Print this story | E-mail story | This story has 28 comments Add your own | iPod friendly
Don’t listen to the economic naysayers
Published Sunday, July 6, 2008
In most fields, at the end of the day seeing what you’ve accomplished is easy.
You’ve built 1,000 widgets. You’ve handled 25 sales. You’ve repaired 10 broken widgets.
Whatever the case is, for most of us, we live in a fairly tangible world.
Things are built, things are sold and things are fixed.
For those of us who work like this, wrapping our heads around the work of those who don’t is difficult.
Imagine what it’s like for people whose work takes weeks, months and years to come together— people like economic developers.
That must be the equivalent of being a professional watcher of extremely slow-drying paint.
Rarely do economic projects happen quickly.
In fact, more often than not, developers work hard on a project only to have it vanish weeks, months or even years later, often through no fault on their part. It’s a dog-eat-dog world. You’re competing against the world — literally.
Think about it. Most would-be entrepreneurs or business developers could go anywhere. Outsourcing manufacturing is fairly commonplace, even for “little guys” in the business world.
But to complicate economic developers’ lives even further is the constant naysayers who question everything they do.
You’ve met these people before — heck, you may have voted for a few of them.
These folks are the doubting Thomases of our lives.
Nothing is going to work here, they say. These people lack vision because they live in a negative world. They’ll tell you why something cannot work rather than look for ways to make it work.
These folks tend to doubt almost any economic development prospect as “skeptical.”
A prime local example of this is the long-time work to bring Rentech Inc.’s proposed coal-to-liquids fuel plant to Adams County.
The Rentech project is an easy one to doubt. The company is, essentially, a technology company looking for investors to make their plans fly. Rentech believes they’ve improved a fairly old technology for liquefying coal.
But Rentech’s plans for Natchez would be their first such plant.
It’s easy for an arm-chair business wiz to go online, look at the publicly traded company’s balance sheet and determine that it’s “impossible” for them to develop a $1 billion — or more — plant in Adams County.
Doing that would be a mistake. Is Rentech still a long shot? Perhaps, but economic development is filled with long shots. Every single automobile manufacturer that has relocated to the South in the last several years started out as a long shot.
Wouldn’t it be interesting to know how many communities listened to the naysayers who said, “They’re not going to bring a car plant here?”
Rather than live in the world of doubt and speculation. Living in the factual world is much better.
Aside from some legal fees and travel expenses, Natchez and Adams County have invested very little — in the grand scheme of things — in dancing with Rentech.
And, despite some delays in closing a fairly complicated land deal, the company has done exactly what they said. At the moment, the county has $3 million in the bank — that’s $3 million more than the county had prior to Rentech’s interest in Adams County.
Rentech seems to be doing exactly what it promised. Fortunately for the taxpayers of Adams County, a couple of key economic development leaders have believed in the project since the beginning and have put up with lots of doubting naysayers for years.
Without their determination, the money wouldn’t be in the bank. Thanks for swimming against the stream of public sentiment.
Kevin Cooper is publisher of The Natchez Democrat. He can be reached at 601-445-3539 or kevin.cooper@natchezdemocrat.com.
Comments
Posted by fire39212 (anonymous) on July 6, 2008 at 12:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Very nice artical Kevin......
Posted by vilou (anonymous) on July 6, 2008 at 1:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Kevin, you hit the nail on the head with your article. A lot of people do not realize what energy and vision it takes to make things happen. Sometimes projects pan out and sometimes not but you never know till you try. Going to the moon wasn't an easy thing but it did happen. You have to give projects time and work to reach your goal. It is easy for some to sit back and complain and do nothing to help.
Posted by gemccull (Gary McCullars) on July 6, 2008 at 9:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
“An arm-chair business wiz to go online”
I am not a business wiz but I will do some homework about a proposed project.
If you think the arm-chair affenaudos, who comment on Rentech stories, are naysayers on this project, just wait until Rentech trys to convince the financial markets about its business plan for the project.
Rentech has to get it right the first time around. It does not have wiggle room for the unexpected/overruns/etc.
I do hope that the Rentech project is viable. I really do!
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on July 6, 2008 at 10:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)
That's so nice.
I thought that this editorial was going to be about all the folks that talked so bad about "Bucket" West as he was doing more than his predecessors to connect the dots on new Natchez businesses. he,he, silly me!
I hope Rentech does a good job, and I certainly hope that their plant does not stink as much as the old one did. It still has me wondering how they are going to manage turning all those piles of coal into diesel without stinking the place up like either diesel or coal or God-knows-what else.
And please, no one say "Smells like money to me".
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on July 6, 2008 at 2:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Living in the factual world can be inconvenient to economic developers; much better for their purposes a world created through redefining reality.
The Rentech idea is an outgrowth of the man made global warming theory. This is a theory widely supported by a cadre of international figures: the British Royal Family, the House of Orange, the Rockefeller family, Al Gore and Maurice Strong among others. Use of fossil fuels, we are told, are what has created man made global warming.
Who are these people? In order, British Petroleum/Royal Dutch Shell, Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon-Mobil, Occidental Petroleum, and lastly Petro-Canada/Royal Dutch Shell.
Having made fortunes selling us oil, they are now condemning us for using it but offering us salvation: buy carbon credits from them.
No one, even an economic development naysayer like myself is against greater prosperity.
Rentech however, has raised the 3 million dollars Adams County now has in its flush bank account from the sale of GO Zone bonds. In essence, the State of Mississippi gave Rentech permission to issue money to raise money as the Uniform Commercial Code defines all negotiable securites as money. Rentech has been allowed, in the finest tradition, to create money out of nothing- except at the very bottom of this wonder is the simple economic fact that the imaginary money is based on the power of government to coerce taxpayers into funding this private enterprise.
That people fall for this and applaud it is baffling to me.
The Democrat, when it suits it purposes, speaks highly of religion and Christianity, features the activity of the churches, etc. Yet, at the same time, endorses local government activity that is in direct contravention to the most basic premise of the structure of our law: Law proceeds from God, who created man.
This law demands certain things; goodness, wisdom, honesty and equity. These things are in the purview of government as defined by our system; under our system it is not in the power of the sovereign to amass lands and money for itself.
But, why bother. Our system has degraded so far the checks between monarchy, aristocracy and democracy are all but eliminated, upheld by a handful of congressmen and judges.
"We want" is the cry of the day and the justification for any number of local legislative decisions acting against the established principles of our law.
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on July 6, 2008 at 5:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I see that Rentech has edited its site. The site used to say that in Phase 2 the plant would produce 30,000 bbls of fuel per month, now it says per day.
30,000 bbls per day puts it over the 20,000 bbl limit needed for special guaranteed loans.
A guaranteed market, guaranteed loans- what could be sweeter? And all backed up by the taxpayers.
I am probably in a small majority of locals who feel that wedding government and industry in this way is undesirable, for I know the majority can only see that Natchez will benefit from what others must pay for.
The majority expresses that the nationalization of oil in Iran, Iraq, and Venezuela is a bad thing, the act of communists. Yet the nationalization of the coal to liquid process with the profits going to private persons is a good thing. For me this will remain a contradiction.
Coal to Fuel Promotion Act:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c1...
Posted by Krogers (anonymous) on July 7, 2008 at 10:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Good point Yeahuhhuh, I wish that industrial zone were East of town. I have to admit, such as when I was walking in the neighborhood yesterday, how nice and clean the air was. That part of IP I certainly don't miss, the foul smelling air that is.
That is a good question you ponder- What pollutants or noxious gas, whatever smells so bad, might Rentech emit?
I hope none at all, but that would be foolish to believe. I'm sure Rentech will burn off some gases. I'm sure they will have cooling towers releasing water vapor plus other gases. However, I think most of the hydrocarbon conversion will be done under pressure and heat with catalysts and will be a contained chemical process. I'm a little worried about St. Catherine Creek. I hope they do not drain any waste into the creek.
Overall though, I'm for this project. I pray that the technology is there to protect St. Catherine NWR, the MS River and everyone downstream, along with our air. Does anyone have any facts on the environmental impact?
Posted by Krogers (anonymous) on July 7, 2008 at 10:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
EKK - you consistency is astounding. The conspiracy widens and deepens. To an extent though I do agree- I'm against Adams County owning a hospital, sell it quickly. I'm for government staying out of any business, especially real estate, but what other mechanism other than what has happened would have worked in this specific case (Rentech that is)? We have to accept the fact that government must do what private citizens cannot. National security, police, fire, etc. must be gov't operated, and that leads to public/gov't ownership of real estate, which in turn makes buying and selling of real estate a necessary evil.
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on July 7, 2008 at 1:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you for complimenting my consistency Krogers; I realize on my own that consistency is a thing to marvel at in our times but I am pleased you have noticed mine.
As in investor in Rentech you should be aware that among the noxious things Rentech will be producing is hydrogen sulfide, a concentration of which 100 parts per million are considered to be immediately dangerous to life. 1000 parts per million mean instant death. On the bright side Rentech intends to capture this gas and produce hydrogen and sulfur, both of which can be sold. Producing fuel from coal is twice as polluting as producing it from oil but it can be done cleanly and if Rentech keeps its word that is what they will do.
Over the last thirty years no new refineries have been buit in America, but 125 old ones have been shut down, many of them bought out by larger companies.
The Coal to Liquid Fuel Promotion Act, if you read it, is offering to subsidize 10 new plants like the Natchez plant. Fuel produced will be blended with other fuels giving them a "clean" designation. The way that is working with ethanol, one gallon of ethanol is split between twenty gallons of gasoline, making twenty one gallons. For making this clean fuel the producer is given a tax credit of 30% per gallon, which you may have noticed is passed on to the consumer at the gas pump.
Further, 20% of this new clean fuel will be stored in the nation's strategic reserves. I have just taken a load from one such reserve formerly owned by the Dept. of Energy but which now has Shell's mark on it. We took an ordered 45,000 bbls which was run through a Shell monitored meter with no API inspector guaging the shore tanks or barges. The customer for this load is Exxon.
Perhaps you can teach me something Krogers. I know you are an investor and as the only way I can get my money back out of Rentech is to buy stock, which is a sure thing seeing how they are being capitalized, can you answer a question for me? If I buy Rentech stock at 2.00 dollars, and the price drops to 1.00, where does my other dollar go? Does it just disappear? What happens to it? If I knew that I would be a little more comfortable joining you in investing my private savings along with my tax money in Rentech.
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on July 7, 2008 at 1:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
And, Krogers, as the justification for the public funding of Rentech is our dire energy crisis, a world of dwindling energy supply, let me ask you if this makes sense.
When all is said and done, converting coal to liquid fuel wastes 1/2 of the energy contained in the coal in the process. Seeing as how it is possible to build a coal fired power plant that captures its emissions in the same way that Rentech intends to do, does it make sense to waste 1/2 of the energy in the coal? A coal fired power plant is about 80% efficient, a savings of 30% over the Rentech process.
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on July 7, 2008 at 1:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
A final thought, Krogers. The root cause of your ignorance about the influence of industry on government in America is your lack of curiosity about the world around you. This lack is perhaps caused by dullness due to illness, or to your natural constitution. Either case, your ignorance is perhaps correctable once you determine that knowledge is preferrable to ignorance; this determination must first be made though.
A case in point: if government cannot run a hospital, when the foundation of our law system recognizes that the truly helpless should be helped, back to time out of mind, how can government run a fuel company? Why is government able to do one, and not the other? The difference may lie in this: a public hospital seeks no profit, it exists to serve the public.
The links between the major oil companies and the environmental movement are public record. Do you join Sam Mohon in claiming the public record is evidence of a conspiracy?
I enjoin you to pick out any one particular thing I have said that leads you to believe I have said something false, and I will provide you the government, university, or scholarly paper that evidences my assertion in that case.
Both you and Sam are far too general in your condemnations. It is a maxim of law that deceivers deal in generalities. Are you able to be specific, or do you just wish to generalize?
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on July 7, 2008 at 2:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
SEC. 48C. QUALIFYING COAL-TO-LIQUID FUELS PROJECT CREDIT.
`(a) In General- For purposes of section 46, the qualifying coal-to-liquid fuels project credit for any taxable year is an amount equal to 20 percent of the qualified investment for such taxable year.
`(b) Qualified Investment-
`(1) IN GENERAL- For purposes of subsection (a), the qualified investment for any taxable year is the basis of property placed in service by the taxpayer during such taxable year which is part of a qualifying coal-to-liquid fuels project--
`(A)(i) the construction, reconstruction, or erection of which is completed by the taxpayer, or
`(ii) which is acquired by the taxpayer if the original use of such property commences with the taxpayer, and
`(B) with respect to which depreciation (or amortization in lieu of depreciation) is allowable.
Sweet, isn't it Krogers? Additional tax credits allowed Rentech for using taxpayer money. I wonder if in the end there will be any private money in Rentech whatsoever. But that is desirable to you isn't it Krogers? This is the way it should be done. Ah yes, since this clean fuel has no real market it can't obtain capital in the normal way; no, a market must be created for it and its capital at the same time.
Does the federal government help you with your household expenses, or does it hinder you by requiring a portion of what you earn? In the law Rentech is one person, just as you are one person. Why is the artificial person Rentech privileged over you, a natural person?
Yes, I know, these are illegitimate questions for you as they contradict the ideas in the box you live in. When you get rich off of Rentech be sure to share with your church so you can show God and your neighbors what a good man you are.
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on July 7, 2008 at 3:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Shell Oil, Environmental Leader:
http://www.mallenbaker.net/csr/CSRfiles/...
Posted by SayItRight (anonymous) on July 7, 2008 at 8:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Lots of information on Rentech at the following links. They are looking for a new CFO now. Scroll down the page on the first link for all the news.
http://www.answers.com/Rentech+Inc?cat=b...
http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?dsid...
http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?dsid...
Posted by sammohon (anonymous) on July 7, 2008 at 10:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
EnK...congratulations...you've gone above and beyond even your most obnoxious previous posts in convincing many of us that you don't really care much about what the topic is as long as you have a platform to showcase your arrogance, ego and pseudo-intelligence and at the same time belittle someone else...indicative of your basic personal insecurity I'd say...much like Kroger said, you've been quite consistent, if not in content, at least in inane mental masterbation.
You "enjoined" Krogers to point out one particular inaccuracy in what you've said...I'll give you one...you've given a complete misrepresentation of what I've maintained in the past vis a vis your propensity for conspiracy theories and such...I've never said there was a conspiracy such as you speak of often, in fact, I have always taken the exact opposite position in saying that I felt you were paranoid about the supposed conspiracies you cling to. In misrepresenting my position you've done me and the readers a diservice. In this case you were the deceiver.
There are times when I agree with you, but you take things way too far, read between the lines to the point of inserting paragraphs where none exist, draw threads from contradictory sources and weave snug sweaters from them, take coincidences and refine them to high treason, absolutely amazing...you are exactly one of the people Kevin was speaking of...never any positive ideas, never anything good to say, never even a wait and see...always, watch out for the conspiracists! Are you hoping things go bad just so you can say I told you so? I think that must be the case.
I also take issue with your assumption that Krogers is "ignorant", simply because he/she disagrees with you. You try that same tactic with me, to little avail since I am not and know better. It's relatively easy to know when someone on here is truly ignorant when they spew racial or other hateful language, or speak of hysterical societies and blue haired ladies in control (the Enk Conspiracy Theory on a local redneck level...LOL), or they rage about the educational system without regard for their own poor spelling, grammar, diction or syntax, but Krogers didn't display any of these...he/she merely disagreed with you and you began calling him/her ignorant...I think it shows yours.
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on July 7, 2008 at 10:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
As ususal, Sam, you have afforded me a great deal of amusement with your ramblings. And, at the same time you have failed to point out one of these conspiracies I supposedly am paranoid about.
In particular regard with what Dr. Krogers took exception to, the families who are the major shareholders of the major oil companies simply are the avid supporters and originators of the environmental movement. All you have to do to learn that is to read the history of the movement
and you will find them in attendance, sometimes hosting, funding, setting up foundations in support of, etc. Yet, you, as Dr. Krogers, believe this public record to be evidence of conspiracy.
As you have learned in the past, you cannot out argue me on a factual level so you, as Dr. Krogers, insult me and expect that I won't return the favor.
Dr. Krogers ignorance, in this particular case, is truly ignorance, which is a lack of knowledge. Had he known anything about the environmental movement he would not have suggested conspiracy belief on my part. What you call my belittling of Dr. Krogers is no more than the serving up of just rewards for violating my right to be secure in my reputation, to enjoy the peace afforded me by God and nature without attack.
Remember how wrong you were about Duany's involvement with Sustainable Development? Krogers is at least that wrong about links between oil companies and the environmental movement.
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on July 7, 2008 at 11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
PS- you guys are far too easily baited. Your wives must have a great deal of fun toying with you.
Posted by Peace007 (anonymous) on July 7, 2008 at 11:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
http://www.rentechinc.com/
You can go here and see some nice pictures, lol.
Posted by Peace007 (anonymous) on July 7, 2008 at 11:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Just for the record, I thought Sam was the Dr. LOL, he's always giving out diagnosis and prescriptions.
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on July 8, 2008 at 12:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sam, now that I have your attention, go check out this sustainable development city in Kazahkstan- growth from 300 thousand to 1 million in one decade, unbelievable architecture.
http://www.kazakhstan.orexca.com/astana_...
google astana for more sites, this is awesome
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on July 8, 2008 at 3 a.m. (Suggest removal)
So you don't accuse me of believing in conspiracies again:
"Speaking of the prospects of Astana's development Kazakh Ambassador to Kyrgyzstan Bakhyt Ospanov reminded of the Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev's words that the major construction works in Astana will have finished by 2012. "The grand mission of Astana city is to become a model capital of the Eurasian region, initiator of sustainable and dynamic development of Kazakhstan," the diplomat emphasized.
There's no disputing the fact that Astana has also become the centre of international activity already. You may recall one of the most unique international events – the regular Congress of World and Traditional Religions, initially proposed by Nursultan Nazarbayev. Astana was awarded a special prize of UNESCO as City of Peace In July 1999. It also was highly evaluated by Moody's Investors Service"
Whole article:
http://news.uzreport.com/aziya.cgi?lan=e...
Posted by SayItRight (anonymous) on July 8, 2008 at 7:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I haven't studied for a possible link between the oil companies and the environmental movement but it wouldn't surprise me if there wasn't involvement between the two. After all, beer companies get involved in underage drinking campaigns and tobacco companies do the same. It is a way for them to put forth a good public image while becoming involved in a movement that may affect their bottom line in the future. What better way to keep from feeling a future financial pinch than to get involved at the ground level and try to control policy making to buy time? People and companies get involved with governmental bodies, and in causes and organizations because of their diametric viewpoints and agendas all the time in order to stall progress or affect them in a manner that will ultimately be in their best interest.
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on July 8, 2008 at 4:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes, SayItRight, it only makes sense to be your opposition. By doing so you can present two extreme positions to the public which will be attractive to a small portion who support either of those extremes; the majority, who are important in a democracy since majority rules, will support a position somewhere between the two extremes. If your goal in the beginning is that middle point, your ownership of the extremes has served you well.
Posted by peachpit (anonymous) on July 8, 2008 at 7:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So as I see it EnKiKur was posting at 3 AM. Hmm? A fellow with purdy words has an afull lot of time on his hands. Looking up web-sites and all.
And then taking the time out of his busy day to post on the ND web-site at 3 AM.
I sometimes read the ND posts. Just the other day I read where nothing good happens at 3 AM.
Guess they were right.
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on July 8, 2008 at 8:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There is a very simple explanation peachpit. I work two six hour shifts a day, separated by to six hour shifts off. If you use your powers of observation you will notice my posts are mainly grouped into six hour periods.
Part of my work, which is freelance, requires that I sit and wait for things to happen. So I do have a lot of time. Sometimes several days at a time, sometimes not so much.
Plenty of good happens at three am. Factories, mines, oilfields and refineries are producing the things you put on your credit card, and boats, planes, trucks and ships never sleep in delivering them to you.
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on July 8, 2008 at 8:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Here is another example SayItRight of the thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis process:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/09/scienc...
President Bush, former opponent of Kyoto and Agenda 21 because China and India were not held to the same standards as the US in an international agreement to cut carbon dioxide emissions eighty percent by 2050, has pledged the US to cut emissions by 50 percent by 2050 in exchange for a new agreement that China, India, Mexico, Brazil and South Africa will be subject to carbon emission caps. Plus, the developed nations will help the developing nations economically.
Bush has been a liar all along, in my opinion. He campaigned against this idiocy and now just as he is about to leave office concedes, setting the way for the next president to ratify Agenda 21. Why do I say Bush has been a liar all along? Because his dad signed the Rio Accords. Well, he has lied about a few more things besides the climate.
Rentech is born of this drive to cut emissions by 50 to 80 percent. While campaigning against Kyoto, Bush said cutting emissions this much would cripple the US economy, and it will. The most sure way of cutting human carbon dioxide emissions 50 to 80 percent is by reducing the number of humans 50 to 80 percent. I reckon Bush has earned his knighthood with this pledge. When he kneels before Queen Mum let our prayers be with him.
Posted by Peace007 (anonymous) on July 8, 2008 at 9:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Supposing that you are correct Enki, and Bush in his sneaky way IS trying to reduce the number of humans by 50 to 80%...why would he (and other world leaders) not just tell the truth to the world about human carbon dioxide emissions and how reducing the population could help? Do they think that people couldn't be convinced, or counted on, to save themselves, by limiting the number of children they will produce in the future? Using birth control methods (preventing pregnancy, not abortion) would be the best way to cut down future human carbon dioxide emissions, and that would be a better option than war to destroy human lives already in existance.
Posted by EnKiKur (anonymous) on July 8, 2008 at 10:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well, Peace, the thinktanks have been discussing what they call overpopulation for many years now. The one child policy is an example of it in China, that policy was the brainchild of the Rockefeller Foundation. America has a two child policy, that is why you can get an earned income tax credit for two children but not for three. Then, there have been all the activities of the Population Council, and Family Planning, who were formerly the Eugenics Records Office. From the mid 1920's all the way till the 70's involuntary sterilizations were performed in this country and are still being performed in other countries. And of course we now have abortion rights. A great many births have been prevented already.
People just don't listen because nature has made people in such a way that they want to reproduce. People are pretty adamant about having children. People like children.
What is bound to happen as the new carbon economy takes hold is that parents will be heavily taxed for each child beyond the allowed quota. This won't affect the wealthy who can pay the tax, but it will affect the lower classes who can't afford to pay the tax. This most certainly will happen. I've read various papers on the subject and there are two methods only considered for controlling population: decreasing birth rate, and increasing mortality rate.
Look up Burkina Faso and see what Bill and Melinda Gates and Bill Clinton are doing over there to encourage the young women to quit having children. They are even paying those girls to let them do research on their reproductive systems.
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)