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 : Gasification Technologies -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dennis Roth who wrote (1075)	11/10/2007 4:51:46 AM
From: Dennis Roth	Respond to of 1740

Coal-to-oil comment period open BY BEN WOLFGANG STAFF WRITER bwolfgang@republicanherald.com 11/10/2007 republicanherald.com Opponents of the proposed $1 billion coal-to-oil plant in Gilberton still have a chance to voice concerns during a 30-day “comment period” following the U.S. Department of Energy’s environmental impact statement released two weeks ago, according to DOE spokesman Joe Culver. Culver said Friday that the report wasn’t necessarily a permit for the facility. “That (the EIS) is not the final authority to go forward. That’s not the end of it,” Culver said. “There could be a permit or there might not be.” Friday’s comments were Culver’s first about the impact statement. Shortly after the report was released two weeks ago, Culver said “the report is the report” and questions would be best answered by John W. Rich Jr., owner of Waste Management and Processors Inc., which is developing the plant. Rich said Friday a permit was only necessary if the company received a $100 million loan in promised federal money. That money would only be available if the other $900 million was already in place, according to Rich. The EIS says that the report will assist the DOE in determining whether or not to provide the $100 million. “It’s not a permit,” Rich said. “It’s a statement, and the conclusion is that we won’t do any damage. It’s a statement that we won’t hurt anything. It is a positive assessment.” Rich is confident the project will receive the money, and said he couldn’t imagine the DOE halting the project, based on the findings in the statement. Rich also said the EIS included all public comment regarding the plant, including hearings that were held in Shenandoah and Pottsville where opponents argued against the coal-to-oil facility, adding that he “doesn’t understand their (the DOE’s) position” regarding the comment period. Exactly when all of the money would be in place, and where it may come from, was still unclear, according to Rich. In addition to the $100 million from the federal government, another $47 million will come from a state transferable tax credit, according to Rich. The rest would come from loans and private sector investments. Should the project move forward with the $100 million, the DOE would then observe a three-year demonstration of the plant to assure that it was operating correctly and sticking to the projected environmental figures described in the EIS. According to the report, the plant would need 7.8 million gallons of water per day to be drawn from the Gilberton mine pool; the plant will emit a total of 2,282,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year; and the pollutants emitted by the plant are considered “a minor new source of all regulated pollutants.” The EIS also said the facility could produce 4,000 barrels of liquid fuel per day and the efficiency of this type of plant would be much higher than any current method. Rich has argued that the U.S. is falling behind other countries, like China, which already has 30 such facilities. “The Chinese are taking up the market,” Rich said. “It’s a horrible situation. The most powerful country in the world is losing its standing.” ©The REPUBLICAN & Herald 2007 ---- Related supportive editorial In case of oil supply disruption, coal offers abundant alternative Tuesday, November 06, 2007 pennlive.com

To: Dennis Roth who wrote (1075)	11/27/2007 6:05:33 PM
From: Dennis Roth	Respond to of 1740

Coal-waste conversion plant still in the works, developer says Project proposed for Mahanoy Twp. now estimated at $1 billion. mcall.com John W. Rich, JR. President of WMPI PTY, LLC in Gilberton, Schuylkill County, has proposed a plan to open a coal to oil plant in Gilberton. Rich holds a couple pieces of anthracite in his office Tuesday (Kevin Mingora/The Morning Call / November 25, 2007) By Chris Parker \|Of The Morning Call November 25, 2007 The estimated cost of building a plant to convert coal waste into diesel fuel in the heart of the anthracite region has skyrocketed by 63 percent, and red tape has caused the developer to scrap an opening date for the project. But John Rich Jr. said the plan hasn't run out of gas. ''The world eats 85 million barrels of crude oil a day. Of that, 80 percent is from known reserves that are being exhausted,'' he said. ''I think that just drives home the point that you are going to see prices continue to go up. And that makes these types of alternatives more viable.'' The plant, proposed by Rich's company Waste Management and Processors Inc. of Gilberton, Schuylkill County, would employ 600 people and use 3,400 tons of culm a day to create more than 5,000 barrels of diesel fuel at the Mahanoy Township facility. That would translate into 40 million gallons a year that also could be refined into jet fuel and home heating oil. The plant also would produce 41 megawatts of electricity -- enough to power more than 40,000 homes -- that it would sell to utility companies, company officials have said. The Schuylkill County businessman had hoped to break ground on the plant -- the first of its kind in the United States -- last year, when costs were still pegged at $612 million Private industry also is expected to invest, and Rich has sunk an undisclosed amount of money into the project. In September 2005, Gov. Ed Rendell announced the state would join with private businesses in a consortium to buy most of the fuel produced. The state also has earmarked $47 million in tax credits for the project, and the federal Department of Energy -- which has to approve the project before it can proceed -- has committed $100 million. Rich said the federal dollars are a ''promissory note'' that the company would have to repay. To get the money, financing must be completed. That means getting the ''total cost nailed down with contracts,'' Rich said. ''Everything has to be committed to writing now that underpins the financing.'' Energy Department spokesman Jonathan Shradar said he expects Rich to provide information on the contracts by the end of the year. It is not clear when the Energy Department will decide on the project. For the plant to get the green light, Rich must prove it won't cause more environmental harm than he contends his new fuel would prevent. In October, the department released a final environmental impact statement on the project. The report did not sound any environmental alarms. That, however, is a point of contention with environmentalists. At a January 2006 hearing held by the Energy Department's National Energy Technology Laboratory, foes said the plant would produce air and water pollutants, including nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxides, mercury and volatile organic compounds, which have been linked to cancers, lung irritation, brain damage, heart attacks and birth defects. The plant would increase global carbon dioxide emissions by 2.28 million tons a year, according to the Energy Department's impact statement. It may be feasible, the report said, to reduce that amount by sequestering underground some of the captured carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, which traps heat in the atmosphere and promotes global warming. Rich conceded carbon dioxide is a big concern. However, he said, his fuel would enable the United States to reduce its dependence on foreign oil. Plus, the process cleans up the mountains of culm left behind by generations of coal production. ''Oil brings other, worse things,'' he said. ''Oil carries with it a lot of baggage.'' Rich also pointed to conflict in the Middle East as a reason to build the plant. ''Nothing is more threatening to the environment than warring over energy,'' he said. chris.parker@mcall.com 610-379-3224

To: Dennis Roth who wrote (1075)	12/21/2007 4:24:13 AM
From: Dennis Roth	Respond to of 1740

Flight gives coal-to-fuel plant developer hope Friday, 21 December 2007 By STEPHEN J. PYTAK Staff Writer standardspeaker.com GILBERTON — John W. Rich Jr., who’s been trying to get a coal-to-clean fuels project off the ground in Schuylkill County for 14 years, said he saw the future Monday as he watched an Air Force jet complete its first transcontinental flight using synthetic fuel. “I was very much impressed,” Rich, president of WMPI, Gilberton, said Wednesday. The demonstration was another step toward making the United States less dependent on foreign oil, a goal President Bush stressed in his last State of the Union speech. Rich said he’s hoping it further encourages the U.S. Department of Energy to give him the green light to build his plant in Mahanoy Township. Its tanks half-filled with standard jet fuel and half with a synthetic, coal-derived fuel, the C-17 Globemaster, a cargo aircraft, flew from McChord Air Force Base, south of Tacoma, Wash., to McGuire Air Force Base, south of Trenton, N.J., said Sgt. Kelly White, McGuire public affairs spokeswoman. The test flight came on the 104th anniversary of the Wright Brothers’ first sustained, controlled flight in a powered aircraft. “And this is another historic first,” Rich said. “This test flight of a C-17 powered by synthetic fuel is another demonstration of the Air Force’s commitment to the president’s vision of the U.S. becoming less dependent on foreign oil,” stated a press release from the secretary of the Air Force public affairs. The flight from McChord to McGuire stretched 2,090 miles, White said. The Air Force bought 290,000 gallons of the synthetic fuel from a Shell Houston plant in Malaysia at a cost of $3.41 per gallon, said Paul P. Bollinger Jr., special assistant to the assistant secretary of the Air Force for Installations, Environment and Logistics. If this synthetic fuel is bought in greater volumes, the price will decrease, said a spokesman from the Department of Public Affairs at McGuire. “The chemistry of it is the same as what we’ll be making,” Rich said. A gallon of traditional jet fuel this week cost about $2.31, according to the Air Force Times. The Air Force is the largest consumer of aviation fuel in the Department of Defense, according to White and the Air Force Times. The Air Force has been working with the Department of Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory on alternative energy projects like this, said Bernadette C. Ward, a public affairs representative for the department in Tulsa, Okla. Monday’s flight was the latest test in the Air Force’s effort to certify its entire fleet of fighters, tankers, aircraft cargo jets and bombers to use this fuel mix by 2011, according to the Air Force Times. In September 2006, Rich was at Edwards Air Force Base in California to watch the test flight of a synthetic fuel-powered B-52. Today, the B-52 bomber is certified. The Air Force expects full certification for the C-17 by May and is hoping to build the market so it can provide about 400 million gallons of synthetic fuel to the service by 2016. “This is where we’re headed so we’re not at the mercy of off-shore suppliers,” Rich said. Rich is anxious to become part of that process and to establish a $1 billion coal gasification plant in Mahanoy Township. He said he’s still awaiting the green light from DOE. In October, DOE delivered its Final Environmental Impact Study for the Gilberton Coal-To-Clean Fuels and Power Project after working on the study for nearly two years. In it, the energy department tentatively approved the $1 billion project, but the administration has yet to formally announce whether it will give the project the green light and a $100 million loan, according to Joe W. Culver, DOE spokesman in Morgantown, W.Va. On Nov. 2, a “Notice of Availability” for the study was published in the National Register. After a 30-day waiting period that ended Dec. 3, and the department started preparing a record of decision, Culver said. When asked when this decision will be made, Culver said, “I would think no later than fairly early in 2008.” In November, Rich discussed how he planned to finance the project. He said 10 percent of the $1 billion will be provided in the form of a loan from the energy department, another $47 million will come from a state transferable tax credit and the rest would come from loans and private sector investments. According to the Environmental Impact Study and Rich, the proposed plant will produce 3,700 barrels of diesel fuel per day and 1,300 barrels of Naphtha, a low-octane, zero-sulfur gasoline, per day. spytak@republicanherald.com