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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Strictly: Drilling and oil-field services -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Frank Pembleton who wrote (92878)	7/30/2001 9:19:13 AM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 95453

Frank, there's no doubt that coal is the main culprit in terms of greenhouse gas and particulate pollution. The coal industry in Canada, the U.S., as well as China, Germany, and many other nations will have to undergo an extra cleanup effort. Ironically, many coal fired power plants in the U.S. already meet the emission requirements that would allow them to continue operating under the Kyoto agreement. As an example, power plants formerly operated by Montana Power (now sold to a company owned by Pennsylvania Power & Light) have enough scrubbers and other pollution controls already. The problem exists (in the U.S. at least, and probably in Canada as well) with the older plants that were grandfathered under the U.S. Clean Air Act. Many of these plants are located in areas to the southwest of New York State, which is suing them for contaminating lakes in the Adirondack region with acid rain. The bottom line is that, regardless of whether the Kyoto agreement ever takes effect, there are a lot of pollution problems that stem primarily from the use of coal as a fuel for generating electricity--a lot more problems from coal than from oil or natural gas. If you look at total pollution from traditional coal plants (not just CO2 but also sulphur and nitrous oxides), that's where the problem is worst and where it should be attaced first. Compared to coal, oil and natural gas are relatively clean. The possibility of nuclear as a substitute for coal is still remote until someone figures out a way of safely disposing of the wastes in a manner that won't require perpetual monitoring for the next 20,000 years. The costs of that option have never been seriously considered by nuclear advocates. My own preference, at least in the short term, is that homeowners and renters be required or encouraged to adopt energy saving measures that businsses adopted successfully during the energy crunch of the late 1970's. The major strides in energy conservation occurred mainly in the commercial and industrial sectors. The small amount of conservation occurring in residential applications was probably more than offset by larger houses built in areas that demanded longer commute distances to work--a prescription for energy waste that contributes heavily to the current problems. Art

To: Frank Pembleton who wrote (92878)	7/30/2001 9:23:01 AM
From: Tommaso	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 95453

I was just thinking about the fact that (as I read) a pipeline to Alaska and northern Canada would supply US natural gas needs for 30-50 years, and that the cost of such a pipeline is (a bargain, I would say) about $20 billion. It seems inevitable that it will get built. In that case, wouldn't Mexico's Tubos de Aceros be a natural supplier of pipe? I have never seen TAM discussed on this thread, or maybe I overlooked it in the past. Since it trades on the Amex, there's no problem buying it.