Löschung

 

Press Release Source: Silverado Gold Mines Ltd.
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/070510/to284.html?.v=49

Silverado Appoints Administration and Environmental Engineering VP
Thursday May 10, 6:00 am ET
Daniel Basketfield Appointed to Head Environmental Efforts at Plant Site, Design Engineering Meetings Were Held in Mississippi Following the Groundbreaking Ceremony
SILVERADO - OTCBB: SLGLF/Frankfurt: SLGL/Berlin: SLGL

VANCOUVER and JACKSON, MS, May 10 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ - Today, Silverado Green Fuel Inc. announced the appointment of Daniel Basketfield, P.E., to Vice President of Administration and Environmental Engineering. An expert in the area of water resources, Mr. Basketfield's most recent position was Senior Water Resources Engineer for the Seattle Public Utilities. He also serves on an advisory committee for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Climate Change Science Program.


"We are gratified to have Dan join us at this important time in Silverado's history," said Silverado Green Fuel CEO Garry Anselmo. "His credentials and experience are key to our efforts in the construction phase of this project."

Dr. Warrack Willson, Silverado Green Fuel Vice President of Technology, and Mr. Basketfield met with various Mississippi State officials and engineers following Silverado Green Fuel's groundbreaking at the Ecoplex in Ackerman, MS. Mr. Basketfield also met with the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality's Executive Director, Trudy D. Fisher, to initiate permitting for the low-rank coal-water fuel production and testing facility.

Dr. Willson and Mr. Basketfield met with representatives of Pickering Engineering, Great Northern Engineering, and Crowder Engineering while in Mississippi regarding the plant building and site preparation, and the schedule of various phases for project completion. Silverado Green Fuel Inc. has initially contracted with Great Northern Engineering and Pickering Engineering to develop the specifications for the scale-up commercial plant which will convert Mississippi lignite into a petroleum fuel substitute. Crowder Engineering is the county-selected firm which is responsible for construction of the facility building.

"These meetings have moved us to a new level in the progress of the Green Fuel Project," said Dr. Willson. "We are especially pleased with their content and most importantly the many agreements we reached regarding all milestones both short term and long term. The people in Mississippi are as eager to move forward as we are at Silverado," he said. "At the same time, we realize there are specific actions that needed to take place for this to happen, and we are making them happen now."

About Silverado

Silverado is an international company focused on Gold and a new environmentally friendly Fuel Technology. Silverado has gold properties located throughout Alaska which include the 100% owned Nolan Placer Gold Mine. Silverado is also entering the construction phase of an environmentally friendly low cost strategic fuel demonstration facility. Silverado's Green Fuel will be produced from low-rank coal and turned into a environmentally friendly oil substitute. Silverado Green Fuel Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of its publicly traded parent, Silverado Gold Mines Ltd. For more information about Silverado Green Fuel Inc., please visit http://www.silveradogreenfuel.com and the parent public corporation, http://www.silverado.com.

This Press Release may contain, in addition to historical information, forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. These statements are based on management's expectations and beliefs, and involve risks and uncertainties. These statements may involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties and other factors that may cause the actual results to be materially different from the results implied herein. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on the forward-looking statements made in this Press Release.

CONTACT: SILVERADO GREEN FUEL INC., Mailing Address, 505 1111 W. Georgia Street, Vancouver, B.C., V6E 4M3, CA, Toll Free: (800) 665-4646 or (604) 689-1535, Fax: (604) 682-3519, pr@silveradogreenfuel.com, www.silveradogreenfuel.com; Field Address, 3180 Peger Rd, Ste 270, Fairbanks, AK, 99709-5485, USA
          § .
 

Die meisten denken bei Kohle doch gleich an Dreck, Ruß und Klimaerwärmung Aufgrund CO2. -Halten das so also gleich für einen dreckigen Treibstoff aber das hier heisst nicht umsonst GREEN FUEL.

Hier, ist die richtige Studie die richtige News um dieses Vorurteil aus der Welt zu schaffen.

http://www.futurecoalfuels.org/documents/050907_baard_release.pdf

Besser ist man ist mit einer Position dabei wenn die Politiker das auch verstehen.  

WASHINGTON -- A study done for the U.S. Department of Energy suggests it would be economically and technically feasible to operate the nation's first-ever coal-to-liquids plant in the Illinois coal basin.

Auf dem ganzen Text liegt ein Copyright, deshalb bitte dem link folgen. ;)

Da steht wieder nicht das Wort Silverado aber wenn Machbarkeit bewiesen ist wird uns das nicht schaden.


http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/...JO22_COAL_S1.article


 

http://www.silveradogreenfuel.com/may222007plaindealer.htm

MAY 22, 2007

Silverado appoints Engineering VP, moving forward

... (automatisch gekürzt) ...

http://www.silveradogreenfuel.com

 

U.S. lawmakers promote coal as an 'alternative fuel'

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/29/business/...1-63507.php?page=1

 

High oil price, supply fears help turn coal to fuel (Reuters)
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/...iness_June99.xml§ion=business&col=

4 June 2007


LONDON - Fears over energy security and high oil prices have rekindled global interest in technology, once vital to the siege economies of Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa, that converts coal to transport fuel.

Although potentially more polluting than other alternatives, coAl to-liquids has the advantage of relying on widely-available raw material. The rising cost of much scarcer oil resources is making it commercially viable.

‘It’s not a silver bullet, but it’s part of the mix,’ said Corey Henry of the U.S.-based CoAl To-Liquids Coalition. ‘With oil anywhere between $45-$55, you can produce a profit.’

Oil prices are approaching $70 a barrel for benchmark Brent crude LOCc1 and they are expected to stay high. That could embolden investors to make the huge outlays needed to build coAl to-liquids plants.

‘Not only is interest spurred by a likely new and higher floor for global oil prices ... but I would say rising concern, even apprehension ... about the increasing reliance on energy imports,’ said Luke Popovich of the United States’ National Mining Association.

The United States’ Energy Information Administration has revised upwards its forecast for world coAl to-liquids production to 2.4 million barrels of oil equivalent per day by 2030 in its 2007 International Energy Outlook, compared with 2.1 million in its 2006 outlook.

That is a tiny amount compared with total liquids production -- including crude, gasoline, coAl to-liquids and other alternatives -- which the EIA forecasts will reach more than 100 million barrels daily by 2030.

But campaigners say that for the world’s top two energy consumers the United States and China, which also both hold vast huge coal reserves, it could make a big difference.

‘I believe that fuel derived from coal will be the most beneficial fuel source for our country over the next 20 years,’ Senator Craig Thomas said in May, backing a US bill that calls for a phased increase of coAl derived fuels.

‘CoAl to-liquid technology can provide our nation with a sound way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.’
Fischer-tropsch synthesis

CoAl to-liquids can provide fuel for cars and aircraft, as well as products such as fertilisers and tar.

The process involves converting coal to gas and then reacting it over a catalyst to make liquid products. It is also possible to liquefy coal directly, which can be more energy efficient, but this technique is commercially untested.

The original technology, named after its inventors Fischer and Tropsch, was developed in the 1920s in Germany, which was coAl rich and petroleum poor, and helped to provide fuel during World War Two.

It was also used for fuel in South Africa during the isolation caused by apartheid and the country still derives around 30 percent of its gasoline and diesel needs from indigenous coal, the London-based World Coal Institute said.

South Africa’s Sasol is so far the only commercial producer of transport fuel from coal but China is expected to start producing coAl to-liquids late this year.

In the United States, coal companies are assessing the commercial viability of coAl to-liquids projects, with at least one project expected to come on stream around 2011-12.

Apart from the widespread availability of coal -- it is mined in more than 50 countries worldwide and present in more than 70 -- advocates of coAl derived fuels say they can be clean, provided that carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology is used to bury emissions produced during manufacture.

Some say they could be cleaner than conventional fuels, while the Paris-based International Energy Agency (IEA) said they were roughly as clean.

‘With CO2 capture and storage at the coal liquefaction plant, the net CO2 emissions from coAl based transport fuels are similar to oil-based fuels,’ the IEA said in a report on a coAl to-liquids workshop.

‘Without CCS, emissions would be significantly above those from the oil-based alternatives -- roughly double current well-to-wheel emissions.’

In the United States, coAl to-liquids would be produced only if CCS were used, experts say, and there is an abundance of potential sites for storing captured carbon.

For China, CCS is not a priority, but the IEA said there was a willingness to use it if the economic cost could be covered.

But South Africa lacks suitable storage sites, experts say.

Apart from the environmental challenge, the other factor likely to check enthusiasm would be lower oil prices -- or a big rise in the price of coal, currently the cheapest fossil fuel.

Following the oil price shocks of the 1970s, significant research was undertaken into coAl to-liquids in the United States, as well as in Europe, Japan and Australia, but then oil prices fell and enthusiasm for coAl to-liquids waned.  
 

John Kerry Challenges Congress, Bush on Energy Solutions At Home and Abroad
http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=5957

John Kerry Challenges Congress, Bush on Energy Solutions At Home and Abroad
Posted by Pamela Leavey June 6th, 2007 @ 10:47 am
(Note: While it is mostly ol' John trying to get in the conversation, the highlighted areas are of note)

In remarks at the National Press Club, John Kerry challenged the Democratic Majority today to take bold approaches to solving our environmental crisis caused by Climate Change, when the Senate takes up the debate on the energy bill next week.
Kerry, who has been one of the top environmentalists in the Senate through out his career, urged President Bush, who is arriving at the G8 summit today, to reengage in a global effort to fight climate change abroad and to agree to firm limits on emissions rather than flexible goals.

Kerry also called on Congress in his speech to pass serious cap-and-trade legislation and reduce CO2 emissions. The text of John Kerry’s remarks, as prepared for delivery are below:

For years now, some in Washington have clung to any excuse or rationalization they could find—no matter how thin —to avoid confronting the imminent threat of climate change.

But last week, on the heels of President Bush saying that this is a serious issue, we reached a new low when Michael Griffin, the Administrator of NASA – the agency that oversees climate change science — offered a disturbing insight into what many of us have long feared is the true thinking of this Administration.

He said that while he acknowledges the existence of global warming, he’s not sure it’s fair to say that it’s “a problem we must wrestle with.” He said he isn’t sure which human beings should have – and these again are his words — “the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now, is the best climate for all other human beings.” He thinks it’s “arrogant” to think that the government should act on climate change.

I have news for Administrator Griffin. History will show that what’s “arrogant” is how this Administration ignores pleas from the world community, from Democratic and Republican governors, from CEOs of major corporations, from religious leaders of every denomination– to do something about climate change.

It’s not a “privilege” for this Administration to protect us from climate change—it’s an obligation. And anyone in power who thinks otherwise ought to have the “privilege” of being voted out of office or fired.

And yet, when it comes to energy independence and fighting climate change, neither the blame nor the burden for inaction falls on one party alone. Washington has never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

Even President Bush is now fond of saying that “America is addicted to oil.” But Washington’s preferred policy has been to feed the addiction; the government’s attitude on greenhouse gases has been to let them increase; Congress’s energy alternatives have been token; and again and again the partisan approach to crisis has been to denigrate the environment.

Last November Americans spoke out – the people know the truth: America is not addicted to oil because it wants to be. Washington has been addicted to oil because that’s the way powerful interests want it to be.

But the good news is that right now, this summer we have a chance to begin to get it right. In a single month, we could rewrite the shameful story of procrastination, manipulation and—most of all—failed leadership that has defined our energy policy for thirty years.

Here at home, the Democratic Senate has a chance to pass an energy bill that shapes our country’s energy policy and our research priorities for years to come. And overseas, at the G-8 conference in Germany, the President has a chance to remind the world of what America should always stand for by committing our country to concrete measures in the fight against climate change.

That is why today I’m calling on the President to do what’s right at the G-8 Summit in Germany. And I believe it is imperative that Congress—particularly we Democrats with a mandate for change—do what’s right here at home.

For Democrats, the energy bill coming to the floor of the Senate is a test of our will, and a question of whether we are serious about the responsibility we hold to govern differently, to deliver bold change—not warmed over offerings. Democrats took a majority of both houses in Congress because we promised to do things differently. We weren’t elected to be the party of Big Oil, only a little less obviously. We weren’t elected to be like Republican Congresses of the past, only a little more progressive. No — if we merely tinker around the edges of energy policy or climate change, or write an energy bill indistinguishable from the ones we criticized Republicans for passing— then we have not earned our majority.

The energy bill the last Congress passed was a hollow exercise masquerading as a new direction while giving the majority of the spoils to the same old special interests. It had no guiding national goal, no tough decisions, no change in priorities — just a collection of logrolling, back-scratching subsidies for any industry with the clout to get a seat at the table and a share of the pork. A few good ideas, a lot of bad ideas and ugly ideas–Washington smiled equally upon all of them.

It was the latest chapter in the long story in both parties of politics at its worst — ducking the difficult choices, giving into the big contributors, substituting words for deeds, postponing the reckoning until the day after tomorrow. If you offend no one, you change nothing. But the world is changing and now the reckoning is real.

The question now is what will our Democratic Congress offer to break with the past – what will we do to begin to break the oil addiction that leaves us at the mercy of hostile regimes in the Middle East and pushes the world ever closer to a global climate change tipping point that would be irreversible.

A serious energy bill must include three components: 1) a major increase in the efficiency of all sources and uses of energy, from pickup trucks to fluorescent light bulbs; 2) dramatic incentives for all renewable energy sources, including the requirement that at least 20% of our energy come from renewable sources like wind and solar by 2020; and 3) a comprehensive plan to get clean coal technologies and carbon sequestration off the drawing board and under construction.

First energy efficiency: improving fuel economy is the cornerstone of the strategy to reduce our reliance on imported oil. Since America’s second oil crisis in 1980, our oil imports have increased from 37% to 56%, but our passenger fleet averages 25 miles per gallon (mpg), the same as in 1981.

And there’s no reason for it. But don’t take my word for it — the National Academy of Sciences found that existing engine technologies were cheap enough to pay for themselves over the life of a vehicle and could enhance fuel economy by 8 to 11 mpg with no net cost to consumers.

This is happening right now. Today there’s a company in Massachusetts that has developed the technology for a plug-in hybrid car that gets 150 miles per gallon. The average American’s commute is less than 30 miles roundtrip— and this car can travel that far without any meaningful contribution from a combustion engine. Just think of the fuel savings if the average commute required almost no fuel.

Senator McCain and I first proposed a 35 mpg increase to fuel standards in 2002, and I’ve supported efforts to move in this direction for my entire Senate career. However, the current version of this energy bill includes loopholes that may allow automakers to avoid increasing the average fuel economy as much as they claim to. And anything less than a guaranteed 35 miles per gallon over the next decade is unacceptable

But it’s not just our automobiles that need to be more efficient. It’s our buildings too. You want to know why green buildings matter? Look at the Texas Instruments building in Dallas. To save enough money to justify building their new plant in Texas instead of India or China, they built green. And you know what happened? They’re saving $3 million per year on water and energy, bringing a $14.5 billion boost to Texas’ economy, and creating over 88,000 permanent jobs.

Second, this energy bill currently offers no mandate for renewable energy production. Over the last five years, 24 states and the District of Columbia have implemented local requirements that 20% of our energy come from renewable sources by the year 2020. And yet Republicans continue to stand in the way of a federal Renewable Portfolio Standard. States are screaming for leadership on this issue, and I will once again fight for an aggressive renewable portfolio standard in this bill.

Finally, this energy bill doesn’t adequately address our number one source of energy: coal. Coal is available, abundant and cheap, that’s true—but it’s also a huge source of US greenhouse gas emissions –1.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide each year.

Why is clean coal so important? Because if we even stand a prayer at addressing climate change, we have no choice but to get serious about cleaning up coal. In the last 250 years, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have risen from 270 parts per million to 370—higher today than at any time in the past 150,000 years. And carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for a century or more, trapping the sun’s heat and warming the planet.

Scientists tell us that we have to keep CO2 concentration below 450 parts per million – which corresponds to an increase of 2 degrees Celsius—to avoid a large scale catastrophe. And we only have ten years in which to act. But unless we take dramatic action, we’re expected to reach 600-700 parts per million by the year 2100. With the emissions already in the atmosphere and those we can’t hope to prevent, the window is already closing on us—there’s no room for error here.

This is urgent. And it’s not being driven by politics—it’s being driven by facts and by the alarms that scientists across the planet are sounding today. This energy bill is inseparable from climate change because better energy policy is at the heart of any serious solution to climate change.

And so any energy bill worth the paper it’s printed on should make dramatic investments in developing technologies for clean coal – on the order of a billion dollars a year. MIT recently introduced a ground-breaking study calling for a dramatically expanded effort to develop carbon capture and sequestration –or CCS—technology. They say that CCS will allow us to use coal to meet our energy needs without sabotaging our efforts to fight climate change.

But like so many great ideas, we haven’t tested CCS on a scale commensurate to the size of the problem. We need large-scale demonstration projects with government support, and massive funding for research so that we can reclaim the most readily available energy assets we have for the 21st century economy. I will be introducing legislation – which I will also offer as an amendment to the energy bill – that will pave a path for a clean coal future.

Those are the steps Democrats must take. And we must have the courage to do something that Democrats have not done as boldly as we should have: stand up to big oil.

We need to use this energy bill to dramatically increase the number of tools in our arsenal to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions —because climate policy is energy policy and vice versa We should be massively increasing our investment in wind, solar, and other renewable electricity sources. We should promote the purchase of cleaner vehicle fleets, and we should be supporting green buildings.

And how can we pay for this bold new plan? Last time I checked, Big Oil’s profits were hitting historic highs. In fact, big oil companies have pocketed $255 billion in profits since the start of 2005. This…on top of the billions in tax breaks and sweetheart deals President Bush and his oil buddies in Congress have delivered. At the same time American consumers are paying record prices at the pump. Enough is enough. Even President Bush has said that some of the tax breaks should go. The CEO’s of big oil say they’re unnecessary. What’s stopping us in the Senate from acting? I have a bill that would roll back the subsidies for big oil, saving over $20 billion dollars. This is about priorities. Honestly, which do you think is more important? Voters ought to be asking every member of Congress for an honest answer.

Once we pass a serious energy bill, we must also bring a cap-and-trade bill to reduce C02 emissions to the Senate floor. Olympia Snowe and I have proposed a bill that does just that—the most aggressive bipartisan legislation introduced to date. For too long, Democrats have been part of the problem. Now we have the power in Congress to drive a real solution. And Democrats need to stand up and be counted.

The second major opportunity we have is unfolding in Europe at the G-8 Summit, where the President could follow up on his promises from last week with specifics that will transform our nation from the world’s laggard to the world’s leader in the fight against climate change. I’m pleased to see that President Bush is now taking the first tentative steps, which his top environmental advisor describes as “aspirational goals.” Good intentions are welcome, but we need mandatory caps too.

The President last week called for an international dialogue on climate change. He’s apparently so new to this issue that he doesn’t even realize that we already have one – over ten years ago we signed onto the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. This isn’t the time for talk, it’s the time for action. We can’t let the President use the cover of conversation to weather the G-8 and punt this problem to the next Administration.

As the G-8 summit convenes today, President Bush should sit down with Chancellor Merkel and the other world leaders and agree to work inside the established international framework to reduce Carbon Dioxide emissions. He should agree to personally represent the US at the upcoming meeting in Bali and engage in negotiations with the leaders of developed and developing nations to secure their buy-in going forward. That’s what real leadership worthy of the American people would look like and we should demand nothing less.

We should be driving the process to create a new international agreement to replace the flawed Kyoto treaty – and that process should begin today at the G-8 summit.

It’s time for those of us who are serious about fighting climate change to take the next step toward decisive action: pass a bold and visionary energy bill at home, enact serious cap-and-trade legislation to reduce domestic CO2 emissions, and reengage in a global effort to fight climate change abroad.

This won’t be easy, and it won’t happen on the cheap. But, as John F Kennedy once told a crowd at Rice University in Texas, “We choose to go to the moon in this decade …., not because [it is] easy, but because [it is] hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win”

Great challenges bring greatness to those who master them, and either through the ferocity of our fight or the weakness of our willpower, this will be the challenge that defines us. I choose to fight. So for the second time in our history let’s declare and win our independence. This time not from foreign rule but from foreign oil. If we are as Lincoln said the “last best hope of Earth,” let’s stop being the denier of global warming that endangers the Earth. Let’s give our people back the truth, and let’s give the world back its future.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/13/washington/...nd%20L%2e&oref=slogin

By EDMUND L. ANDREWS
Published: June 13, 2007
WASHINGTON, June 12 — As the Senate began debate Tuesday on a sprawling bill to reduce oil consumption, top Democrats were circulating a proposal to provide $10 billion in loans for plants that make diesel fuel from coal.

The proposal highlights the horse-trading involving powerful industry groups as Democratic leaders push for legislation that would require higher mileage in cars and a huge increase in the production of renewable fuels made from plants like switch grass.

But many environmental groups are flatly opposed. “We don’t think the federal government should be subsidizing liquid coal,” said Erich Pica of Friends of the Earth. “From a global warming and an environmental position, liquid coal is an unacceptable source of energy.”

The bill is being circulated by Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico, chairman of the Senate Energy Committee and the energy bill’s lead author. Until this week, Mr. Bingaman had opposed big subsidies for coal-based fuels, saying that each new production plant would cost billions of dollars and that the economic uncertainties posed risks for taxpayers.

But in what could be an effort to fend off demands from coal-state lawmakers for bigger subsidies, Mr. Bingaman’s draft proposal would offer up to $10 billion in direct government loans for coal-to-liquid plants.

Bill Wicker, a spokesman for Mr. Bingaman, said that the draft proposal was “not a Bingaman amendment per se,” but that coal-based fuel was of interest to many lawmakers.

The individual loans would be allowed to cover up to half the total cost of a new plant, and the plants would have to be capable of capturing and storing the carbon dioxide emitted during production.

Numerous companies have proposed coal-to-liquid projects, and industry supporters have said that a plant producing 50,000 barrels of fuel a day would cost at least $3 billion and probably more than $4 billion.

Coal industry supporters say coal-based liquids could replace millions of gallons of gasoline a day, reducing the country’s dependence on imported oil from the Middle East and other troubled areas.

Coal-state lawmakers are pushing for a wide array of government assistance to jump-start the industry. In the House, Representative Rick Boucher, Democrat of Virginia, has drafted a bill that would insulate coal-to-liquid plants from gyrations in energy prices by providing loans if oil prices dropped too low to make coal-based liquids profitable.

Other lawmakers have proposed letting the Air Force sign 20-year contracts to buy vast amounts of coal-based jet fuel at fixed prices. Still others have proposed including coal-based liquids in a government mandate to greatly expand production of alternative fuels.

“A group of us is working on it,” said Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota and a strong supporter of liquefied-coal fuel. But Mr. Dorgan cautioned that Mr. Bingaman’s bill was “still a work in progress” and that Democratic leaders had yet to agree on what incentives to include in the measure.

Corey Henry, a spokesman for the Coal to Liquid Coalition, an industry lobbying group, said he was optimistic that the Senate would include some kind of support.

“You can definitely see that there’s a bipartisan effort to achieve a workable coal-to-liquid provision,” Mr. Henry said.

More Articles in Washington »�  

Silverado Gold Mines’ ‘High-Octane’ Alternative Green Fuel Business Gets a U.S. $26 Million Shot in the Arm with Major U.S. Government Funding

By Marc Davis
June, 2007

Corporate Overview
As an emerging gold mining company ( NASD OTCBB:SLGLF ) (Frankfurt: SLGL) (Berlin: SLGL) , Silverado Gold Mines Ltd.’s bottom line is as sensitive to surging oil prices as any other energy-dependent producer of mineral resources. Likewise for the rest of the world’s industrial infrastructure, which is also beholden to global oil oligopolies, better known as cartels.

However, whereas this energy supply squeeze spells trouble for most, Silverado ( http://www.silveradogreenfuel.com/ ) amazingly sees nothing but a big ‘blue sky’ of unprecedented opportunities. That’s because this enterprising company has taken the extraordinary landmark step of remedying the problem at its very source.

That is to say, Silverado’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Silverado Green Fuel Inc., has pioneered the refinement of a cost-efficient, environmentally-friendly alternative to oil. We’re talking about the conversion of low-rank coal (of which the U.S. has an abundance) into liquid fuel, or environmentally-friendly fuel source.

This low-grade coal goes by the unwieldy term: low-rank coal-water fuel (LRCWF). This lignite coal has traditionally been of little use to most industrialized nations due to its high water content and therefore its inferior quality to other efficiently burning fossil fuels, including other types of coal. Even though over one-quarter of the world’s coal reserves are in the United States, half of those reserves are low-rank coal.

However, Silverado’s proprietary coal-to-liquid conversion technology has found an innovative multi-application use for this denigrated form of coal. Silverado’s cutting edge solution is simply referred to as a Green Fuel. This is a very fitting name as this fuel source is non-toxic, non-hazardous, non-flammable during creation and transportation and it burns very clean.

All told, it can be used for electricity generation, industrial heat and in the production of various fuels, ranging from a low-cost gasoline alternative to ultra-clean diesel, jet fuel and synthetic natural gas. It also has a multitude of other industrial applications, even including other environmental technologies such as hydrogen for turbines and fuel cells.  

Too good to be true? Well, not according to the U.S. federal government, as well as the coal-rich state of Mississippi. The latter is seizing the initiative to become the first U.S. state government to take a major roll in financing and further developing this new ‘green’ energy form.  Meanwhile, the U.S. federal government is also beginning to move in the same direction, as we will discuss later on in this article.

The desire at the highest levels of the U.S. government to embrace this new fuel form is being spurred on by a realization that the U.S. must significantly reduce its dependence on foreign oil. It must therefore move towards energy self sufficiency. The economic benefits to the U.S. cannot be overstated either since it boasts the world’s largest coal reserves and has enough coal to meet its energy needs for at least the next two centuries.

This new paradigm shift is not lost on Silverado’s Company CEO, Garry Anselmo, who recently met with SmallCapMedia. During the interview, he obviously had plenty to smile about, though he is far from smug. He merely exudes the demure self-assurance of a man who knows that his Company’s contribution to society will be far reaching – and will meet the approval not just of his shareholders but also of his grand-children, too.

"If a ship breaks apart, you have water and a substrate that is conducive to plant growth. If a pipeline ruptures, you have water and particles that can be scooped up and reconstituted,” he states in a matter-of-fact manner.

“It (Green Fuel) is non-toxic, non-hazardous, nothing dies. No birds are hurt in spills," he adds. “But we’re not just talking about helping the environment here. We’re also talking about the launching of a multi-billion dollar business.”

In addition, licensing this technology to developing nations will help to diminish the amount of greenhouse gases emitted to the atmosphere worldwide. However, the biggest market for this fuel form is in Silverado’s back yard. In fact, over half of the electrical power created in the United States today is generated from the direct burning of coal.


Work on a Government Co-Funded US $26 million Demonstration (and Future Production) Facility in Mississippi Gets Underway .............



http://www.smallcapmedia.com/articles/...tech-focus-june-10-2007.html

--

Ich habe mir erlaubt den link zu reparieren zur greenfuel Seite. ;)  

Published: June 19, 2007 08:11 pm

Rockefeller seeks $10 billion for coal-to-liquid technology

Mannix Porterfield
Register-Herald Reporter

An amendment attached to the energy bill seeks to pump $10 billion in a loan program to finance coal-to-liquid projects, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., says.

In addition, the amendment by Rockefeller and Sen. Robert C. Byrd, also D-W.Va., would offer $200 million in grants for planning, permitting and construction of any project that qualifies.

No single facility would get more than $20 million, and the program is meant to assign priority to the cleanest facilities with regard to carbon emissions to those with the greatest carbon sequestration capability.

Another part of the amendment, co-sponsored by Sen. John Tester, D-Montana, calls on the defense secretary to study the feasibility of maintaining coal-to-liquid fuel in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Gov. Joe Manchin has been promoting the same technology, with an initiative to encourage alternative uses of coal as a means of providing additional sources of energy.

In addition, Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., intends to lead a special summit late this summer in southern West Virginia, with the United States Air Force playing a major role, since it ranks as the nation’s top consumer of fuel.

“It is time to think about coal in new ways,” Byrd said.

“No longer is it a fuel source only for power plants. The technology exists today to transform that coal into transportation fuels. Imagine pulling up to the pump and seeing an option for clean coal-based fuel right next to the oil-based gasoline. The choice is not that far into the future.”

Rockefeller said coal’s importance to the nation’s future demands investments in such projects.

“Many of us have come to understand that we need to harness all of our abundant natural resources, including coal, ethanol, solar and hydro,” the senator said.

“This is the key to a responsible energy policy, and coal-to-liquids conversion can be a big part in achieving energy independence that is so critical to our national security.”

While coal-to-liquids technology has been documented as workable, and, in fact, is used in other countries to provide motor and aviation fuels, Rockefeller said such usage must be made cleaner.

“The challenge we face is how to protect the environment while meeting our growing energy needs. Even without converting coal to transportation fuels, it will remain a huge part of our economic and energy future. Coal already produces 50 percent of our nation’s electricity, and no one believes that coal will be any less important in years to come.”

Rockefeller said America cannot afford to do nothing.

Byrd emphasized that technology already exists for converting coal into transportation fuel.

“That is not even an issue,” he said.

“The issue is creating the incentives for private entities to invest in this new field. We hope to provide that incentive through this legislation.”

 

http://pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/rss/s_515149.html

'Liquid gold' prospects high with Harmarville studies
By Rick Stouffer
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Sunday, July 1, 2007

At U-PARC in Harmarville, scientists are running experiments to perfect a way to convert coal into high-quality jet and diesel fuel.

Independent testing company Intertek Inc. is working under contract with the U.S. Air Force to produce the fuels at the former research-and-development complex of Gulf Oil Corp., now the University of Pittsburgh Applied Research Center on Gulf Lab Road.

"We've been focused on producing jet fuel from coal, but it's just as much the same process to convert coal to diesel," said Geoff Wilson, an Englishman who's been involved with oil refinery processes and catalysts for four decades.

Wilson and Penn State University Fuel Science Professor Harold Schobert are working together on coal-to-liquids, Schobert trying to integrate coal-to-liquid equipment and processes into an operating oil refinery.
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review Back to headlines
Larger textLarger text Smaller textSmaller text
'Liquid gold' prospects high with Harmarville studies
By Rick Stouffer
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Sunday, July 1, 2007

At U-PARC in Harmarville, scientists are running experiments to perfect a way to convert coal into high-quality jet and diesel fuel.

Independent testing company Intertek Inc. is working under contract with the U.S. Air Force to produce the fuels at the former research-and-development complex of Gulf Oil Corp., now the University of Pittsburgh Applied Research Center on Gulf Lab Road.

"We've been focused on producing jet fuel from coal, but it's just as much the same process to convert coal to diesel," said Geoff Wilson, an Englishman who's been involved with oil refinery processes and catalysts for four decades.

Wilson and Penn State University Fuel Science Professor Harold Schobert are working together on coal-to-liquids, Schobert trying to integrate coal-to-liquid equipment and processes into an operating oil refinery.

story continues below



"There currently is a lot of interest in coal-to-liquid technology on Capitol Hill, and it has to do with energy security," said Gerry Keenan, a consultant in Chicago with the business advisory firm FTI Consulting.

The U.S. armed forces, particularly the Air Force, is extremely interested in coal-to-liquid, Keenan said. The Air Force in 2006 consumed 2.6 billion gallons of jet fuel, and coal-to-liquid proponents are hoping by 2025 that 1.8 billion of that total could be converted from coal in the United States.

Today, scientists are busy in laboratories locally and nationwide converting coal, America's most abundant carbon-based fuel, into "black gold," a crude oil substitute that produces fuels much cleaner than products made from petroleum.

Reasons for this most recent push to convert coal into ultra-clean liquid fuels, according to proponents, are to take advantage of 250 years worth of coal deposits on or under American soil and to reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil.

Opponents of coal-to-liquid conversion counter that the processes emit more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than petroleum refineries, that the final product isn't worth the cost and that the processes use excessive amounts of water.

"Our big concerns are the carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas impact of coal-to-liquids," said Deron Lovass, an energy analyst with the National Resources Defense Council in Washington.

Converting coal into diesel, jet fuel and other fuels isn't new. The basic methods known as direct and indirect liquefaction were invented in Germany in the 1920s. In South Africa since the mid-1950s, Sasol Ltd. built and still operates plants that produce 160,000 barrels per day of coal-to-liquids, about 30 percent of the country's needs.

Providing incentives to develop the coal-to-liquids process in the States has been tried three times before. All three programs failed, with the most recent coming in reaction to the 1973 Arab oil embargo and the 1979 oil-price shock.

Congress passed the Energy Security Act of 1980, which authorized spending $17 billion for the public-private Synthetic Fuels Corp., which was charged with producing 500,000 barrels of synthetic fuel per day by 1987. Cost overruns and technical problems shut it down in 1985.

With crude now selling in the $69-a-barrel range, coal-to-liquids is making its fourth U.S. appearance.

"Right now, there are projects proposed in 15 or 16 states," said John Ward, spokesman for Headwaters Inc., a company in South Jordan, Utah, that is heavily involved in coal liquefaction processes.

In February, Headquarters signed a deal with Consol Energy Inc. and is assessing the Upper St. Clair coal producer's coal and land holdings, including in Western Pennsylvania, for construction of a coal-to-liquids plant.

"We're very much in favor of a coal-to-liquids industry," Consol spokesman Thomas Hoffman said. "We would be a feedstock provider, perhaps provide the land for a facility, and we wouldn't rule out being an equity partner."

A huge negative for the coal-to-liquid process is cost. The only commercial-size coal-to-liquids plants currently operating are those in South Africa, so today's costs only are educated guesses. Estimated construction cost per barrel of product ranges from $50,000 to $100,000, or $2.5 billion to $5 billion for a 50,000-barrel-per-day facility.

Experts estimate that for today's coal-to-liquid plants to be profitable, a barrel of crude must sell for more than $40, which is one reason proponents hope the federal government will get involved.

A Senate bill was introduced in January that would assist coal-to-liquids development. However, in the current version, two amendments that would have put billions of dollars into the efforts were defeated by fairly wide margins.

Some 40 miles west of Pittsburgh, on the Ohio River at Wellsville, Ohio, Baard Energy CEO John Baardson, of Vancouver, Wash., is on track to construct a 50,000-barrels-per-day coal-to-liquid plant. The plant would produce jet and diesel fuels along with naphtha, a chemical feedstock for the plastics industry.

Baard Energy's process is a hybrid, using 70 percent coal and 30 percent biomass, five million tons annually and two million tons annually, respectively. The Ohio Air Quality Development Authority already has adopted a $4 billion bond resolution for the Baard project.

"We passed the inducement for up to $4 billion in late 2006," said Mark R. Shanahan, the authority's executive director. "It uses Ohio coal, and the process gets around environmental challenges and thus allows the use of Ohio coal."

"We need a good coal supply, which we have in the Wellsville area, and a key at Wellsville is the fact that we could take control of some old oil wells, allowing us to inject the carbon dioxide (generated by the process) into the wells and allow enhanced oil recovery," Baardson said. "The carbon dioxide is expected to enhance recovery of the oil remaining in the abandoned wells."

In addition to producing ultraclean diesel and crude oil from abandoned wells, Baard would produce up to 200 megawatts of electricity that will be sold into the power grid.

Baardson is confident the Air Quality Development Authority bond will be purchased by "a large international bank," with a group of large Wall Street banks already agreeing to purchase the fuel produced. He's hoping to make it on a list of projects eligible for a federal loan guarantee.

"We expect to have our financing in place by the summer of 2008, with construction to begin in 2009, and the project to be completed in three years," Baardson said.

Rick Stouffer can be reached at rstouffer@tribweb.com or 412-320-7853.
Back to headlines  

Coal-to-liquid-fuel incentives rare
Fletcher pushing for quick action

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/...0704/NEWS01/707041182


FRANKFORT, Ky. -- Four of five coal-producing states in the region have minimal or no tax incentives to attract coal-conversion plants -- despite Gov. Ernie Fletcher's repeated insistence that Kentucky is at a competitive disadvantage.

The governor has called a special legislative session that, among other things, is to consider such incentives in an effort to attract plants that turn coal into liquid fuel.


                    §
He has said several companies, including world energy giant Peabody Energy, are considering Kentucky and other states for such facilities and that the incentives are urgently needed before decisions are made about where to locate.

"It's 100 percent that they will not come to Kentucky if we do not have an appropriate incentives package," Fletcher said at a news conference yesterday.

But a survey by The Courier-Journal found that Illinois is the only neighboring state with a comprehensive incentive package for such plants.

In making a pitch again yesterday for his plan, Fletcher said Illinois provides tough competition.

"Illinois in particular was the one that has … about $100 million in a fund that they can use to provide incentives and help the initial investment of energy companies locate there, and Peabody is looking at Illinois at this time," Fletcher said.

He added that Peabody's decision is "most likely to be made here in the next several weeks, not the next several months."

Illinois' tax package provides grant money for design and engineering of such a plant; offers sales tax credits on construction materials; and makes credits available for the taxes paid on Illinois coal used to support a project, according to officials there.

Other states, however, are nowhere near as generous.

Neighboring West Virginia, which is the second-largest coal-producing state in the country, offers no incentives to attract coal-to-liquid projects.

Indiana offers a limited property tax credit, and Ohio has basic incentives that would be available to any major economic development project, such as job-training assistance, low interest loans and tax breaks on machinery and equipment.

Pennsylvania's legislature is considering -- and is widely expected to approve -- an $850 million Energy Independence Strategy. Some of that money is to be used to try to lure coal-to-liquid projects.

Fletcher has proposed an incentives package that closely mirrors the one in Illinois, offering companies a sales tax break on construction material and a rebate of up to 80 percent on the severance tax paid on Kentucky coal used for the project.

Peabody is considering building a $3 billion plant near Sturgis, in Union County, that would produce 30,000 barrels of diesel fuel per day. Under Fletcher's bill such a plant could, over a period of 25 years, receive incentives of more than $315 million.

The state already has given Peabody a $400,000 grant to study the plant's feasibility, but the company could decide to put the plant elsewhere.

The state also has committed $2 million to EnviRes LLC to develop technology to convert coal to liquid fuel. The company is moving toward building a demonstration plant in the Ashland area.

House Speaker Jody Richards, D-Bowling Green, said yesterday that his researchers came to the same conclusion about the other states' incentives -- that they aren't especially generous for the most part. And that, he said, is another reason why a special session isn't needed.

"As we've said repeatedly, we'd be willing to issue a letter that we would cooperate with any company that wanted to come to Kentucky," he said.

Democrats have opposed the session, saying the tax incentives can wait until January, when the legislature convenes for a regular session.

They contend Fletcher is calling a special session, scheduled to begin tomorrow, to help his re-election campaign.

James Bartis, a senior policy analyst with the Rand Corporation, a think tank, said no state should be offering significant tax incentives to attract such projects.

He said other factors, such as the availability of coal and water, would be more important to a company than tax incentives when choosing a location.

He also said 100 such operations could be built if the plants prove to be economically and technologically successful.

"I think once it goes, it's going to go big, and Kentucky has what it takes because Kentucky has the coal," Bartis said.

He also said he does not believe any project could move forward without help from the federal government, which does not appear likely at the moment.

Earlier this month the Senate, in approving an energy bill, rejected two amendments that would have promoted coal-to-liquid-fuel technology. One, sponsored by Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., would have required the use nationally of 6 billion gallons of coal-derived fuel by 2022.

"I think the real role for Kentucky," Bartis said, " … is if the federal government moves forward … to work with industry to appropriately site such a facility and obtain whatever supplies need to be brought in."

Reporter Stephenie Steitzer can be reached at (502) 875-5136.  

Platts: US House passes $31.6-bil 2008 energy and water spending bill
Platts: US House passes $31.6-bil 2008 energy and water spending bill
US House passes $31.6-bil 2008 energy and water spending bill

Washington (Platts)--17Jul2007
The US House of Representatives on Tuesday passed a $31.6-billion 2008energy and water spending bill by a 312-112 vote. The bill would provide asignificant increase in funding for solar energy, biofuels and otherclean-energy technologies, as well as $1 billion in funds for members'priority projects. The vote margin would be sufficient to withstand President Bush'sthreatened veto of the measure, and any spending bill that significantlyexceeds his budget request. The bill would provide the Department of Energy with $25.2 billion forfiscal 2008, an increase of $1.1 billion over the current funding level and$480 million more than DOE requested. Renewable energy programs would receive$632 million more than the Bush administration request. The bill would also increase funding for various clean-coal programs,providing these initiatives with $709 million, or $142 million more than DOErequested. DOE science programs would also see increased funding, especiallyinitiatives that use state-of-the-art "supercomputers" to model the effects ofglobal warming. The bill funded some of the Bush administration's nuclear energypriorities, but not others. The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, which isdesigned to spur a renaissance in civilian nuclear energy through thereprocessing of spent nuclear fuel and other means, would receive only $120million compared with the administration's $405 million request. The proposed federal nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevadawould receive all of the administration's requested $494 million, however,despite the project's low political clout since Nevada Democrat and Yuccaopponent Harry Reid assumed the Senate's top job earlier in 2007. Meanwhile, a group of Republicans failed to eliminate all or part of a $1billion earmarks package inserted into the bill by unanimous consent after itwas approved by the appropriations committee. Appropriators opted for a post-committee approach to attaching earmarksto the measure so they can receive extra scrutiny, Appropriations ChairmanDavid Obey, Democrat-Wisconsin has said. The amendment by Representative John Campbell, Republican-California,that would have struck the entire earmark package, was defeated on a 39-388recorded vote. --Jean Chemnick, jean_chemnick@platts.com