Become a Member

“Real Gasoline Created Without Using Oil — Three Times Cheaper, $0.58 a Gallon”

Sniffing out the "gas for $0.58 a gallon" teaser pitch from Sean Brodrick for Oxford Resource Explorer

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.

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)
guest

12345

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

246 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
dortelli
Irregular
dortelli
January 13, 2015 4:56 am

On Sept 8, 2014 at theFinal Results announcement Paul Victor, Acting CFO stated that every $1 change in crude oil prices affects global profit by R750 million and every 10 cent change in Rand/US$ exchange rate affects global profit by R860 million. From the narrative it is clear that the stronger US$ is beneficial since sales are in US$ and the majority of costs in Rand. I believe from the way the narrative reads that lower oil prices are also beneficial since they buy Brent to create feedstock for all the chemicals they produce. If this is true SSL would be on the verge of a tremendous profit. Since the stock is at the bottom of its 52 week price it would be a strong buy. In light of the comments above can someone comment on why SSL price is tracking oil and perhaps set me straight on my interpretation?

Thanks

Add a Topic
359
Add a Topic
359
Add a Topic
5971
👍 61
Nano
Guest
January 18, 2015 10:38 am

Interesting thread,

No doubt, SSL sounded great when oil prices were based on over $100. oil rate, but look at it now, I feel sorry for anyone who invested in this technology when hype first started last year. Another typical hyped up newsletter promotion, so I wonder how many got burned on this one? With oil markets clearly being manipulated by Suadi’s and OPEC, who can trust any oil alternative technology. Of course, when oil rises again, as it will, and always has after the manipulation is over for the moment, and fracking has been impacted, U.S. exploration has been derailed, and Iran and Russia are punished to the point of no return financially speaking, then the oil shortages will spike prices once again. Wait about nine months and then you will see SSL double, same old same old, some win, some lose.
www,My-WealthGenerators.com

Add a Topic
359
Add a Topic
359
Add a Topic
359
Dennis Ortelli
Irregular
Dennis Ortelli
January 19, 2015 2:02 am

I did learn from the company that lower Brent crude prices have a negative effect on financial performance because petrol prices in South Africa are regulated and the price of crude is a factor in the computation. Therefore, SSL will see a reduction in revenue from their gas stations. I expect them to take a hit on the financials, but their balance sheet is so excellent that they can with stand it and I agree with the comments of Nano above . Given their diversified business model and their B/S I will buy more on the dips. PS the strength of the US$ will partially offset the hit from the price of crude,

Add a Topic
22
Beau Sudduth
Member
Beau Sudduth
February 4, 2015 4:07 pm

Where is Wisdom? Go figure. Practical reality here. No pretense of knowledge, of science, and no agenda. The only true science is that we are constantly “discovering” that we do not know much about anything and yet the whole world functions perfectly, inclusive of our ignorant condition, every day. When the ocean rises, if it rises, I will move my Beach Blanket up higher on the shore, etc. No need to figure out how to save the world, the sea, the atmosphere, or even the Beach? Fact is, we have never been able to “save” anything. Nothing has changed. In the end, we are all lost but till then, while it is still legal and tax free, my Beach Blanket will always get set down in the perfect spot. I refuse to waste my life on endless crusades to discover the magnitude of our twisted minds, everyone already knows that we are far beyond reason. Take care of your own house and beyond that, it is a fool’s errand to think man has any chance of controlling the world or the people in it. That said, I hope GTL tech proves itself useful. There is a season for all things. Yea! Lets see what comes.

Add a Topic
150
Glenn Edgar
Member
September 16, 2015 5:08 pm
Reply to  Beau Sudduth

I love your post. “Global Warming” wasn’t getting enough hysteria, and “Climate Change” did better. Scientists have an urge to see a difference made in their lifetime, so Climate Change is predicted to happen fast. Forgetting the ice aged worries of the 70s, if man made CO2 really is a problem, if we ceased outputting ANY, NOW, could we quickly reverse what they claim is happening? Simulations differ on THAT. Sims from 5 years ago would have the sea level vastly higher by now. It has been revised downward a bunch of times. Government naturally seeks growth, and control. “Climate Change” hysteria is a perfect mechanism.

There are many good reasons for pursuing clean energy. Technology in 20 years is about unknown but the way it’s been accelerating, CO2 emissions may or may not be an issue. Scientific predictions are NEVER for certain, so Al Gore hurt his credibility with, “…inconvenient truth” wording.

Rather than reduce our standards of living with knee jerk reactions to, “good science” predictions of “Climate (Weather) Change” we should “move our beach towels” as necessary.

Lisa Nuttall
Lisa Nuttall
February 4, 2015 8:03 pm

You go brother! Very far. I’m impressed.

Tom Stanley
Guest
Tom Stanley
February 16, 2015 6:25 am

Presently, with the lower cost of crude the GTL facilities are on hold. In my opinion they will remain on hold the rest of this year and perhaps next year they might start building again, then it’s anyone’s guess how long it will take to completion. But then there is infrastructure: it individual gas station. The stations aren’t going to mix the types of gas so they will need a new tank…those are very expensive. Station owners are not going to put out a large sum of money to install a tank in an unproven product.

Haystack
Guest
February 25, 2015 6:00 pm

Geez….I tuned in just see if there was any facts about the conversion of natural gas to liquid gasoline that could be used in today’s automobiles and what company might be the one I could invest in.. What I got was everything from global warming to one’s belief in God or one’s belief in all kinds of things unrelated to my interest. Thanks a lot folks for wasting my time!

Add a Topic
338
robcrole
Guest
robcrole
May 3, 2016 7:42 am
Reply to  Haystack

sasol uses low lignite coal,and not natural gas to make fuel,it has been doing this in south africa since the early eighties.

Add a Topic
430
Add a Topic
338
Add a Topic
22
👍 21793
Darryl S
Guest
Darryl S
March 17, 2015 10:00 pm

Yawn…………The latest casualty of cheaper crude is an $11 billion natural gas-to-diesel facility on Louisiana’s Gulf Coast. Sasol Ltd., a South African energy giant, said Wednesday it was shelving the Lake Charles project indefinitely due to the steep decline in oil prices. “This will allow us to evaluate the possibility of phasing in the project in the most pragmatic and effective manner,” David Constable, Sasol’s CEO, said in a statement.

Sasol’s announcement came just weeks after Royal Dutch Shell PLC dropped plans for a similar facility in natural gas-rich Qatar. The Anglo-Dutch energy firm abandoned its own Louisiana gas-to-liquids project in 2013, citing “uncertainties on long-term oil and gas prices and differentials.”

Add a Topic
430
Add a Topic
359
Add a Topic
359
JAMES A. HOWARD
Guest
JAMES A. HOWARD
April 22, 2015 10:06 am

I Like to buy STOCK, in GAS WITH OUT OIL.
THANK YOU

Add a Topic
5971
Add a Topic
359
alanh
May 7, 2015 11:31 am

I think this tease counts as GAS without oil

Add a Topic
359
👍 4092
hendrixnuzzles
May 7, 2015 11:48 am

Forgive me for pride of authorship but I suggest you take a look at my thread,
OIL…GAS CONVERSION…NANOTECHNOLOGY

Kind regards

👍 9968
Roymond
Member
Roymond
June 20, 2015 1:36 am

Money Morning is pitching this again…. except the price is stated as 87 cents a gallon.
Anything new?

Add a Topic
3415
robert duff
Guest
robert duff
June 29, 2015 2:33 pm

IM interested in buying stock in real gasoline without oil stock but on a fix income , how can in vest! robert

Add a Topic
5971
Add a Topic
359
Add a Topic
5971
c c
Guest
c c
June 30, 2015 4:08 pm

I don’t think Mr Broderick is teasing SSL as the company. I think he is teasing Siluria Technologies who is making gasoline from natural gas.

Add a Topic
338
Alex S.
Member
Alex S.
July 2, 2015 3:07 pm
Reply to  c c

He may well be but Siluria is a privately held company with a partner in ARAMCO.

Stuart
Guest
Stuart
July 23, 2015 10:03 pm
Reply to  Alex S.

Good point. They certainly seem to have a better business plan. Any efficient method of turning NATGAS into liquid and sending it on existing pipelines (even in a mix) would be an improvement (especially for tar sands). The refiners can get a better spread with a better/cheaper crude with little to no investment of infrastructure.

Richard
Guest
Richard
July 1, 2015 1:50 pm

i think you are correct but last I looked Siluria is not a publicly traded company.

Alex S.
Member
Alex S.
July 2, 2015 3:06 pm

We just received the same deceptive pitch……Sansol has put its NATGAS to Gasoline project on HOLD. Why is Oxford Club, LLC still trying to pitch this clunker?
http://www.wsj.com/articles/sasol-reviews-investment-plans-for-louisiana-gas-to-liquids-plant-1422446980

Add a Topic
366
Terry
Guest
Terry
July 24, 2015 8:26 am

XON

michaellson
michaellson
July 29, 2015 11:12 pm

I think you should all look at Velocys PLC
(LON:VLS)

Velocys plc (Velocys), formerly Oxford Catalysts Group PLC, is a United Kingdom-based small scale gas-to-liquids (GTL) and biomass-to-liquids (BTL) company. The Company is engaged in the operation of converting natural gas or biomass into liquid products, such as diesel and jet fuel. The Company’s own GTL pilot plant and training facility is located at its Ohio site, the United States of America. The Company’s products include fuels, lubricants and other products. The Company’s is also involved in Ashtabula GTL project.

Add a Topic
338
Outstanding in Left Field
Guest
Outstanding in Left Field
August 19, 2015 12:27 pm

I’d like to see a post from someone who actually subscribes to the Oxford Resource Explorer and confirm if it is SSL or whoever, or did I miss it somewhere above? Thanks.

tom
Guest
tom
August 26, 2015 1:19 pm

I agree. Let’s hear from someone who subscribed to Oxford.

duguyisheng
Guest
duguyisheng
September 2, 2015 3:43 pm

Re: Feedstock for gasoline
Look at the deal just signed between XON and Dominion (Dominion lends credence to the process) to commercialize NG feedstock for microorganism to produce isobutanol which can mix with gas and pipelines better and cheaper than ethanol. Supposedly, even a small pilot plant can be profitable in less than a year and they use current stock items. Supposedly, the wonders of genetic engineering can make all this happen significantly cheaper than ethanol. Lots of bumps between here and there but it seems to be well thought out.

Add a Topic
179
Add a Topic
5971
Add a Topic
179
Yuan anon
Member
Yuan anon
September 2, 2015 5:08 pm

I am a subscriber to the resource explorer. It is Sasol. Sasol stopped out in their portfolio. But they still promote it and is in a more speculative report. Ditto, for RKUS in the Oxford Communique.

Add a Topic
430
Add a Topic
430
Add a Topic
6291

We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. By clicking any link on this page you are giving your consent for us to set cookies.

More Info  
4
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x