Posted on 05/20/2015 6:32:26 AM PDT by thackney
UGI Energy Services, a UGI Corporation unit, said it plans to build a liquefied natural gas production facility in northern Pennsylvania that will utilize Marcellus Shale gas.
The proposed facility will be adjacent to UGI Energy Services’ Manning natural gas compression station located in Wyoming County, Pennsylvania. Natural gas will be supplied by its Auburn gathering system, which transports Marcellus Shale gas produced from local wells to major interstate pipelines serving markets in the Mid-Atlantic region, the company said in a statement.
The LNG plant, which will include both liquefaction and local storage, is expected to be in full commercial operation by early 2017 and have the capability of producing 120,000 gallons (or 10,000 Dekatherms) of LNG per day. The total capital investment will be approximately $60 million.
UGI Energy Services, recently expanded its existing Temple LNG plant located near Reading, Pennsylvania to produce up to 120,000 gallons of LNG per day.
The proposed new facility in Wyoming County will double UGI’s liquefaction capability and increase its LNG supply diversity.
My property tax bill includes trash pick-up, schools, roads, water, sewer and all government infrastructure and associated operating expenses, parks, etc, etc. I expect yours does too. Sorry you don’t understand that those, by your definition, are “original infrastructure”.
And do you believe the government needs to subsidize competing companies for those same services?
I don’t understand your question. Some of the services are contracted out to competing companies, some are provided by the local government directly. All I pay for on my property tax bill.
p.s.
I pay the school tax even though I don’t have any school age children.
If the socialists in your area want to use tax dollars to build a government Natural Gas Vehicle Fueling Station, go for it.
I don’t. I will probably have a Nat Gas Vehicle in the future. It won’t because other people paid were forced to pay for it.
Do you think government should fund wireless phone service to compete with the landlines, like you think they should fund NatGas to compete with Gasoline?
You don’t consider Trash Pick up a user fee?
You forgot that ANY gas can be liquefied. All you need is enough pressure OR a low enough temperature.
Or a suitable combination of both.
http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/Liquids/critical.html
Gases can be converted to liquids by compressing the gas at a suitable temperature.
Gases become more difficult to liquefy as the temperature increases because the kinetic energies of the particles that make up the gas also increase.
The critical temperature of a substance is the temperature at and above which vapor of the substance cannot be liquefied, no matter how much pressure is applied.
You may want to also notice the chart you linked stops at
190.53°Kelvin, which equals -116.7° Fahrenheit
Above that temperature, which is the critical temperature for methane, no liquid state exists, regardless of pressure.
For me, the definitions of "original infrastructure" and "the next competing service" that may help explain where I'm coming from. The "original infrastructure" in the place now called the USA was fire, candles, forests, water, land and the minerals on or beneath them. Then came whale oil and horse trails.
Several hundred years later came the industrial revolution that sparked the "the next competing service", the wonderful new discoveries/inventions of electricity, oil and natural gas that eventually resulted in power being delivered to our homes throughout the mainly rural USA through copper cables and steel pipelines. Some of this infrastructure was funded privately but much of it was subsidized by various combinations of private AND public sources. The actual mining of the natural fuel resources was/is operated mainly by private enterprise but some, such as coal, water, nuclear, oil and NatGas are either closely regulated by government agencies or come from land owned outright by government. All of this has been happening over another couple hundred years of development and is still happening via new technological advancements of so-called "green energy" sources -- all of it funded in some manner by various government agencies. We are still in "the next competing service". Much of "the next competing service" is deteriorated and due for a "next competing service v2" which will need much more government funding and regulation to accomplish.
NatGas as a transportation fuel is a relatively new development in the USA; why is it not subsidized just as the government subsidizes power infrastructure that comes from the electric wall plugs and NatGas lines in our homes and businesses and the rail and highway transportation infrastructure?
Government does not nor should subsidize power infrastructure. The users of the electricity pay the full cost, not tax payers in other areas. What the government did do in electrical power was require every customer be served, guarantee a profit and restrict competition. The government regulates what can be charged. But if you don't use electricity in that area, you don't pay for electricity in that area.
Natural Gas Distribution is done the same. Natural Gas Transmission lines do not have even this protection.
Of course you are technically correct and THE authority on all things “energy” on FR, however the government does and did facilitate the electrification of America though its power to “regulate”, “guarantee a profit” and “restrict competition” to privately owned power companies, which was and is a good thing resulting in tremendous improvement in the standard of living for all Americans. Also, the TVA owns, funds and regulates the electric power serving a large chunk of the nation. Select so-called “green power” private operators are directly subsidized by the federal govt as well, whether we like it or not.
I get your point that government should not pick winners and losers but government does do it. My gripe, as an investor in the little companies related to NatGas as a transportation fuel, could use some help from the government. May I have some cheese with that whine? Thanks for playing ...
Cheers,
Otter
We understand each other at least. You will understand if I don't want my tax dollars spent to boost your personal return on investment.
Note that personally, in my work, the demand created for a build out of a nation-wide infrastructure would drive the rates for folks like me quite high. But still, I do not want the government doing that. Past bad decisions do not justify more of the same.
p.s.
I forgot to mention the direct funding by by government for the Interstate Highway system and Amtrack.
I don’t equate those to a alternative fueling system, and the government needs to be out of Amtrak. The cost of ridership should be able to pay the cost, or it should not continue to exist. One bad system doesn’t justify another.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.