Main Page | Report this Page
 
   
Science Forum Index  »  Energy - Hydrogen Forum  »  Alternative Fuels, the Dark Side and other things...
Page 3 of 4    Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
Eeyore
Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 6:16 pm
Guest
Fred Kasner wrote:

Quote:
Eeyore wrote:
Willie.Mookie@gmail.com wrote:
Bill Ward <b...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:

How many barrels of synthetic oil have you actually produced and sold
with that equipment?
I guess you could say I've sold on forward contracts nearly half a
billion barrels of fuels over a 20 year period. This represents about
1/10th percent of all the liquid fuels that will be sold worldwide
over that same period.

You're just making it up aren't you ?


Graham, note he did not answer the question asked.

Yes indeed. He replied with vague 'hypotheticals'.


Quote:
He was asked about
how much synthetic oil he actually produced and sold made with the
described equipment. He answered a totally different question that was
not asked. The mark of a con man.

This is what it seems like.

Graham
Guest
Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 7:38 pm
On Jun 17, 3:52 pm, Bill Ward <b...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
Quote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 18:55:09 +0000, Willie.Mookie wrote:
On Jun 17, 1:25 pm, Bill Ward <b...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 16:11:37 +0000, Willie.Mookie wrote:
Harry,

I spent a considerable time responding to your comments point by
point. Unfortunately even though Google Groups said my response was
posted, it failed to appear. So, rather than go through the whole
thing again I'll summarize1 haha..

1) Conventoinal solar power costs $11 per peak watt including all
balance of systems. Their life span is 8 years and you are exposed to
800 hours per year,you're only going to produce 6.4 kWh at a total
cost of $20 (equipment + time value) - which is your $3.12per kWh. 2)
My concentrating solar panels costs $0.09 per peak watt including
balance of system. Its life span is 20 years. And it is operated in
areas exposed to 1,600 hours per year. So, its going to produce 32
kWh at a total cost of $0.16 - which is $0.005 - one half cent per
kWh.

Reality check time - how many peak kWh of these panels have you actually
produced at that cost? At any cost?

I'll take the lack of a response as a "none", since you indicated recently
you had only produced a few hand-built engineering prototypes.


Oh, I didn't see it - sorry. It was buried in there. Just as a
concept car costs millions but the production version costs only
thousands, so too doe the concept panels cost quite a bit - but
clearly once the $1.6 billion factory is completed I'll produce them
at LESS than $0.07 per peak watt - according to the industrial
engineers who are on the project.

We'll have early stage production within 18 months - and then install
some panels out West - in a configuration we'll wire them up in
Indonesia. 250,000 panels will be produced over the next 36 months
and after that 60 million panels - all completed within the next 60
months.

Quote:
3) I do not sell my equipment. I sell gasoline diesel fuel and jet
fuel to pay for equipment I build. I build own and operate
facilities that produce liquid fuels using this equipment. I take $4
worth of coal, $0.60 worth of water, along with $4.40 worth of
equipment and make one barrel of gasoline, diesel fuel and jet fuel
blend. The value of this fuel is well over $70. By selling a
portion of the forward production at a discounted price, I obtain
funds to build own and operate the plant. This cost adds another $9
per barrel of fuel.

How many barrels of synthetic oil have you actually produced and sold
with that equipment?
snip
On the sale side, each plant costs $6.3 billion to complete and I have
arranged to sell forward contracts for 243 million barrels of fuels on
forward contracts to raise this amount of cash for each plant. This
represents about 1/6th of the total production of the facility.

So, I guess you could say I've sold on forward contracts nearly half a
billion barrels of fuels over a 20 year period. This represents about
1/10th percent of all the liquid fuels that will be sold worldwide over
that same period.

Or, you could say you have produced and sold none as of now.

You asked me how much oil I sold. I told you. Now you want to
quibble about WHEN it gets produced? haha..

I'm not selling any equipment, except intercompany transfers - and
those have already taken place to transfer funds as needed to the
various vendors and subsidiaries. And, like all energy development
projects I've presold a portion of the fuels expected to be produced
by the project at a steep discount to pay for the project build out.
..
Quote:
Of course, once production starts at these facilities within the next 60
months, the forward contracts become future contracts and they may be
sold for more than double their face value. This is likely to occur
well before production actually begins.

You should hope.

Its more than a hope at this point.

Quote:
In the laboratory I have made about 100 gallons of a wide variety of
hydrocarbons to work out the details of the processes I use. The work is
based largely on that of Bergius on the hydrogenation side and on Shell
on the hydrocracking side.

William, no one wants an inexpensive source of energy more than I do. If
you go back to our original exchanges a couple years ago, you will see I
was encouraged by some of your original concepts. I am becoming more and
more skeptical, as your dreams so far exceed your actual accomplishments.

Please read the entry on "Sugico Mok"

http://www.mitrais.com/mining/miningNews060818.asp

Like I said, I was interviewed by two major papers when I returned to
the States but the interest among the US journalists just halted -
despite two good interviews being given.

This hasn't stopped the project, merely the interest among US
businesses and the US investment and technical community.

I have since picked up a project in Australia too to make fresh water
from seawater in Sydney. So, you can give me crap all you want, but
i'm moving forward.


Quote:
A concept is not a design,

I have both.

a design is not a engineering prototype,

I have both

Quote:
and a
engineering prototype is far from a high volume, low cost, production
prototype.

I have both -

Quote:
There is much sweat in between each stage.

Tell me about it.

Quote:
You may be a good enough salesman to have convinced your "customer" of
your ability to perform.

Its the structure of the deal, and the quality of the vendor list,
and their commitment to making the production prototypes in the
quantity and at the price indicated.


Quote:
and that's all you really have to do to get
started.

The central question once you get your mind around the fact that you
can actually produce solar hydrogen for $170 per ton, is what's the
highest best use of it? that is, how do I create the greatest value
for the IP owners? And the answer is, make coal into liquid
transporation fuels through direct hydrogenation and do it on a scale
that puts the panels in large-scale production. And that's what I
did.
..
Quote:
Once you get into the actual doing of, rather than just talking

<shrug> I AM doing quite a bit. Can I help it if there's a general
news blackout in the US about this subject? haha..

And what can I do on usenet except talk? haha.. What are you
expecting from me? When I go to Jakarta and close nearly $14 billion
in projects with major players - what MORE would you have me do?
haha.. OF course when I disappear in Jakarta in the next few weeks,
to you I will have disappeared, but I have meetings scheduled with
vendors, regulators, and then on to Singapore, and a round robin
around the world dealing with all sorts of issues moving this thing
forward.- of course I hae good people on the industrial management
side working on things.

But what would you consider more than talk? Going to a conference of
solar experts with a production panel or a production prototype? That
will happen. But not before we have 40 billion watts installed in
Indonesia.

Quote:
about, the project, I'm afraid your customer and you may have a difference
of opinion. Customers expect results, not excuses.

What the hell are you talking about? What excuses are you talking
about? What difference of opinion? You're not making any sense.

Quote:
So, once again, good luck. But lose the attitude,

what attitude are you talking about? You're the one with the
freaking attitude dude. haha.. You speak of differences of opinion
and excuses - where there are none. Where is that coming from except
your enormous ego.

Quote:
or all the good ideas
in the world won't save you.- Hide quoted text -

See? Save me from what? And what sort of assumptions are you making
to even say shit like this? The only attitude I have is someone
who's doing something very major and excited enough about it to talk
to people. Here you are psychoanlysing me. haha.. Psychoanalyze
yourself bitch! lol. I've got work to do.

Quote:
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Guest
Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 7:38 pm
On Jun 17, 4:30 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Quote:
Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
Bill Ward <b...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:

How many barrels of synthetic oil have you actually produced and sold
with that equipment?

I guess you could say I've sold on forward contracts nearly half a
billion barrels of fuels over a 20 year period. This represents about
1/10th percent of all the liquid fuels that will be sold worldwide
over that same period.

You're just making it up aren't you ?

Graham

No.
Guest
Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 7:47 pm
On Jun 17, 4:50 pm, Fred Kasner <fkas...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Quote:
Eeyore wrote:

Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:

Bill Ward <b...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
How many barrels of synthetic oil have you actually produced and sold
with that equipment?
I guess you could say I've sold on forward contracts nearly half a
billion barrels of fuels over a 20 year period. This represents about
1/10th percent of all the liquid fuels that will be sold worldwide
over that same period.

You're just making it up aren't you ?

Graham, note he did not answer the question asked. He was asked about
how much synthetic oil he actually produced and sold made with the
described equipment. He answered a totally different question that was
not asked. The mark of a con man.
FK

I was asked how much oil I sold that I made using this process, I said
I sold 243 million barrels on forward contracts at a steep discount
for each of two facilities..

I added that I have made only 100 gallons in the lab - which is enough
for defining what needs to be done given the long history of these
sorts of processes and the experience of the vendors we're using.

And I was clear I have made no oil yet under the contracts mentioned -
saying they'll be delivered in 60 months.

For me to say i made no oil at all when I have done all the things
described above would be to leave someone with the wrong impression
wouldn't it?
Guest
Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 7:49 pm
On Jun 17, 7:16 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Quote:
Fred Kasner wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
Bill Ward <b...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:

How many barrels of synthetic oil have you actually produced and sold
with that equipment?
I guess you could say I've sold on forward contracts nearly half a
billion barrels of fuels over a 20 year period. This represents about
1/10th percent of all the liquid fuels that will be sold worldwide
over that same period.

You're just making it up aren't you ?

Graham, note he did not answer the question asked.

Yes indeed. He replied with vague 'hypotheticals'.

He was asked about
how much synthetic oil he actually produced and sold made with the
described equipment. He answered a totally different question that was
not asked. The mark of a con man.

This is what it seems like.

Graham- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

haha.. what would you have me say Graham? That I didn't make any oil
when I've made enough to define my process totally? That I haven't
sold any oil at all when I sold enough to build two massive
facilities? lol. I said quite specifically what I did and how I did
it and when I'd be in production.

Had you read the news in the New York Times or the Wall Street
Journal, rather than here on usenet you'd be totally geeked about it.
But you didn't so, you're not. That's all that's going on here.
Guest
Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 8:03 pm
On Jun 17, 1:26 pm, Dan Bloomquist <publi...@lakeweb.com> wrote:
Quote:
Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
2) My concentrating solar panels costs $0.09 per peak watt including
balance of system....

You have been writing some pretty interesting stuff the last few days.
Now, if I could believe this one, it would be well rounded.

Its the venue. That's all.

Fact is, I signed up two coal companies in Indonesia and then two
investment houses who specialize in oil development and exploration.
One in Jakarta and one in Abu Dhabi, and it made national news all
over Asia and the middle east. We'll increase oil output of Indonesia
from its present 1.1 million bbls per day to 1.5 million bbls/day.
With hydrogen I can also take the Natuna gas fields, which are
unproducible because of carbon dioxide,and make methanol really
cheaply, which fits well with my 'sunfuel' process.

A big five page spread in August issue of TRUST magazine, and news
stories out the wazoo and interviews. haha.. people recognized me on
the streets of Jakarta and Singapore. My five minutes of fame.
Treated very nicely in Dubai and Abu Dhabi.

I was gone from August through September, and when I got back to the
States I was invited for interviews in New York City, and met with
some investment folks there too.

I sat for two extensive interviews one for the New York Times one for
the Wall Street Journal. And they sat on it for two weeks. The
reporters kept calling me and giving me news about when the articles
would appear. Ultimately, they really weren't interested in news in
Indonesia they said. haha.. Which is fine by me, Let me know when
news is big enough to report. lol. But one reporter was really bummed
since she sensed it was a good story. They both covered the Asia beat
and contacted me after the media wave spread around there when I was
still in Jakarta.

I couldn't believe it after all the excitement, but I had other stuff
to do. I did mention to the beautiful female reporter I thought it
weird and felt bad she wrote such a nice article that no one would see
it. She recommended I read CONFESSIONS OF AN ECONOMIC HIT MAN and A
GAME AS OLD AS EMPIRE. She felt the word had come down and this is
not something that you will see reported for some reason.

I got the second title and they did talk in the first chapter how
controlled the US media is when it comes to foreign news appearing
here. So,somehow somewhere, this isn't going to be reported here -
and because its not reported here, its like it never happened!
Fortunately for my bankers, they believe! and I am paying my vendors.

One of my advisors said its actually good news that you haven't gotten
any US press, because you'd have a group of people the size of the
Mormon Tabernacle Choir at your doorstep selling you all manner of
things - and here, all you've gotta do is focus on getting done what
you said you were going to do. And that's what I'm doing. lol.

Which is a good thing.
Guest
Posted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 8:04 pm
On Jun 17, 4:18 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Quote:
Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
Harry,

I spent a considerable time responding to your comments point by
point. Unfortunately even though Google Groups said my response was
posted, it failed to appear.

Why don't you use a proper news provider ?

Graham

??? You're lucky I post her at all dude! lol. This isn't my main
job you know, I won't have a helluva lot of time for this anyway
shortly.
Eeyore
Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 5:28 am
Guest
Willie.Mookie@gmail.com wrote:

Quote:
On Jun 17, 4:30 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
Bill Ward <b...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:

How many barrels of synthetic oil have you actually produced and sold
with that equipment?

I guess you could say I've sold on forward contracts nearly half a
billion barrels of fuels over a 20 year period. This represents about
1/10th percent of all the liquid fuels that will be sold worldwide
over that same period.

You're just making it up aren't you ?

Graham

No.

I don't believe you've supplied any such fuel. You're simply hypothesising.

Graham
Eeyore
Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 5:31 am
Guest
Willie.Mookie@gmail.com wrote:

Quote:
On Jun 17, 4:50 pm, Fred Kasner <fkas...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
Bill Ward <b...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:

How many barrels of synthetic oil have you actually produced and sold
with that equipment?
I guess you could say I've sold on forward contracts nearly half a
billion barrels of fuels over a 20 year period. This represents about
1/10th percent of all the liquid fuels that will be sold worldwide
over that same period.

You're just making it up aren't you ?

Graham, note he did not answer the question asked. He was asked about
how much synthetic oil he actually produced and sold made with the
described equipment. He answered a totally different question that was
not asked. The mark of a con man.


I was asked how much oil I sold that I made using this process,

No. You were asked about how much synthetic oil you had PRODUCED and sold.


Quote:
I said I sold 243 million barrels on forward contracts at a steep discount
for each of two facilities..

So you sold some *paper* for a very high price.


Quote:
I added that I have made only 100 gallons in the lab

So the answer is that you've produced 100 gallons. I assume you haven't sold
that, so the answer to Bill's question is actually NONE.

Graham
Eeyore
Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 5:33 am
Guest
Willie.Mookie@gmail.com wrote:

Quote:
For me to say i made no oil at all when I have done all the things
described above would be to leave someone with the wrong impression
wouldn't it?

The impression I get is that you're a con artist who has actually produced NO
cheap synthetic oil and NO cheap solar power.


Graham
Eeyore
Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 5:37 am
Guest
Willie.Mookie@gmail.com wrote:

Quote:
haha.. what would you have me say Graham? That I didn't make any oil
when I've made enough to define my process totally?

Define a process means jack shit. The Germans and South Africans have actually
done it, not just 'defined it'.


Quote:
That I haven't sold any oil at all when I sold enough to build two massive
facilities?

More hypotheticals. You haven't build two massive facilities. They exist only in
your mind.


Quote:
lol. I said quite specifically what I did and how I did
it and when I'd be in production.

As others have said, when you're in production you can brag about it. Until then
you're nothing more than a windbag.


Quote:
Had you read the news in the New York Times or the Wall Street
Journal, rather than here on usenet you'd be totally geeked about it.
But you didn't so, you're not. That's all that's going on here.

What's happening here is that your BS has been challenged and found wanting.

Graham
Eeyore
Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 5:39 am
Guest
Willie.Mookie@gmail.com wrote:

Quote:
Fact is, I signed up two coal companies in Indonesia and then two
investment houses who specialize in oil development and exploration.
One in Jakarta and one in Abu Dhabi, and it made national news all
over Asia and the middle east. We'll increase oil output of Indonesia
from its present 1.1 million bbls per day to 1.5 million bbls/day.
With hydrogen I can also take the Natuna gas fields, which are
unproducible because of carbon dioxide,and make methanol really
cheaply, which fits well with my 'sunfuel' process.

But you haven't actually *DONE* anything.

Graham
Guest
Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 10:56 am
On Jun 18, 6:37 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Quote:
Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
haha.. what would you have me say Graham? That I didn't make any oil
when I've made enough to define my process totally?

Define a process means jack shit. The Germans and South Africans have actually
done it, not just 'defined it'.

You misread what I've written. The Germans used a combination of the
Fischer Tropsch Process and the Bergius Process to make liquid fuels.
The Bergius process is a process of direct hydrogenation. Fischer
Tropsch is a partial oxidation process. The quality of Bergius fuels
is far igher than Fischer Tropsch. Furthermore, Bergius was used by
the Germans in WWII to make essentially all their aviation fuels and
nearly half their diesel fuels, due to the high quality of the
products. Fischer Tropsch was used for the balance and produced an
inferior quality product.

When the South Africans adopted aprtheid, the Saudis and other non-
white races who controlled oil refused to deal with them. So, the
Africans developed their coal reserves out near the Kalihari desert on
the Western frontier of their country. Fischer Tropsch, using syngas
made from Lurgi reactors was chosen as the means to make liquid fuels
for South Africa due to the fact that Fsicher Tropsch process
supported this way produces lower cost liquid fuels relative to
Bergius, despite the low quality of Fischer Tropsch.

Yes, my work actually builds on the work of Bergius. I use solar
derived hydrogen made from the electrolysis of water to first dewater
low rank coals and then directly hydorgenate the resulting coal
product. Direct hydrogenation of carbon compounds is not that hard to
do Graham. Margerine is made wth hydrogenated vegetable oils. So,
its not that difficult. The difficulty arises from the cost of
hydrogen. Both economic and environmental costs.

Hydrogen is traditionally made by using the shift reaction in methane,
and less frequently with coal using syngas.

Here's a representative process there are dozens of variations....

First, for each ton of carbon you take 1.5 tons of water and 1.3 tons
of oxygen and burn an additional ton of coal to heat the mixture all
together. In the end you obtain 1.5 tons of water vapor and 2.3 tons
of carbon monoxide. So called syngas. Of course the original ton of
carbon to heat the mixture forms 3.7 tons of carbon dioxide. Then
you run the syngas through a catalyst and the carbon monoxide
scavenges the oxygen off the water forming 3.7 tons of carbon dioxide
leaving 167 kg of hydrogen.

So, you've just burned 2 tons of carbon and made 7.4 tons of carbon
dioxide and consumed 1.5 tons of water to create 167 kg of hydrogen.

Now, you take the hydrogen and add it to another ton of carbon along
with 50 kg of iron oxides to create 7 barrels of liquid fuels leaving
about 212 kg of asphaltenes and other byproducts.

So, you've just used 3 tons of carbon and 1.5 tons of water to make 7
barrels of liquid fuels. If you use high rank coal that translates to
3.6 tons - lower ranked coals that translates to 7.2 tons.

Lots of CO2 produced. Not much oil produced.

At a CAPEX of $350 per ton per year processing cost, and at $35 per
ton for coal, you're paying between $30 and $60 per barrel depending
on rank.

With my process I take solar energy and produce hydrogen from water
via electrolysis. I then use the hydrogen to hydrogenate the coal
directly.

Specifically, I dewater the coal with a partial vacuum. With low rank
coal this provides the water I need. Another benefit of this
particular low rank coal is that the water has a high iron content, so
iron oxides remain in the coal and do not have to be added to catalyze
hydrogenation. After room temperature dewatering I then heat the coal
at a low pressue to throughly dry the coal, capturing the water in the
process. I continue heating and this draws off any oil already
contained in the coal. About 0.3 bbls are retrieved in this way from
the reserves I'm working with. The dried and pyrolized coal is then
exposed to low pressure hydrogen gas directly. This causes mercury,
sulfur, and other reactive compounds to combine with the hydrogen and
their vapors are drawn off and processed electrolytically to their
elemental form and they are then sold. The cleaned up pyrolized coal,
is then introduced to a high pressure hydrogen at high temperature -
no oxygen - to induce direct hydrogenation. Hydrocarbons formed in
this reactor are vented through a distillation column where C8 through
C14 are extracted. Lighter compounds are recycled to grow larger.
Heavier compounds are cycled through a hydro-cracker that splits the
compounds in two, and adds hydrogen using a variation of the Shell
process to treat heavy oils. The cracked hydrocarbons are recycled
throgh the short stack and appropriately weighted compounds are
extracted. The result is a blended product of jet fuel, diesel fuel
and gasoline with no bottoms, that will go to a traditional refinery
for further processing. Tars and asphaltenes (due to oxygen leakage
through the system) are extracted from the bottom of the short stack,
along with clays and other non carbon byproducts in the reactor.
These are mixed and make a passable asphalt/bitumen surfacing
material.

In the end using the rank coal at the sites we're building this
facility on we'll get 6 bbls of liquid fuels per ton and have a CAPEX
of $330 per ton of coal processed. This does not include the cost of
the solar panels - and its lower than the partial oxidation process
just described because we don't have a burner for the coal and a
hydrogen separator and all that. We do ahve the short fractional
distillation stack and shell hydrocracker though, so costs aren't THAT
much cheaper. The lower rank coal is gotten for $20 per ton and teh
capital cost is $33 per ton to process it, and so that's $53 per ton
processed divided by 6 that's $8.83 per barrel of liquid fuels.

The cost of the hydrogen is $170 per ton and that adds another $3.54
per barrel of liquid fuels.


Quote:
That I haven't sold any oil at all when I sold enough to build two massive
facilities?

More hypotheticals.

What is hypothetical when I have the money in the bank, contractors on
the ground and work underway?

Quote:
You haven't build two massive facilities.

Look, I can point to land I own, contracts I have in place, and people
working on the ground building these facilities. How is this any
different than a homebuilder talking about his home that's under
construction?

Quote:
They exist only in
your mind.

And in the minds of the contractors, the regulators, and the investors
-on property I own.
..

Quote:
lol. I said quite specifically what I did and how I did
it and when I'd be in production.

As others have said, when you're in production you can brag about it.

I'm not bragging about anything now, I doubt I would brag about
anything once I'm in production. I'm merely telling people here what
I'm doing with solar hydrogen. I'm covering 90 sq miles of land with
40 GW of low cost solar collectors to make 3,570 tons of hydrogen each
day to make 200,000 bbls/day from coal - at two sites in Indonesia.
One on the island of Borneo. One on the island of Sumatra.

Quote:
Until then
you're nothing more than a windbag.

You're the windbag Graham, spewing forth a lot signifying nothing.

Quote:
Had you read the news in the New York Times or the Wall Street
Journal, rather than here on usenet you'd be totally geeked about it.
But you didn't so, you're not. That's all that's going on here.

What's happening here is that your BS has been challenged and found wanting.

Not at all. The reporter works throughout Asia she's seen the site
talked to the contractors and wrote the story. The story wasn't
picked up that's all.

It was picked up by the Asian press, and some references still exist -
which I've pointed to on several occasions.

What's BS is your categorical statements unsupported by any evidence
or facts whatever.
Don Lancaster
Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 11:10 am
Guest
Bill Ward wrote:

Quote:
Reality check time - how many peak kWh of these panels have you actually
produced at that cost? At any cost?



More to the point: How many fully burdened conventional silicon net
energy pv panels have EVER been produced ANYWHERE by ANYONE?

Answer: ZERO.

The more conventional silicon pv panels that are installed and the
longer they run, the more gasoline they destroy.

This MAY eventually change with CIGS, Quantum Dots, and tetrapods, but
it flat out ain't gonna EVER happen with conventional silicon pv.

See http://www.tinaja.com/glib/energfun.pdf for a detailed analysis.
See http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu07.asp for continuing developments.

--
Many thanks,

Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: don@tinaja.com

Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
Guest
Posted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 11:10 am
On Jun 18, 6:31 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Quote:
Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 17, 4:50 pm, Fred Kasner <fkas...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
Bill Ward <b...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:

How many barrels of synthetic oil have you actually produced and sold
with that equipment?
I guess you could say I've sold on forward contracts nearly half a
billion barrels of fuels over a 20 year period. This represents about
1/10th percent of all the liquid fuels that will be sold worldwide
over that same period.

You're just making it up aren't you ?

Graham, note he did not answer the question asked. He was asked about
how much synthetic oil he actually produced and sold made with the
described equipment. He answered a totally different question that was
not asked. The mark of a con man.

I was asked how much oil I sold that I made using this process,

No. You were asked about how much synthetic oil you had PRODUCED and sold.

I said I sold 243 million barrels on forward contracts at a steep discount
for each of two facilities..

So you sold some *paper* for a very high price.

That's the way it works Graham. The people who paid for the oil were
buying oil. If you asked them what they were buying they would say
they were buying oil. If you asked me I would say they were buying
oil. This transaction, the forward production of oil, happens
routinely throughout the world every day. It is memorialized on
paper, but in the end, people want the oil and that's why they engage
in it.

At the same time I was also careful to say that this oil was slated
for 60 month delivery and won't be delivered until after the facility
now under construction is completed.

Haha.. If I were conning anyone I wouldn't tell them that would I?
No. So, I don't know what you're going on about. People know the
risk they're taking, that's why they're getting the oil at a
substantial discount.

Again, this is routinely done. If you owned some land and had a
qualified geologist say there might be oil under that land, and a
qualified vendor say if its there they'd be able to produce it for so
many dollars a barrel - then you could go out and sell to people who
invest in oil development, a portion of the oil that might be there.
They'd sign a forward contract. They'd want to see a small amount of
oil from a test drilling, and they'd want firm commitments from
vendors - but in the end, if there's a chance oil could be developed,
they'll buy a portion at a steep discount and the developer would use
that money to develop the reserve. and everyone would understand
there is a risk of non performance - called discovery risk.

Now, all I did was arrange to buy some land that clearly has lots of
low rank coal on it. I got a qualified vendor say they'd be able to
produce oil from coal given hydrogen at a certain cost. I made a
small quantity of oil from THAT coal and had it tested. Then I went
out and sold people who invest in oil development a portion of the oil
that might be produced. They signed a contract. They saw the oil I
made. They saw the contracts from the vendors I had. In the end they
thought there was a good chance oil would be made this way. And so,
they bought the oil at a steep discount. They understand the risk of
nonperformance. But here it isn't discovery risk. its execution
risk. But the vendors are really rather good at what they do.

Now, I've explained in even more detail what I'm doing. What complaint
do you legitimately have? You said I'm conning people. How am I
conning them if they know the risks going in? You act like I'm
telling people I have a facility making oil today. I've never said
that. I've said exactly what I've done and where I am, and where I
will be shortly.

Quote:
I added that I have made only 100 gallons in the lab

So the answer is that you've produced 100 gallons. I assume you haven't sold
that, so the answer to Bill's question is actually NONE.

Again, if there might be oil underground somewhere according to a
geologists estimate,and it might be produced by a contractor for a
certain price - then investors want a test drilling done to see the
quality of the oil itself. This is what I did in the lab. I went to
the coal mine got a representative sample of the coal and processed it
into a representative sample of the fuel products we'll make. This is
functionally equivalent to a test drilling. It won't say that the
geologists were right in their estimates,that won't happen until
production starts - but it gives investors an idea of what they're
buying.

Again, I'm not trying to pretend anything is different than it really
is. I'm just saying what I'm doing and giving an accurate picture of
where I am. As I said,saying i've produced no oil, or sold no oil is
absolutely misleading - as misleading as saying I've made 243 million
barrels of oil - which I haven't. And I clearly said I haven't.

Quote:
Graham- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
 
Page 3 of 4    Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next   All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Aug 29, 2008 5:26 pm