Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (81241)	9/22/2000 5:57:54 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Precisely, Jacob. It is designed to be a strategic reserve to be used in case of emergencies which threaten national security. There is no existing emergency which justifies the use of the reserve, unless the upcoming Presidential election can be deemed an emergency. Same thing can be said about the prescription drug benefit. If it is such a good idea, why wasn't it pushed earlier? Perhaps Gore needs the votes of senior citizens? Naaah, that couldn't possibly be the case.

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (81241)	9/22/2000 6:05:50 PM
From: David E. Taylor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Jacob: OT: You're exactly right. Back in 1977, I was project manager for a US DOE funded project in NY which successfully demonstrated the conversion of crappy coal, municipal waste, and sewage sludge into a clean low BTU gas fuel for power station consumption. About a dozen full scale plants could supply the entire metropolitan NY area with power, and deal with all the garbage and sewage treatment waste. Break-even cost was equivalent to about $20/barrel oil at the time. There were literally dozens of similar coal conversion projects in the US (both government and industry funded) with a variety of end products including gasoline and heating oil, but they all died when OPEC saw the writing on the wall and cut the price of crude to render most of these projects uneconomical. This isn't "rocket science" - Germany used similar technology in WWII to produce gasoline and aviation fuel, and South Africa was self sufficient through the oil embargo of the apartheid years using similar technology. An insignificant additional tax on petroleum products from 1977 on with the funds used to subsidize this kind of development would have seen us independent of imported oil today. I guess we'll stomach the gasoline taxes to subsidize or pay for the building highways, but not not for the fuel to run the vehicles to use them. The lack of a comprehensive energy policy in the US for the last 25 years or so aimed at self-sufficiency is one of the glaring failures of our political system. David T.