The article below originally appeared on July 17, 2014 around the time the teaser pitch from the Oxford Club folks started circulating. The ad is being seen by lots of our readers again now, and we’re getting a lot of questions about it, so we re-post it here for your information… the ad seems unchanged since we first saw it, and the following article has not been updated or edited.
Careful readers will note just how disingenuous it is for Oxford to continue their promotions using this same ad, because the plant that was supposed to start selling “gasoline without oil” in “months” is now likely at least two years from even starting construction — Sasol, the company that planned the massive investment and trumpeted the size and scope of it last year (and yes, Sasol is the stock teased in the ad, still), shelved the gas-to-liquids plant last year.
It may still get built someday, but with oil prices low it sure won’t be built soon and the company has postponed making a final decision on construction. And while the ad has been touting 50%+ gains in “weeks” and 165% gains in “months” from the climb they expect in the share price of Sasol (SSL), the truth is that the ad started running a little over a year ago, when SSL was near all-time highs close to $60, and the shares have been cut in half since.
That’s no surprise for an energy company, of course, and everyone makes bad picks and loses money when the market goes against their thesis (I sure do), but continuing to run essentially the same promotion for almost two years, with no acknowledgement of the fact that the planned plant now has no chance of being built and operational within the next few years, is taking it a bit too far. Perhaps that’s why we’ve had so many folks writing in to say, “no, they say the plant is just about to start selling gas so it can’t be Sasol” … but no, the facts and details in the ad haven’t changed and they’re still clearly about Sasol, it’s just that the real world has changed in the year since the ad started running… and the crazy hype of the ad now seems even more completely ridiculous once you compare it to that real world.
Maybe Sean Brodrick still likes Sasol, or he and the Oxford Resource Explorer folks think it’s a beaten-down opportunity for other reasons now, or maybe they’re just running the ad because it still works to get attention from readers like you and I … regardless, they’re still sending this ad, and we’re still getting questions, so here’s that original article from the Summer of 2014 (and yes, we included the several hundred reader comments from the past year at the end if you’d like to see them):
—from 7/17/14—-
Sean Brodrick is touting a company that can create much cheaper gasoline — and, of course, he’d like you to sign up for his Oxford Resource Explorer newsletter to learn all about it.
So he provides some hints and clues that serve to whet your appetite — enough to make it seem real, and to seem like you can almost touch those juicy profits. But oh, wait, first please send us your $49 (don’t worry, that’s “on sale” from $159, and is far less than the $7,995 he says his research is worth).
Which leaves us no choice. We don’t like to be manipulated into buying stuff, and we don’t like secrets — so what is the stock? We’ll sift through the clues and tell you what he’s really pitching. If you want to subscribe to his newsletter after that, well, that’s up to you — but don’t do so just to find out about a secret stock. That’s like getting married just because you want to find out about whether or not your beloved sleeps with his socks on.
On to the clues, then.
“Real gasoline created… Without Using Oil!
- Works in Any Vehicle
- 46% Cheaper (Profitable at $1.71 a Gallon)
- 40% Cleaner Than Today’s Gasoline.
“Early Investors Could Make 90.5%… 281.9%… And Even 1,063% in a Few Years…”
The precision really adds to the believability, right? If you say something’s going to double, well, that’s a throwaway line and we know you’re guessing. But if you say it’s going to go up 90.5%, well, you must be actually doing math! Maybe you’re right!
Or maybe not. That’s why he says “could” and “in a few years” — as always with a teaser pitch, there are plenty of “maybes” to protect against future complaints (and lawyers).
Here are some more clues to get us going.
“A little-known company is doing what should be, by all conventional logic, the impossible.
“It’s creating gasoline… without using oil.
“To everyone but company insiders, this may sound like science fiction.”
The first thing that came to mind, even before we piled up the clues to shovel them into the Mighty, Mighty Thinkolator, was algae oil — that’s probably because the Motley Fool has been repeating their teaser ads for algae oil company Solazyme (SZYM).
But no, Brodrick isn’t teasing Solazyme as a gasoline-maker (probably a good idea, SZYM is focusing first on higher value-added stuff, industrial and food chemicals, because algae oil is expensive to make — they did get their new plant opened in Brazil and the stock jumped up a bit this Spring, but it’s now back to around where it was when we covered that teaser first in December). His pitch is about using natural gas to make gasoline.
No, not using natural gas instead of gasoline — that would be the pitch advanced so often for perennial disappointer Westport Innovations (WPRT) and their natural gas fuel injector technology that helps vehicles (especially heavy trucks) run well on CNG or LNG. Natural gas as a feedstock, instead of crude oil, for making gasoline.
The economics are obviously good for that process if it can be at all efficient — at least for the US, where natural gas prices are so very low compared to oil, and that appears to be the crux of Brodrick’s argument. Here’s a bit more from the ad:
“This company will soon create enough gasoline on American soil to fuel more than 10.3 million cars a year… and ramp up from there.
Are you getting our free Daily Update
"reveal" emails? If not,
just click here...“Experts at a secretive U.S. House and Energy Committee meeting recently predicted this fundamental alteration of chemistry will have a ‘substantial impact on the U.S. economy.’
“Cambridge Energy Research Associates calls it, ‘the biggest innovation in energy,’ in terms of scale and impact.
“The Brookings Institution reports that this new process, ‘will account for 24% of all of the liquid gas supply in the United States by 2017.’ ….
“… the origins of this story begin with technology forgotten since World War II…
“These were secrets filed away for over 70 years… buried in dusty archives… only recently rediscovered….
“Today, it costs companies like Exxon Mobil an average of $77 to create a barrel of gasoline using oil.
“This little-known company creates ‘gasoline without oil’ for just $36 a barrel!”
OK, so that “Technology forgotten since WW II” bit probably caused a few of you to fire a few synapses in your brains… what was that company that used German technology to make gasoline? Hmmm….
The ad goes on to tease the huge profits that can be made in energy, particularly from big cost savings or new production techniques or similar breakthroughs — like the directional drilling, hydraulic fracturing and new cements that have created fortunes and built new name-brand companies like Halliburton and Baker Hughes (or, in the early days of gasoline, John Rockefeller’s Standard Oil).
And Brodrick is even careful to emphasize that although this technology is still a big breatkhrough, it’s not new and it’s not as risky or “out there” as ethanol, “algae gas” or “sun gas”. It is in use now and is, apparently, scaleable and profitable …
“Right now, this company is quietly producing 34,000 barrels per day in a small desert nation… far from the spotlights of Wall Street.”
So you hear “natural gas” and “small desert nation” and you probably think of Qatar. Good work!
Now let’s throw on the Fischer-Tropf process that was used in Germany to create diesel fuel from coal, and we’re getting tantalizingly close to revealing this “secret” stock.
More clues…
“Soon, it will distribute this ultra-cheap gasoline all across America…
“As I write this, trucks are clearing land for a plant to come on line just months from now.
“People driving by can’t imagine the scale of what’s going to go on here.
“Covering 650 acres… it will rise out of a Gulf Coast bayou… With direct access to the massive natural gas fields pumping out record amounts of natural gas across Texas and the rest of the U.S.”
And Brodrick says he expects natural gas prices to fall again with rising production, and crude oil prices to rise, which would just make the spread even better for this secret company. So who is it?
OK, we’ll take you out of your misery — Brodrick is teasing the South African giant Sasol (SSL).
Which is indeed one of the global experts on using the Fischer-Tropf process and other innovations to refine solid (coal) or gaseous (natural gas) energy sources into liquids. That’s not because they took off as global innovators who pursued this fantastic new technology, it’s because they used to be the state-controlled oil company in South Africa, and no one wanted to sell them crude oil under apartheid… so they had to come up with a way to use their abundant coal as an industrial and transportation fuel.
And the story is certainly a very compelling one, at least in the big picture: The US has abundant and inexpensive natural gas and a fantastic gas distribution system, Sasol is building a huge liquefaction plant in Louisiana to refine and catalyze the gas into gasoline and other valuable chemicals, and gasoline and those chemicals are priced on the international markets so are much more valuable than the mostly-landlocked natural gas, which should create great profits.
Brodrick quotes a “Pulitzer-Prize-winning journalist” as well, in calling it “one of the most improbable and important American business stories of the past decade.”
That article is here, from the Wall Street Journal a couple months ago — just in case you’d like some confirmation or more background on the size of their operations.
I’ve invested in Sasol in the past, back during the last oil runup in 2006-2008 or so, and haven’t looked closely at them very much since — but they are building that $20+ billion plant in Louisiana and they have built a similar plant in Qatar and have plans to expand globally. It is a more complicated firm than just these gas-to-liquids plants, though that’s part of their growth strategy — they still have huge operations at home in South Africa, and it’s a big company with a market cap approaching $40 billion.
The stock is not particularly expensive, it trades at less than 11X expected 2015 earnings and pays a small dividend, and their balance sheet appears pristine — not sure where they’re getting the $20 billion to build these new plants, since they don’t currently have any net debt, but they do have the flexibility to add some debt to the balance sheet and they may have partners or government incentive smoothing the way as well.
Sasol has said in the past that they need oil to be about 16X more expensive than natural gas for these plants to work (that’s presumably using the price/barrel for crude, and the NYMEX/henry hub price for natural gas per mcf, the two standard measures) — right now oil is a bit over $100 and natural gas is back down to $4 so that’s a ratio of about 25, well within their zone of profitability.
Brodrick is pretty far outside the mainstream in his prediction of “90% growth in the coming weeks… 281% in the next few months… and 1,063% in the next couple of years” for this company — analysts are predicting that earnings will be pretty flat, about $5.46 for the just-ended fiscal year and $5.33 for the current year, and that the earnings will rise by less than 2% a year for the next five years.
I don’t know who will be correct about that future growth (and it’s only two analysts providing those average estimates), but these are extremely long-term capital building projects, they are complicated, and Sasol does have a substantial amount of exposure to foreign currencies along the way. They have boosted revenues substantially over the past decade, but it definitely hasn’t been a straight line.
So … that’s about all I can tell you in half an hour of catching up on Sasol — yes, they can make gasoline cheaper with natural gas than you can with crude oil, but that’s after this $37 billion company builds a $21 billion complex (and keeps building similar-sized operations in other areas and countries), and assuming that pricing dynamics remain friendly for the gas-to-liquids operations… it looks to me like it’s still a well-run company but not one that’s likely to see windfall profits overnight, and that it’s worth considering the risks of building these huge projects like their US plant in Louisiana and bringing them into profitable, steady operation.
That’s just me and a few minutes of though and reading, though — it’s your money, so if you were to buy Sasol you’d want to understand it quite a bit better than that. So go forth, researchify for yourself, and come back and let us know: Is Sasol right for your portfolio? Do you think it’s going to return profits of 90% in “the coming weeks?” Just use the friendly little comment box below to share your thoughts.
I was perusing this article and stumbled on the magic phrase: “Fisher Tropsch Process”. That always gets my attention. I don’t pretend to understand all of the GTL chemical science contemplated in this article since my background is M.E.. However, where the Fisher Tropsch Process is concerned, there is a whole ‘nuther universe of perspective to consider. I refer you to the book entitled “The Great Oil Conspiracy” authored by Jerome Corsi, PhD, who also is a columnist for an alternative news organization, WND. I have read the book a couple of times, because it took more than one reading for me to begin to fathom the implications of what can be postulated about the Fisher Tropsch process as explained in this book…the potential energy implications for our planet are quite incredible…but I leave it to you “serious” readers of this article to draw your own conclusions after reading the book. Enjoy! Incidentally, one of the takeaways I have from reading this book is it may explain where Russia is getting all of its oil and natural gas now, since Russia appears to have taken the Fisher Tropsch process to heart right after WWII, by grabbing up the technology from German scientists they carted off to Russia after they invaded eastern Germany to help end WWII.
“…the implications of what can be postulated
about the Fisher Tropsch process…”
Please take a moment to explain these “implications” for the rest of us.
Perhaps save a few thousand of us from each having to read the book for ourselves. We could all gain insight from your experience right here and now.
I don’t have time to explain much. The book is well researched and documented, with old WWII photos, as well. The basic theme is that hydrocarbons can be created deep inside the earth where pressures and temperatures are at levels required to naturally create hydrocarbons from iron and other elements, as defined in the Fisher-Tropsch equations. The fundamental theory is that hydrocarbons are naturally created by the earth and they “percolate” up into the crust where we “discover” them via drilling/fracking, etc. The theory (and perhaps the reality) is that we might never exhaust our hydrocarbons because the earth is continually creating more of them from below. Sound weird enough? If this idea sounds crackpot, then you would be well served to read the book and decide for yourself…that’s why I encouraged you to do so before. It sounds too unbelievable…but Hitler’s scientists appear to have developed the Fisher-Tropsch equations so he could create his own gasoline/diesel fuel from coal to fuel his armies/navies in WWII – because Germany had not much oil, but a lot of coal. Anyway, that’s all I have time for. If you really want to know more details, read the book. In my opinion, there is too much documentation and technical veracity for this to be nonsense.
Thank you, JR, for your post.
You are welcome. I have to say that the implications of this book opens up a whole new level of thinking about the world’s energy resources. Anyway, eventually the truth will out itself. This truth (if it be so) is so world-changing that no oil industry, or any other “institution” can hide it forever. One other little “nugget of trivia” I will share with you is that the book purports to document the fact that some of the hydrocarbons being discovered at great depths now (e.g., deep below ocean bottoms) are at strata depths that pre-dated living animals (read: dinosaurs, etc) on our planet…the “conclusion” being that hydrocarbons are not really fossil-based, but may well be created from other/heavier elements deep in the earth. If true, that would further support the idea of the naturally occurring “Fisher-Tropsch process” deep inside the earth as a continually ongoing process of creating hydrocarbons. It could also put the lie to the common understanding that hydrocarbons are created from “fossils” or the remains of long dead animal/vegetable matter. Mind-blowing stuff…IF it is true.
Thanks again, JR. Fascinating.
It would seem that you are saying hydrocarbons are produced from nuclear reactions that occur deep inside the earth i.e. made from heavier elements such as iron. As i understand it the iron is used as a catalyst in chemical reactions, not nuclear reactions. Further it does not explain what happened to all the organic matter formed from living processes thruout the millenia.
The government will never allow $1.71 gasoline and will of course raise the taxes on it until people are paying what they are used to or certainly not under $3.00
swede4 I think you have exposed the wizard behind the curtain. As soon as it is
cost effective to do so non road tax payers will get a rude jolt. In the, 71% public
ownership of land, Ecotopia of Oregon State experimentation is already going on as to how best to tax those who do not patronize the gas pump. GPS, UPC readers, odometer reporters perhaps something new that can rat on you as to how many tax free miles you travel.
Thank you for your input and checking this out great job Your Top’s with me and as far as Sean Brodrick oh well
Sasol has long experience in producing gasoline & diesel without using petroleum,dating back to the sanctions imposed on South Africa to destroy apartheid. If you do not add in the amortization costs & taxes they should be capable of producing raw gasoline at $1.70
or so. Once all costs/inputs are added should be able to supply gas for less than $4.00.
In the meantime we will have an opportunity to see how well hydrogen fuel cell autos
work as Toyota/Prius has announced marketing during 2015 at their cost of production
$100,000.00 which after tax breaks and subsidies may make them available to rich people for say $80,000.00. It is as yet unknown where you may refuel them. I am sure rich Republican hydrogen producers will make all you want at a reasonable profit.
To help Rusty and others understand the process a high temperature coal bed in a reduced oxygen environment produces gases from coal tar and carbon MONoxide CO NOT CO2 which is then passed through screens of cobalt-iron where it combines with added hydrogen or natural gas to form gases similar to vaporized petroleum which may be refined into gasoline or diesel fuel. Using low grade,low cost coal & at present low cost natural gas it is possible to be approximately equivalent to $60.00 a barrel crude oil, before amortization of processing plant and other costs/inputs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_fuel
Thanks for the explanation, Frank!
Looked at my “Thank you” and realized that the “!” could be interpreted as being critical and negating the statement. I am really thanking you for your post – and for many others. I would add another “!”, but you know how I am . . . . . :>)
As addition it is possible to replace coal with bitumen or even wood waste or other biomass, although the lower the carbon content the less efficient the process.
The Israelis at Ben-Gurion University have been taking water, and CO2 from the air to make gasoline products. Their research is mainly how to industrialize the process, quick and easy as possible. http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/11/20131121-bgu.html
I really don’t see what all the “fuss and feathers” is all about – just check out how many major commercial truck fleets have switched from diesel to natural gas.
Also, the Washington State Ferries converted their two biggest ferries from diesel to natural gas and saved Millions!
Yeah, the conversion is not cheap, but it sure won’t take long to get it back. Also, engines do run cleaner on natural gas – way longer between engine services!
Look it up!
Absolutely correct. Probably LNG supertankers will also run on Natural gas instead of bunker oil,,,#6 burner oil,,, much like road tar. USA likely to become a major energy exporter as there are huge supplies of easily produced natural gas. Low cost NG also permits lower cost nitrogen fertilizer production which can increase food production and help keep our food costs the lowest in the world. It is already possible to set up a home fueling station to run your auto from city NG by using a high pressure compressor. Any gasoline engine can be converted to run NG much like Propane has been used for years.
Added benefit your motor oil does not need changing for perhaps a 100,000 miles, or more, and engines last much longer.
It is fun to watch the global warming debate. It does indeed seem to become a matter of belief, rather than a review of the evidence. Surely the data is irrefutable that at least in the short term warming is occurring–we have all seen photos of shrinking glaciers, large chunks of Antarctica are breaking off, the NW Passage is open, comparing modern data of when trees bud in Massachusetts with Thoreau’s data shows that spring is coming about three weeks sooner, the range of birds in the US keeps moving north and so forth. What is more difficult is to determine the extent to which human activity is a cause, and in particular is a reversible cause. The challenge is to do a cost-benefit analysis of reasonable steps to reduce production of greenhouse gasses in the light of some level of uncertainty. While it doesn’t prove anything, I remember the reduction is the use of DDT before it was absolutely proven that DDT was responsible for the near disappearance of bald eagles and ospreys. However, my father always told me I was a dreamer to expect politicians to discuss evidence behind complex issues.
Thank you for your post, Jonathan. Good points.
By the way — it appears that even poitics is too complex for politicians. Maybe that’s why nothing is getting done in Washington. :>(
HI There is one thing that keeps politicians in office,,,People love to be seduced..
Sweet little lies……… IMHO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQ56ho5gZxE
If you want to be accurate you must use real,current data. In fact the antarctic ice sheet is not in danger of breaking off. See attached link and scroll down to antarctic. During Thoreaus time we we going thru what has been termed a mini ice age so of course we warmed up since. Solar radiation is the primary driver of global warming cooling,,,,presently decreasing.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Wait, Wait, Wait! You.ve all missed the point. The exciting investing future for Fischer-Tropf is in smaller GTL plants – not the gigantic, high risk, cost overrun-prone huge gas fields-based behemoth corporations. VELOCYS, formerly Oxford Catalyst Group, PLC (Pink sheets – OXFCF, London AIM – VLS.L) has proven/demonstrated catalyst-aided technology, real investors and strategic partners, and real projects underway in the US and UK. These smaller plants can utilize stranded natural gas in portable, expandable units with formidable economics and ecologoical benefits. They make a compelling argument. Take a look at their website and comment. please.
I noticed that neither Sassol or Velocys web sites mention the word “gasoline.” Is it a foregone conclusion that GTL means gasoline, or is it only stock promoter’s fancy?
Brad Strictly speaking GTL (Gas TO LIquid) could mean conversion to something similar to crude oil that needs further refining. I have yet to find anything that clarifies if the end product is diesel or gasoline.
This dialogue has segued in several directions!!!!!!!
Starting at the beginning…..GTL (gas to liquids)……
Anyone who has a remedial education in basic science or physics should know that one of the basic rules is the “conservation of energy ” ….One should be able to imply that taking a fuel source that can be used as it is, will generate a known amount of “work” depending on the efficiency of the method utilized to harness that energy. Therefore: it should also be implied that using any form of energy to change the properties of the original material will be diminished by the sum of the amount of energy required to change the properties of the original fuel material. So; A reasonable conclusion would be that using natural gas in its original state should be more efficient than changing it into different liquids.
Another point that has been brought up is the claim that oil and gas may be unlimited because they are continually being regenerated.
Let us assume that oil and gas did not come from Dinosaurs?
Where did the carbon atoms that were necessary to create hydrocarbons come from?
I don’t believe in magic!…
The 97% of scientists previously referred to; probably agree that the earth has been through many extreme changes during its lifetime and its climate has also been through many significant changes.
A vast majority of these scientists have varying degrees of agreement as to what caused these changes.
Which brings us to another point previously brought up……..Is climate change being significantly affected by Green House Gasses or other impacts from human beings on this Earth?
Firstly I would like to address the different interpretations between “Global Warming”
and “Climate Change”. It is verifiably certain that we have recently been experiencing greater swings in weather conditions than are previously been recorded. (Colder winters, warmer summers, greater occurrence of phenomenon like tornadoes, flooding, drought, etc.)
My point being is that I have heard people say what “Global Warming?” “It is Freezing Cold outside”……… It is not about what the weather is like where a particular person lives, but rather what is going on Globally. Unbiased Scientific Data shows that the average temperature (Globally) is rising. In addition; the severity of weather events (Globally) is increasing.
And there seems to be some argument as to why this is happening?????????????
Scientists have been able to collect core samples of ice that has been frozen for millions of years. This is a FACT! After analyzing these samples (collected from different parts of the world) one observation that appears in all samples is the level of CO2 contained in them. The levels show similar results corresponding to the time range from the era that they were created. Some are higher and some are lower but samples taken that were created during our lifetime are substantially and significantly higher in their content of CO2!!!!!!!!!!!
Could just be a coincidence….Co2 and other pollutants might be getting unjustly blamed for a simple “Natural” occurrence?????????
If we are responsible for creating the drastic changes that are occurring; then shouldn’t we do something about it? But what?…………………
The largest source of harmful pollution is the use of coal and the use of Fuel Oil (Fuel Oil is what tens of thousands of Shipping Vessels use to move around the Globe)
Regulations are being instituted in 2015 requiring reduction in the amount of pollution they create. This will be achieved mostly by using fuels that are cleaner and produce less pollutants.
The top methods being touted are: using LNG (liquid natural gas), Diesel or other refined products along with a host of other ideas like turning wood waste into liquid fuels, etc.
The amount of fuel consumed by the shipping industry makes the amount of fuel used by vehicles seem like a drop in the bucket!
If Shipping uses LNG; our supplies and stockpiles will be severely impacted along with an increase in the cost of gas that we need to heat our homes and fuel our more efficient vehicles.
Diesel or any other “Refined” liquid product will not be economically feasible due to the cost of “refining” those products.
Economically; it would seem that a possible solution would be to use existing technology to upgrade Fuel Oil by removing sulphur and other contaminants so that a least the Shipping Industry will be able to reduce its’ pollution without putting a strain on the sources of energy that we depend on for domestic uses.
Good post, mandrover. Thank you.
Where did the carbon atoms come from? The same place as the carbon atoms that are in every living thing on Earth (and beyond) – from imploding/exploding stars!
American Press on-line article is worthwhile reading on eight (8) companies – http://www.americanpress.com/The-eight-petrochemical-companies-fueling-upcoming-economic-boom
Eight petrochemical companies — and possibly more — will build new plants or expand their existing facilities in Calcasieu and Cameron parishes, bringing thousands of job opportunities to qualified people in labor and management.
1.) Sasol
2.) Juniper GTL
3.) Cameron LNG
4.) Sabine Pass LNG
5.) Trunkline LNG
6.) Leucadia
7.) G2X Energy
8.) Magnolia LNG
Some will build new liquefied natural gas plants; others will expand their LNG production and begin exporting. One company will refine natural gas into gasoline; another will harness the science of “cracking” ethane molecules to produce ethylene, a gas compound found in many of the products we use every day.
When taken in the aggregate, the estimated $47 billion in projects have many state and local officials predicting an economic boom for Southwest Louisiana.
Why is it OK to misuse our natural resources simply because it is going to create jobs????
Since you are mentioning actual companies…….take a look at Genoil.
They have the technology to upgrade Fuel Oil (to meet new maritime requirements) at a fraction of the cost that is required by traditional refining. This technology can also be used for upgrading Oil Sands. However; upgrading Oil Sands is not cost effective and may not ever be cost effective, since solar wind and waves will probably become more cost efficient than Oil Sands unless some break through technology comes along first.
Why do you think using our natural resources to create jobs is a misuse of them???
Mark I think it will not be long before LNG is in widespread use as existing technology
is easily ,though not cheaply,converted to run in both diesel and gasoline engines Standby generators have for years been run on city gas direct from the mains. The only real drawback is necessity of insulated storage tanks and or re-liquifying units.
Interesting you should mention: a neighbour has installed a standby generator in her house which kicks in automatically during a power failure and is powered by ordinary natural gas from the same line that feeds her furnace. The damned thing even turns itself on briefly once a month as a test.
Daddy, I want one of those.
Response to Mandrover – Quadrise Fuels International has just completed trials with shipping giant Maersk for a chemically treated bunker fuel with reduced emissions and improved efficiency – wthou additional refining or upper-end oil components. Could be huge!
See my reply to Mark.
JR as an engineer with a background as an ME you did a great job explaining the issue. It is characteristic of most engineers. We’re unafraid of revealing our qualifications and more importantly our ignorance.
Hi Pockets I’m still waiting for your Curriculum Vita!! It case you don’t understand that’s your college degree and experience profile.
Carbon Bigfoot,
I understand the capabilities of the F/T process. I am just not certain of your position regarding: where does the source of carbon come from to perpetuate the formation of hydrocarbons and does the amount of burning of these fuels (that we are currently doing) have any effect on global climate?
carbon b Let me say I agree with what you say about JR and add that I thank you for your contributions . I have checked your statements and found them accurate. I feel that perhaps we should move away from oil as a fuel and home heating source as it is so irreplaceable in so much of what we use. I feel it’s versatility in this will become evermore apparent. What is your opinion?
Mark, thanks for the local landscape.
For the education of some regarding abiotic hydrocarbons. They are plentiful in the solar system where we live and have likely been present since its formation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrocarbons_on_other_pla
Hydrocarbons are being formed in huge quantities also every day by plant life. Pine and similar forests produce large quantities of terpenes (similar to gasoline) which is released into the atmosphere where water vapor coalesces around the molecules to produce something like smog. That is what gave the smokey mountains there name.
By the way that also increases rainfall downwind of such forests and partially explains the desertification of areas when forests are destroyed. Vegetable matter is largely hydrocarbons including your food. Algae in wetlands and elsewhere naturally make
oil resembling high quality light sweet crude. No doubt huge quantities of hydrocarbons came from organisms like krill that lived in abundance in ancient seas.
You have heard of krill oil right? Soil organisms in the top foot of topsoil outweigh all other animal life on earth & are composed of hydrocarbons. Earth is essentially a closed system and the amount of carbon on earth remains constant,,merely changed from one form to another and back again. The optimum amount of CO2 required for plant growth is considerably higher than contained by our present atmosphere,,,,more would produce more food and fiber that animals must have. All of this can easily be found by Google search on these differing topics. Do the science,,,do the research,,
or repeat nonsense and show your ignorance. IMHO of course
Thank you for explaining CV for me, Carbon. The way you first used it, I was sure that it stood for “Certainly Vacuous”.
Since I have made you so irritable, since you are being so pushy, and since it matters to you so much, I will try to placate you by telling you that I have a B.A. in Math with 37 hours toward an engineering degree. My overall grade point average was 3.6 out of 4. (P Chem and Organic were killers for me.) My background includes all facets of injection molding and extrustion of thermoplastics – from part design to tool design to material selection to two new plant start-ups and the management of both.
I do not have your expertise or curriculum vitae. However, I like to think that I am a tad on the intelligent side. (I know you will want to respond to that statement!) . I read a lot and, in my finite infinite wsdom, I come to my own conclusions I’m sorry that the conclusion that I formed in this area caused you to react so harshly.
Do you feel better now?
Oh – I forgot to explain that, in the above syntax, “tad” is scientific notation for ” little”. :>)
Does anyone know how RTK fits into all this?