[ParsonMac]

Originally Posted by wechoose

So it becomes an individual choice to apply whatever prior acts to present activities. What that means to me is the more you know about both, the better.

Moreover, some people will make too much of the past, some will make too little of it. Some will see it as relevant (which it is!) and some will present it as an 'all-conquering paradigm from which there is no escape.' (which it is not!)

[thecrystalball23]

[quote=wechoose;34273]

Originally Posted by ParsonMac

Since USSE (ME) started in March, 2006, you're right saying amazing progress has been made. But you must admit there's humor in calling the progress amazing over such a short period of time but calling 2006 ancient history when shortfalls are pointed out.

Where does the past end and progress begin?

Where does the past end and progress begin? Hmm.

At the beginning of progress of course.
So where and when did the progress begin?

That of course is up to each investor to determine for themselves. JMO

[wechoose]

Checking just what permit by rule means can be helpfull. Here's a starting point, but it's a complicated journey:

http://info.sos.state.tx.us/pls/pub/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=R&app=9&p_dir=&p_rloc=&p_tl oc=&p_ploc=&pg=1&p_tac=&ti=30&pt=1&ch=106&rl=4

There are several chapters and sections on top of the above. To me (non expert for sure) it seems that there is no way this process would qualify.

Keep in mind, a mechanically similar to identical CAVD plant applied and received a clean air permit in Alabama and it took 14 months. That similar to identical appelation isn't mine, it was JR's after the patents for the Alabama plant were filed.

[ParsonMac]

Originally Posted by gloworm

Parsonmac, Wow!! You thought I might jump all over you, Gosh do really think this little worm has big boots. Mind you I was a bit of a high jumper in my younger days. If you ain't to tall I could jump over you. If I was called centipede then you would really need to worry.I don't know if I could afford the boots till the PPS rises. I think "like a , ah, like a" is fine. An aprentice I used to know had a super phrase, when he was happy with anything he would always say "I can live with that".
By the way last time I was called Glowy was in junior school had big boots in those days, you guessed it never got called it again. Grown up a bit since then, I smile a lot.Thanks for taking me back to those days, me old sunshine.

While I'm on I now know that no one reads my post too carefully thank goodness, mind you I don't blame you lot cos I'm rather a bore most of the time,anyway as I was saying I got it wrong yesterday, it was Burma that got hit by a typhoon not Malasia, and I wasn't jumped on.

...a breath of fresh air lad. And they are ANYTHING but boring I assure you!

You tell a great story in grand style and all of the 'regional colloquialisms' unique to your part of the woods make your posts a real treat!

[PennyPlayer]

Is this a good time to add more? Has anyone keep up with the OS from the transfer agent? All I want to know is what is going on and when will it start to move back up?

Penny

[funmike]

He certainly presents some thought provoking answers to some difficult questions he receives. I'll investigate further...

P.S. FunMike...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

... here's a rich resource for ya'

Jim McGuiggan

lemme' know what ya' think.

[ParsonMac]

Originally Posted by funmike

He certainly presents some thought provoking answers to some difficult questions he receives. I'll investigate further...

He also does excellent work in the prophets... not only makes them easier to understand in their historical and political settings, he makes the spiritually relevant to us in some very rich and enabling ways.

Caught your post over at the Village People site...

Yes it would be nice to have those kinds of things, but they come from a "conventional" CEO and while JR may be many things, a conventional CEO he's not.

Maybe he should let his CEO be a real CEO instead of a figurehead kind of CEO. I might be wrong about that but that's how it looks/feels to me. I think JR calls too many of the shots on the one hand, on the other, I think he is also listening more openly to more people than ever.

One step at a time I s'pose.

[ParsonMac]

Lotsa' posts here today, so in case anyone missed it, here was one I think is pretty important from a DD point of view...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Re: Air Quality Permits & the TCEQ

Earlier this week, Dyna started a two-day feeding/posting frenzy on the "failure to obtain the proper permits" and cited as proof of that, a web-page on the TCEQ website that indicates the BGEC as being in "non-permitted status".

I've spoken a couple of times this week with a management person at a regional office near Baytown about this and, in the name of due diligence, they were happy to do a little research and here is what they sent to me this morning:

NOTE: I've deleted the name because they didn't want it plastered on the internet or be inundated with phone calls.

"I asked my air section manager to review what was listed for the RN in question in Central Registry. This is what she sent to me in response:

RN105486096

In Central Registry, the "Program Interest" is listed as AQNP, which means Air Quality Non-Permitted.

This means that the Regulated Entity does not have a New Source Review (NSR) permit, a Title V permit, or PBR registration. A facility with program interest of AQNP could be operating under a PBR that does not require registration or it may not have any air authorizations. AQNP has also been used for multi-county pipelines.

Bottom line is that it would not be listed as such if there were not a legitimate reason for it. Many PBRs (permits by rule) do not require that individual entities register, they are just obligated to adhere to the terms of the PBR.
Hope that this helps. I was really sick for the last day or so, which is why I was unable to respond earlier. Sorry.

Let me know if there are further questions."

For those who may have panicked and bailed because of dynadrivel, I hope you won't regret it. Who knows, you may end up thanking him...

But the fact that the BGEC is currently listed as 'non-permitted' at that website is anything but conclusive. They may be operating under some special dispensation due to the disruptive nature of their technology, they may be operating under 'permit by rule', they may be in the process--the pipeline as it were, pun intended--or they could conceivably have the permits on hand and the website is simply out of date (the regional director told me that they need to update their web-site more often than they do). They may not have even reached the filing stage yet because they're waiting for a final configuration of the operating reactors that are still being tweaked. Don't forget to re-read the bold faced print in the above (my boldfacing, not theirs).

I also spoke with an AmSpec person this week (name also withheld), who said they were informed that the permitting process was in place and they had no reason whatsoever to doubt it.

So... FWIW...

[thecrystalball23]

Originally Posted by ParsonMac

Lotsa' posts here today, so in case anyone missed it, here was one I think is pretty important from a DD point of view...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Re: Air Quality Permits & the TCEQ

Earlier this week, Dyna started a two-day feeding/posting frenzy on the "failure to obtain the proper permits" and cited as proof of that, a web-page on the TCEQ website that indicates the BGEC as being in "non-permitted status".

I've spoken a couple of times this week with a management person at a regional office near Baytown about this and, in the name of due diligence, they were happy to do a little research and here is what they sent to me this morning:

NOTE: I've deleted the name because they didn't want it plastered on the internet or be inundated with phone calls.

"I asked my air section manager to review what was listed for the RN in question in Central Registry. This is what she sent to me in response:

RN105486096

In Central Registry, the "Program Interest" is listed as AQNP, which means Air Quality Non-Permitted.

This means that the Regulated Entity does not have a New Source Review (NSR) permit, a Title V permit, or PBR registration. A facility with program interest of AQNP could be operating under a PBR that does not require registration or it may not have any air authorizations. AQNP has also been used for multi-county pipelines.

Bottom line is that it would not be listed as such if there were not a legitimate reason for it. Many PBRs (permits by rule) do not require that individual entities register, they are just obligated to adhere to the terms of the PBR.
Hope that this helps. I was really sick for the last day or so, which is why I was unable to respond earlier. Sorry.

Let me know if there are further questions."

For those who may have panicked and bailed because of dynadrivel, I hope you won't regret it. Who knows, you may end up thanking him...

But the fact that the BGEC is currently listed as 'non-permitted' at that website is anything but conclusive. They may be operating under some special dispensation due to the disruptive nature of their technology, they may be operating under 'permit by rule', they may be in the process--the pipeline as it were, pun intended--or they could conceivably have the permits on hand and the website is simply out of date (the regional director told me that they need to update their web-site more often than they do). They may not have even reached the filing stage yet because they're waiting for a final configuration of the operating reactors that are still being tweaked. Don't forget to re-read the bold faced print in the above (my boldfacing, not theirs).

I also spoke with an AmSpec person this week (name also withheld), who said they were informed that the permitting process was in place and they had no reason whatsoever to doubt it.

So... FWIW...

Thanks for the update ParsonMac, that was very informative. Thanks

[thecrystalball23]

New farm bill will be good business for cellulosic ethanol and advanced biofuels.


Biofuel Review - international biofuel news updated daily - Farm Bill is good for advanced biofuels says BIO


US Congress extends ethanol subsidy and tariff