Posts tagged moving
Buff golfers moving up in tourney
Feb 7th
WAIKOLOA, Hawai’i — The University of Colorado men’s golf team improved two spots here Friday into 15th place as the first rounds of the 24th annual Amer Ari Hawaii-Hilo Invitational are now in the books.
No. 3 Oklahoma State remained atop the leaderboard, owning a 28-under par team score of 548; the Cowbuys extened their lead to two strokes, but with No. 60 Oregon moving from sixth into second with a 26-under 550. No. 13 Washington also moved into the top five, jumping from 10th into third (16-under 272 on the day for a 26-under 552), with No. 25 Southern California and No. 26 Auburn tied for fourth (553); No. 17 UCLA had the best round of the day (17-under 271) and is alone in sixth with a 554.
Colorado, No. 83 in the final Golfweek fall rankings, moved from 17th to 15th with a two-round score of 568, or 8-under par. The Buffaloes turned in their second best single round score of the season, a 7-under 281, bested only by a 13-under 275 they scored in the first round of the last fall tournament at Texas-El Paso.
CU at one point was 14-under par as a team and in 10th place a little over midway through Friday’s round, with 17 birdies and only three bogeys collectively through either 10 or 11 holes, depending on where the players were on the course. But in the shotgun format, where the Buffs started on Friday positioned them to close with many of the more challenging holes.
“This will probably be one of if not the toughest tournament this spring in college golf, and we have an opportunity to keep moving up with a good final round tomorrow,” CU head coach Roy Edwards said. “I think we’re ahead of where we normally would be, we’re doing well and we don’t seem to have a lot of rust. More than anything, it took us a while to get used to the Bermuda greens. We just have to keep seeing a little more success with each round and continue building on that.”
The always tough field here has 10 of the nation’s top 50 competing, including three in the top 10; seven of CU’s Pac-12 rivals are among the group.
Freshman Jeremy Paul recorded CU’s best round for the second straight day, turning in a 4-under par 68, as he improved to 7-under 137 for 36 holes which has him tied for 12th overall. His round included seven birdies and eight pars against three bogeys, and he closed strong with two of those birds coming in his last four holes, including his final hole of the day (No. 12). He has an eagle, nine birdies and 22 pars through two rounds, with just four holes worse than par (all bogeys).
“Today was much better for sure, even though we played fairly similar to how we did on Thursday, we just made more putts,” Edwards said. “Jeremy played another solid round, though he really played better than he scored; he gave away a couple of shots on the par-5s. He usually plays those a few strokes under par and today he was even.”
Junior David Oraee also went sub-70 on Friday, carding a 3-under 69, scoring four birdies and 13 pars against a single bogey; he is in at even-par 144 with one round remaining, as he is tied for 63rd individually. He birdied three straight holes (Nos. 18, 1 and 2) at one point and had all four of his on the day in a six-hole span.
Sophomore Philip Juel-Berg is also tied for 63rd after fashioning a 2-over par 74, giving him an even-par 144 through two rounds. He had 14 pars for the second straight day, flipping his birdie-to-bogey count from three-to-one to one-to-three. He was even through his first 10 holes, but bogeys Nos. 6 and 8 jumped him to 2-over, where he remained for his final five holes.
Freshman Andrew Bonner played more consistently in the second round as he turned in a 1-under 71 for an even-par 144, also tying him for 63rd. He had three birdies and 13 pars against two bogeys Friday, cutting down his holes over par for the round from five to just two. He birdied his second hole of the day (No. 17) and remained under par from that point on for the entire round.
Freshman Yannik Paul opened up on fire, and after five birdies within a seven-hole span, stood at 5-under through10 holes, but he cooled off and came back down to Earth, playing his last eight holes at six-over to finish with a 1-over 73. His 36-hole total of 148 has him tied for 99th,
Senior Johnny Hayes is competing here individually, meaning his score doesn’t count toward CU’s team total; he shot a 3-over 75 for the second straight round, with his 6-over 150 total tying him for 107th. For the second straight day, he had one birdie, 14 pars, two bogeys and a double, except on Friday, he was even-par with two holes to go and finished up bogey-double.
“David played really solid today, anything under 70 is a good round here,” Edwards said. “There are a lot of those (rounds in the 60s) here because of the quality of the field, but breaking 70 is a quality score. He wasn’t himself yesterday but came back and showed what kind of player he has been and is for us. Yannik was on fire early on, but then had a couple of loose swings on just the wrong holes. Had those been on some holes where you could hit it a bit off line, you could still come back and make par. He just had a couple of bad breaks after a terrific start.”
Stanford’s Cameron Wilson used a 7-under 65 to take over the individual lead, as he is with a 12-under 132; three players are one stroke behind him, as 17 players are within five shots of the lead, all at 7-under or better.
The third and final round of the tournament is Saturday, with a shotgun start set for at 10:30 a.m. mountain time.
BUFFALO INDIVIDUALS (*—competing individually)
T12. Jeremy Paul…………………………. 69-68—137
T63. Philip Juel-Berg…………………….. 70-74—144
T63. David Oraee…………………………. 75-69—144
T63. Andrew Bonner…………………….. 73-71—144
T99. Yannik Paul…………………………… 75-73—148
T107. *Johnny Hayes……………………… 75-75—150
TOP 5 INDIVIDUALS
1. Cameron Wilson, Stanford………… 67-65—132
T2. Thomas Lim, Oregon……………….. 64-69—133
T2. Lorens Chan, UCLA………………….. 68-65—133
T2. Jeffrey Kang, USC…………………… 66-67—133
T5. Rico Hoey, USC………………………. 65-69—134
T5. Chelso Barrett, TCU………………… 66-68—134
TEAM SCORES
1. Oklahoma State…………………. 271-277—548
2. Oregon…………………………….. 276-274—550
3. Washington………………………. 280-272—552
T4. Southern California……………… 273-280—553
T4. Auburn…………………………….. 274-279—553
6. UCLA……………………………….. 283-271—554
T7. Georgia Tech…………………….. 286-270—556
T7. TCU…………………………………. 272-284—556
T7. Texas………………………………. 274-282—556
T10. Arizona State…………………….. 280-277—557
T10. Stanford…………………………… 281-276—557
12. Texas Tech……………………….. 278-282—560
13. Hawai’i-Hilo……………………….. 279-286—565
14. Oregon State…………………….. 285-281—566
15. COLORADO……………………… 287-281—568
16. Hawai’i…………………………….. 279-291—570
17. San Jose State………………….. 290-287—577
18. UC-Davis………………………….. 290-289—579
19. Osaka Gakuin…………………….. 286-295—581
20. CSU-Monterey Bay…………….. 295-287—582
DAVID PLATI | ASSOCIATE AD/SPORTS INFORMATION
Cloud on the electric utility horizon?
Nov 18th
The City of Boulder this afternoon asked the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to reconsider an Oct. 29 decision that would delay the city’s efforts to acquire Xcel Energy’s equipment and facilities for the purpose of creating a local electric utility.
The application for rehearing makes clear that Boulder concurs with many of the findings the PUC made on Oct. 29. The city remains 100 percent committed, for example, to working with the PUC on issues that are within the Commission’s jurisdiction and making sure that Boulder’s efforts do not negatively impact service or reliability for Xcel’s remaining customers.
However, there are some issues with which the city does not agree. In its filing today, the city asserts that the Commission transcended the questions it was asked to consider and issued an overly broad ruling that overlooked the powers granted to the city by the constitution. More specifically, the city argues that there are practical and legal reasons for the Commission to reconsider its conclusion that it has the authority to decide what assets Boulder can acquire. The city also explains more fully why it would be premature for the Commission to evaluate any transition plans until a condemnation proceeding has been initiated and discovery has been completed by the city.
“Boulder has no objection to, and in fact is eager to work with Commission staff to prepare the various plans necessary to make Boulder’s acquisition of the Public Service (Xcel) system that serves Boulder as cost-effective as possible, and to ensure that the electric system, both inside and outside of Boulder, is at least as safe and reliable as the current Public Service system,” Senior Assistant City Attorney Deb Kalish said in the filing. “However, Boulder has the constitutional and statutory right to determine which assets it will acquire and the timing of any condemnation action that may be filed.”
Heather Bailey, the city’s executive director for Energy Strategy and Electric Utility Development, said Monday that the PUC’s ruling with regard to these questions could have important implications.
“Boulder voters on Nov. 5 reaffirmed their desire to move forward with the creation of a local electric utility, provided that certain conditions can be met,” Bailey said. “Determining the order of the required proceedings – and the scope of authority for each deciding body – is essential to charting out both the timeline and necessary work plan for moving forward. We are hopeful that the PUC will consider the city’s arguments and help us gain clarity around these questions in a way that is consistent with Colorado law. We look forward to working with PUC staff and commissioners to address any concerns they have.”
The complete filing is attached to this press release.
–CITY–
ESA: So much accomplished, so much to do
Nov 13th
BC1 news editor
The federal Endangered Species turns 40 years old this year. It was signed into law by Richard (“I am not a crook”) Nixon, in 1973, likely as a desperation move to garner public support for his collapsing presidency. The significance of this law is that, for the first time in history federal law recognized there are limits to economic development —i.e. when a species would be driven to extinction as a result of the activities. That, my friends, is a Line in the Sand.
The ESA has been incredibly effective, thanks almost entirely to the Center for Biological Diversity, which was instrumental in protecting more than 1,400 species and 200 million acres of critical habitat in the U.S. alone. Ninety nine percent of species protected by the ESA have been saved from extinction. The CBD uses law and science to make its case, bucking the trend of most major environmental groups, which rarely sue any longer for any reason. This happened because BIG OIL has undue influence in the environmental community by having representatives on the environmental groups’ board of directors and by funding these groups with the tacit understanding that the groups won’t oppose projects beneficial to oil and gas profits. Nevertheless, current trends are threatening to reverse the situation. Global climate change could be the most damaging threat in history, with profound implications for both animals and human beings. There are others.
To honor the ESA, Boulder Channel 1 will run a series of articles about the most serious of these threats.
By the Center for Biological Diversity
FRACKING THREATENS AMERICA’S AIR, WATER AND CLIMATE It poisons our water, contaminates our air and emits massive greenhouse gas pollution. Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, involves blasting huge volumes of water mixed with toxic chemicals and sand deep into the earth to fracture rock formations and release oil and natural gas. This extreme form of energy production endangers our health and wildlands.
A fracking boom can transform an area almost overnight, creating massive new environmental and social problems. Fracking development is intensifying in Pennsylvania, Texas and North Dakota and moving into new areas, like California and Nevada. Will your state be fracked next? But as fracking spreads across America, communities are fighting back — and the Center for Biological Diversity is working to ban this growing threat. POLLUTING AIR AND WATER, KILLING WILDLIFE
About 25 percent of fracking chemicals could cause cancer, scientists say. Others harm the skin or reproductive system. Evidence is mounting throughout the country that these chemicals — as well as methane released by fracking — are making their way into aquifers and drinking water. Fracking can release dangerous petroleum hydrocarbons, including benzene and xylene. It also increases ground-level ozone levels, raising people’s risk of asthma and other respiratory illnesses. Wildlife is also in danger. Fish die when fracking fluid contaminates streams and rivers. Birds are poisoned by chemicals in wastewater ponds. And the intense industrial development accompanying fracking pushes imperiled animals out of wild areas they need to survive. In California, for example, more than 100 endangered and threatened species live in the counties where fracking is set to expand. DISRUPTING
OUR CLIMATE Fracking releases large amounts of methane, a dangerously potent greenhouse gas. Fracked shale gas wells, for example, may have methane leakage rates as high as 7.9 percent, which would make such natural gas worse for the climate than coal. But fracking also threatens our climate in another way. To prevent catastrophic climate change, we must leave about 80 percent of proven fossil fuel reserves in the ground. Fracking takes us in the opposite direction, opening up vast new deposits of fossil fuels. If the fracking boom continues, oil and gas companies will light the fuse on a carbon bomb that will shatter efforts to avert climate chaos. BAN FRACKING NOW To protect our environment from fracking, we must prohibit this inherently dangerous technique. That’s why the Center supports fracking bans and moratoriums at the local, state and national levels. Learn about fracking and please take action against it today.