Vinod Khosla On Why Clean Technology Is Misunderstood - Venture Capital Dispatch - WSJ

Vinod Khosla emphasized several times Thursday that costs – and not idealogy - will drive the clean technology industry, and said that much of the hype around cleantech is fueled by misunderstood information.

khosla_E_20090730171125.jpgBloomberg News

Khosla, a legendary venture capitalist and one of the most active investors in cleantech through his firm Khosla Ventures, said some of the books that have helped generate buzz were “probably written by English majors who could not get a real job,” he said onstage at the AlwaysOn Summit at Stanford University.

The industry is far more scientifically dense and difficult to predict than many seem to believe, he said, so almost everything being  about cleantech today should be taken with a grain of salt.

“My favorite is Sheryl Crow saying to use one square of toilet paper instead of two,” he said. “We hear a ton of this stuff … and it won’t make a dent.”

The cleantech industry is being portrayed as the wave of the future, he said, and perhaps the basis of a lucrative new manufacturing industry in America. And while this could be true, it will be a much longer – and harder – road to get there than many believe, Khosla said.

“What’s amazing about this is the size of the markets,” he said. While the failure rate in cleantech is likely to be high, he said, “the wins will be bigger. More money will be made in cleantech than in traditional areas of Silicon Valley — by far.”

Khosla, as those statements attest, is one of the industry’s biggest proponents of clean technology, having invested in a number of companies through his firm, Khosla Ventures. In fact, Khosla is in the midst of rounding up $1 billion for two new funds that would invest partly in cleantech. (He declined to comment about the fund-raising efforts.)

But Khosla is also a realist.

“Anything that doesn’t make good economic sense is not going to be pervasive,” he said. “The cheapest thing ends up winning.”

Contrary to a lot of the hype, many of the proposed solutions to the world’s ecological problems are simply too slow-moving and too expensive today for widespread adoption, he said.

For example, getting better performance or longer life out of standard lithium-ion batteries – purported to be crucial for the environment – may in the end prove to be too expensive to be practical.

“The current expectations of battery technology will not get there,” he said. “Lithium-ion batteries will not get there.”

Khosla Ventures has invested in lithium-ion battery companies in the past - Sakti3 Inc. and Seeo Inc. - but the firm is now looking closely at companies developing batteries made with alternative chemicals, as well as non-chemical batteries and renewable liquid fuels.

The firm, he said, also has a keen interest in backing start-ups that are tweaking the chemistries of cement, coal, steel and oil – which together cause 75% of the world’s hazardous carbon emissions, he said.

Like the Internet and other innovations, cleantech is dependent on dramatic breakthroughs rather than slow and steady progress. “Incremental solutions will not get us there,” he said.

And the area where a dramatic leap forward is the most needed – and perhaps the most feasible – is carbon sequestration, Khosla said, where scientists change the chemistry of today’s fuels and building materials so that they emit less carbon.

One catalyst for progress, Khosla said, would be for three billion acres of unused land to be devoted to installing and testing alternative technologies. A billion acres each could be devoted to solar power, biofuels, and geothermal technologies, he said. “There’s more than enough land in the world,” he said.

Vinod Khosla on money to be made in cleantech (Dealscape - Private capital)

"More money will be made in cleantech than in traditional areas of Silicon Valley -- by far," said cleantech investor Vinod Khosla at the AlwaysOn Summit at Stanford University on Thursday. "While the failure rate in cleantech is likely to be high, the wins will be bigger."

His remarks come on the heels of cleantech executives complaining to Congress about the difficulties of securing financial backing.

Also, earlier this week, a study conducted by Ernst & Young LLP released Wednesday shows that U.S. VC investment in cleantech companies in the second quarter of 2009 reached $572 million, a 73% increase in terms of capital from the first quarter. In fact, last quarter was the second-highest quarter for cleantech investment on record, according to E&Y.

 "The area where a dramatic leap forward is the most needed -- and perhaps the most feasible -- is carbon sequestration, Khosla said, where scientists change the chemistry of today's fuels and building materials so that they emit less carbon," reports The Wall Street Journal's Venture Capital Dispatch.

Khosla Ventures is reportedly near to closing a $1 billion fund, which would be the biggest raised this year. - Mary Kathleen Flynn

The Oil Drum | How Much Natural Gas Do We Have to Replace Gasoline?

How Much Natural Gas Do We Have to Replace Gasoline?

I Took This Picture of a CNG Bus on a Recent Trip to D.C.

You may have seen the recent news that a report by the Potential Gas Committee says natural gas reserves in 2008 rose to 2,074 trillion cubic feet. The New York Times and the Wall Street Journal (via Rigzone) both had stories on it, and T. Boone Pickens issued a press release. In this post, I will look at how long these reserves might last, if used to replace US gasoline usage.

First, from the New York Times:

Estimate Places Natural Gas Reserves 35% Higher

Thanks to new drilling technologies that are unlocking substantial amounts of natural gas from shale rocks, the nation’s estimated gas reserves have surged by 35 percent, according to a study due for release on Thursday.

Estimated natural gas reserves rose to 2,074 trillion cubic feet in 2008, from 1,532 trillion cubic feet in 2006, when the last report was issued. This includes the proven reserves compiled by the Energy Department of 237 trillion cubic feet, as well as the sum of the nation’s probable, possible and speculative reserves.

The new estimates show “an exceptionally strong and optimistic gas supply picture for the nation,” according to a summary of the report, which is issued every two years by a group of academics and industry experts that is supported by the Colorado School of Mines.

The Wall Street Journal wrote:

US Has Almost 100-Year Supply of Natural Gas

The amount of natural gas available for production in the United States has soared 58% in the past four years, driven by a drilling boom and the discovery of huge new gas fields in Texas, Louisiana and Pennsylvania, a new study says.

...the Potential Gas Committee's study was prepared by industry geologists who analyzed individual gas fields using seismic imagery and production data provided by gas producers. The surge in gas resources is the result of a five-year-long drilling boom spurred by high natural-gas prices, easy credit and new technologies that allowed companies to produce gas from a dense kind of rock known as shale. The first big shale formation to be discovered, the Barnett Shale near Fort Worth, Texas, is now the country's top-producing gas field, and companies have made other huge discoveries in Arkansas, Louisiana and Pennsylvania. Together, the shale fields account for roughly a third of U.S. gas resources, according to the Potential Gas Committee.

Pickens had this to say:

T. Boone Pickens Statement on Surge in Estimated Natural Gas Reserves

Today’s report substantiates what I’ve been saying for years: there’s plenty of natural gas in the U.S. I launched the Pickens Plan a year ago to help reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil, and using our abundant supply of natural gas as a transition fuel for fleet vehicles and heavy-duty trucks is a key element of that plan. On the same day this report is going out, diesel prices are again on the rise, squeezing the trucking industry. Now more than ever we need to take action to enact energy reform that will immediately reduce oil imports.

The 2,074 trillion cubic feet of domestic natural gas reserves cited in the study is the equivalent of nearly 350 billion barrels of oil, about the same as Saudi Arabia’s oil reserves.

A number of people have rightly pointed out that a 100-year supply implies usage at current rates. But it got me to thinking about how much natural gas it would take to displace all U.S. gasoline consumption. So in the spirit of my year-ago essay Replacing Gasoline with Solar Power, I will do the same calculation for replacing gasoline with natural gas. The big difference between this calculation and the earlier one is that solar power still has some technical issues to resolve (e.g., storage) and electric vehicles are not yet ready for prime time. On the other hand we are perfectly capable, today, of displacing large numbers of gasoline-fueled vehicles with natural gas.

How Much Do We Need?

The U.S. currently consumes 390 million gallons of gasoline per day. (Source: EIA). A gallon of gasoline contains about 115,000 BTUs. (Source: EPA). The energy content of this much gasoline is equivalent to 45 trillion BTUs per day. The energy content of natural gas is about 1,000 BTUs per standard cubic foot (scf). Therefore, to replace all gasoline consumption would require 45 billion scf per day, or 16.4 trillion scf per year. Current U.S. natural gas consumption is 23 trillion scf per year (Source: EIA). Therefore, replacing all gasoline consumption with natural gas would require a total usage of 39.4 trillion scf per year, an increase in natural gas consumption of 71% over present usage.

Assuming for the sake of argument that the 2,074 trillion standard cubic feet cited in the study is accurate, that the "probable, possible and speculative reserves" eventually equate to actual reserves, and that the gas is economically recoverable, that is enough gas for 53 years of combined current natural gas consumption and gasoline consumption. If you assume that only the proven plus probable reserves are eventually recovered, the amount drops to about 1/3rd of the 2,074 trillion scf estimate, still enough to satisfy current natural gas consumption and replace all gasoline consumption for almost 20 years.

We can also calculate in terms of oil imports. Right now the U.S. imports about 13 million barrels per day of all petroleum products. A barrel of oil contains around 5.8 million BTUs, but oil only makes up 10 million of the 13 million barrel per day figure. Other imports include things like gasoline (4.8 million BTUs/bbl) and ethanol (3.2 million BTUs/bbl). Scanning the list of imports, I probably won't be too far off the mark to presume that the average BTU value of those 13 million bpd of imports is about 5.4 million BTUs/bbl. On an annual basis, this equates to 25.6 trillion scf of natural gas, which would be an increase over current natural gas usage of 111%. Going back to the 2,074 trillion scf from the study, this would be enough to displace imports of all petroleum products (again, at current usage rates and not factoring in declining U.S. oil production) for 43 years.

What's the Cost?

Natural gas is presently trading at about $4 per million (MM) BTU (although December 2009 is trading at almost $6). Oil is presently trading at $71/bbl, which equates to $12.24/MMBTU. Gasoline is presently trading at over $17/MMBTU. Thus, natural gas is a bargain relative to oil or gasoline. Incidentally, I just checked on seasoned wood and wood pellets, and they range from $8-$12/MMBTUs. So it is cheaper to heat your house with gas than with wood. I am not sure I would have guessed that.

While natural gas is a bargain relative to gasoline, converting a gasoline-powered vehicle to natural gas isn't cheap. According to this source, it can cost $12,500 to $22,500 to convert a gasoline-powered car to natural gas. Honda makes a compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicle, but according to this review in Car and Driver the premium over the gasoline version is $8,780. A person would need to drive an awful lot to justify that premium. However, that's what fleets do. They drive a lot. The large price differential explains why fleets would be interested in running their vehicles on natural gas.

Conclusions

So, the good news is that the United States could be energy independent if the newly released natural gas reserve numbers are remotely accurate. It also appears that we have enough natural gas available that civilization isn't going to end any time soon due to lack of energy supplies. There are three caveats. First, energy independence via natural gas could require us to spend significantly more for personal automotive transportation. Second, "possible" reserves may never materialize. Finally, a large chunk of the calculated reserves are based on shale gas, and that requires gas to be in the $6-$8/million BTU range to be economical. Still, it is a bargain compared to gasoline, and it explains why fleets are more receptive to conversion to natural gas than the general public is likely to be for their personal vehicles.

Afterword

After posting this post on my personal blog (R Squared Energy Blog), I received the following e-mail from Marc J. Rauch, Exec. Vice President/Co-Publisher of The Auto Channel, explaining why converting a gasoline powered vehicle is so expensive.

Hi Robert -

Thanks for the work you did on figuring out how much natural gas we actually seem to have (according to current knowledge) and for the related cost comparisons. It's a great and value tool for those of us that believe in CNG (and propane) as a viable engine fuel alternative.

One thing that I would like to add (assuming that you didn't already know this or learn it since posting your piece), is that the cost of CNG conversions for existing vehicles is as high as it is because of EPA licensing requirements. For an individual (or shop) to be licensed to do a conversion, the person must pay $10,000 per year, per engine type, per year of manufacture. So that if a conversion shop wanted to do conversions in 2009 for Camrys for the years 1995 to 2005, the shop owner would have to pay the government $100,000 in licensing fees. Then, if he wanted to do conversions on the same models in 2010, he would have to pay the $100,000 again, even though they are the exact same models and engines that he has been licensed on already. And if there is more than one engine involved, i.e., a 6-cylinder and 8-cylinder, the cost would double.

Therefore, if a shop owner wanted to do 10 model years of Camrys and Corollas and Celicas, and well as Honda Accords and Civics, unless there were common engines being used in these five models the licensing cost (for just one engine per) would be a half million dollars, which would have to be paid again in 2010. These fees are, needless to say, ridiculous and are only there to ensure that many don't get done (thanks to the gasoline lobby). The cost of the conversion kits are actually relatively inexpensive. If there was a sensible licensing fee (or no fee) the cost for the work could be just a few hundred dollars.

To be fair, there is a second part of the cost equation that has to be addressed: trained CNG conversion mechanics. An argument is typically made by those that want to make argument against CNG that there aren't enough trained mechanics. This is somewhat true, but of course there really is no shortage of new and old mechanics that would be willing to learn. So the issue is where can they be trained? The University of West Virginia has a great automotive program that they've "syndicated" to other colleges around the country. In California, two schools (Rio Hondo in So. CA and Yuba College in No. CA) teach the UWV curriculum. They can and do teach CNG conversions.

I hope the above wasn't too redundant for you. If you have other information or newer information I would love to hear of it.

Regards.

Marc J. Rauch
Exec. Vice President/Co-Publisher
THE AUTO CHANNEL
www.theautochannel.com

Cleantech Biggest Investment Opportunity Of The Century: Ajit Nazre | VCCircle

Your Name:
Your Email Address:
Friend's Name:
Friend's Email Address:
  

VCCircle talks to Ajit Nazre, a partner at KPCB, who also leads the firm's India investment initiatives.

New Delhi : -->

Cleantech is looked at as one of the most attractive investment opportunities across the world with venture capital and private equity investors pouring billions into the sector. Kleiner Perkins, Caufield & Byers or KPCB, one of the most successful venture capital firms in the world, is leading investments into this sector. The blue chip venture capital firm was the largest investor in the sector globally in April-June quarter, with five deals in the space. Silicon Valley-based KPCB has an India portfolio of eight companies, with its first cleantech investment in Kotak Urja, a maker of solar water heaters and solar photovoltaic modules and systems.

Ajit Nazre, a partner at KPCB, also leads KPCB’s India investment initiative. He joined KPCB in 2003 from SAP, where he played a key role in formulating and executing the company’s internet strategy, and co-founded and led SAPMarkets. Nazre did his undergraduation in Mechanical Engineering from College of Engineering Poona (COEP), in India, after which he went on to to do an MS in Mechanical Engineering from Michigan Tech, a PhD in Biomechanics from the Technical University of Hanover, Germany and an MBA from the Harvard Business School. VCCircle's Madhav A Chanchani catches up with Nazre on what makes the cleantech space so hot, the investment prospects, and why India should not miss the opportunity. This is the part one of the two part series interview with Nazre.

Q. How has cleantech as an investment concept evolved?

We really believe that cleantech is the single biggest investment opportunity of the 21st century. As far as market size is concerned, if you add up energy and transport sector, that’s $6 trillion worldwide. That is massive; it dwarfs sectors like IT. But that does not mean you will have hundreds of companies with billion dollar market caps immediately. The risks and hurdles are also big. The biggest hurdle is obviously that you need more capital.

There are several factors why I think cleantech is such an interesting investment opportunity. Firstly, there is a consensus in the world that climate change needs to be addressed. The debate may be around what is causing climate change, but everybody agrees that there will be a change, signs are there. Addressing that is a motivating factor which is driving investments into the sector.

The second is global policy. The tailwinds are very strong towards a carbon pricing system globally. If you look at what happened in Kyoto versus what is likely to happen in Copenhagen, there is far more possibility that something globally is going to get passed that will price carbon. This will be a very positive policy change towards cleantech.

The third is volatile fossil fuel prices. The world had seen oil prices jump to $148-150 per barrel last year, and it was $35 three months ago, and now it has doubled to $70 per barrel. That volatility is something that people have realised we cannot deal with, and we need to have some stability.

There are two factors, which are technology driven, which I think are causing a lot of innovation and investment opportunities in the space. There are advances in material sciences which are enabling innovations of magnitude that would not have been possible 10 years ago, definitely not 20-30 years ago.

The reason I bring this up is because in 1970s too there was a cleantech revolution. Oil prices had peaked at that time, and there was a lot of funding for innovation. But as soon as oil prices came back down, every thing went away. I think that is not the case today, because other factors are there, and innovation capability is far superior. 

Simply speaking if you want to have a photovoltaic cell with high efficiency or a better battery, new materials are enabling it. We are not just constrained with a periodic table, we can engineer new materials.

Second, thanks to Moore’s law, the computing capability we have can simulate systems. Giving an example, if you want to build a car or an airplane today, it takes much less time and dollars. You can simulate most of the systems and test them. Earlier you had to build and then test them, which takes a lot more time and money. You can effect changes with much less capital, which also holds true for cleantech innovation.

Q. A lot of venture capital firms have been focusing and investing in cleantech since 2006 and 2007. Since then, how have companies evolved in this sector?

I would say that cleantech investments have been going on since 2004. In 2004, investment in cleantech across research and development, manufacturing and deployment, was $35 billion. In 2008, it reached $155 billion globally.

If you look at successful companies, there are seven solar companies which went public with a market capitalisation of more than $1 billion. There are nine wind companies which have a market cap in the same vicinity. There are cleantech companies which have gone public, are profitable, and which the markets have rewarded.

Cleantech is not a theory, and people have made money. Perfect example is Suzlon which has reported revenues of more than $1 billion. And there are more sectors to come. Energy generation is one, I think transportation is going to come soon, then energy storage, and efficiency will happen.

So there are many sectors, and you can build large companies and make money. And it very much applies to India. We have invested in a company called Kotak Urja, based out of Bangalore, and it’s a large and profitable company. Ever since we got to know them in 2007, they have grown fourfold in two years in revenues. They are the largest deployers of solar water heaters in the country.

Q. Which segments in cleantech do you find attractive for investment in India?

I believe definitely that waste water treatment, water remediation and desalination are going to be very interesting for India because scarcity of water is a big challenge.

Waste is also a big opportunity. The big challenge here is that urbanisation is happening at very large scale. Look at the number of cities in India and when people start living in city what are problems that you have to solve – water, waste and electricity.

Third, I think is energy efficiency. Here of course there is no policy and very few companies. But I think there is a lot of room for policy innovation which can effect changes in this sector.

Q. How do you think Indian government’s policy towards cleantech has been?

I think they have talked a lot, but I wish they have done more. They are not an obstacle, but I think they have not come out and been openly supportive. Taking an example, look at the stimulus dollars which China has. Out of their $580 billion stimulus, $106 billion is targeted towards cleantech, which is huge.

Just like India made IT services industry hugely strategic 10-15 years ago, I think the country has a fantastic chance of making cleantech strategic too. Because there is a huge domestic demand I think entrepreneurs and companies can come up at a fast pace which can make them globally competitive and go onto exporting.

Indian government should look at this as an investment opportunity. The Chinese government is doing this not just because it’s good for the environment, but because they think it’s a competitive advantage they can create. Similarly for the US, out of the $787 billion stimulus, $102 billion is set aside for cleantech. EU is also investing $60 billion. So where is India? I think the government has a unique opportunity do something.

Q. We have also been seeing several Asian economies allocating significant parts of their GDP towards cleantech, and renewable energy…

Definitely. And the biggest problem for the country that I see is infrastructure, which is mainly energy and transport. We have massive scarcity of power. If you can invest in a new type of power, why wouldn’t you? India did a complete quantum leap in telecom. We didn’t make investments in wire line, we went straight to wireless. We skipped a generation of technology. Why won’t you do the same thing in energy? Why would you go to 50-60 year old technology of coal and natural gas, when you can go to something new in energy business.

It’s a huge opportunity. There are some very smart people at the government and they just have to get their act together. The new government has a great chance of making it happen, and I think it’s the best thing that could happen to India. 

Q. A lot of VC-backed cleantech startups headquartered in the US have made India their first market for product implementation. Do you see more of that happening?

That will happen. And you will see more of that happening if access to deployment financing would be available here. We have 3-4 companies in Germany, I would love to bring them to India. The technology is so relevant and so applicable to India, and economically viable. But I need to find financing partners for deployment, not equity.

And if India does it first, it could become the platform to take it to Africa, South America and other regions.

Q. Several electric car companies have raised funding. Do you think scaling will be a challenge?

I think that’s a tough one. There are two challenges. One is that storage technology, especially batteries, have improved, but they have improved (only) by 10-20%. There is no 2x-3x in that. It is at a very incremental evolution. And still extremely expensive.

Reva is a good company, and has a great entrepreneur behind it. But to offer a (viable) car, they need a cheap and long range battery. You can put a lithium-ion battery, but that would put the car out of reach for many. Technology and cost makes it challenging. But 3-5 years down the line, I think it will be a very good opportunity.

Second is the commercial challenge when you are looking to sell an expensive car with a battery. There is a company called Better Place, where they lease batteries. I think such commercial innovation is necessary for electric car companies to take off.

Roger Cooper on Clean Skies: Natural gas nearly perfect | True Blue Natural Gas - An Energy Blog from the American Gas Association AGA

Roger Cooper on Clean Skies: Natural gas nearly perfect

July 24, 2009 by Dan Gibson · Leave a comment
Filed under: Natural Gas 

As I’ve said before, I’m a big Roger Cooper fan. After seeing Roger’s interview with Clean Skies, my opinion hasn’t changed. Recently there’s been news going around that the natural gas industry hasn’t fared that well in the current climate legislation.

That’s really not the case.


Or at least that’s not the case when it comes to the part of the natural gas industry that AGA represents. AGA represents natural gas distribution utilities. To really understand what that means, check out Dave’s post on “Who is the American Gas Association.”

As Roger points out, AGA has had a detailed advocacy plan in place for years leading up to the current environment. The goals in that plan were largely accomplished in the latest legislation. Natural gas utility customers are not covered under cap and trade until 2016, four years after program begins. During that time natural gas will be getting 9 percent of allowances until 2025, which will mean hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars to our customers.

Roger does a great job of explaining this during the interview and his last line is classic. He even gets a chuckle from Susan McGinnis, his interviewer.

Susan: “In general you would say the natural gas industry does not come out a loser…”

Roger: “How can we be a loser, we’re a nearly perfect fuel.

:-)

There’s more great information in the interview so you should watch it yourself.  It’s a little over four minutes and embedded at the beginning of this post. You can also watch Roger’s interview on Clean Skies or on the AGA YouTube channel.

Silver Lake Says It's a Risk Taker And Looking For "Misunderstood" Companies - SiliconValleyWatcher

Silver Lake Says It's a Risk Taker And Looking For "Misunderstood" Companies

By Tom Foremski - July 24, 2009

Forbes reports on "What private equity investors want."

DavidRoux.jpg
Beth Kowitt writes that David Roux, co-founder and co-chief executive at Silver Lake said that the firm has more than $9 billion to invest. He's looking for companies that have:

- predictable business model.

- scalable business model.

- a misunderstood business model "therefore undervalued by the marketplace."

Basically, he's looking for a company with a solid business model with recurring revenue and a low valuation. That sounds like a low risk set of features, yet he sees Silver Lake as a risk taker.

"We’re at a point in the cycle where we feel like we’re being paid to take risks."

But he wants to moderate the risk by making sure valuations are low.

While companies would like to keep their valuations from July 2007, Roux said that a term of art in the industry now applies: "the valuations have begun to season."

He doesn't sound like a risk taker to me. And with $9 billion to invest, he won't be investing in startups.

RS 2477 Roads & Rights-of-Way (Summary) - ICMJ's Prospecting and Mining Journal

RS 2477 Roads & Rights-of-Way (Summary)

How To Determine If You Are Being Mislead Or Lied To!

  

Compiled by The Western Counties' Resources Policy Institute

Box 27514, Salt Lake City, Utah 84127-0514

  

The recent increased public attention given to RS 2477 rights-of-way also has been accompanied by an increase in misinformation being spread by some anti-access environmental groups and federal bureaucrats. Sometimes this is because they simply do not understand the issue themselves. Often, however, it is a clear and deliberate effort to deceive.

  

The following are the fundamental facts on RS 2477. If you encounter anything contrary, you can be certain you are either being misinformed or intentionally mislead. For more detailed information, you should check out the Official RS 2477 Internet site, www.rs2477roads.com. (See for yourself why eco-terrorist tried to destroy this web site in July of 1997!)

  

A word of caution! If those supporting continued public access to the public lands don't discuss RS 2477 accurately, they are just playing into the hands of the lockout crowd. You might want to double-check yourself on the facts, too!

  

1. RS 2477 is a simple and straightforward law. This is the entire text of RS 2477: "The right-of-way for the construction of highways across public lands not reserved for public purposes is hereby granted."

  

2. Congress specifically and clearly reaffirmed the validity and intent of RS 2477 in 1976. Because RS 2477 became law in 1866, anti-access extremists argue that it is now somehow inconsistent with modern public land management policy. But just 22 years ago, when Congress repealed RS 2477 and replaced it and many other laws with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, it specifically and explicitly reaffirmed all RS 2477 grants previously made.

  

3. RS 2477 was a self-executing law. When the conditions were met, the right-of-way grant was made. No further action by the grantee or by Congress was necessary to validate it.

  

4. Congress specifically by-passed the Executive Branch of the Federal Government in making RS 2477 grants. Under our Constitution, Congress has the exclusive power to manage and dispose of public lands and property (Article IV, Section 3: "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States;"). In 1976 when Congress reaffirmed the RS 2477 right-of-way granting process established 110 ten years earlier, it had the total power to do so. The federal land management agencies have no independent power or authority over RS 2477 roads (or anything else to do with public lands). Their only authority over public lands is what Congress delegates to them.

  

4. The RS 2477 right-of-way grant is a property right. Therefore, it enjoys the same constitutional and legal protections as any other property. Legally, when the grant was made, the federal government's interest in the land underlying the right-of-way became the "servient estate" and the interest of the right-of-way grantee became the "dominant estate." That means that while the federal government is protected against unnecessary or undue damage to the land underlying the right-of-way, it cannot interfere with the grantee's exercise of its rights.

  

5. The RS 2477 grant also conveyed a bundle of associated rights. These include the right to maintain the road and even upgrade the road. This federal law also is unusual because state law plays a major role. It can partially determine the scope of these associated rights, how the requirements of the grant offer were met, and the width of the right-of-way granted.

  

6. It is legally incorrect to call RS 2477 assertions "claims." The term "claim" suggests that there is some process which must still be followed before the RS 2477 right-of-way is fully granted and valid. In reality, the grant was either validly made before RS 2477 was repealed in 1976 or it was not. If it was, then it is not a claim but a valid grant, and the grantee asserts its validity. If it was not, then it cannot be asserted under a repealed law. The anti-access activists and some federal bureaucrats like to talk about "claims" to confuse the issue. When someone talks about RS 2477 "claims," they are either confused or deceptive.

  

7. Congress granted a right-of-way, not a road. In fact, RS 2477 rights-of-way can host a number of things besides roads. The legal definition of "highway" in the law means not only the frequently-traveled, periodically-maintained roads commonly associated with it, but also other kinds of public ways, including carriage-ways, bridle-ways, footways, trails, bridges, and even railroads, canals, ferries and navigable rivers. The essential element in defining "highway" is that whatever the means of transport, the public has the right to come and go at will.

  

8. The present physical condition of a road is totally irrelevant to whether a valid RS 2477 right-of-way exists. This should be obvious, but this is the point on which the anti-access folks are spreading the most misinformation. Whether a road is barely visible on the ground or even has been obliterated for any other reason, the legal status of the right-of-way is not affected. The grantee can legally re-establish the road even if it has totally disappeared. It follows, then, that it also is impossible to determine whether a valid right-of-way exists simply by looking at it. A right-of-way can only be relinquished or abandoned in accordance with state law.

  

9. A valid RS 2477 road can be established merely by the passage of vehicles. The case law and federal policy for over a century are clear: construction by machinery is not required to do so. Anti-access forces are frantically trying to convince the public otherwise. Don't be mislead.

  

10. No federal land management agency can determine the validity of an RS 2477 assertion. The agency can only determine for its own administrative purposes whether or not it will recognize the assertion as valid. Constitutionally, only a court can determine the validity.

  

11. No federal agency has the authority to close an RS 2477 road for any reason, period. This follows logically, but many federal bureaucrats think they have this authority and try to act accordingly. When next you run into one, outline the points listed here and ask them to cite the legal authority by which they claim they can close an RS 2477 road. Ties them in knots.

Utah SpeedPitch August 5th

Utah SpeedPitch August 5th

Utah SpeedPitch

No middle men; pitch directly to active Investors. You'll rotate through 10 tables of investors with 4 minutes to convince them to give you a second meeting. Add investor Q&A and a networking luncheon and you've got the most effective Investor networking event in existence.

Our investors are looking for companys who:

  • Are looking for $100k to $2MM
  • Have high growth potential
  • With ambitious management teams
  • And proven market traction

When & Where

  • Wednesday August 5
  • 11:00 am - 1:30 pm
  • Miller Business Innovation Center
    9690 South 300 West
    Sandy, Utah 84070

SpeedPitching Video

Sponsors

Stoel Rives

Apply

Application Fee: $25

Presentation Fee: $999 $799
(Presentation fee only charged if you are chosen to pitch)
Apply

801.805.4847

Benefits

  • Pitch to dozens of investors in 60 minutes
  • Network with Utah's business leaders over lunch
  • Prepare 1 on 1 with a FundingUniverse consultant

Alan Martin, CampusBookRentals

"The SpeedPitch got us in front of more investors in 90 minutes than we had gotten in front of the entire year prior. We landed our first meeting just 30 minutes after leaving the event. Anyone who is seeking funds and has absolute confidence in their idea needs to prepare for and attend a speedpitch event."


Rob Moore, Simplifile

"For a small company needing capital infusion, the SpeedPitch event was invaluable. Not only were we able to establish productive contacts within the investor community, but we also refined our investor pitch. The process of preparing for and participating in the rapid-fire presentation format challenged us to clearly articulate why Simplifile represents a compelling investment opportunity. Very worthwhile."

Tulsa World

House approves Sullivan's bill to reauthorize natural gas vehicle research program

by: JIM MYERS World Washington Bureau
Tuesday, July 21, 2009


WASHINGTON — The U.S. House approved a bill Tuesday by Rep. John Sullivan to reauthorize a research program on natural gas vehicles.

Passed by a vote of 393 to 35, the bill would keep the program going another five years.

“In 2008 alone, natural gas vehicles (NGVs) displaced 300 million gallons of petroleum in the United States,’’ said Sullivan, R-Okla. “I believe that natural gas must continue to play an important role in decreasing our dependence on foreign sources of oil and leading America to greater energy security.’’

He said about 97 percent of natural gas used in the U.S. is produced in North America.

“My legislation undoubtedly helps our state as we are one of the top natural gas producers in the nation, typically accounting for almost one-tenth of the total U.S. production,’’ Sullivan said.

In addition to cutting U.S. dependence on foreign oil, he said, other advantages linked to his bill would be environmental.

Sullivan cited a study that said natural gas vehicles produce up to 20 percent less greenhouse gases than diesel vehicles and up to 27 percent less than gasoline vehicles.

Natural gas vehicles produce less air pollutants, he said, adding they can reduce tailpipe emissions by up to 90 percent.

“To reach these goals, NGV research, development, demonstration and deployment is vital,’’ Sullivan said.

“There are over 150,000 NGVs on U.S. roads today and over 10 million worldwide.’’ Increased research would only increase those numbers, he said.

An amendment by Rep. Dan Boren, D-Okla., that was attached to a major spending bill would provide $5 million to fund the program at the U.S. Department of Energy for one year.

That bill passed the House last week.