Öl aus Kohle - Neuer Milliardenmarkt!

und wenn man Ahnung hätte von der Weltkugel, dann wüßte man, daß  die Abbaustellen für Braunkohle alle dort liegen wo es auf der Welt "brennt"

also Finger weg von dieser Aktie

Prozent und Vodka dürfen die aktie ruhig kaufen wir können uns dann in 2 - 3 - 4 oder mehr Jahren mal darüber unterhalten, wenn ich dann evtl. noch bei dem Emfpangschef der beiden CEO`s "Prozent + Vodka"  , durchgelassen werde , wenn die Aktie explodiert ist .
Jedem seine eigene Meinung !!
 

Du hast ja hier zwei TOP Beiträge zu diesem Thema geschrieben!

Du kannst wohl nichts anderes als hier Leute zu provozieren!
Du bist nicht in der Lage eine Diskussion zu führen sondern kommst direkt mit

"Prozent und Vodka dürfen die aktie ruhig kaufen wir können uns dann in 2 - 3 - 4 oder mehr Jahren mal darüber unterhalten, wenn ich dann evtl. noch bei dem Emfpangschef der beiden CEO`s "Prozent + Vodka"  , durchgelassen werde , wenn die Aktie explodiert ist."

Keiner zwingt dich diese Aktie zu kaufen! Wenn du also was dazu zu sagen hast, was informativ und passend zum Thema ist, dann sag deine Meinung und verpi.. dich!
Was du hier versuchst, schaffst du nicht! Mit so dummen Kommentaren erreichst du hier garnichts!  

das ist jahrzehntealte, erprobte Technik.
Kosten pro Barrel: ca. 40 $

Und wenn man ein wenig googelt, dann wüsste man, dass Kohle recht gleichmäßig über die Welt verteilt ist, wie USA, Kanada, China, Australien,...
Allein die USA haben ca. 1/4 der Weltvorräte.

Zum Karrick-Prozess der Kohleumwandlung siehe hier:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karrick_process

Deshalb muss die Aktie aber trotzdem nicht plötzlich einen "Goldgrube" sein...  

 

 

American Governors investieren bereits in neue Coal-to-Liquid Kraftwerke!
Wieso sollte also Bush nicht auch Silverados Green Fuel befürworten?

http://www.northernplains.org/news/CTL-7-06

Governor Schweitzer announces plans for 3 Coal-to-Liquids plants in Montana

BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) - Two companies, including a leading coal producer, have agreed to look at sites in Montana for a plant that would turn coal into diesel and jet fuel, Gov. Brian Schweitzer said Tuesday.

Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer has announced plans for 3 proposed Coal-to-Liquids plants in Montana. The following article from the Associated Press details the Governor's plan.

BILLINGS, Mont. (AP) - Two companies, including a leading coal producer, have agreed to look at sites in Montana for a plant that would turn coal into diesel and jet fuel, Gov. Brian Schweitzer said Tuesday.

While there's been no firm commitment from Peabody Energy or Rentech Inc., Schweitzer told reporters here that the prospects for a plant being built -- likely in southern or eastern Montana -- are "very promising."

Rentech Inc. is a developer of coal-to-liquids and gas-to-liquids technologies, and Peabody Energy calls itself the world's largest private-sector coal firm. A telephone message left for a Peabody Energy spokesman was not immediately returned Tuesday morning.

The companies, in a joint news release, said they'd agreed to look at sites in Montana and unspecified parts of the Midwest for coal-to-liquids plants that could range in production capacity from 10,000 barrels of fuel per day to 30,000 barrels per day.

Peabody has access to 9.8 billion tons of coal reserves and is evaluating "dozens" of sites in the country for coal-conversion projects, the statement said.

Those reserves include about 170 million tons of coal near Colstrip, in southern Montana, the governor's office said. Schweitzer expected Colstrip to be among the sites considered for a possible plant, given its "mine mouth" location, along with Billings and Miles City, because of access such as rail service.

He estimated that the type of plants being looked at would require an investment of $800 million to $1.5 billion.

Schweitzer has aggressively promoted his vision of a plant that would turn coal from the state's vast reserves into cleaner-burning fuels, such as electricity or diesel. He has met with energy and development firms and otherwise worked to woo investors.

Schweitzer said the firms had not asked for any kind of incentive package. He has described his role as a "catalyst" in attracting development.

Last week, Schweitzer met with the international engineering and plant construction company Lurgi AG.

Schweitzer, touting the "Fischer-Tropsch" process first developed in Germany during World War II, has taken some heat for his enthusiasm over building a coal gasification plant in Montana. Environmentalists said the technology is not as clean as it is purported to be, while political foes said the governor has unrealistic expectations.  

von Coal-to-liquid plants sind auch schon auf der Matte ;-)
Es gibt natürlich immer Pro- und Contra! Dieser Artikel ist
zur Allgemeinbildung in Sachen Coal-to-Liquid plants gedacht :-)

http://www.billingsgazette.com/...7/31/build/state/50-supco-plant.inc

Battle over proposed coal plant lands in Supreme Court
Associated Press

HELENA - The state violated Montanans' constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment by issuing a permit for construction of a coal-fired power plant near Roundup and exempting such projects from a key anti-pollution law, an environmental group has told the Montana Supreme Court.

The Montana Environmental Information Center says District Judge Richard Simonton of Glendive was wrong to side with the state in March without a trial. The high court either should rule against the government or send the case back the District Court for a trial, the organization said.

The case represents one of the latest legal tests of a constitutional provision declaring that a clean and healthful environment is one of Montanans' inalienable rights.

At the center of the dispute is a 78-megawatt plant planned by Bull Mountain Development Corp. of New York City. The project would rely on relatively clean-burning, low-sulfur coal mined nearby. Critics have warned it will pollute the air as far away as Yellowstone National Park, 112 miles to the southwest.

Although the state earlier this month notified the company the permit expired because construction did not start within the required 18 months, Bull Mountain officials see it differently.

Steve Wade, a Helena attorney for the company, said the permit was never revoked and that construction did get under way before the deadline. He noted the company has applied for a change in the permit to extend the period in which work must begin.

"The project is alive and moving forward," he said.

Regardless of the status of the permit, the legal issues before the Supreme Court will proceed, said Jim Jensen, executive director for the environmental group. As long as the controversy can occur again, the matter is not considered moot, he said.

His organization contends that the 2001 Legislature's decision to exempt plants such as Bull Mountain from the state's major facility siting act was itself a violation of the constitution's environmental mandate.

That law is intended to prevent or reduce the damaging environmental effects from such plants, but the exemption allows projects to be built "without ensuring that they are appropriate to the public interest and without mitigation of environmental harms," attorneys Mike Meloy and Jennifer Hendricks wrote to the court.

Lawmakers arbitrarily excluded certain power plants from the siting act with no regard for the environmental effects those projects would have, and the state has offered no compelling reason for doing so, they said.

The environmental center's lawyers also said the proposed pollution from the plant would deprive Montanans of their right to a clean environment.

The plant is projected to emit 176 pounds of mercury a year, even though technology exists to reduce that by 85 percent, the court document said. In addition, the plant would generate 8.2 million tons of carbon dioxide annually.

The state has not provided the kind of compelling need for the plant that is necessary to allow such pollution in the face of the constitutional protection, Meloy and Hendricks said.

They also charged that the environmental study of the project did not consider alternatives for meeting any increased demand for electricity through other means, such as conservation and renewable energy sources.

"We have a different view of the world when it comes to the legal standards around 'clean and healthful environment,'" Dan Hoven, another Bull Mountain lawyer, said of the arguments presented in the appeal.

"MEIC believes that any contaminant emitted at any level triggers analysis under the Montana Constitution," he said. "We believe that the clean and healthful provisions have been defined in elaborate fashion by the Montana Legislature when it passed these complicated regulatory schemes," such as clean air laws.

Hoven said the case is important beyond the fate of the proposed coal plant. Because it addresses a constitutional right dealing with the environment, it will define what happens to future permit applications for similar projects and "what we can and can't do in this state to develop natural resources," he said.

David Russoff, state Department of Environmental Quality attorney, said the case is significant because it could dramatically change the way the agency reviews air quality permit applications. MEIC argues that the department would have to determine not only whether a project complies with state environmental laws, but also whether it violates the constitution's clean environment mandate.  

Über kurz oder lang wird an der
Technologie von Coal-to-Liquid plants
meiner Meinung nach kein Weg vorbei führen!

Langfristig betrachtet muss die Ölnachfrage  
irgendwie gedeckt werden. Öl ist knapp und
wird noch knapper werden! Ich spreche nicht
von den nächsten zwei oder drei Jahren, sondern
von den nächsten 20 oder 30 Jahren! Dann werden
wohl überall die Kohlekraftwerke wie Pilze aus
dem Boden geschossen sein! Coal-to-Liquid Kraft-
werke sind wohl die einzige Zukunft, die Amerika,
Kanada, China und Europa haben! Es muss einfach
noch viel mehr in diese Technolgie investiert
werden! Ich hoffe, dass Bush & Co. das bei Silverado
und Green Fuel genauso sehen ;-) Natürlich steckt
sehr viel Politik hinter solchen Entscheidungen!
Deshalb vielleicht die zeitliche Verzögerung! Und
die SHorties haben uns den Kurs solange kaputt gemacht!

Weil sie wussten, dass es lange dauern wird, bis die
News rauskommen! So hatten sie genug Zeit, den Kurs zu
drpcken und auf UNSERE Kosten Kohle zu machen! Doch die
Zeit ist abgelaufen! Silverado ist reif für die Zukunft!
Und die Shorties sind reif für das Cover-Zeitalter!!!

http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=SLGLF&read=33088

 

Coal-to-Liquid wird bei den reichlichen Kohlereserven der USA sicherlich umgesetzt werden. Ob das aber der riesen Markt wird von dem hier geschwärmt wird bezweifle ich.
Ich denke das wird eher einer von vielen verschiedenen Ansätzen beim Umbau der jetzigen Energiewirtschaft sein.

Auch wenn es banal ist und schon dutzende male darüber gesprochen wurde muss man eines immer wieder anführen. Die Lösung der jetzigen Energieprobleme (und die in näherer Zukunft) ist eigentlich ganz einfach. Man müsste nur konsequent die heute vorhandenen Techniken zur Energieeinsparung umsetzen und schon würde keiner mehr über eine Energiekrise sprechen.

In Verbindung von Energieeinsparung und den rasant wachsenden "erneuerbaren Energien" sehe ich deshalb schon einen Weg der mittel- und langfristig an den Coal-to-Liquids vorbeiführt.

Entscheidend für den Weg den wir bzw. die Technik gehen werden sind aber wohl, leider,  politische Entscheidungen. Da diese oft von Lobbyisten beeinflusst sind ist dies aber leider oft der falsche Weg.  

Congress should promote coal to liquids technology to increase energy independence
By Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.)
5. Oktober 2006 (The Hill)

With gasoline prices at the forefront of the national energy debate, it is appropriate that Congress consider measures that would reduce our nation’s dependence on imported oil. One way that we can accomplish this goal is to incent the use of coal-to-liquids technologies that can replace petroleum in powering transportation.

There is a proven technology that enables the conversion of coal to liquid fuel. Coal liquefaction has been in use since World War II. In fact, today South Africa is using coal liquefaction to produce approximately 40 percent of its transportation fuels.

The technology is economic when crude-oil prices are approximately $40 per barrel. Oil prices are much higher than that benchmark, and the Energy Information Administration forecasts that prices for crude oil will remain above this level for the foreseeable future. In addition, our nation has an abundance of coal, with reserves of approximately 250 billion tons.

Given these economics and the benefit of moving closer to energy independence, there is great potential in converting coal to liquid fuel.

In recognition of the considerable potential for non-petroleum based liquid fuels, the Congress last year enacted a 50-cent-per-gallon excise-tax credit for alternative fuel mixtures — including fuel derived from coal. However, the tax credit is set to expire in 2009. Given the time necessary to finance, permit and construct a new coal-to-liquids facility, it is extremely unlikely that any coal-to-liquids production can occur by 2009.

While coal-liquefaction technologies have been used successfully for some time in some parts of the world, the technology has not been widely adopted in the United States. Placing in operation an 80,000-barrel-per-day coal-to-liquid facility would cost approximately $7 billion and take between five and seven years to construct. Therefore, the coal-to-liquids facilities would be unable to utilize the alternative-fuel tax credit, which is only payable when production begins, before it is set to expire.

To remedy this problem, I have joined with my colleague from Illinois, John Shimkus, in the introduction of legislation that would extend the tax credit through 2020.

In addition to extension of the alternative-fuel-mixture tax credit, Congress should examine additional methods by which we can incent coal liquefaction as well as specific partnerships that might facilitate the launch of coal-to-liquids production.

The novelty of coal-liquefaction technologies to the United States means that obtaining the investment capital for facilities is still somewhat uncertain. I am interested in exploring a means through which the federal government might be able to provide some additional financial encouragement to incent the construction of the plants.

One way to accomplish such a goal would be to establish loan guarantees or investment tax credits. While these methods would certainly be welcome, I am also interested in the possibility of establishing a different mechanism for government support.

For example, the federal government could establish a price-support-type mechanism through which the government would guarantee to make payments to coal-to-liquids producers in cases in which the price of their product dropped below a certain level.

Since coal liquefaction is economic when crude oil is approximately $40 per barrel, the price floor could be set in a range comparable to that price. Given the probability that oil prices would not descend below that price, it is highly unlikely that the federal government would incur any costs under such a system.

In addition, a price ceiling could be established, and if prices rise in the future above a specified level the coal-to-liquids operators would pay the federal government a certain amount, preventing a windfall to companies that launched with federal financial assistance.

Establishing a federal guarantee correlated to price would enable companies to make the necessary investments to construct and operate a number of coal-liquefaction facilities.

Our nation can gain energy independence through use of domestic resources. Since coal is our nation’s most abundant energy resource, we should harness federal energy policy behind a major effort to build coal-to-liquids facilities.

Boucher is a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/...906/ss_boucher.html
 

Am 8. Mai waren folgende Firmen
beim Hearing des US. Government
vertreten:

-Silverado
-Peabody Energy
-Headwaters
-Rentek & WMPI Testify

Bei allen Aktienfirmen ist der
Kurs seit Mai extrem nach unten
gegangen! Zufall oder Short Seller?

http://www.silverado.com/pressroom.htm

http://ariva.de/quote/profile.m?secu=41202&kx=s

http://ariva.de/quote/profile.m?secu=27929

http://ariva.de/quote/profile.m?secu=30907&kx=s


 

Im Januar 2005 wurde Green Fuel bereits
ausgezeichnet! Für ihr Coal-to-liquid Projekt!

January 20, 2005
Silverado’s Green Fuel Subsidiary President Awarded Ronald Reagan Republican Gold Medal
Silverado (OTCBB: SLGLF) announced today that the President of its wholly-owned subsidiary Silverado Green Fuel Inc., Edward J. Armstrong has been awarded the 2004 Ronald Reagan Republican Gold Medal Award.

Vancouver, BC & Fairbanks, AK (PRWEB via StreetCast.tv) January 20, 2005 -- Silverado (OTCBB: SLGLF / Frankfurt: SLGL / Berlin: SLGL) announced today that the President of its wholly-owned subsidiary Silverado Green Fuel Inc., Edward J. Armstrong has been awarded the 2004 Ronald Reagan Republican Gold Medal Award. Mr. Armstrong was selected based upon outstanding leadership in business and for displaying a commitment to President Ronald Regan’s vision for entrepreneurial business. Mr. Armstrong joins an elite group of business and professional executives who were nominated to receive the prestigious award.

“Mr. Armstrong has served as an Honorary Chairman of the Business Advisory Council and has provided much needed support,” said Congressman and National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Reynolds (R-NY). “This award could not have gone to a more deserving candidate.”

Mr. Armstrong has played an instrumental role in the progress of the Company’s ground-breaking Low-Rank Coal-Water Fuel technology. The technology has been identified as a promising alternative to conventional energy solutions.
http://www.industrialnewsupdate.com/news/...05/01/silveradoas_gre.php
 

How do recent events affect plant’s plans?
BY JOAN GANDY
THE NATCHEZ DEMOCRAT

NATCHEZ — As oil and gas prices creep slowly downward and the announcement of a huge oil discovery in the Gulf of Mexico creates excitement in the energy world, the question comes:

Do lower prices and a significant discovery of oil affect plans to build a coal-to-liquid plant in Natchez?

Rentech Inc. is working on a plan to construct the plant at the former Belwood Country Club site near the Natchez port.

Woody Allen, chairman of the Natchez-Adams County Economic Development Authority board, said representatives from the company are in Natchez almost every week.

“Two people were here just a couple of days ago,” Allen said. “The project is on go, and they are working on their study. It is all very positive.”

If all goes as expected, the plant will be open in 2012. Do recent changes in the oil industry make a difference?



Frank Clemente, a Pennsylvania State University professor whose research specialization is energy policy, said he “would be shocked if it has any impact on their project.”

First, he said, demand for energy continues to rise because of growth in China and India. “Oil is a global commodity, and I think we’ve tremendously underestimated the energy needs of China and India.”

In China, consumers are buying 6 million automobiles a year, he said. “And I read a report the other day that said 90 million couples are waiting for a car.” Almost all of them will pay cash for the cars when they get them.

India is headed in the same direction, with their economy and standard of living rising rapidly.

Major oil fields are being depleted in Mexico, Kuwait and the North Sea, Clemente said. “That raises a lot of questions. How can you replace these enormous fields?”

Second, the Gulf of Mexico find announced in early September, about 270 miles southwest of New Orleans, was a huge discovery, but a couple of issues dampen Clemente’s enthusiasm for the find.

“How much is really there,” he wondered aloud in the telephone interview. “And also how deep is it?”

Reports show that the discovery was found almost four miles beneath the ocean floor.

“It’s going to cost a heck of a lot of money just for the pipelines to bring it out,” Clemente said. “I guarantee prices are not going down because of that discovery.”

Third, he said, the price of oil increasingly is finding a floor of about $45 per barrel. He does not believe the price per barrel is likely to go below $40 any time soon.

“Rentech is looking down the road. As long as oil stays above $40 a barrel, they’ll be fine.”

Allen said Rentech officials have told him they have a threshold below which their product becomes less viable, but he said that number is not for public release.

Even with a recession, Clemente said, “People don’t quit living. Babies are born. People are driving. Three million new people are living in this country each year. We’re growing and we’re using more and more oil.”

Another factor to consider is that some of the large oil companies have moved their large oilrigs from the Gulf of Mexico after Hurricane Katrina.

“They’ve gone from about 100 to about 70 rigs in the gulf. And they’re moving to the Middle East or Asia and signing four- to five-year contracts.

“An interesting question is, why is Saudi Arabia bringing huge oil rigs in from the Gulf of Mexico? I think they’re bringing in premium drilling rigs to get their oil. They’re having to go deeper.”

A new day is dawning for energy in the world, not just in the United States. And Clemente sees the Rentech-type coal-to-oil process as the way to a secure future.

“I think CTL is our salvation,” he said. He has never spoken to anyone at Rentech but is familiar with the company because what the company does relates to his area of interest and research.

“Our trade deficit is the highest it’s ever been. We’re buying oil overseas and mortgaging the futures of our children and sending our money to people who hate us,” he said.

“If we can create a clean way to burn coal, it’s an answer to a lot of our questions. Coal is our pathway to reducing our energy dependence on other countries.”

Soon the United States may be importing 70 to 75 percent of its oil, he said. It will follow for natural gas.

Clemente said Rentech obviously has been waiting “for their moment in time. I think Rentech has looked at this carefully and sees that oil is not going back down.”

Another break for Rentech is the interest shown by the U.S. military in the CTL fuel, Clemente said.

“The military is very interested in finding a fuel that can be used in all their vehicles. And they want a more powerful fuel. This fuel provides that.

“Third, this fuel has a shelf life of at least four to five years. You can put it in your lawnmower and leave it there all winter long. That’s another reason the military likes it. And, finally, this fuel does not freeze because it has less water content.”

There is more, Clemente said. The CTL fuel can be interchanged with gasoline and, best of all, can be distributed through the same pipeline system. “This is a big deal. You can’t do that with ethanol, for example.”

Rentech plans to put from $1 billion to $2 billion into the Natchez plant. Clemente said the project will be a huge boost to the Natchez-area economy during the construction phase.

And when the plant opens, the area can expect “well-paying jobs. These are clean plants that bring in educated people.”

Email this story | Print this story
Sound off on this article in The Democrat forums, plus see what other readers have to say:

Post a comment
$189,000
305 Linton Ave
--------------------------------------------------

$899,000
7 Bluff Hills Pl.
--------------------------------------------------

$159,000
6 Turtle Lane
--------------------------------------------------

$125,000
102 Cross St.
--------------------------------------------------
More Homes

Call Us Today:
601-442-9999
or
866-765-3392

101 N. Wall St.
Natchez, MS 39120

Market Watch

Oct 10, 2006 10:10 AM ET
ComStock 20 min. delayed
http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=SLGLF&read=33261
 

Coal-based liquid fuel gaining interest

http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/...B308-F6CC8301E844%7D&keyword

PrintE-mailDisable live quotesRSSDigg itDel.icio.usBy Dinah Wisenberg Brin
Last Update: 12:38 PM ET May 30, 2006


PHILADELPHIA (MarketWatch) -- Coal's sooty, Industrial Age image may be giving way to an updated vision: coal transformed into clean-burning liquid fuel that can power military jets and, ultimately, reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil.
With crude oil prices near $70 a barrel, U.S. military officials have stepped up the pace of research on alternative fuels, including jet fuel derived from coal, and are working with industry, other federal agencies, states and universities.
American companies are investing in coal-to-liquid fuel technologies for transportation as well.
"It's an economic security issue as well as a national security issue," U.S. Air Force Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff Michael Aimone said in an interview.
The Air Force, which accounts for more than half of total U.S. government fuel consumption and spends around $4.5 billion a year on jet fuel, intensified its focus on coal-derived liquid fuels after hurricanes Katrina and Rita "created such havoc in the energy markets," Aimone said.
The Air Force learned recently that its average fuel bill will increase by 57 cents a gallon as of June 1, and last June, before the hurricanes, the price rose 40 cents a gallon, he said.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has mandated that each military service explore assured energy sources, domestic sources of energy that don't require foreign petroleum, Aimone said.
South African Precedent
The Air Force is preparing to conduct its first flight test with an alternative to standard jet fuel in September, when it plans to use a blend of conventional petroleum-based jet fuel and synthetic fuel derived from natural gas, not coal, to fly a B-52. That test is considered a key step in the military's coal-to-liquid effort, as the same process is used to make the fuel and the final product is similar, whether derived from natural gas or coal.
Syntroleum Corp. (SYNM) of Tulsa, Okla., is to provide the fuel for the test.
With jet fuel prices outpacing crude in recent years, alternatives may appeal to the commercial airline industry.
"The basic thinking is that the synthetic fuels become economically viable when oil prices reach $50 a barrel," said John Heimlich, chief economist with the Air Transport Association, the trade organization for the major U.S. airlines. With oil prices below that, purchasers are better off with standard jet fuel, he said.
The Defense Department has briefed the ATA and about its coal-to-liquid fuel effort.
"It's something we're monitoring," Heimlich said. "Any incremental supply, especially if economically viable and environmentally friendly, is something in which we're interested, but it's not necessarily a viable prospect anytime soon." South Africa already commercially produces an alternative jet fuel.
For the past seven years, aircraft flying from Johannesburg International Airport have used a semi-synthetic blend of 50% jet fuel from coal produced at a Sasol Ltd. (SSL, SOL.JO) coal-to-liquids refinery, and 50% derived from traditional crude oil refining, Sasol says.
"Sasol has clearly demonstrated that synthetic jet fuel can be produced from coal; it has been proven in commercial use," a company representative said via e-mail. Sasol hopes to win final approval for use of 100% synthetic fuel, also derived from coal, this year.
The South African company said tests conducted in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Defense "confirmed the clean-burning and thermal stability of our jet fuel." Last fall, Sasol said it was in the early stages of evaluating coal-to-liquids opportunities in the U.S.
Exploring Alternatives
In the last century, the Nazi military relied heavily on synthetic fuel derived from coal, and U.S. Gen. George S. Patton syphoned some of it to continue the march to Germany, according to the Department of Energy. The U.S. government showed interest in coal-to-liquid fuel during the 20th century but it was never fully developed.
The U.S. military today is exploring more than one method of transforming coal into liquid fuel. The Fischer-Tropsch process, which Sasol uses, transforms a synthesis gas made from coal or other feedstock into liquid fuel.

The fuel for the B-52 flight test is manufactured with that process, using a natural gas feedstock. This resulting fuel has no sulfur content and burns much more cleanly than diesel or regular jet fuel, Aimone said.
New plants that might be built to meet demand for such jet fuel could generate profitable byproducts, such as carbon dioxide and electricity, Aimone said.
WMPI PTY LLC of Gilberton, Pa., is working to develop the nation's first waste coal-to-clean fuels complex in the anthracite fields of Pennsylvania. The company aims to break ground this year on the plant, which would turn waste coal into zero-sulfur diesel fuel or jet fuel.
The project has received commitments for $100 million in DOE grants and $47 million in state tax credits, contingent on other financing. Pennsylvania Gov. Edward D. Rendell created a consortium last fall to buy diesel fuel from the plant and agreed to purchase the fuel for state vehicles. DOD officials have expressed interest in the facility.
WMPI President John Rich Jr. said he is negotiating license agreements to use Sasol's Fischer-Tropsch process, Royal Dutch Shell PLC's (RDSA) Shell Global Solutions' gasification technology and another key technology from Chevron Corp.'s (CVX) and ABB Lummus Global's Chevron Lummus Global LLC.

Pioneering Pennsylvania
Separately, a subsidiary of DKRW Advanced Fuels LLC of Houston recently signed an agreement to use General Electric Co.'s (GE) coal gasification technology for a proposed coal-to-liquids faciltiy in Medicine Bow, Wyo. The plant aims to pipe diesel and other fuels to energy companies in the region. DKRW also agreed to buy coal from Arch Coal Inc. (ACI) and to license Rentech Inc.'s (RTK) Fischer-Tropsch technology.
Edward Lowe, general manager of gasification for GE Infrastructure Technology LLC's energy business, said in a March statement that while GE's gasification technology is being used in more than 60 plants worldwide, "this will be the first application of our technology for making transportation fuel from coal."
Coal also can be turned to liquid fuel by dissolving it and refining the resulting thick liquid like traditional crude oil.

A Penn State University researcher, funded by the Air Force and the Department of Energy, is developing two processes that he claims are different from conventional coal liquefaction methods and says he has powered a helicopter jet engine with a fuel derived at least 50% from bituminous coal. That fuel could be produced in existing, slightly modified oil refineries, Prof. Harold H. Schobert said. The fuel, produced at a pilot plant run by Intertek Group PLC's (ITRK.LN) Intertek PARC Technical Services in Harmarville, Pa., contains lower levels of aromatics like benzene and toluene than conventional jet fuel, and is almost free of sulfur, according to Schobert.
Penn State plans to host a jet fuels summit on June 7 and has received indications of interest from two major oil companies and a jet engine manufacturer, said Schobert.
The state of Montana, which sits on 120 billion tons of coal, is pursuing development of coal-to-liquids technology as well. The state's Web site, which says a barrel of synthetic fuel costs about $35 to produce, estimates that if the federal government became meaningfully invested in the concept, the U.S. could have a strong synthetic fuel industry by the next decade.
-By Dinah Wisenberg Brin, Dow Jones Newswires
-Contact: 201-938-5400  

 

die nachricht ist vom 30.mai!  

Silverado hat seit Juni nochmal knapp 2 Millionen
Dollar von Investoren eingesammelt! Die sind wohl
für Green Fuel bestimmt! Die Chancen steigen ;-)

16-Oct-2006

The Company completed the following transactions pursuant to Rule 903 of Regulation S of the Act on the basis that the sale of the shares was completed in an "offshore transaction," as defined in Rule 902(h) of Regulation S. The Company did not engage in any directed selling efforts, as defined in Regulation S, in the United States in connection with the sale of the shares. Each investor represented to the Company that the investor was not a U.S. person, as defined in Regulation S, and was not acquiring the shares for the account or benefit of a U.S. person. The subscription agreement executed between the Company and the investors included statements that the securities had not been registered pursuant to the Act and that the securities may not be offered or sold in the United States unless the securities are registered under the Act or are exempt from the Act. The investors agreed by execution of the subscription agreement for the shares: (i) to resell the securities purchased only in accordance with the provisions of Regulation S, pursuant to registration under the Act or pursuant to an exemption from registration under the Act; (ii) that the Company is required to refuse to register any sale of the securities purchased unless the transfer is in accordance with the provisions of Regulation S, pursuant to registration under the Act or an exemption from registration under the Act; and
(iii) not to engage in hedging transactions with regards to the securities purchased unless in compliance with the Act. All securities issued were endorsed with a restrictive legend confirming that the securities had been issued pursuant to Regulation S of the Act and could not be resold without registration under the Act or pursuant to an applicable exemption from registration under the Act.

--------------------------------------------------
On June 9, 2006, the Company issued 11,081,832 shares of restricted common stock to one investor pursuant to the exercise of five common share purchase warrants for an aggregate purchase price of US $767,000.

On June 22, 2006, the Company issued 8,888,888 shares of restricted common stock to one investor pursuant to the exercise of a common share purchase warrant for an aggregate purchase price of US $355,556.

On June 22, 2006, the Company issued 8,000,000 shares of restricted common stock to one investor pursuant to the exercise of a common share purchase warrant for an aggregate purchase price of US $320,000.

On October 10, 2006, the Company issued 17,543,859 units, each consisting of one share of restricted common stock and one "Series A Warrant," to an investor for an aggregate purchase price of US $500,000. Each Series A Warrant is exercisable for a period of one year, and will be exercisable for one share of restricted common stock at a per share exercise price of US $0.07.

http://biz.yahoo.com/e/061016/slglf.ob8-k.html
 

http://www.americanbulls.com/...nyTicker=SLGLF&MarketTicker=OTC&TYP=S

SILVERADO GOLD MINES  
Daily Commentary

Our system posted a BUY-IF today. The previous SELL recommendation was issued on 09.22.2006 (26) days ago, when the stock price was 0.0570. Since then SLGLF has fallen -8.77% .

The BUY-IF alert is still valid. A confirmation today however is denied. The pattern is not rejected yet since the day was not a long black candlestick one. The market is currently testing your patience. Continue to do your homework by digesting all available information around.

The final judgment about the evolving pattern waits the next session. Either the alert will be confirmed by one of the valid confirmation criteria or the bullish alert will be void and null.

It is still your duty to check the confirmation criteria when the next session opens. Reminding briefly; a white candlestick with an upward gap, a white candlestick closing above previous close and a long white candlestick with a big downward gap is sufficient to confirm the BUY-IF alert though with a one day delay. Go long in any of these cases by respecting the benchmarks. In any other case, simply ignore the BUY-IF alert. The next session is the last chance we allow for confirmation. A confirmation failure renders the assumed bullish pattern totally invalid and starts the process of searching for a new pattern.

We do not yet suggest any new short positions given the bullish alert. The short sellers should consider covering their positions if the market confirms the BUY-IF signal. Otherwise, existing short positions should be carried.  

Der aktuelle Quartalsbericht steht unter:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=SLGLF.OB

American Bulls sagt: BUY-IF

SILVERADO GOLD MINES  
Daily Commentary


Our system posted a BUY-IF today. The previous SELL recommendation was issued on 09.22.2006 (26) days ago, when the stock price was 0.0570. Since then SLGLF has fallen -8.77% .



The BUY-IF alert is still valid. A confirmation today however is denied. The pattern is not rejected yet since the day was not a long black candlestick one. The market is currently testing your patience. Continue to do your homework by digesting all available information around.

The final judgment about the evolving pattern waits the next session. Either the alert will be confirmed by one of the valid confirmation criteria or the bullish alert will be void and null.

It is still your duty to check the confirmation criteria when the next session opens. Reminding briefly; a white candlestick with an upward gap, a white candlestick closing above previous close and a long white candlestick with a big downward gap is sufficient to confirm the BUY-IF alert though with a one day delay. Go long in any of these cases by respecting the benchmarks. In any other case, simply ignore the BUY-IF alert. The next session is the last chance we allow for confirmation. A confirmation failure renders the assumed bullish pattern totally invalid and starts the process of searching for a new pattern.

We do not yet suggest any new short positions given the bullish alert. The short sellers should consider covering their positions if the market confirms the BUY-IF signal. Otherwise, existing short positions should be carried.

http://www.americanbulls.com/...nyTicker=SLGLF&MarketTicker=OTC&TYP=S

Mehr Infos gibts hier:

www.silverado.com
http://aktien.onvista.de/snapshot.html?ID_OSI=178484
http://www.ariva.de/quote/profile.m?secu=41202&kx=s
http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=BB:SLGLF
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=SLGLF.OB
 

geholt zu werden...
Grüße, ZN  

alles Diesel macht. Mein Favorit ist da immer noch ausgedientes Fritten-Fett :-)  

Das Verfahren ist wie bekannt ein verfeinertes Fischer Tropsch und ein alter Hut. Sasol betreibt es seit Jahren u8nd verdient damit Geld. Silverado verdient keins damit da das Geld fehlt um überhaupt mal eien Demo Anlage zu bauen. Vielleicht in 2 Jahren . Bis dahin ist der markt bereit von Sasol oder Shell  und anderen Multis erschlossen.
Das ist der Grund warum die Silverado Greenfuel Phantasie abgeebbt ist.
Die Nachrichten sind schon hornalt, anfangs ging der Kurs ganz gut durch die Decke.
Silverado hat aber kein weiteres Patent  um das Geschäft zu machen.
Das Argument , wenn es sich etwas verzögert dass noch Gold da ist ist auch nicht überzeugend, da Slglf auch mit Gold keinen Cash Flow erzielt und nur weitere Kosten decken muss.

Also wenn dann läuft Greenfuel aber es müsste .. wie schon mehrfach wiederholt viele Voraussetzungen ( finanzieller Natur hauptsächl. ) vorliegen.
Abwarten vielleicht gibt es eine Überraschung.  

der Kurs absturz sagt Alles. Wer hier noch Geld drin hat ?
Wer nimmt die Aktien ab ? In USA praktisch kein Handel mehr, wenig Stücke.. sieht nach Kapitulation aus.  

wenn der Abwärtssog so weiter geht ist die Gesellschaft in etwa 3 Wochen bei Null !  

Pump-and-Dumperado kommt nach Hoffnungen der Uneinsichtigen nicht hoch.
Die Co versucht m.Meinung nach immer in steigende Kurse Kapitalerhöhungen zu plazieren um die Kosten zu decken. Dilution bis zum Abwinken.
Viel Vergnügen beim Geldvernichten und Melkaktion der "armen" Aktionäre.
 

Die Sache ist gelaufen.