“Nazi Secret to Launch $3 Stock?” Christian DeHaemer says “Small Scale GTL” to Create New, Cheaper Fuel

Crisis & Opportunity tease about "How The Air Force's $10 Billion 'Bet' Can Make You Rich..."

By Travis Johnson, Stock Gumshoe, February 4, 2015

This ad is a little bit less relevant now than it was when DeHaemer and his copywriters first wrote up the ad, presumably a few months ago, but the ad is circulating heavily and I’m getting questions about it today — and it is, in truth, an interesting idea that I thought you might like to discuss — so we’re getting an answer out for you now.

The tease is all about “gas to liquids” — which has been a popular area for investor hype for a decade or more, and has been aggressively pushed by Sean Brodrick at the Oxford Club for a little over six months as a “gasoline without oil” idea.

That spiel was touting Sasol (SSL), the giant South African energy company that has pioneered large-scale gas-to-liquid and coal-to-liquid plants out of political and economic necessity, and the ads are still running now even though that “real gas without oil for $1.71 a gallon” sounds a lot less dramatic now, with gas right around $2 a gallon, than it did back in July when gas was pushing $4. (And given that economic reality now, it’s no surprise that Sasol has put the brakes on their massive Louisiana facility that was being teased in the ad — they haven’t scrapped it, but they’re taking their time.)

But this ad (and teaser target) is different — DeHaemer isn’t touting Sasol, he’s talking about a (much) smaller gas-to-liquids company that does something a little different. Here’s a little taste from the ad:

“The Air Force alone spends roughly $10 BILLION on jet fuel PER YEAR.

“That’s why the Air Force is betting on a revolutionary kind of fuel to change that…

“It’s NOT oil, ethanol, algae, or natural gas.

“The goal of this initiative? To wean itself off expensive foreign oil producers who supply half of the military’s fuel supply.

“The Air Force hopes this fuel will make up its entire supply by 2030.

“It’s already been tested in the B-52 bomber planes… with excellent results.

Are you getting our free Daily Update
"reveal" emails? If not,
just click here...


“‘We’re seeing very little difference in the plane’s performance,’ says the Air Force’s lead engineer, Chris Stroh.

“And now it’s getting ready to replace traditional gasoline here in America.”

That quote from the Air Force Engineer is from back in 2006, when the Air Force was first testing synthetic fuel — and yes, at the time they were testing a fuel made by a gas-to-liquids company called Syntroleum, but that company is no longer independent. They were bought out/rescued by Renewable Energy Group (REGI) last year, and that’s not the company being teased, either (REGI is primarily a biodiesel company, I don’t know much about that business but it doesn’t look like it’s very likely to grow without a big government push).

So what is the stock being teased? Stick with us and we’ll get some answers (assuming, of course, that you don’t want to cough up $499 to subscribe to Crisis & Opportunity and get DeHaemer’s actual report). More from the ad:

“I’ve discovered one company that’s not only exploiting this new fuel technology but also revolutionizing it…

“It’s trading for around $3 a share right now. But I don’t expect this hidden gem to remain under wraps much longer….

“What I’m telling you isn’t conjecture or wishful thinking… this fuel is already PROVEN.

“Two international airline fleets are using it right now to help power their jetliners.

“It’s being produced at facilities around the world. There’s a mammoth plant in Qatar that’s producing 140,000 barrels of this fuel per day.

“And now the development of new facilities is underway here in the United States…

“For instance, a large-scale $14 billion plant is being developed right now in Louisiana, and it’s set to produce 96,000 barrels of this new liquid fuel per day… enough to fuel over 10 million automobiles.

“In short, this is the REAL fuel of the future for America’s military… for our nation’s airlines… and for our nation’s automobiles.”

Yes, Qatar is a leader in gas-to-liquids — because they have so very much natural gas, and liquids and refined fuels are much cheaper and more profitable to ship and sell than is liquefied natural gas. Their biggest plant, Pear, is a partnership with Shell. And that $14 billion Louisiana plant is the Sasol one whose development is currently in “slow motion” as they put off big investment decisions because of weak commodity pricing. So neither of those is directly related to the company being teased by DeHaemer, though they apparently use similar technologies (no one “owns” the Fischer–Tropsch process for liquefaction of gas or solid fuels, which is what the Nazis and apartheid-era South Africans relied on for turning some of their abundant coal into a transportation fuel… though some technologies perfecting or tweaking that process are no doubt proprietary or patented).

Here’s how DeHaemer further describes the process:

“The process breaks down the natural gas and converts it into a mixture of hydrogen and carbon monoxide.

“This mixture is called ‘syngas.’ It then combines the “syngas” with a catalyst to create a chemical reaction.

“The reaction produces a liquid that can be refined into precious diesel gasoline… for an unheard of $66 a barrel!”

So you can see what I mean when I say this ad is somewhat “less relevant” with oil at $50 a barrel than it might have been when it was first written — but heck, they’re still sending the tease out to tempt us, so we’ll still solve it for you. And yes, the cost of that natural gas feedstock has come down substantially, too, though much less sharply than crude oil (since July 1, US oil is down 54% and US natural gas is down about 34%).

But then he gets to the part that made this a little bit interesting, even if the energy economics have changed:

“Large-scale GTL plants like this are expensive to build. They run in the tens of billions of dollars. They’re tough to get permits for. And they can take five to six years to build.

“Because they’re so huge, they also require a significant amount of natural gas to be profitable.

“So they can only be built in areas where huge volumes of natural gas and pipelines are present….

“Small-scale plants can convert this “stranded” gas into several hundred billion barrels of fuel — enough to supply the world’s energy needs for the next 25 years!

“The potential for this technology is STAGGERING… and so are the riches to be made.

“That’s why I’ve set my sights on this tiny company with a patented process for creating these small GTL plants…

“Its process is protected by 894 patents!

“This company has already won several contracts in the United States to help build small-scale GTL plants in gas-rich regions of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Oklahoma…

“And the Department of Energy has teamed up with it to build a plant that converts waste gas into diesel.”

So that makes it sound a little bit more attractive — if you don’t have to have a concentrated pipeline hub, or a $14 billion investment, might these projects work in the shale gas regions? I guess that’s the idea.

Some more clues:

“The company is also involved in deals with two offshore firms that are using the technology to exploit huge fields of ‘stranded’ gas…. multi-billion dollar juggernaut Waste Management recently partnered up with this small $3 company to build several GTL plants.”

And a few more places we might see these projects:

“These plants will be built in China, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

“British Airways has signed on, too…

“The airliner has joined up with this company to build a plant that turns landfill waste into jet fuel. The plant will be the first of its kind in Europe.”

OK — so that’s enough of our clueification… how about we toss all that into the Mighty, Mighty Thinkolator and see what comes out the other end? Ready?

Me, too. Answer: this is Velocys (VLS in London, OXFCF on the pink sheets). It’s very illiquid on the pink sheets, so if you decide you like it and can’t trade in London, make sure to place orders only when both London and NY are open to give you a fair shot at getting a decent price — and, of course, only use limit orders based on the London price and the current exchange rate (I use xe.com for currency conversion, and the LSE site for London stock details… and remember that London trading is in pence, not pounds).

Formerly named Oxford Catalysts, Velocys is indeed focused on small-scale GTL (in the neighborhood of 1,000 barrels per day of output, versus 100,000 or more for the largest plants like the planned Sasol one in Louisiana) … here’s how they describe themselves:

“Velocys is the company at the forefront of smaller scale gas-to-liquids (GTL) that turns natural gas into premium liquid products such as diesel and jet fuel. Smaller scale GTL adds value to shale gas and makes stranded or flared gas economic – an untapped market of up to 25 million barrels per day.

“Velocys technology, protected by over 900 patents, is specifically designed for smaller scales, combining super-active catalysts with intensified reactor systems. The Company’s standardised modular plants are easier to ship and faster to install, at lower risk, even in the most remote or challenging locations. Together with world-class partners, Velocys works flexibly to unlock gas resources of 15,000 to 150,000 mmbtu per day, allowing more companies to take advantage of more opportunities.”

This is essentially a technology company that’s trying to transition to commercialization — they have a big patent portfolio, which is apparently standing up in court to at least some degree (they’ve recently won an injunction against one offender), but they’re very early on in seeing their technology actually in commercial use. They have a successful demonstration project, but they are pinning their hopes on a few “in development” projects with early partners to create a “real world” business case that will help them grow the business much more quickly.

The initial project is a joint venture with Waste Management and NRG Energy for a methane/natural gas refinery, and there are also fairly advanced plans for a biomass refinery with Red Rock Biofuels in Oregon (timber waste) and a small natural gas GTL plant in Ohio that Velocys bought (by buying Pinto Energy, the company that was trying to develop it), and a second waste-to-fuel refinery in London being proposed by partner Solena.

From what I can tell, the outside projects are each expected, by Velocys, to generate somewhere in the neighborhood of $15-30 million in revenue during construction (1-2 years) and something like 1.5-2X that much in ongoing revenue over the subsequent decade or two (total, not per year). Velocys supplies the reactor and the catalysts and licenses their technology, it appears, but are not doing the manufacturing — their key partner seems to be Ventech, a private engineering and construction firm. The only one that seems to have announced the “final investment decision” is the joint venture with Waste Management.

They raised some cash late last year, so they should have roughly $100 million in cash — they won’t be reporting until sometime in March, but they’ve had very limited revenue so far and it’s almost completely unpredictable (from selling small reactors, as they did in the first part of last year, to signing new deals), and many of their projects will require investment (like their wholly owned Ohio project, if they choose to proceed with it, and the joint venture with Waste Management et al., which includes a commitment of $5 million from Velocys).

At current exchange rates, the market cap is now about $320 million and they have about $100 million in cash. It’s hard to see a world in which these projects are rushed into existence, given the current pressure faced by most energy companies and the uncertainty in pricing, but it is a small company so a few projects would have a big impact. I have a hard time envisioning more than $30 million in revenue for them on an annual basis before 2017 at the earliest, assuming that the project pipeline continues to proceed and build (even if it builds slowly), and they’ve generally had expenses of $20-30 million a year over the past few years so I wouldn’t necessarily expect the finances to improve mightily… but the good thing about being a junior partner or technology supplier to these projects is that your business is nicely scalable — their R&D and operating costs wouldn’t double (I hope) if they got twice as many orders or ten times as many orders following the early years of these projects that are designed to prove the commercial viability of the technology, process and design.

So that’s the long-term possibility — that if these plants are popular and get developed in lots of areas to use “stranded” natural gas, then Velocys could move up dramatically over time. My guess is that we’ll see a lot of opportunity to buy the stock before that happens, since I think these investments are likely to move more slowly than optimists might hope over the next couple years, but that’s just a guess.

The shares have been 70% lower than this over the past eight years that they’ve been public, and 100% higher, and there’s not a lot of real fundamental reasoning you can use to be definitive about whether you think the company should be worth $200 million or $1 billion in a couple years, it’s all up in the air and depends on how many plants/refineries get built licensing their gas-to-liquids technology and using their reactors… this is a company that is well financed for the next couple years, but whether the stock withers on the vine or explodes higher, or just continues to be volatile as it has been since 2006, seems entirely to be a matter of news flow and speculation — and whether they get some big, attention-getting orders as plants move forward with investment commitments and actually start construction. The next semiannual earnings release will come next month sometime, and I’d expect them to announce the status of their leading projects then.

And, of course, if natural gas falls to $1.50 while crude oil goes back to $100, that would be a nice kick in the pants for them — many folks anticipate that the arbitration opportunity between relatively expensive oil and relatively cheap natural gas will continue to exist even in the current environment, but it sure looks a lot better when the price differential (and direction of movement) between those two commodities is more extreme.

That’s about all I can tell you after my first quick look at this company. I know we’ve got a few folks out there in Gumshoeland who follow Velocys, since it’s come up in conversation a couple times over the years, so if you’ve got some more insight or opinion you’d like to share please jump right in with a comment below.


Irregulars Quick Take Paid members get a quick summary of the stocks teased and our thoughts here. Join as a Stock Gumshoe Irregular today (already a member? Log in)

51
Share your thoughts...

avatar
16 Comment threads
35 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
27 Comment authors
mule1944bjulwkho nozeFrankhendrixnuzzles Recent comment authors

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Carbon Bigfoot
Guest
Carbon Bigfoot

Haven’t we put this pipe dream to bed yet? I have long been a promoter of the Fischer-Tropsch Process for years. This is the same trick the Nazis used in WWII to convert spent coke oven gas to diesel, from coal used in steel production. But that was when refined products exceeded recent highs prices. I have to dispute the cost justification numbers especially in a pilot plant (small) operation. The ONLY way this process can compete is with SCALE. And there is NO INTRASTRUCTURE to support this ALTERNATIVE FUEL. Try to get another pipeline to distribute this marginally “better”… Read more »

Add a Topic
1337
arch1
Member
👍7784

Carbon Bigfoot I think this envisions small plants in areas of no pipelines using normally flared methane/ethane and heavy crude/sludge as feed stock and trucking out resultant
naphtha/diesel. Would that make it more feasible in your opinion?

Add a Topic
5971
Carbon Bigfoot
Guest
Carbon Bigfoot

In a word NO. Remember this “improved more competitive” fuel is to be used in Air Farce planes. I don’t know of any airfields near oil fields, at least not designed for landing C-30 tankers requiring 3000 ft. runways or more. Most access roads if any are not designed for heavy traffic.

Add a Topic
359
hendrixnuzzles
Guest
hendrixnuzzles

Hi Mr Bigfoot, I have posted a topic for discussion which has attracted a few readers who are now clamoring for expert opinion. We would greatly appreciate a qualified person such as yourself to tell us whether this idea holds water. Rather than explain it all again, would you be so kind as to hop over to the neglected commodity/natural resource section and read the thread : OIL…GAS CONVERSION..NANOTECHNOLOGY This is very timely, my thread started on March 30 and on April 1 there were public announcements of a privately owned plant that is successfully producing useable materials and fuels… Read more »

Add a Topic
540
Add a Topic
338
vivianlewis
Member
👍166
vivianlewis

my goodness, the anti-gommint line is also applicable to the USAF? who knew? I thought the military was exempt from budget examination. anyway, the logic behind Fischer Tropsch is pretty straightforward. If you cannot get petroleum because Rommel lost in North Africa and the Middle East didn’t go Nazi, then you make your fuel yourself no matter how much it costs. The same applied to Apartheid South Africa which was embargoed. It used coal to make the gasoline it needed at home, damn the cost. While I hate to cross any of your big gas guzzler stalwarts I think that… Read more »

Add a Topic
22
Add a Topic
867
Add a Topic
22
Carbon Bigfoot
Guest
Carbon Bigfoot

Methane flaring capture in remote areas is a pipe dream, currently for reasons sited below. The greatest generator of methane world wide is WETLANDS and CH4 gas/air concentration world wide is miniscule. Side gas capture is as realistic and cost effective as stopping cow flatulence. I don’t stick my nose ( near a cow’s ass ) nor in your financial judgments. Stop making statements that you can’t substantiate since you NO NOTHING ABOUT SCIENCE & ENGINEERING AND YOU LOOK LIKE A FOOL. AND I”LL CONFIRM IT!!!

Sayed Enuf
Guest
Sayed Enuf

I agree. Vivian seems to like seeing her rantings in print, even when she has no clue about the subject matter.

petethefeet
Guest
petethefeet

I think you’re right that it will take a while before this share delivers on the back of real results. However, they are pretty sensible and realise that the success of their product with their first customers will generate the confidence in others that will bring forward further orders. Roman Abramovich (Russian oligarch) has taken a large stake over the last year or so. Long-term, there is huge scope for these reactors to bolt on to rigs which are currently flaring their gas. Russia would be a prime market but, worldwide, there are plenty of potential customers. In the meantime… Read more »

Add a Topic
424
Carbon Bigfoot
Guest
Carbon Bigfoot

Not being a Chemical Engineer, like me, you and others can’t understand the design implications of flare gas capture. When the light ends flash off the column they disrupt the column separating the feedstock components. If the process attempts to contain the methane it results in enormous control problems and the distillation process is disrupted. Trying to do this on a truck in a remote environment– better put your 20 year spectacles on or make a spectacle of yourself.

schonfeld
Irregular
👍0
schonfeld

caveat: first timer
caveat: didn’t read past here, yet
caveat: not 100% sure this applies, but…
According to the link below, T. Boone Pickens’ “Clean Energy Fuel” (from landfill extracted methane) expects to sell 15m gallons in 2015 in California at 40 stations (let’s say $30m at $2/gal).
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/03/business/energy-environment/the-swamp-gas-station-fuel-from-landfill-methane-goes-on-sale.html?_r=0

Add a Topic
379
petethefeet
Guest
petethefeet

Mea culpa. I’m not a CHEMICAL ENGINEER and I’m pretty glad I’m not like you. I have multiplied my money in this stock by 3 and twice my original stake is back in my pocket. I may have the ‘bolt on’ concept wrong but I think this company has a better chance than most of making good. They have caught the attention of some serious people.
It won’t cost me anything to wait and see

Add a Topic
5971
butitom
Member
👍71
butitom

I have only one question for Carbon Bigfoot. Have you read the patents for this company Velocys and if not, how can you be so sure they haven’t discovered something to blow away all of those safety, stabilization, and economic concerns? You offered nothing in your rebuttals except your University degrees, your long career in Chemical Engineering, and your reading and knowledge of history to suggest that we should trust you more than the large companies and individuals who have already invested in this company’s technology. I also had a previous career in basic science (the business world pays more),… Read more »

Add a Topic
5971
Add a Topic
2771
Add a Topic
5971
Frank
Guest
Frank

Thank you for your post. You made some good points. Without understanding the underlying technologies ( nanotech being one), it would be hard to make decisions. I used to work with the R&D groups of SCE and SCG in Southern California after receiving a 3 year contract from DOE Innovation Program for the company I worked for. After I left the company, people who were left behind received more contracts and later three more companies were started from the technologies developed from the initial project, as far as I know. Many patents were filed from these contracts. So understanding of… Read more »

Quincy Adams
Guest
Quincy Adams

Having been, within the last decade, dismissed from my contractor job assisting with a large scale GTL project that was abruptly canceled, I have a somewhat jaundiced opinion here. The Sasol Louisiana project notwithstanding, we may have seen our last world scale plant built in our lifetime. This is not to say the small-scale GTL units will not gain some footing somewhere on the planet, but in many cases, such as with the “trapped” gas at the shale drilling sites, they must compete with small, mobile LNG units, which I imagine require less capital and less time to get up… Read more »

Add a Topic
430
Add a Topic
653
eugene11803
Member
👍62
eugene11803

From a stock standpoint, this is illiquid. There is no reason to buy this stock. You will have trouble selling it.

Add a Topic
5971
Add a Topic
5971
petethefeet
Guest
petethefeet

Rubbish. It trades very freely in London.

Richard
Guest
Richard

Oil prices may be low presently, in part because of reckless destruction of our habitat and in part to try and put pressure on Putin. Neither of these are intelligent or long term options so oil will obviously go up again, sure as eggs is eggs. So this tech could well have a place. However, large scale clean, renewable energy is still the only way we should be investing, IF we can put our own selfish interests to one side and care about the future our kids will live in. So forget any filthy fossil fuels.. unless you believe the… Read more »

Add a Topic
359
Add a Topic
570
Add a Topic
359
Carbon Bigfoot
Guest
Carbon Bigfoot

You eco morons who don’t understand that affordable energy has done more to lift the human race out of poverty and slavery than any other foible of politicians and tyrants, are so ignorant in your ideology. Thank you J.D. Rockefeller. If you are referring to the Gulf Platform accident–shit happens and the planet and its bacteria have almost healed itself. All the other nonsense that you glean from the likes of the WaPost, NYT and that other Scientific (sarc) journal, HuffPost is BS. Go to http://www.wattsupwiththat.com and start your education-come back in about 20 years. The natural, carbon based self-sustaining… Read more »

Add a Topic
540
hipockets
Member
👍1233

Carbon Bigfoot – it is obvious that your CV, of which you are so proud, includes graduate courses in being rude, obnoxious, and uncivil.

Carbon Bigfoot
Guest
Carbon Bigfoot

Its the only way I can deal with the ignorance of the 98% ( bell curve challenged ) that offer uninformed, unsubstantiated opinions on this website and others. I enjoy making fools out of stupid people. I do my best to avoid PC which has destroyed intellectual discourse in this country. There are two things I can dealt with, and continue to deal with is FACTS and MONEY. Having lived and dealt with inferior minds in my seven + decades on this planet I have earned the right to be rude, obnoxious and uncivil. Its the only defense mechanism that… Read more »

Add a Topic
144
hipockets
Member
👍1233

How sad – to be so disoriented and alienated at that age. I pity you.

v4t1n4
Member
👍49

The second “Like” above is from another 7 decade person who has had quite his fill of such ignoramuses. as CB. Yet another case of “None so blind as those who will not see!”

rick386
Guest
rick386

Do you really think that natural gas is going to remain this cheap forever?

When’s Cheniere going to be at full scale export?

Add a Topic
338
Michael Jorrin,
Guest
Michael Jorrin (aka Doc Gumshoe)

Taking nothing away from the benefits that affordable energy of all types has conferred on humanity so far, may I point to a limiting factor, which is the exponential growth of humanity itself – 7 billion units today and at least 10 and perhaps 12 billion by 2100. How’s that going to work? If we don’t start using something else, our collective goose is cooked.

arch1
Member
👍7784

“Nature” seems to take care of any species which outgrows its habitat, Pestilence,
Famine and War in regard to humans as we too are part of nature. I think that likely to happen before we run out of oil/gas,,,,of course as any good becomes scarce the price goes up.

Carbon Bigfoot
Guest
Carbon Bigfoot

Michael I encouraged you to read Dr. Tim Ball Canadian Climate Scientist’s recent post regarding the Pope, birth control, Malthusians and the Club of Rome. It also addresses items that keep me up all night and not this trivial stock stuff. http://drtimball.com.

Add a Topic
5971
cheftrotter
Member
👍1
cheftrotter

CB. I work in the oil and gas industry and do not consider myself one of the eco morons you hate so much. However, I dont see how alternative energy sources could hurt anyone enough to make me hate the people interested in them. In fact, if they can help the planet and some of the people on it then great. If they can do so while there stock goes up, why we reads about stocks here, even better. DC is right, oil and gas is not limitless and will not always be affordable for everyone. TJ, have you ever… Read more »

Add a Topic
359
Add a Topic
33
Add a Topic
5971
Carbon Bigfoot
Guest
Carbon Bigfoot

One of my genius heroes is Joseph Olson, PE. He opines at http://www.fauxscience.com. He and others, including many Russian Scientists have provided the alternative theory that we will never run out of oil or gas. I concur. In 1950 the peak oil theory was advanced–how’s that been working out? I don’t hate eco-morons, I despise them, as they have infiltrated and converted the EPA into a Gestapo Agency. A founder of the EPA Dr. Jay Lehr, PE has provided a reorganization plan for the EPA. It can be found at http://www.heartland.org. Moving the EPA out DC and reconvene it as… Read more »

Add a Topic
359
Add a Topic
359
arch1
Member
👍7784

Hydrocarbons are abundant in the universe even in places where carbon based life could never have existed,,,such as Titan a where there are lakes of liquid Ethane and on asteroids and comets. The Earth is a closed system and we have as much carbon now as when the planet was formed as it is only changed from one form to another,,,not lost thus the thesis that there will always be oil and gas should be true. Ocean and sea bottoms are huge petroleum factories in a sense thru the subduction of organic materials as a result of continental drift.

Add a Topic
359
Carbon Bigfoot
Guest
Carbon Bigfoot

Well said and factual.

barcode
Guest
barcode

Correct me if I’m wrong, but while theoretically correct, doesn’t that process take a few million years? And at the rate we are burning oil today, wouldn’t that mean we will eventually have to wait another few million years until there is oil again?

@CB – not being American, I was shocked with the level of non-discourse on ANY level simply due to PC, how can a society this large and diverse survive without it?

Add a Topic
359
Add a Topic
359
cheftrotter
Member
👍1
cheftrotter

OKAY. I am not as smart as you. I would love to have a few drinks with you some day. You can yell at me all you want. Bottom line here I guess is will it help people and turn a profit? Down with PC.

Carbon Bigfoot
Guest
Carbon Bigfoot

David this is not a question of “smart”. When I make a statement it is based upon research, science, economics, education and the most important is judgment based experience. If any of these pseudo-experts on this site can provide alternative, reasoned arguments I’m all ears. Travis does a good job as does Doc and Doc K. As I stipulated many times before these fly by night applications can not muster the current infrastructure and economy of our carbon based energy industry. The only other alternative is nuclear. As a DA can get a ham sandwich indicted , so too can… Read more »

Carbon Bigfoot
Guest
Carbon Bigfoot

Joe has changed his website to http://www.fauxscienceslayer.com to complement his co-authored book title ” Slaying the Sky Dragon”, Death of the GREENHOUSE GAS THEORY. Enjoy the article by Dr. Ball.

arch1
Member
👍7784

Without greenhouse gases as a buffer the earth would be far hotter at the equator and far colder at the poles than it now is. Man caused global warming proponents refuse to acknowledge that the insulating value works both ways and roughly strikes a balance in slowing heat input as well as retaining heat. As Dr. Ball points out a lot of the earths heat comes from internal radioactive fission evidenced by the molten core. An increase in greenhouse gases should lead to a more moderate climate as we seem to be seeing, rather than the dire effects of the… Read more »

tanglewood
Irregular
👍442

Carbon Bigfoot can you review Irregular hendrixnuzzles discussion on a private company called Suluria with some interesting partnerships and a plant already in production.
Quoting “In a world filled with expectations that abundant natural gas will replace coal for power gen, and everyone will build ethane crackers to make ethylene — Siluria and Linde spot a niche in methane-to-ethylene”.
http://www.stockgumshoe.com/2015/03/microblog-oil-gas-conversion-nanotechology/#comment-4422270

Add a Topic
338
Add a Topic
1337
hendrixnuzzles
Guest
hendrixnuzzles

Yeah…and we haven’t all starved like the population growth paranoids warned us about 40 years ago either

hendrixnuzzles
Guest
hendrixnuzzles

This thread looks like the hardball diamond ! Let’s play ! Batter up !
And here’s the pitch…Siluria Technologies…Linde Group…Braskem !

Please see OIL…GAS CONVERSION…NANOTECHNOLOGY in posted discussions
under commodity/natural resources…thanks

Add a Topic
5916
Klaus Schonfeld
Guest
Klaus Schonfeld

Hey fellas
How about sticking to the purpose of this site; namely, to discuss market matters. There are plenty of sites that deal with environment-related stuff and diverging opinions. Now that I’m an irregular, I really don’t need my inbox flooded with mud-slinging.
Cheers