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 : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tom pope who wrote (27166)	11/15/2003 2:47:00 PM
From: Tommaso	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 206085

abcnews.go.com forbes.com Not much help. No one seems to know just what's in the 1200 pages. boston.com energycommerce.house.gov

To: tom pope who wrote (27166)	11/15/2003 2:59:15 PM
From: Tommaso	Respond to of 206085

More sites, some a little dated: planetark.org Possibly some useful links embedded here (at least one does not work): tompaine.com commondreams.org I am studying the text of the bill. It is very hard for me to get to the bottom lines of any part of it. foxnews.com

To: tom pope who wrote (27166)	11/15/2003 3:06:08 PM
From: Tommaso	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 206085

An area of special interest to me is the nuclear energy section. I hold a substantial amount of stock in USEC (symbol USU) which is reprcessing Russian warheads into reactor fuel. The new bill provides of a stockpile of such fuel, and USEC is the only source. I will be adding to my USEC holdings using margin in my cash account at the start of trading on Monday. The capitalization is big enough and my purchases are small enough, and no one pays much attention to what I say anyway, so I don't expect the stock to move right away.

To: tom pope who wrote (27166)	11/16/2003 6:05:13 PM
From: Mark Adams	Respond to of 206085

re One aspect of the energy bill: ethanol There has been lots of talk about Ethanol being net negative in terms of energy efficiency. I haven't studied the ethanol lobbie's perspective, but it appears quite a bit more than just corn (requiring a high fertilizer input) can be used as an input to Ethanol production. For example, below is a link which talks about potatoe waste (ie peels) and wood waste as inputs, supplemented with a bit of corn, of course. Potato and Wood Wastes Could Feed an Ethanol Plant westbioenergy.org I also have to wonder about the proposed impact on US producers. Brazil produces a lot of ethanol, and could import to the US. Then there is a link to US Sugar Price Supports. In the US, Sugar prices are higher than elsewhere, encouraging Candy mfgs to offshore production. Apparently, Brazil converts a lot of their sugar into ethanol. Higher domestic prices for Sugar resulting from price supports would discourage domestic conversion into ethanol. Any comments/arguments/complaints welcome. {edit} Currently, 40 countries are allowed to send 1.5 million tons of sugar to the United States each year. Any imported sugar beyond that amount is subject to a 16-cent per-pound tariff, which keeps the price of sugar at a rate where domestic farmers can support their farms. Support the domestic farms, lose the Candymaker jobs, and import the ethanol. Hmm... nola.com

To: tom pope who wrote (27166)	11/17/2003 3:55:04 AM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 206085

Energy Measure Would Limit Liability of MTBE Producers Lawsuits over water contamination from the fuel additive would be stopped retroactively. latimes.com WASHINGTON — A sweeping energy bill coming before Congress this week would not only limit the liability of manufacturers of a gasoline additive blamed for fouling water supplies from California to New Hampshire but would also give the companies up to $2 billion in federal aid, according to details of the Republican-drafted bill released Saturday. Legal protection for makers of the fuel additive methyl tertiary-butyl ether, or MTBE, is emerging as one of the more contentious provisions in the energy legislation. The bill seeks to reduce dependence on foreign oil and prevent problems like the 2000-01 California electricity crisis and this summer's Northeast blackout. The bill would provide between $16 billion and $20 billion in tax breaks to promote energy production and conservation, establish programs to modernize the nation's electric grid and mandate greater use of corn-based ethanol in gasoline. It includes projects big and small: One provision would guarantee loans to spur construction of a pipeline to bring Alaskan natural gas to the Midwest; another would fund a study of energy production from ocean waves. The measure faces its first test Monday before a House-Senate conference committee. The bill is expected to encounter criticism from some lawmakers there over a provision that would shield MTBE manufacturers from product liability lawsuits, retroactive to Sept. 5. The legislation could undermine pending court cases, such as a suit filed recently by New Hampshire officials against oil and chemical companies in connection with contamination allegedly caused by MTBE. The suit alleges that various companies minimized or concealed known hazards associated with MTBE, misleading government agencies. In another case, the Sacramento County district attorney and a group of water utilities filed suit Oct. 2 seeking compensation to clean up underground MTBE pollution. MTBE, which will be banned from California gasoline by the end of the year, helps cut auto-emission pollution but is blamed for contaminating groundwater. Whereas earlier versions of the bill provided so-called transition assistance of about $800 million to help MTBE manufacturers retool plants to make other gasoline products, the latest version of legislation increases that amount to up to $2 billion over 10 years. The legal protections have been championed by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), whose state is one of the main producers of the additive. Efforts to include the legal protections in the energy bill were prompted by lawsuits against the fuel additive's producers, including one in South Lake Tahoe last year that led to a $69-million settlement. A Washington lawyer for MTBE manufacturers said the transition assistance serves the public interest because it would encourage makers of the fuel additive to accelerate production of different clean-fuel products. "Foes of MTBE tell you that they would prefer for MTBE to leave the marketplace a lot faster than 2015," the date by which the substance must be phased out nationally, said lawyer Scott Segal. "To the extent that there is transition assistance money made available … that's all the more incentive for MTBE manufacturers to leave the marketplace sooner." Defending the retroactive date for liability protection, Segal said it is necessary to prevent a "rush to the courthouse, even with the most frivolous of claims." He said that anyone thinking of filing suit was given notice in April when the liability-limiting provision was included in a version of the bill passed by the House. GOP aides said Sept. 5 was chosen as the cutoff date for liability protection because that was the day House-Senate negotiators formally met to write the final version of the energy bill. Critics of the legal protections, including many water agencies, have said that it could shift an estimated $29 billion cost for cleaning up water supplies to taxpayers and water customers. But it wasn't clear whether the provision would cost the bill's GOP authors the support of fellow Republicans who represent states where MTBE contamination has been a problem. Ted McEnroe, a spokesman for Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine), said the legal protections raise "serious concerns," but could not say whether that would be enough to keep Snowe from voting for the bill. Sens. John E. Sununu (R-N.H.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) have also been critical of the MTBE liability protection. And two Senate Democrats running for president — Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and John F. Kerry of Massachusetts — have criticized the legal protections, underscoring how the bill, a priority of President Bush, is emerging as an issue in the 2004 presidential campaign. Howard Dean has also been critical of blanket legal protections for the MTBE makers. Industry officials have contended that Congress was responsible for promoting the use of MTBE by requiring cleaner-burning gasoline in the nation's smoggiest regions. Supporters of the provision argue that the legislation would not prevent all MTBE-related lawsuits, such as for negligence or mishandling of MTBE, but would prevent plaintiffs from claiming that MTBE is a "defective" product. The overall bill has been assailed by environmental, consumer and taxpayer groups that say it doesn't do enough to promote conservation and cleaner energy sources, such as solar and wind power. The critics also say it would deepen the federal budget deficit by about $100 billion and weaken consumer protections in electricity markets. A GOP aide said that the costs of the bill have yet to be calculated but added that its price tag should be measured against the economic impact of the Northeast blackout, the California electricity crisis and rising gasoline prices and home heating bills. Republicans hope that the provision to double the amount of corn-based ethanol that would have to be added to the nation's gasoline supply — to 5 billion gallons by 2012 — will win the support of farm-belt Democrats for the bill. But Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.) said this month that if Republicans believe they can exclude Democrats from the bill's drafting and "throw a bill to the House and the Senate and say, 'Vote on it,' and that the cherry on the sundae is ethanol … they've been sadly misinformed." A provision of the bill to give the federal government the power to override state decisions in the placement of power lines could draw opposition from Western Republicans protective of private property rights. Among of the bill's touted provisions are federal-loan guarantees and some tax incentives to spur building of a $20-billion Alaska gas pipeline, which could tap into one of the largest natural-gas reserves in the country. But ConocoPhillips failed to get the kind of tax credit that it has said is necessary to make the project viable in today's economic climate. The tax credit was opposed by the White House, which said it could distort gas markets and prove costly to the federal government. "We don't want to be perceived as 'Congress gave you everything you asked for and you didn't build the pipeline,' " said Don Duncan, ConocoPhillips' Washington lobbyist. "That's not true." But a congressional GOP aide said he thought the pipeline could still move forward even without the tax break sought by ConocoPhillips. Other provisions in the bill would: • Establish a production tax credit for nuclear power in an effort to revive the U.S. nuclear power industry; • Streamline the approval process for drilling and mining on federal land; • Establish rules for the electric grid, including fining utilities that overload transmission lines, and giving utilities incentives to invest in new lines; • Authorize $3.4 billion a year in energy assistance for low-income households; • Provide grants for generating energy from brush removal and tree thinning in fire-prone national forests; and • Authorize $300 million for solar programs, including a goal of installing 20,000 roof-top systems in federal buildings by 2010.

To: tom pope who wrote (27166)	11/19/2003 12:09:44 AM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 206085

tom, Here's a summary of the Energy Bill from Public Citizen: If passed into law, H.R.6 ("The Energy Policy Act of 2003") would be a windfall for the oil, gas, and nuclear industries, but a disaster for consumers, taxpayers, and the environment. We need senators to filibuster the bill. This is our FINAL CHANCE to defeat this terrible bill! TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE! PLEASE ACT NOW! citizen.org The following is a detailed summary of the legislation: H.R.6: A SPECIAL INTEREST SMORGASBORD H.R.6, "The Energy Policy Act of 2003," is a regressive package of subsidies to the energy industry and an affront to consumers and environmental protection. The legislation was born of Vice President Cheney's National Energy Policy Development Group (the "energy task force"), essentially a congress of energy industry representatives. The policy initiatives put forth by that exclusive, undemocratic group ultimately became H.R.6, the industry's dream bill. Some of the most reprehensible provisions in the bill, as currently drafted, include: ELECTRICITY * Repeals the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA), which would allow for the expansion of deregulation and more Enron-style debacles * Grants the power of eminent domain to the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) allowing it to seize private land to construct transmission lines, virtually eliminating local and state authority. * Gives the Department of Energy the authority to site transmission lines and distribution facilities, requiring only "consultation" with states and an opportunity for comment * Reverses the Federal Power Act's consumer protection requirements by allowing parties to enter into contracts for electricity or natural gas that cannot be reviewed or challenged by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission except prospectively, with the burden on FERC, under a "public interest" standard that is so high that it has rarely been met * Alters the Federal Power Act's definition of "just and reasonable rates" to allow owners of transmission lines to charge consumers more for their use NUCLEAR * Extends the Price-Anderson Act insurance subsidy for 20 years to cover new reactors * Authorizes more than $2 billion for nuclear energy research and development * Authorizes U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Nuclear Power 2010 program to construct new nuclear plants and its Generation IV program to develop new reactor designs * Allocates $865 million for research and development of nuclear reprocessing technologies * Provides $1.1 billion for a nuclear plant to co-generate hydrogen, a radioactive boondoggle that would make a mockery of clean energy goals * Weakens whistleblower protections that were passed in the House energy bill by excluding Department of Energy and Nuclear Regulatory Commission employees and extending the deadline for final decisions on whistleblower claims from 180 to 540 days * Authorizes $30 million to fund "in-situ" leaching mining projects, which would encourage a method of uranium mining that could pollute drinking water in New Mexico * Reclassifies radioactive waste from a former uranium extraction plant in Fernald, Ohio, so that it may be disposed in a dump not equipped to properly contain the waste's radioactivity, setting dangerous precedent for arbitrarily reclassifying radioactive waste * Weakens constraints on U.S. exports of bomb-grade uranium * Requires the NRC to license uranium enrichment facilities within 2 years, removing environmental justice from the licensing criteria; also classifies depleted uranium (UF6) as "low-level" radioactive waste, all of which benefits Louisiana Energy Services, which wants to build a new uranium enrichment plant in New Mexico OIL & GAS * Gives billions of dollars in tax breaks to the oil and gas industry * Creates a $2 billion program to encourage companies to develop "unconventional" gas reserves, including the mature coal-bed methane industry * Exempts from the Safe Drinking Water Act a coalbed methane drilling technique called "hydraulic fracturing," a potential polluter of underground drinking water * Waives permit requirements under the Clean Water Act for oil and gas exploration * Threatens public lands in Rocky Mountain states with oil and gas drilling at the expense of wildlife habitat COAL * Authorizes $1.8 billion for research into so-called "clean coal" technologies, which are no cleaner than older retrofitted coal plants and will result in more greenhouse gas and mercury pollution MOTOR FUEL * Makes fuel economy standards difficult to update by adding new requirements, thus inviting litigation from the automobile industry * Extends the fraudulent program that provides flexible fuel credits for "dual fuel" automobiles, an enormous loophole which could decimate any savings from the Bush administration's puny fuel economy increase * Enacts a liability waiver for the manufacturers of the gasoline additive methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), a known contaminant of drinking water and possible carcinogen. AIR POLLUTION * Amends the Clean Air Act to extend deadlines by which large metropolitan areas must meet federal guidelines governing acceptable ozone levels, without requiring more stringent air pollution controls What the energy bill does not include is also significant. Absent is a "Renewable Portfolio Standard" (RPS) requiring utilities to progressively incorporate renewable electricity-generation sources into their production portfolio, despite a letter from 53 Senators supporting this policy. The bill also fails to enact meaningful fuel economy standards for vehicles or require significant reductions of "greenhouse gases" that contribute to the phenomenon of global warming.