the Asilomar Conference, bird populations have continued to slump, and the list of North American birds with declining populations or otherwise at risk at the regional and continental levels has increased since 2002 where 131 species were then designated (USFWS 2002). 

Today, these include 147 species on the 2008 Birds of Conservation Concern list (USFWS 2008), 92 birds federally listed as Threatened or Endangered on the Endangered Species Act (ESA), State-listed species, and species listed as high priorities on the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, among others. 

The growing documented and suspected impacts of structures on birds—from direct collision mortality, barotrauma, electrocutions, cumulative effects, and from habitat fragmentation, disturbance and site avoidance—bode poorly for our bird populations.

Migratory birds—of which there are currently 836 designated species—are a Federal trust resource managed and protected by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The published list of the 836 species is found at 50 CFR Ch. 1, 10.13, List of Migratory Birds.*

Reasons for Bird Deaths:

The estimated cumulative impact of collisions with wind turbines is several orders of magnitude lower than the estimated impacts from the leading anthropogenic causes of bird mortality.

The available data estimates the following causes of death (in millions per year) for birds:

• Aircraft .08
• Wind turbines .58 to.573
• Large communication towers 6.8
• Power plants 14.33
• Cellular, radio & microwave towers 4 to 50
• Cars and trucks 50 to 100
• Agriculture 67
• Pesticides 72
• Building windows 97 to 976
• Hunting 100
• Transmission lines 175
• Domestic and feral cats 210 to 3,700

Thus, the biggest threat to birds are cats that live some part of the day outside where they hunt and kill birds.  They kill up to 3.7 billion birds per year.

This data also reveals our tolerance for bird deaths associated with energy-related projects, including power plants, and transmission lines.  Deaths at either of these types of facilities far exceed deaths at wind farms.

Bird Deaths and Wind Farms:

Still, we may want to answer the questions:  

• How many more cumulative bird deaths do we want to tolerate at wind farms projects?
• Are wind farms especially dangerous to specific species of birds that we have a heightened need to protect, like eagles?
• Can wind farm operators design wind farms to mitigate bird deaths?
• Can they monitor and operate wind farms to mitigate bird deaths?

I will answer these questions in future posts in this series. 

* This discussion is derived from sources I researched in connection with the Environmental Dispute Resolution course I teach.  I am not including citations to those sources, and I acknowledge that some of this discussion is directly lifted from those sources (with my apologies to the authors I failed to credit).  Eventually, I plan to write a law review article on this topic and the original sources will receive credit there.    

First Fracking Verdict in U.S. History

Plaintiff Awarded $2.9 Million:  Post-Trail Motions and Appeal Certain

Charles Sartran of the Energy & the Law blog discusses what is being characterized as the "first fracking verdict in U.S. History." 

Background: 

[A] Texas jury awarded $2.9 million to landowners in a case involving alleged hydrocarbon exposure due to hydraulic fracturing operations. Here is the jury verdict. The Parrs sued Aruba Petroleum, alleging that drilling and frac[k]ing at Aruba’s 22 wells located within two miles of the Parr’s 40-acre property in Wise County was making them sick. They alleged a wide array of health issues, including nose bleeds, irregular heartbeat, muscle spasms, and open sores, all of which were allegedly caused by hazardous gases and airborne chemicals emanating from Aruba’s well sites.

Outcome:

The case proceeded to the jury only on the nuisance claim. The award, for intentionally creating a private nuisance, comprised $275,000 for loss in property value, $2 million for past pain and suffering, $250,000 for future pain and suffering, and $400,000 for past mental anguish. The jury did not find evidence of the malice necessary to justify an award of punitive damages.

In my Environmental Dispute Resolution course, we spend a 2-hour class period discussing fracking, as well as the power landowners gain against developers when they collaborate in the negotiation for shale gas recovery.  

The fracking process is explained in this industry video.

Several videos on YouTube describe the risks of the fracking process to adjacent landowners and aquifers.  I found them compelling, but I admit that I have not spent enough time in the industry to developed an informed opinion.  Links to the videos are here, here, here, here, here, and here.  You can also find industry dismissal of the risks here.

My concern is that production outpaces what we know about the long-term risks to human health.  

May 1, 2014 Update:  New York Times op-ed piece discussing pros and cons of shale gas development here.  Authors Michael Bloomberg and Fed Krupp argue:

Strong rules and enforcement are critical. And, as one of us, Fred Krupp, describes in the current issue of Foreign Affairs, states are beginning to take action. Texas has imposed tough standards for well integrity, a key to groundwater protection. Wyoming has set strong requirements for water testing before drilling begins. Ohio is emerging as a leader in reducing air pollution from leaky oil and gas equipment. And in February, Colorado became the first state to directly regulate methane emissions from oil and gas operations — a huge step forward.

Energy Sector Mediation

Best Mediator?  Best Approach?

Interesting post on the use of mediation in energy-related disputes. Frames the debate about substantive expertise vs. process/people skills and about evaluative mediation that can drift into ethically impermissible legal advice. 

Law Practice Areas: What's Hot?

"What Hot's and What's Not in the Legal Profession"

Red Hot practice areas?  Energy, regulatory, health care.

Hot practice areas?  Financial services, IPOs, litigation, labor and employment, intellectual property, real estate, and corporate.

Getting Hot?  Interns rights, privately held and family business, education, elder law, and ADR.

So says Bob Denny in his 25th trends report released on December 3, 2013.

Bob Denny, founder of Bob Denny Associates, Inc., identifies trends in the legal profession at least once a year.  His last report came out in June 2013.

His consulting firm, founded in 1974, provides management, marketing and strategic planning services to over 800 companies, professional firms, and non-profit organizations throughout the United States, as well as in Canada and the Caribbean.

His report also identifies practice areas seeing less action (cooling off), the hot geographic areas for law, marketing and business development trends, and other trends and issues.

Historical Trends (2007-2013)

I've followed these reports closely since 2007, when I started using them to suggest to students that taking my ADR course reflected good judgement. ADR-related practice areas (ADR, mediation, and post-arbitraiton litigation) have made the "hot" lists (red hot, hot, or getting hot) four times in the six years I have tracked (2007 to 2012) the reports.  ADR practice appears again on the most recent report along with the comment that "the high cost of litigation has reawakened interest in mediation and arbitration."


Energy and environmental law (including global warming and alternative energy) have appeared on the hot lists of the reports seven times for the years 2007-2012, and "energy" appears again on the 2013 report as "red hot."   Denny also explains that Ohio, West Virginia, and Western Pennsylvania are hot geographic areas "due to energy, particularly the Utica Shale Play."

Litigation and related practice areas (commercial litigation, complex litigation, asbestos litigation, and nursing home litigation) appear on a hot list in every report since 2007.

Regulatory practice, identified as "red hot" in the latest report, did not begin to appear on the hot list until 2009, but then has stayed red hot or hot every year since.

Similarly, health care did not make an appearance on a hot list until 2009, but then made the hot list the last four years, including 2013.

Labor and employment law has appeared on one of the hot lists for five years, plus appearing on the hot list in the latest report.

This news is all good for students and prospective students at ASL.  We have a unique ADR program, a growing natural resources, energy and environmental law program, and a well-established, award-winning, advocacy program.  ASL offers a certificate in each practice area -- ADR, Natural Resources, and Advocacy -- which helps our students develop deep competency and a credential that helps them market themselves.

ASL's Professor Isaac has begun building a robust curriculum in employment law, including workers' compensation, and has tied the curriculum to the ADR options available to disputants.  And, ASL will launch a health care curriculum in the Spring 2014 semester

Student Organizations: Energy and Mineral Law Society

Mission Statement

The Energy and Mineral Law Society promotes the educational and professional advancement of its student members in the practice areas of Energy and Mineral Law in primarily three ways:

• By soliciting co-curricular educational and employment opportunities for its members;
• By facilitating occasions for fraternity and association within these specialized legal communities; and
• By encouraging the faculty and administration of the Appalachian School of Law to offer an elective curriculum that explores energy and mineral law -- including natural gas, coal, wind, and other forms of energy -- as applicable to prospective practitioners.   

This organization has helped bring about these goals, especially the last goal.  I talked about the exciting natural resource curriculum at the Appalachian School of Law here.  So much has changed at the school since 2009, when students founded this organization.  

Natural Resource Curriculum

ASL now offers a seminar in Natural Resources that examines the specialized property rules governing estates in natural resources, the correlative rights of surface and mineral owners, and the rights to explore, mine and extract, develop, and transport natural resources, with primary emphasis on "hard" minerals. 

A seminar in Environmental Law allows students to examine selected topics in the law governing the protection of air, water, and land from pollution. 

A practicum in Sustainable Energy focuses on the legal implications of policies and technologies that seek to minimize carbon emissions in the development and delivery of energy. 

A practicum on Environmental Dispute Resolution teaches students group facilitation techniques that permit a collaborative approach to solving environmental and energy-related problems.  Students negotiate four simulated disputes.  They involved the regulation of an industrial pollutant; damages caused by the "whiskey fungus"; the reintroduction of the red wolf to the central Appalachian Mountains; and the siting of a wind farm in Tazewell County, Virginia.  

Additionally, ASL recently offered a summer school course in Coal and Mineral Law.

Vision Statement

The EMLS Constitution also provides:  

It is our sincerest hope that, as students of Appalachian School of Law, we may take direction from the foundational guidelines of our school in being intently focused on the issues important in our own geographic area, while also realizing their broader national and global significance. In specializing our studies -- and perhaps later our practices -- on the geographic and economic characteristics unique to the Appalachian region, we hope not only to advance our own professional interests, but also those of our nation as a whole.  This [goal] will be especially important in the coming years as the world struggles to meet the energy and materials needs of an ever-burgeoning population hungry for the benefits of an industrialized, technologically-advanced society. 

As future lawyers, we know that we can play an important role in the success of our nation's energy and mining policies, perhaps even in forming, directing, and implementing those policies ourselves, whether by government oversight or corporate application.  Familiarizing ourselves with Energy and Mineral Law now, before finishing law school, will help to ensure our success later as practitioners.  

Some of the Alumni  Working in the Natural Resource Industry

ASL is proud to boast successful alumni who are working in Natural Resources law. 

Among them is Troy Nichols '04, who recently joined Alpha Coal Sales Co. LLC, a subsidiary of Alpha Natural Resources, Inc., as corporate counsel. Alpha is a Fortune 500 company and ranks as the world's fifth-largest supplier of coal and third-largest supplier of metallurgical coal. Before joining Alpha, Troy practiced at Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs in Lexington, Kentucky, where he served as a senior associate and was a member of the firm's Natural Resources & Environmental Service Team. 

Blair N. Wood '10 practices with the Creekmore Law Firm in Blacksburg, Va. The firm's business litigation practice helps in the defense of oil, gas, and coalbed methane litigation across Virginia and West Virginia. Wood was president of the Energy and Mineral Law Society while at ASL and graduated first in her class.

ASL grad, Cory Vicars, serves as a Senior Land Representative for Land Surface Operations for Shell Exploration & Production in Pennsylvania.  His work ties to natural gas production from the Marcellus and Utica Shale deposits.

William Estes '12 deals with timber issues on a  regular basis and represents a national wildlife conservation organization in discussions with the U.S. Forest Service on an issue pertaining to the ruffled grouse, timber, and land management.

ASL graduate, Brandon Music, represents two energy companies (an electric and municipal energy company) and recently filed a lawsuit involving the ownership of a $100 million energy plant.

In addition, Jason Little '04 and Joel Baker work for Noble Energy in Pittsburgh in its Oil and Gas Exploration and Production division.  Stephanie Roser Skeen works for Western Land Services in Cannonsburg, PA assisting clients in developing various oil and gas plays.  Her husband, Broc Skeen, also an ASL graduate, works for EQT Corporation in oil and gas exploration and production.  Jen Shaver '09 works with the Virginia Gas Owners Litigation Group in Abingdon, VA.  This list is by no means inclusive. 

Another grad, Ian McCabe, works as an associate attorney for Peoples Appalachian Center for the Environment.  The organization strives to protect the natural environment of Appalachia by enforcing state and federal environmental laws and through public outreach and education. It annually co-sponsors the Appalachian Public Interest Environmental Law Conference held each fall.

EMLS Activities

Each member of the ASL EMLS chapter can participate in various conferences around the Appalachian region that deal with energy issues. It sponsors on-campus speakers and field trips to local energy-related operations, including the Jewell Coal and Coke Plant  and the Virginia City Hybrid Energy Center, one of the cleanest coal-fired power stations in the U.S.  

The EMLS also hosts a variety of community service projects for students at ASL, including one tied to elk restoration projects located on nearby reclaimed strip mine properties.

Students working on the Arbor Day Project at ASL, in which EMLS plays a role, plant hundreds of trees on abandoned strip mining sites, including blight-resistant American Chestnut trees that were once native to this area.

The Energy and Mineral Law Society is a sister organization to the Energy and Mineral Law Foundation.  Accordingly, upon graduation, ASL students can participate in CLE (Continuing Legal Education) classes sponsored by the Energy and Mineral Law Foundation.   Most recently, the school, with the help of the EMLS, offered a CLE program on black lung law.

For more information, follow the EMLS at its blog.

Professor Mark Belleville serves as the faculty advisor for the EMLS. 

Back to School: Do You Want to Be Christopher Robin, Piglet, or Eeyore?

Some positive affirmations:

• Fear can’t stop me from moving forward. 

• I’m worthy of positive changes in my life.

• Today, I welcome change as an opportunity.

• I am fulfilling all my commitments today.

• I am confident in my ability to meet challenges today.

• I have all that I need to do what is good and right in my life today.

• I am learning to trust my own wisdom and give myself permission to follow it.

In July, I posted some positive affirmations for nervous bar exam takers here.  This past Friday, I provided our incoming students with a modified copy of the same list of affirmations during the session I taught on test taking strategies and test anxiety.

Science confirms that this sort of positive self-talk changes our brains in good ways, elevates emotions, and generates the kind of energy people want to be around.

Think of Christopher Robin -- the wise, pleasant, cheerful, compassionate companion and leader  -- in the Winnie-the Pooh book series.  









Or, Piglet, Pooh's kind, gentle, and shy friend.  With Pooh's help, the little pig shows bravery, overcomes his fears, and faces danger to help his friends.

In contrast, think of  Eeyore, Pooh's "ever-glum, slow-talking, pessimistic, and sarcastic donkey friend" who couldn't even keep his stick-made home from repeatedly falling apart.  

For a delightful example of how this works, take a look at this video of  4 year old, Jessica, doing her daily affirmation.  How different is that self-talk from what most of us say in the mirror every morning?  (And ignore the circulating parody.  It is funny, but sad.)