[Beetle01]

BTW the govt is not devaluing our dollar. The Federal Reserve is devaluing our dollar, and don't let the word Federal confuse you. It is a group of private bankers, it has nothing to do with our govt.

You wanna get our economy back on track, vote Ron Paul as he will end the Fed. Reserve on his first day in office. Something that must be done. Nothing else really matters to me at this point, there will be no recovery and we will never have our country back as long as the Fed. Reserve is allowed to wield its unchecked power. It is unconstitutional, and 99.9% responsible for the mess we are in now. They make tons of money when we are in deep debt.

[Hoot Gibson]

BTW the govt is not devaluing our dollar. The Federal Reserve is devaluing our dollar, and don't let the word Federal confuse you. It is a group of private bankers, it has nothing to do with our govt.

You wanna get our economy back on track, vote Ron Paul as he will end the Fed. Reserve on his first day in office. Something that must be done. Nothing else really matters to me at this point, there will be no recovery and we will never have our country back as long as the Fed. Reserve is allowed to wield its unchecked power. It is unconstitutional, and 99.9% responsible for the mess we are in now. They make tons of money when we are in deep debt.

I am not confused. The Fed is just doing the federal government's bidding. Practically every country that accumulates a massive public debt eventually resorts to devaluing its own currency to delay the inevitable by allowing the debtor nation to repay some of its debt with increasingly worthless paper.

You are technically correct about the Federal Reserve not being a government entity but its Chairman is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate and he delivers periodic reports directly to Congress. They are not really fooling anybody about who is really in responsible for the decline of our currency or their reasons for inflating the dollar.

[Hoot Gibson]

Hoot, Im never going to believe that opening up other drilling places (something I support BTW) is going to affect gas prices.

IF you don't think the few oil companies that remain don't have a monopoly on the American market, then this isn't going to go anywhere. Hell, one of my good friends fathers was Senior Vice President of Refining for one of the big oil companies until 2010. I have had long discussions about these things with him. IT IS a monopoly.

This is why these remaining oil companies went around buying up all the competition until there were only a few left, cut production, and started quadrupling profits. There were no competitors to counter this and put them out of business. Once they had a stranglehold they could make enough gas to meet the country's demand, but use the excuse of the production cuts to jack up prices, even though supply was meeting demand. They took full advantage of Wall St. and I wouldnt be surprised if they played a large role in it themselves.

Market prices are set by real and expected shortages and surpluses. Speculators are speculating that prices will continue to climb in the future and I agree with them. The expectations of speculators are a symptom of high gasoline prices, not the cause.

70 percent of the cost of a gallon of gasoline is the cost of the crude oil from which it is refined and American companies have no ability to fix that price independently of the global market. I have seen what changes in government policies can do to affect the price of gasoline. The threat of or the presence of real competition in the market always places pressure on producers to drop their price.

Do you realize that this country could be producing gasoline from coal profitably even if crude oil dropped to $50/barrel? Our federal government could make coal-based gasoline a competitor to crude oil and force prices downward but our genius president has declared war on fossil fuels. Instead, Obama is lining the pockets of wealthy bundlers like the ones who took $500 million in taxpayer money to start now defunct Solyndra.

American politicians want you to buy their demonization of large oil companies but the truth is and always has been that the most profitable of those companies post typical profit margins of 10 percent or less. They are huge companies that employ thousands of Americans, so 10 percent of their sales adds up to a lot of money but 10 percent is one-third or less than the profit earned by successful companies in other sectors of the economy.

Google, Microsoft, Apple and other tech companies make a far greater return on their investments but you will never hear Obama demonize them for their success. GE paid no federal income taxes last year and the result was having their CEO named as a top Obama economic adviser.

Stop believing the propaganda oozing from the slime of Washington, DC. Big oil companies pay roughly three times more in taxes than they reap in profits. They have an image problem because they do not support government policies that have targeted them for extinction.

[TheRealVille]

Market prices are set by real and expected shortages and surpluses. Speculators are speculating that prices will continue to climb in the future and I agree with them. The expectations of speculators are a symptom of high gasoline prices, not the cause.

70 percent of the cost of a gallon of gasoline is the cost of the crude oil from which it is refined and American companies have no ability to fix that price independently of the global market. I have seen what changes in government policies can do to affect the price of gasoline. The threat of or the presence of real competition in the market always places pressure on producers to drop their price.

Do you realize that this country could be producing gasoline from coal profitably even if crude oil dropped to $50/barrel? Our federal government could make coal-based gasoline a competitor to crude oil and force prices downward but our genius president has declared war on fossil fuels. Instead, Obama is lining the pockets of wealthy bundlers like the ones who took $500 million in taxpayer money to start now defunct Solyndra.

American politicians want you to buy their demonization of large oil companies but the truth is and always has been that the most profitable of those companies post typical profit margins of 10 percent or less. They are huge companies that employ thousands of Americans, so 10 percent of their sales adds up to a lot of money but 10 percent is one-third or less than the profit earned by successful companies in other sectors of the economy.

Google, Microsoft, Apple and other tech companies make a far greater return on their investments but you will never hear Obama demonize them for their success. GE paid no federal income taxes last year and the result was having their CEO named as a top Obama economic adviser.

Stop believing the propaganda oozing from the slime of Washington, DC. Big oil companies pay roughly three times more in taxes than they reap in profits. They have an image problem because they do not support government policies that have targeted them for extinction.

I am getting ready to help build one of these "coal to gas" plants in WV. We just got the last investor on a 4 billion dollar plant, and the ground is already broke. We will be on the job probably late 2012/ early 2013. What does that have to do with Obama?

[Beetle01]

Market prices are set by real and expected shortages and surpluses. Speculators are speculating that prices will continue to climb in the future and I agree with them. The expectations of speculators are a symptom of high gasoline prices, not the cause.

70 percent of the cost of a gallon of gasoline is the cost of the crude oil from which it is refined and American companies have no ability to fix that price independently of the global market. I have seen what changes in government policies can do to affect the price of gasoline. The threat of or the presence of real competition in the market always places pressure on producers to drop their price.

Do you realize that this country could be producing gasoline from coal profitably even if crude oil dropped to $50/barrel? Our federal government could make coal-based gasoline a competitor to crude oil and force prices downward but our genius president has declared war on fossil fuels. Instead, Obama is lining the pockets of wealthy bundlers like the ones who took $500 million in taxpayer money to start now defunct Solyndra.

American politicians want you to buy their demonization of large oil companies but the truth is and always has been that the most profitable of those companies post typical profit margins of 10 percent or less. They are huge companies that employ thousands of Americans, so 10 percent of their sales adds up to a lot of money but 10 percent is one-third or less than the profit earned by successful companies in other sectors of the economy.

Google, Microsoft, Apple and other tech companies make a far greater return on their investments but you will never hear Obama demonize them for their success. GE paid no federal income taxes last year and the result was having their CEO named as a top Obama economic adviser.

Stop believing the propaganda oozing from the slime of Washington, DC. Big oil companies pay roughly three times more in taxes than they reap in profits. They have an image problem because they do not support government policies that have targeted them for extinction.

Wrong, in 2009 Exxon paid zero federal income taxes. When they report taxes they do it in a way so that it seems they are paying all this money, however, they include payroll taxes, state taxes, property taxes, and a load of other nonsense in their "press releases". In 2010 they paid 18% in federal income tax, that is less than me and I work full time and go to school full time.

Look I am all for some of the drilling, and other options America can take to be free of the Middle Easts oil. However, I am not foolish enough to think that alone is what is driving up prices. How can prices be so high and oil companies being making triple and quadruple previous record profits, but in your eyes its all the govts fault. Plenty of blame to go around, dont try and defend these sleezy, greedy, scumbag corps who rape our country.

More than anything, to drive prices down we need to go in and break these companies up. They DO have a monopoly. Look at the number of US companies who actually refine gas. About 90% or more of the gas refined in this country is from less than a handful of companies. It used to be almost 100.

[charlie22]

When Bush took office it was 1.30-45, then went to well over 3.00 before settling back down for the Winter of the election. I paid 4.59 for diesel in Michigan while Bush was in office. Why aren't you telling about the 3.00+ gas prices during Bush's term? Usual half-truths from the right.


The numbers are 20,000(Canada's figures,) or 4500 by other surveys. That's during construction, then the jobs will be gone. BTW, since when is the right concerned about union jobs, because that is who will run that line? Pipeliners Local 798 out of Tulsa, OK run all major lines in the US. There are no permanent jobs in this pipeline. Look at the map(http://www.bluegrassrivals.com/forum/sho...tcount=22) in the other thread, and tell me why they can't tie onto their existing(2010) pipeline somewhere in Kansas or Missouri, then head south. Why do they have to run a brand new line across that waterway, only to tie into the existing one on the other side of the water?

We have surplus gas right now.

They might be temporary jobs but aren't all construction related jobs all temporary jobs? Surely you aren't meaning to de-value the importance of contruction jobs to the construction workers, their families that depend on them and the local economies benefitted by the contruction paychecks being spent.

We very well may have a gas surplus right now, but when the economies in the US, Europe, etc. recover there won't be a surplus and gas prices will shoot the roof if we don't have greater supply capacity. Build the blooming pipeline; provide jobs for those construction workers; and have the supply capacity to meet the demand when the economy recovers.

Put aside the argument as to whether the pipeline will or will not decrease the price of gas in the US. There is another, I think more important reason to build it. Frankly I love the idea we are currently exporting gas. That's not a reason not to build the pipeline; it's a reason to build it! The more products, good and services we can export, the better as such will help off set the huge trade deficit. A trade deficit is very bad for America. It means more dollars, more wealth is leaving the country than is coming into it. Eventually that causes big problems for the US. Think of dollars in an economy as water in the bucket. If more water leaves the bucket than is placed in it, the bucket goes dry. Water is essential; so is wealth in an economy. Every barrel of gas we export means some other country is sending their wealth to the US, where it can be spent on US jobs or reinvested in more job producing businesses. Heck, even if the money is just distributed as dividends to the shareholders of the refinery companies, it ends up benefitting the US economy in some way. Shareholders buy things with their dividends, hopefully American made things. Shareholders use those dividends to make their own business investments. Or heaven forbid they place them in their savings accounts, which the banks then use to make business loans to companies wanting to expand or start up. It doesn't matter where it goes, it eventually greats jobs and sloshes around the US economy. So if for that reason and that reason alone, build the blasted pipeline. If there is a spill and some pretty areas of the country get dirty for a while until it's cleaned up, so be it. Remember all the doom and gloom concerning the total devastation that was going to occur along the Gulf shore? Been to the Gulf lately? It's not perfect yet, but it's recovered very nicely.

If President Obama doesn't reverse this decision it won't surprise me to see the Chinese built a huge refinery in Canada and export the gas to China or other parts of the world (and won't it just frost our little backsides when demand gets so high that we are paying the Chinese a King's ransom to buy the gas that we could have produced if the pipeline had gone through).

[Hoot Gibson]

Wrong, in 2009 Exxon paid zero federal income taxes. When they report taxes they do it in a way so that it seems they are paying all this money, however, they include payroll taxes, state taxes, property taxes, and a load of other nonsense in their "press releases". In 2010 they paid 18% in federal income tax, that is less than me and I work full time and go to school full time.

Look I am all for some of the drilling, and other options America can take to be free of the Middle Easts oil. However, I am not foolish enough to think that alone is what is driving up prices. How can prices be so high and oil companies being making triple and quadruple previous record profits, but in your eyes its all the govts fault. Plenty of blame to go around, dont try and defend these sleezy, greedy, scumbag corps who rape our country.

More than anything, to drive prices down we need to go in and break these companies up. They DO have a monopoly. Look at the number of US companies who actually refine gas. About 90% or more of the gas refined in this country is from less than a handful of companies. It used to be almost 100.

Actually, my statement was not wrong. I made no mention in my post of U.S. federal income taxes. My statement was that Exxon typically pays more than three times as much in taxes as it makes in profits. Most of Exxon's income is generated from sales outside of this country and it pays some extremely high tax rates (85 percent in Nigeria).

Maybe if Exxon-Mobil was allowed to produce more crude oil in this country, our federal government would be collecting more income taxes. As for comparing your effective income ax rate to the one that ExxonMobil pays, if you want to be fair, then you would add the 15 percent capital gains tax that shareholders pay on their earnings and also take into account the sales taxes that the company pays.

I personally do not believe that any corporation should pay income taxes because it constitutes double taxation and eliminating the corporate income tax would trigger an explosive growth in our economy, the likes of which has never been seen in this country.

If you are really interested in how much Exxon makes and how much it pays in taxes (income, sales, and duties), I suggest that you take time to read the company's financial statements. To save yourself some time, I suggest that you jump to page F-59 of the document linked below.

ExxonMobile 2010 Financial Statements and Supplemental Information

[Hoot Gibson]

They might be temporary jobs but aren't all construction related jobs all temporary jobs? Surely you aren't meaning to de-value the importance of contruction jobs to the construction workers, their families that depend on them and the local economies benefitted by the contruction paychecks being spent.

We very well may have a gas surplus right now, but when the economies in the US, Europe, etc. recover there won't be a surplus and gas prices will shoot the roof if we don't have greater supply capacity. Build the blooming pipeline; provide jobs for those construction workers; and have the supply capacity to meet the demand when the economy recovers.

Put aside the argument as to whether the pipeline will or will not decrease the price of gas in the US. There is another, I think more important reason to build it. Frankly I love the idea we are currently exporting gas. That's not a reason not to build the pipeline; it's a reason to build it! The more products, good and services we can export, the better as such will help off set the huge trade deficit. A trade deficit is very bad for America. It means more dollars, more wealth is leaving the country than is coming into it. Eventually that causes big problems for the US. Think of dollars in an economy as water in the bucket. If more water leaves the bucket than is placed in it, the bucket goes dry. Water is essential; so is wealth in an economy. Every barrel of gas we export means some other country is sending their wealth to the US, where it can be spent on US jobs or reinvested in more job producing businesses. Heck, even if the money is just distributed as dividends to the shareholders of the refinery companies, it ends up benefitting the US economy in some way. Shareholders buy things with their dividends, hopefully American made things. Shareholders use those dividends to make their own business investments. Or heaven forbid they place them in their savings accounts, which the banks then use to make business loans to companies wanting to expand or start up. It doesn't matter where it goes, it eventually greats jobs and sloshes around the US economy. So if for that reason and that reason alone, build the blasted pipeline. If there is a spill and some pretty areas of the country get dirty for a while until it's cleaned up, so be it. Remember all the doom and gloom concerning the total devastation that was going to occur along the Gulf shore? Been to the Gulf lately? It's not perfect yet, but it's recovered very nicely.

If President Obama doesn't reverse this decision it won't surprise me to see the Chinese built a huge refinery in Canada and export the gas to China or other parts of the world (and won't it just frost our little backsides when demand gets so high that we are paying the Chinese a King's ransom to buy the gas that we could have produced if the pipeline had gone through).

It's nice to see you posting here, Charlie. I hope that this marks the beginning of a trend.

Hopefully, the Canadians will at least wait until after the election before deciding whether to start signing long term commitments with China. If Obama is returned to office, I do not think there is much hope of seeing the pipeline built.

[TheRealVille]

They might be temporary jobs but aren't all construction related jobs all temporary jobs? Surely you aren't meaning to de-value the importance of contruction jobs to the construction workers, their families that depend on them and the local economies benefitted by the contruction paychecks being spent.

We very well may have a gas surplus right now, but when the economies in the US, Europe, etc. recover there won't be a surplus and gas prices will shoot the roof if we don't have greater supply capacity. Build the blooming pipeline; provide jobs for those construction workers; and have the supply capacity to meet the demand when the economy recovers.

Put aside the argument as to whether the pipeline will or will not decrease the price of gas in the US. There is another, I think more important reason to build it. Frankly I love the idea we are currently exporting gas. That's not a reason not to build the pipeline; it's a reason to build it! The more products, good and services we can export, the better as such will help off set the huge trade deficit. A trade deficit is very bad for America. It means more dollars, more wealth is leaving the country than is coming into it. Eventually that causes big problems for the US. Think of dollars in an economy as water in the bucket. If more water leaves the bucket than is placed in it, the bucket goes dry. Water is essential; so is wealth in an economy. Every barrel of gas we export means some other country is sending their wealth to the US, where it can be spent on US jobs or reinvested in more job producing businesses. Heck, even if the money is just distributed as dividends to the shareholders of the refinery companies, it ends up benefitting the US economy in some way. Shareholders buy things with their dividends, hopefully American made things. Shareholders use those dividends to make their own business investments. Or heaven forbid they place them in their savings accounts, which the banks then use to make business loans to companies wanting to expand or start up. It doesn't matter where it goes, it eventually greats jobs and sloshes around the US economy. So if for that reason and that reason alone, build the blasted pipeline. If there is a spill and some pretty areas of the country get dirty for a while until it's cleaned up, so be it. Remember all the doom and gloom concerning the total devastation that was going to occur along the Gulf shore? Been to the Gulf lately? It's not perfect yet, but it's recovered very nicely.

If President Obama doesn't reverse this decision it won't surprise me to see the Chinese built a huge refinery in Canada and export the gas to China or other parts of the world (and won't it just frost our little backsides when demand gets so high that we are paying the Chinese a King's ransom to buy the gas that we could have produced if the pipeline had gone through).

I would suggest that you go back through the thread and read what I've posted.

[charlie22]

It's nice to see you posting here, Charlie. I hope that this marks the beginning of a trend.

Hopefully, the Canadians will at least wait until after the election before deciding whether to start signing long term commitments with China. If Obama is returned to office, I do not think there is much hope of seeing the pipeline built.

Thanks Hoot. Time will somewhat limit my posting in this forum. And when I do, some of them may surprise you. For example, while I'm not in support of the federal govt's investment in Solyndra and the other related companies, I'm very much supportive of the federal govt investing in alternative energy. I believe that the federal govt should be creating a Manhattan Project type federal ran and operated organization, hiring directly the best and brightest scientists, and pouring tons of federal dollars in alternative energy R and D.

My reasons for thinking that way: the sooner we stop sending billions overseas to buy oil (and often funding regimes covertly or overtly hostile to us) the more secure our national interests will be and the better it will be for our trade balance.

I also believe that if it can be reasonably concluded that we have the natural gas supply (and from what I know, I think it has), I think the federal govt should fund the construction of a natural gas distribution pipeline up and down the interstates to stimulate the conversion of semis (and eventually pedestrian vehicles) to natural gas. Charge the natural gas companies that will profit for their use of the distribution system, but go ahead and federally fund the installation/construction of the distribution system.

I do think that in tough economic times, the federal govt should have increased spending on projects that are well thought out and are long lasting (for example replacing the failing bridges throughout the US).

[charlie22]

Since I waited too long to edit my prior post, I'll repost with what I want my edited post to be:

Thanks Hoot. Time will somewhat limit my posting in this forum. And when I do, some of them may surprise you. For example, while I'm not in support of the federal govt's investment in Solyndra and the other related companies, I'm very much supportive of the federal govt investing in alternative energy. I believe that the federal govt should be creating a Manhattan Project type federally ran and operated organization, hiring directly the best and brightest scientists, and pouring tons of federal dollars in alternative energy R and D.

My reasons for thinking that way: the sooner we stop sending billions overseas to buy oil (and often funding regimes covertly or overtly hostile to us) the more secure our national interests will be and the better it will be for our trade balance.

I also believe that if it can be reasonably concluded that we have the natural gas supply (and from what I know, I think it has), I think the federal govt should fund the construction of a natural gas distribution pipeline up and down the interstates to stimulate the conversion of semis (and eventually pedestrian vehicles) to natural gas. Charge the natural gas companies that will profit for their use of the distribution system, but go ahead and federally fund the installation/construction of the distribution system.

I do think that in tough economic times, the federal govt should have increased spending on projects that are well thought out and are long lasting (for example replacing the failing bridges throughout the US). Rather than simply hand out money in the form of prolonged unemployment benefits (where people get money for doing nothing) they should be doing some work for the money they receive from the govt. I'd prefer the work to be on something beneficial to the country, but doing anything for a paycheck (even if it's just picking up trash, painting school buildings, doing work in national parks, etc) beats giving a person money for doing nothing.

Perhaps this downturn in the economy snuck up on the federal govt and caught it unprepared to wisely invest in projects, which limited the shovel ready jobs available to be funded quickly to stimulate the economy. Then again, the military spends considerable time and money war planning for the unexpected and regulaly updates their plans. Why can't the federal govt have a standing commission war planning for projects that it will invest in when needed so that it is not so unprepared in the future? Prioritize the projects. Some will get funded in the normal course, but as they are completed and taken off the list, new ones come on. When the economy goes to hell, the federal govt is ready to go. The problem was not having qualified construction companies available to bid on and complete the projects; the problem was that the federal govt was not ready to quickly pull the trigger on enough impactful and meaningful projects to make enough of a difference.

This may sound like heresy, but I do admire some aspects of the centralized planning and thinking of the Chinese govt. They have well thought out, long range plans for improving their country. We fly by the seat of our pants and are reactive instead of proactive.

[Hoot Gibson]

BTW the govt is not devaluing our dollar. The Federal Reserve is devaluing our dollar, and don't let the word Federal confuse you. It is a group of private bankers, it has nothing to do with our govt.

You wanna get our economy back on track, vote Ron Paul as he will end the Fed. Reserve on his first day in office. Something that must be done. Nothing else really matters to me at this point, there will be no recovery and we will never have our country back as long as the Fed. Reserve is allowed to wield its unchecked power. It is unconstitutional, and 99.9% responsible for the mess we are in now. They make tons of money when we are in deep debt.

It's official, the Fed acknowledges long-term plan to devalue the dollar. If the federal government could limit spending increases below the rate of GDP, the budget would eventually balance itself as we paid interest on the debt with increasingly cheap dollars - but no government has successfully and intentionally inflated their currency and reined in wasteful spending. We are on a path to our own destruction.

[INDENT]

The Federal Reserve's Explicit Goal: Devalue The Dollar 33%

For the first time Wednesday the U.S. Federal Reserve announced that it will specify a 2% long-run inflation target, the level that was long-considered the central bank’s implicit goal.

The news came after the central bank wrapped up a two-day monetary policy meeting Wednesday with the decision to keep interest rates at exceptionally low levels until at least late 2014, compared with mid-2013 as of December.

<-----SNIP----->

The Federal Reserve Open Market Committee (FOMC) has made it official: After its latest two day meeting, it announced its goal to devalue the dollar by 33% over the next 20 years. The debauch of the dollar will be even greater if the Fed exceeds its goal of a 2 percent per year increase in the price level.

An increase in the price level of 2% in any one year is barely noticeable. Under a gold standard, such an increase was uncommon, but not unknown. The difference is that when the dollar was as good as gold, the years of modest inflation would be followed, in time, by declining prices. As a consequence, over longer periods of time, the price level was unchanged. A dollar 20 years hence was still worth a dollar.

But, an increase of 2% a year over a period of 20 years will lead to a 50% increase in the price level. It will take 150 (2032) dollars to purchase the same basket of goods 100 (2012) dollars can buy today. What will be called the “dollar” in 2032 will be worth one-third less (100/150) than what we call a dollar today.

[/INDENT]

[Hoot Gibson]

Since I waited too long to edit my prior post, I'll repost with what I want my edited post to be:

Thanks Hoot. Time will somewhat limit my posting in this forum. And when I do, some of them may surprise you. For example, while I'm not in support of the federal govt's investment in Solyndra and the other related companies, I'm very much supportive of the federal govt investing in alternative energy. I believe that the federal govt should be creating a Manhattan Project type federally ran and operated organization, hiring directly the best and brightest scientists, and pouring tons of federal dollars in alternative energy R and D.

My reasons for thinking that way: the sooner we stop sending billions overseas to buy oil (and often funding regimes covertly or overtly hostile to us) the more secure our national interests will be and the better it will be for our trade balance.

I also believe that if it can be reasonably concluded that we have the natural gas supply (and from what I know, I think it has), I think the federal govt should fund the construction of a natural gas distribution pipeline up and down the interstates to stimulate the conversion of semis (and eventually pedestrian vehicles) to natural gas. Charge the natural gas companies that will profit for their use of the distribution system, but go ahead and federally fund the installation/construction of the distribution system.

I do think that in tough economic times, the federal govt should have increased spending on projects that are well thought out and are long lasting (for example replacing the failing bridges throughout the US). Rather than simply hand out money in the form of prolonged unemployment benefits (where people get money for doing nothing) they should be doing some work for the money they receive from the govt. I'd prefer the work to be on something beneficial to the country, but doing anything for a paycheck (even if it's just picking up trash, painting school buildings, doing work in national parks, etc) beats giving a person money for doing nothing.

Perhaps this downturn in the economy snuck up on the federal govt and caught it unprepared to wisely invest in projects, which limited the shovel ready jobs available to be funded quickly to stimulate the economy. Then again, the military spends considerable time and money war planning for the unexpected and regulaly updates their plans. Why can't the federal govt have a standing commission war planning for projects that it will invest in when needed so that it is not so unprepared in the future? Prioritize the projects. Some will get funded in the normal course, but as they are completed and taken off the list, new ones come on. When the economy goes to hell, the federal govt is ready to go. The problem was not having qualified construction companies available to bid on and complete the projects; the problem was that the federal govt was not ready to quickly pull the trigger on enough impactful and meaningful projects to make enough of a difference.

This may sound like heresy, but I do admire some aspects of the centralized planning and thinking of the Chinese govt. They have well thought out, long range plans for improving their country. We fly by the seat of our pants and are reactive instead of proactive.

I am sure that we will agree in more areas than we disagree and I am not surprised to see you support more government meddling in our economy than I do. I have mixed feelings about converting vehicles from gasoline to natural gas because one likely unintended consequence would be to sharply drive up the price of natural gas for home heating.

The buses in this area - at least in the northern Virginia suburbs - are powered by natural gas. They are a huge improvement over the smelly, smoke belching diesel buses that one usually encounters in other areas of the country. If the federal government would drop its war against fossil fuels and develop policies to increase the utilization of our own carbon-based fuels, I would support the notion of allowing the conversion of long haul freight trucks (and trains) from diesel to natural gas.

Where we disagree and where I think that you are mistaken is your support of central planning as a means to improving energy utilization in this or in any other country.

Take China for example. China tried unsuccessfully to centrally manage its economy as did the former Soviet Union. Both failed miserably. China alternately loosened its control on personal freedom and slaughtered untold thousands of people for exercising that freedom. China only began to succeed economically when they decided to free certain areas of the country from the chains of central planning. The capitalism that was unleashed in parts of China has not been seen in this country since the early part of the 20th century. Aside from acknowledging that a centrally planned communist economy cannot compete with the free market and taking action to create one of the freest markets in the world, I do not see where central planning deserves any credit for lifting maybe tens of millions of Chinese people from a miserable existence in a dirty, impoverished nation with a population of more than a billion. The Chinese government needed cash to pay for modernizing its military and it turned to capitalism for funding.

India is another example where the government's decision to loosen its grip on business in some sectors has resulted in explosive economic growth. I have worked with software developers from India for more than 10 years but until a few months ago, I had assumed that India's growing dominance in IT and high-tech call centers was the result of a good educational system and low wage rates. A couple of months ago, one of my Indian coworkers explained the real reason that Indians dominate in software development.

My friend Ganesh is an American citizen from the Mumbai area. He explained that former Indian Prime Minister Rajeev Ghandi, who was a commercial airline pilot and graduate of Cambridge, took two actions soon after he took office that precipitated the economic boom in IT. First the government built several modern airports to make it easier to conduct international business. Second, he announced a five-year moratorium on taxes for any company engaged in certain high-tech businesses, including software development. Ganesh says that Indians are not inherently better programmers than people from other areas - he believes that eastern Europe is home to the top programmers in the world - he gives the Gandhi government full credit for getting out of the way and allowing its IT start-ups to attract foreign investment and thrive.

Finally, I take issue with the widely held view of Americans that the Manhattan Project succeeded mainly because of the federal government's determination. Hitler may have unknowingly made the greatest contribution to the project by purging many of the world's top theoretical physicists from German universities and scaring other top physicists from eastern Europe into fleeing to this country and it was a letter from Albert Einstein that warned FDR about German plans to develop a nuclear weapon. Eventually, the Manhattan Project would have resulted in a workable nuclear weapon, but without the contributions of the eastern Europeans, many more Americans would have died before the first nuke was deployed in combat.

In militarily sensitive areas, projects like the Manhattan Project make sense. When the nation's survival or the lives of thousands of Americans are at stake, then the cost of developing technology becomes irrelevant. However, the case that you suggested - the development of a natural gas powered fleet of trucks and filling stations along our interstates is not essential to our survival and the same goal could be reached through wise tax policy. For example, all sorts of tax incentives could be provided to independent truckers and companies that elected to switch to natural gas powered trucks.

Direct government development in this area would be both unnecessary and inefficient because the technology already exists for such a system. Companies that produce natural gas have been running their fleets of vehicles on natural gas for decades and converting diesel engines to use natural gas, from what I understand, is trivial. All that would be required to convert trucks to natural gas would be for state and federal governments to relieve truckers of considerable tax and regulatory burdens to provide them with a financial incentive. Also, placing a cap for punitive damages in the case of accidents involving natural-gas powered trucks would probably help speed development of the new transportation network.

[charlie22]

I am sure that we will agree in more areas than we disagree and I am not surprised to see you support more government meddling in our economy than I do. I have mixed feelings about converting vehicles from gasoline to natural gas because one likely unintended consequence would be to sharply drive up the price of natural gas for home heating.

The buses in this area - at least in the northern Virginia suburbs - are powered by natural gas. They are a huge improvement over the smelly, smoke belching diesel buses that one usually encounters in other areas of the country. If the federal government would drop its war against fossil fuels and develop policies to increase the utilization of our own carbon-based fuels, I would support the notion of allowing the conversion of long haul freight trucks (and trains) from diesel to natural gas.

Where we disagree and where I think that you are mistaken is your support of central planning as a means to improving energy utilization in this or in any other country.

Take China for example. China tried unsuccessfully to centrally manage its economy as did the former Soviet Union. Both failed miserably. China alternately loosened its control on personal freedom and slaughtered untold thousands of people for exercising that freedom. China only began to succeed economically when they decided to free certain areas of the country from the chains of central planning. The capitalism that was unleashed in parts of China has not been seen in this country since the early part of the 20th century. Aside from acknowledging that a centrally planned communist economy cannot compete with the free market and taking action to create one of the freest markets in the world, I do not see where central planning deserves any credit for lifting maybe tens of millions of Chinese people from a miserable existence in a dirty, impoverished nation with a population of more than a billion. The Chinese government needed cash to pay for modernizing its military and it turned to capitalism for funding.

India is another example where the government's decision to loosen its grip on business in some sectors has resulted in explosive economic growth. I have worked with software developers from India for more than 10 years but until a few months ago, I had assumed that India's growing dominance in IT and high-tech call centers was the result of a good educational system and low wage rates. A couple of months ago, one of my Indian coworkers explained the real reason that Indians dominate in software development.

My friend Ganesh is an American citizen from the Mumbai area. He explained that former Indian Prime Minister Rajeev Ghandi, who was a commercial airline pilot and graduate of Cambridge, took two actions soon after he took office that precipitated the economic boom in IT. First the government built several modern airports to make it easier to conduct international business. Second, he announced a five-year moratorium on taxes for any company engaged in certain high-tech businesses, including software development. Ganesh says that Indians are not inherently better programmers than people from other areas - he believes that eastern Europe is home to the top programmers in the world - he gives the Gandhi government full credit for getting out of the way and allowing its IT start-ups to attract foreign investment and thrive.

Finally, I take issue with the widely held view of Americans that the Manhattan Project succeeded mainly because of the federal government's determination. Hitler may have unknowingly made the greatest contribution to the project by purging many of the world's top theoretical physicists from German universities and scaring other top physicists from eastern Europe into fleeing to this country and it was a letter from Albert Einstein that warned FDR about German plans to develop a nuclear weapon. Eventually, the Manhattan Project would have resulted in a workable nuclear weapon, but without the contributions of the eastern Europeans, many more Americans would have died before the first nuke was deployed in combat.

In militarily sensitive areas, projects like the Manhattan Project make sense. When the nation's survival or the lives of thousands of Americans are at stake, then the cost of developing technology becomes irrelevant. However, the case that you suggested - the development of a natural gas powered fleet of trucks and filling stations along our interstates is not essential to our survival and the same goal could be reached through wise tax policy. For example, all sorts of tax incentives could be provided to independent truckers and companies that elected to switch to natural gas powered trucks.

Direct government development in this area would be both unnecessary and inefficient because the technology already exists for such a system. Companies that produce natural gas have been running their fleets of vehicles on natural gas for decades and converting diesel engines to use natural gas, from what I understand, is trivial. All that would be required to convert trucks to natural gas would be for state and federal governments to relieve truckers of considerable tax and regulatory burdens to provide them with a financial incentive. Also, placing a cap for punitive damages in the case of accidents involving natural-gas powered trucks would probably help speed development of the new transportation network.

I guess I didn't make myself clear: I didn't want the Manhattan Project type involvement for the natural gas distribution system I proposed. You are right; the technology is here. I wanted federal involvement in the construction of a distribution system along the inter states. I wanted the Manhattan Project type federal involvement for R&D of solar energy and for battery improvements.

And while you are right about the number of the scientists that came from Europe, I think you are vastly undervaluing the impact the US govt had in the funding and managing of the development of nuclear weapons.

Finally, while China has greatly loosened the reins on capitalism in China, the central govt still plays a very big hand in the economy and its planning. The push of China to purchase and tie up a considerable amount of precious metals is being lead by the cental govt. The construction of the infrastructure needed to boost manufacturing for both export and domestic consumption is being pushed by a forward thinking central govt. The huge increase in alternative energy R & D is being funded by the central govt. There is still considerable regulation of foreign investment in China and the regulation is done to protect certain domestic industries that the central govt is needed to protect its national interests and to incentivize certain foreign industries to come to China (where China will steal the technology). If you don't take the China Daily, I encourage you to do so. While it seems to be a mouthpiece of the central govt (in my opinion) it is pretty informative.

[Hoot Gibson]

I guess I didn't make myself clear: I didn't want the Manhattan Project type involvement for the natural gas distribution system I proposed. You are right; the technology is here. I wanted federal involvement in the construction of a distribution system along the inter states. I wanted the Manhattan Project type federal involvement for R&D of solar energy and for battery improvements.

And while you are right about the number of the scientists that came from Europe, I think you are vastly undervaluing the impact the US govt had in the funding and managing of the development of nuclear weapons.

I do not mean to diminish the role that the US government played in developing the first nuclear weapons. Without government funding, there would have been no nuclear bomb developed in time to use in Japan and tens if not hundreds of thousands of additional Americans would have died before Japan was subdued. My point is that without the Jewish scientists and the knowledge that they gained in European universities before Hitler began purging their ranks, the bomb might well have come to late to have been used in WW II. Our side was the beneficiary of both some excellent decisions by the US government combined with Hitler's extremely bad judgment.

Finally, while China has greatly loosened the reins on capitalism in China, the central govt still plays a very big hand in the economy and its planning. The push of China to purchase and tie up a considerable amount of precious metals is being lead by the cental govt. The construction of the infrastructure needed to boost manufacturing for both export and domestic consumption is being pushed by a forward thinking central govt. The huge increase in alternative energy R & D is being funded by the central govt. There is still considerable regulation of foreign investment in China and the regulation is done to protect certain domestic industries that the central govt is needed to protect its national interests and to incentivize certain foreign industries to come to China (where China will steal the technology). If you don't take the China Daily, I encourage you to do so. While it seems to be a mouthpiece of the central govt (in my opinion) it is pretty informative.

I read the China Daily and South China Morning Post occasionally but I do not profess to be an expert on the Chinese economy. I agree that in certain areas - most importantly securing sources of energy, China's government maintains an iron grip. However, my understanding is that in many areas, China's economy is much freer than our own.

A few months ago, a South African owner of a large engraving and awards company spent a couple of weeks in China touring factories and warehouses in the area of China where laser engravers are manufactured. He provided a daily first hand account, complete with photos of what it is like to conduct business in China. It was a real eye opener for me. I have never believed that US companies have moved operations or farmed out their manufacturing to countries like China simply because of cheap labor but I had no idea what strides the Chinese had made in quality management and customer satisfaction. The laser engravers made in the US and western Europe are still far superior in quality to the Chinese models but they typically cost three to four times as much and the gap in quality and support is quickly narrowing. Surrendering central control over large chunks of the economy is what has fueled China's entry into the 21st century. Its government needed cash and its top heavy, centrally planned economy was not producing.

I do not agree that the federal government needs to be directly involved with building the infrastructure for a network of natural gas filling stations along the interstate. I can see where the governments' rights of eminent domain may need to be exercised in some areas but, given the right government policies, converting big rigs to run on natural gas and building the refueling network could be done with little or no taxpayer funding.

IMO, the case for having politicians decide that companies like Solyndra deserve public financing is much weaker than your proposal to fund the overhaul of freight transportation. Inevitably, federal contracts and other prizes are given to people well connected politically.

In terms of current dollars, the Manhattan Project cost roughly $24.4 billion. Compare the payoff of that expenditure to the $780 billion that our current federal government blew on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Government funding of non-military technologies should be pursued only as a last resort. Our tax and regulatory policies have made our economy increasingly less competitive - not the failure of our bloated, near bankrupt federal government to "invest" in the future.

While countries like China and India are employing the principles that gave this country its competitive advantage for decades, our own country is shackling the free market and leading us down the road to the socialist heavily bureaucratic systems that impoverished India and China for decades.

[charlie22]

I do not mean to diminish the role that the US government played in developing the first nuclear weapons. Without government funding, there would have been no nuclear bomb developed in time to use in Japan and tens if not hundreds of thousands of additional Americans would have died before Japan was subdued. My point is that without the Jewish scientists and the knowledge that they gained in European universities before Hitler began purging their ranks, the bomb might well have come to late to have been used in WW II. Our side was the beneficiary of both some excellent decisions by the US government combined with Hitler's extremely bad judgment.

I read the China Daily and South China Morning Post occasionally but I do not profess to be an expert on the Chinese economy. I agree that in certain areas - most importantly securing sources of energy, China's government maintains an iron grip. However, my understanding is that in many areas, China's economy is much freer than our own.

A few months ago, a South African owner of a large engraving and awards company spent a couple of weeks in China touring factories and warehouses in the area of China where laser engravers are manufactured. He provided a daily first hand account, complete with photos of what it is like to conduct business in China. It was a real eye opener for me. I have never believed that US companies have moved operations or farmed out their manufacturing to countries like China simply because of cheap labor but I had no idea what strides the Chinese had made in quality management and customer satisfaction. The laser engravers made in the US and western Europe are still far superior in quality to the Chinese models but they typically cost three to four times as much and the gap in quality and support is quickly narrowing. Surrendering central control over large chunks of the economy is what has fueled China's entry into the 21st century. Its government needed cash and its top heavy, centrally planned economy was not producing.

I do not agree that the federal government needs to be directly involved with building the infrastructure for a network of natural gas filling stations along the interstate. I can see where the governments' rights of eminent domain may need to be exercised in some areas but, given the right government policies, converting big rigs to run on natural gas and building the refueling network could be done with little or no taxpayer funding.

IMO, the case for having politicians decide that companies like Solyndra deserve public financing is much weaker than your proposal to fund the overhaul of freight transportation. Inevitably, federal contracts and other prizes are given to people well connected politically.

In terms of current dollars, the Manhattan Project cost roughly $24.4 billion. Compare the payoff of that expenditure to the $780 billion that our current federal government blew on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Government funding of non-military technologies should be pursued only as a last resort. Our tax and regulatory policies have made our economy increasingly less competitive - not the failure of our bloated, near bankrupt federal government to "invest" in the future.

While countries like China and India are employing the principles that gave this country its competitive advantage for decades, our own country is shackling the free market and leading us down the road to the socialist heavily bureaucratic systems that impoverished India and China for decades.

As to the bolded, I obviously agree which is why I want the R and D to be done in federally owned, managed and operated facilities (similar to the Manhattan Project concept) as opposed to investing in some private business whose owners shuck out political donations. Heck if our tax dollars are going to fund the development, I don't want some private business getting patent protection on the new developments. If anything, I want the federal govt to license the inventions to private business so the taxpayers can get a return for their risk/investment.

We're probably closer in our thinking than you think. We have some differences. I look at the race to develop effective alternative energy sources before China does as something similar in nature to the race to the Moon and as something that must have the financial backing and management of the federal govt. Not everything the federal govt touches goes to crap. Actually I view the alternative energy source race to be of more importance. Last thing we want is to have the Chinese develop the technology first. They'll patent protect it; charge a fortune for us to use it; and our court system will protect the Chinese patents at the same time the Chinese govt gives almost no protection to the patents of US companies (I know the Chinese govt says they are working hard to produce tougher legislation but I'm not a believer yet).

[tvtimeout]

I heard over and over again the charge being made during the Bush Administration. "Bush is in bed with big oil" The fact that it SPIKED, once in eight years, can't be compared to three plus years of 3.50 a gallon prices of your hero's administration. Or the fact that he is trying to kill the pipeline. How does an oil company's willingness to make a profit by exporting gas make a political point for (bolded) you? You said you had no problem with the pipeline if it didn't go across (your words) "that waterway." I gave you the link for a map published by a liberal source showing HUNDREDS of pipelines going across "that waterway," Additionally, 95% of the whole state of Nebraska rests over the Ogallala Aquifer, matter of fact, if Nebraska lost the land not over the aquifer, they'd never miss it! What is the difference in your mind regarding this particular pipeline crossing the state of Neb vs the existing pipelines?

One minute you're saying we're about to run out of fossil fuels and we have to develope renewable energy sources, which, don't exist yet by the way, the next, you're arguing the point that we are awash in the stuff, which is it? If the pipeline doesn't go to Texas it is headed for China the way I hear it. Even you can't be in favor of that outcome. Advocating for the closure of viable electrical generating stations, high gas prices, blocking the Canadian pipeline, strangling coal mining/clean air regulations and oil drilling moratoriums in the gulf and Alaska, just cannot be reconciled with sound logic or the good of America IMO I guess that's why it's a democratic position

I beg to differ on this point... my company has found away to get 1000 gallons of fuel in an acre of land... working on it right now with the Department of Energy in Frankfort...

[Hoot Gibson]

As to the bolded, I obviously agree which is why I want the R and D to be done in federally owned, managed and operated facilities (similar to the Manhattan Project concept) as opposed to investing in some private business whose owners shuck out political donations. Heck if our tax dollars are going to fund the development, I don't want some private business getting patent protection on the new developments. If anything, I want the federal govt to license the inventions to private business so the taxpayers can get a return for their risk/investment.

We're probably closer in our thinking than you think. We have some differences. I look at the race to develop effective alternative energy sources before China does as something similar in nature to the race to the Moon and as something that must have the financial backing and management of the federal govt. Not everything the federal govt touches goes to crap. Actually I view the alternative energy source race to be of more importance. Last thing we want is to have the Chinese develop the technology first. They'll patent protect it; charge a fortune for us to use it; and our court system will protect the Chinese patents at the same time the Chinese govt gives almost no protection to the patents of US companies (I know the Chinese govt says they are working hard to produce tougher legislation but I'm not a believer yet).

With very few exceptions, and the Manhattan Project, which was undertaken in responst to an existential threat, was one of them - the federal government has a very poor record of innovation compared to the private sector. Most software development and research done under the federal umbrella is not done by government employees, it is done by federal contractors. Federal contracts historically have not always been awarded on the basis of merit. Many companes are excluded from even bidding on key contracts because they are too big or because they are not owned by members of a qualified minority. (I work for a subcontractor on such a contract.)

Federal employees are generally not known for there stomach for risk takng. Most of them are in government jobs for the long term security and benefits (there are exceptions and there is nothing wrong with seeking job security and a good pension). Entrepeneurs they are not. Think about how much money has ben spent on so-called clean coal technology and how little change there has been in coal utilization. Both the Germans and the South Africans were producing gasoline from coal decades ago and although we still have that technology and it could b employed economically, it remains undeveloped because of federal regulations. Instead, we have spent billions promoting ethanol for political reasons while damaging engines and polluting the air with contanimants more dangerous than those from gasoline.

For every expensive success story like the race to the moon or the Manhattan Project, there are many more failed boondoggles.

As for your fear that the Chinese will develop a cheap alternative fuel before we do, if we create a healthy environment for product development like we once had, I just don't see that happening. China is buiding a new coal-fired power plant about once a week, as our federal government wages war on fossil fuels and forces us into ever shrinking cars and to buy CF lights instead of incandescent bulbs. China is not waiting for alternative fuels - it is tying up carbon fuel deposits and selling solar panels to us.

[TheRealVille]

With very few exceptions, and the Manhattan Project, which was undertaken in responst to an existential threat, was one of them - the federal government has a very poor record of innovation compared to the private sector. Most software development and research done under the federal umbrella is not done by government employees, it is done by federal contractors. Federal contracts historically have not always been awarded on the basis of merit. Many companes are excluded from even bidding on key contracts because they are too big or because they are not owned by members of a qualified minority. (I work for a subcontractor on such a contract.)

Federal employees are generally not known for there stomach for risk takng. Most of them are in government jobs for the long term security and benefits (there are exceptions and there is nothing wrong with seeking job security and a good pension). Entrepeneurs they are not. Think about how much money has ben spent on so-called clean coal technology and how little change there has been in coal utilization. Both the Germans and the South Africans were producing gasoline from coal decades ago and although we still have that technology and it could b employed economically, it remains undeveloped because of federal regulations. Instead, we have spent billions promoting ethanol for political reasons while damaging engines and polluting the air with contanimants more dangerous than those from gasoline.

For every expensive success story like the race to the moon or the Manhattan Project, there are many more failed boondoggles.

As for your fear that the Chinese will develop a cheap alternative fuel before we do, if we create a healthy environment for product development like we once had, I just don't see that happening. China is buiding a new coal-fired power plant about once a week, as our federal government wages war on fossil fuels and forces us into ever shrinking cars and to buy CF lights instead of incandescent bulbs. China is not waiting for alternative fuels - it is tying up carbon fuel deposits and selling solar panels to us.

As I have stated more than once on here, there is one of those coal to gas plants getting ready to start, as we speak, in the Williamson area. The ground is broke, and the money is "in the bank". Permits are in hand. Workers will be on it in late 2012, early 2013. This is factual, first hand knowledge, on my part.


A link from WSAZ will explain a little about it.
http://www.wsaz.com/news/headlines/35798779.html

[TheRealVille]

If you will notice, at Catlettsburg, KY., heading east toward WV on I-64 at the Marathon plant, everything to your left while traveling between the plant is one of those coal to gas plants. It was finished in the early 80's. It was a government funded project, and after they fired it up and knew that it worked, the government shut it down. I don't know if it was a Reagan shut down or not, but it was during his Presidency, and has never ran after the initial fire up.

[Hoot Gibson]

As I have stated more than once on here, there is one of those coal to gas plants getting ready to start, as we speak, in the Williamson area. The ground is broke, and the money is "in the bank". Permits are in hand. Workers will be on it in late 2012, early 2013. This is factual, first hand knowledge, on my part.


A link from WSAZ will explain a little about it.
http://www.wsaz.com/news/headlines/35798779.html

Where is there currently such a plant in full production? I really hope that the proposed Gilbert plant makes it but I have been hearing rumors of such a plant being built in eastern Kentucky for years. When I see a politician taking credit for creating jobs in the private sector, I am reflexively skeptical.

It seems like it would make much more sense to locate such a plant in the Wyoming or Montana, where coal reserves are more abundant and cheaper than in the Central Appalachian coal fields, where reserves are declining and becoming very expensive to recover.

[Hoot Gibson]

If you will notice, at Catlettsburg, KY., heading east toward WV on I-64 at the Marathon plant, everything to your left while traveling between the plant is one of those coal to gas plants. It was finished in the early 80's. It was a government funded project, and after they fired it up and knew that it worked, the government shut it down. I don't know if it was a Reagan shut down or not, but it was during his Presidency, and has never ran after the initial fire up.

Gas prices plummeted and it was not economical to operate such plants between the Carter and Bush II eras. That is the risk of investing in alternative energy too soon. A relatively small shift in the price of gasoline can make the difference between making a comfortable profit and bankruptcy.

I think that the only synfuel plants built back in the 70s and early 80s were small pilot projects. It was a waste of money because, as you said, the South Africans and the German Nazis had already proven the feasibility of such plants.

[TheRealVille]

Where is there currently such a plant in full production? I really hope that the proposed Gilbert plant makes it but I have been hearing rumors of such a plant being built in eastern Kentucky for years. When I see a politician taking credit for creating jobs in the private sector, I am reflexively skeptical.

It seems like it would make much more sense to locate such a plant in the Wyoming or Montana, where coal reserves are more abundant and cheaper than in the Central Appalachian coal fields, where reserves are declining and becoming very expensive to recover.

The ground is broke, permits in hand, money in the bank from the investors. My hall has already been contacted for the manpower on the piping. My business agents have been on site, and in meetings for months now. I can't help if it would be more feasible out west or not, the first major one is going in Mingo, WV.

[TheRealVille]

You've been posting a lot though the day, yesterday and today. Are you wasting my tax money?

[Hoot Gibson]

The ground is broke, permits in hand, money in the bank from the investors. My hall has already been contacted for the manpower on the piping. My business agents have been on site, and in meetings for months now.

I wish them good luck, RV, but until the plant is operating profitably and with no government subsidy, I would be holding my breath. There is no reason that a plant such as this cannot do very well in the current market and the federal government should be facilitating the construction of many more such plants, as they make it easier to obtain new permits to mine the coal that these plants will require.

Montana's governor, Brian Schweitzer, has been advocating this technology for years. He has been frustrated with the failure of the federal government to get behind his efforts. I disagree with Scweitzer on many issues, but he makes the case for coal liquefaction better than anybody that I have heard.

[Hoot Gibson]

You've been posting a lot though the day, yesterday and today. Are you wasting my tax money?

Taxpayers are getting their money's worth. I never post from work. I had already scheduled a couple of days vacation but when I came down with a cold over the weekend I decided to stay home and take it easy. No offense, but I would much rather be coding than exchanging posts with you - but I am only allowed to work a certain number of hours a day. :biggrin:

[TheRealVille]

Taxpayers are getting their money's worth. I never post from work. I had already scheduled a couple of days vacation but when I came down with a cold over the weekend I decided to stay home and take it easy. No offense, but I would much rather be coding than exchanging posts with you - but I am only allowed to work a certain number of hours a day. :biggrin:

:Thumbs: I know you can appreciate my concern, since we both try to watch our tax dollars. As I would with any human being, I sincerely hope you get to feeling better soon.

[Hoot Gibson]

:Thumbs: I know you can appreciate my concern, since we both try to watch our tax dollars. As I would with any human being, I sincerely hope you get to feeling better soon.

Thank you. I feel well enough to have worked but I just decided to stay home since I already scheduled the time off.

[nky]

FYI
Costs

In terms of economics, coal-based liquid fuel becomes viable when the per-barrel price of oil exceeds the $45-50 range, according to separate studies. This is because of high front-end expenditures—a 10,000 barrel-a-day plant could cost $600-700 million or more to construct. All told, the refinement process is three to four times more expensive than refining an equivalent amount of oil. When biomass is mixed with coal, the process becomes even more expensive, and is only viable with oil prices above $90 per barrel, according to the Department of Energy.
Not included in the above estimate is the cost of sequestrating the captured CO2, which would increase the price of the end product by a projected $5 a barrel. The imposition of a strict carbon cap and trade regime would also raise the cost of fuel produced with CTL technology, because of the CO2 emissions associated with it. While there is significant uncertainty, the recent RAND study estimated that CTL production plus carbon storage could produce fuel at a cost of anywhere from $1.40 to $2.20 per gallon or more by 2025iii.With current oil prices hovering around $50 per barrel, it is debatable whether CTL is currently an economically attractive alternative, but this could easily change with a consistent rise in oil prices.
http://www.aaas.org/spp/cstc/briefs/coaltoliquid/

[TheRealVille]

FYI
Costs

In terms of economics, coal-based liquid fuel becomes viable when the per-barrel price of oil exceeds the $45-50 range, according to separate studies. This is because of high front-end expenditures—a 10,000 barrel-a-day [size=5]plant could cost $600-700 million or more to construct. All told, the refinement process is three to four times more expensive than refining an equivalent amount of oil. When biomass is mixed with coal, the process becomes even more expensive, and is only viable with oil prices above $90 per barrel, according to the [/SIZE]Department of Energy.
Not included in the above estimate is the cost of sequestrating the captured CO2, which would increase the price of the end product by a projected $5 a barrel. The imposition of a strict carbon cap and trade regime would also raise the cost of fuel produced with CTL technology, because of the CO2 emissions associated with it. While there is significant uncertainty, the recent RAND study estimated that CTL production plus carbon storage could produce fuel at a cost of anywhere from $1.40 to $2.20 per gallon or more by 2025iii.With current oil prices hovering around $50 per barrel, it is debatable whether CTL is currently an economically attractive alternative, but this could easily change with a consistent rise in oil prices.
http://www.aaas.org/spp/cstc/briefs/coaltoliquid/

The plant I'm talking about is estimated to run between 3.5 - 4 billion dollars to construct. It is supposed to convert 7500 tons of coal to 18,000 barrels(756,000 gallons) of gas a day.