Enjoy an Ads-Free Jets Insider - Become a Jets Insider VIP!
Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Coal to Gas

  1. #1
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    721
    Post Thanks / Like

    Coal to Gas

    [url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050825/pl_nm/energy_montana_dc[/url]

    I saw the governor of Montana interviewed on CNBC yesterday regarding the process of converting coal to gas, which would cost @ $30/barrel. It seems feasable assuming energy companies are willing to invest to build plants which are expensive. I've never heard of this before, but after the interview coal stocks traded up while the market was down, so I'm assuming there is some legitimacy to this. Any thoughts ?
    Last edited by kevin45; 08-31-2005 at 10:10 AM.

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    it sounds legitimate to me. Of course Bush won't help anyone take money away from the big oil companies and their ultra-profitable status quo. But maybe the next President will pursue something along those lines. One things for sure with Oil over 50 dollars a barrel to stay there will be all sorts of talk about alternatives to oil that will be driven by the market not by the lobbists in Washington.

  3. #3
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti]it sounds legitimate to me. Of course Bush won't help anyone take money away from the big oil companies and their ultra-profitable status quo. But maybe the next President will pursue something along those lines. One things for sure with Oil over 50 dollars a barrel to stay there will be all sorts of talk about alternatives to oil that will be driven by the market not by the lobbists in Washington.[/QUOTE]

    Man, you are immature. "Oil, Corporations, the Jews!!!!!!!!!" Get a new act dude. :)

  4. #4
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]Man, you are immature. "Oil, Corporations, the Jews!!!!!!!!!" Get a new act dude. :)[/QUOTE]

    5ever all i said was that Bush would never support anything that takes away from the energy industry status quo. What did I say that was so inaccurate?

    Just because you can't refute my points and you are still sore about losing the WMD argument of 2003 doesn't mean you should act snippy. Don't be a sore loser George :D

  5. #5
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    L.I. NY (where the Jets used to be from)
    Posts
    13,305
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti]it sounds legitimate to me. Of course Bush won't help anyone take money away from the big oil companies and their ultra-profitable status quo. But maybe the next President will pursue something along those lines. One things for sure with Oil over 50 dollars a barrel to stay there will be all sorts of talk about alternatives to oil that will be driven by the market not by the lobbists in Washington.[/QUOTE]

    If he did support this effort, you would hammer him on the effect the coal conversion would have on global warming, now wouldn't ya?

  6. #6
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti]5ever all i said was that Bush would never support anything that takes away from the energy industry status quo. What did I say that was so inaccurate?

    Just because you can't refute my points and you are still sore about losing the WMD argument of 2003 doesn't mean you should act snippy. Don't be a sore loser George :D[/QUOTE]

    Bitonti - you never once said that Saddam didn't have WMD, or that we wouldn't find any. Not once. If I was "wrong" than so were you. You opposed the war even if we did find huge stockpiles, and said so many times back when the search was in its early stages. Retroactively, now you say you were "right" about WMD. At the time, you said no such thing. The debate prior to the war was not over whether or not Saddam has WMD, but rather over the best method of disarming him, force or inspections. A different argument was over the need for regime change...the US argued that regime change was necessary since Saddam wouldn't cooperate. Their opponents argued against regime change (it seems, now, that this was partly or perhaps even mostly for financial reasons - ones you easily accuse Bush and the Evil Oil Companies about pursuing, yet are not-so-strangely quiet about when it comes to why so many people who profited from the Oil for Food trade with Saddam also [I]coincidentally[/I] were his biggest defenders). Nice try, though....


    You bring everything back to Bush. I can't refute something that isn't an intellectually serious, supported argument. "Bush won't ever do X!" How can such nonsense be "refuted?" I can say, "Yes, he will..." and you'll just repeat that he won't, and around and around we'll go. You are literally obssessed with Bush. Is the NR subscription not working at all?? :)

    BTW - Utne is worthless. Sorry, I've read all three and they are just awful. MJ is credible though, I enjoy reading that one....
    Last edited by jets5ever; 08-31-2005 at 11:06 AM.

  7. #7
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Westchester Co.
    Posts
    37,057
    Post Thanks / Like
    I wonder what the process of converting coal to gas would do to the environment. Didn't it turn our cities black a few short years back?

  8. #8
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Piper]If he did support this effort, you would hammer him on the effect the coal conversion would have on global warming, now wouldn't ya?[/QUOTE]

    I support any thing that weans this country off of Middle Eastern oil. Even coal, even nukes, even ANWR drilling if it was accompanies by MPG caps. I am more reasonable than you would think. What pisses me off is when it's all about preserving the failed status quo.

  9. #9
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]Nice try, though....

    BTW - Utne is worthless. Sorry, I've read all three and they are just awful. MJ is credible though, I enjoy reading that one....[/QUOTE]

    Please do me a favor and don't read Utne - if i had to do it again i would send the nation. You are right about that.

    As for the WMD discussion the bottom line here is that Bush made a mistake. It might have been based on bad intel but it wasn't the bad intel that made the decision. Harry Truman got intel from scientists that exploding the A-Bomb could incinerate the atmosphere and end all life on Earth. That was intel (bad) to be concidered and dealt with. Bush didn't just believe the bad intel he based this entire war on it. Now that we know the intel is bad what are we left with? A bunch of BS, that's what. And there's only 1 person to blame. The Buck doesn't stop with the ex-President, it stops with the current one.

  10. #10
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti]Please do me a favor and don't read Utne - if i had to do it again i would send the nation. You are right about that.

    As for the WMD discussion the bottom line here is that Bush made a mistake. It might have been based on bad intel but it wasn't the bad intel that made the decision. Harry Truman got intel from scientists that exploding the A-Bomb could incinerate the atmosphere and end all life on Earth. That was intel (bad) to be concidered and dealt with. Bush didn't just believe the bad intel he based this entire war on it. Now that we know the intel is bad what are we left with? A bunch of BS, that's what. And there's only 1 person to blame. The Buck doesn't stop with the ex-President, it stops with the current one.[/QUOTE]


    That's your opinion, and that's fine. I simply would note that the "entire" war was not based on that bad intel.


    MJ is a good magazine though...I'm still getting trhough the current issue. No worries about Utne....I appreciate that you gave me the gift subscription.

  11. #11
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    721
    Post Thanks / Like
    "I wonder what the process of converting coal to gas would do to the environment. Didn't it turn our cities black a few short years back?"

    I couldn't find anything that desribes the conversion process, but the governor says there's no smokestacks involved so I'm assuming it's cleaner than what your describing. But the finished product apparrantly is a cleaner burning fuel than diesel.

    [url]http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/fuels/altfuels/420f00036.pdf[/url]
    Last edited by kevin45; 08-31-2005 at 12:33 PM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us