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: t4texas who wrote (33671)	7/18/2004 4:03:42 PM
From: DELT1970	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 206118

OT: I'm reading "The Day Lincoln Was Shot", which occurred the evening of April 14, 1865. They are using natural gas for lighting on the streets of Washington and in Ford's Theatre. The author does not diverge and discuss gas and its supply by a municipal utility in Washington, but does anyone know when and how gas came to be supplied? Was it being piped down from Drake's (1859) discovery area in Western Pennsylvania or had coal gas been discovered and developed in the Appalachia mountains in the ensuing six years?

To: t4texas who wrote (33671)	7/18/2004 4:12:20 PM
From: profile_14	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 206118

t4texas, I replied earlier but I am not sure why the post did not come through. I responded that France had over 50% of its energy coming from nuclear reactors scattered across its country. Japan has a high nuclear component as well, and Brazil has become practically energy independent during the last 30 years, coming from nearly zero domestic production. Brazil is big on hydroelectric power and also on developing off-shore deep water oil platforms. They have very large reserves. I sense a Texan defensive attitude and my earlier question does not reflect the opposite side, that the US has gotten it wrong. I am pro-energy development and a republican, but that has nothing to do with my earlier comment. I have not inferred anything close to that. What I have said is that others seem to develop resources that our environmentalists and politicians say will destroy our ecosystem. The proof is in the pudding. There is a ton of offshore development elsewhere that is not leaking oil around the high seas. And while there is an occasional accident, proper planning minimizes that risk. Sorry my post did not make it. Best regards,

To: t4texas who wrote (33671)	7/18/2004 4:38:57 PM
From: schrodingers_cat	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 206118

Britain and Norway for instance. Both have a massive offshore industry which has never polluted their coastline. Neither has any significant onshore oil. Making people compete for windpower subsidies in Britain has driven down the cost to the point where wind power has become a realistic and affordable alternative. Japan and Korea, which have built prosperous industrial economies despite having no energy resources to speak of. Any comparison of US energy policy should recognize the massive natural resources which the US is blessed with. Energy problems in this country are the result of vast incompetence.