General European Strategic Invt's Inc (GESI)

[jmb015]

“None that are cooking creosote soaked rail ties. “

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=84199095

Let’s go on a journey. Understanding what creosote is made from will provide better understanding to this entire process. First, creosote is not that different from coal.

“Creosote oil is a product distilled from coal tar which itself is a by-product obtained in the manufacture of illuminating gas from coal, or in the production of coke. (page 287)
http://books.google.com/books?id=ZrBIAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA350#v=onepage&q=creosote&f=false

“Coal tar is among the by-products when coal is carbonized to make coke or gasified to make coal gas.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_tar

“Coal tar creosote is the most widely used wood preservative in the United States.”
http://creosote.net/

Therefore, as creosote being derived from coal, we can deduce that the gasification of each element should not hold much difference.

Now, with this knowledge, we can search the database found on the Gasification Technologies Council and find that they show 93 coal gasification facilities on record worldwide.

From the Gasification Technologies Council
World Gasification Database
Number of Coal Gasification Plants Worldwide: Record Count: 93
http://www.gasification.org/database1/search.aspx

There is even one already being built in Alberta as we speak:

Plant Name: Genesee IGCC Facility
Gas'n Tech: Siemens SFG Gasification Process
Location: (City/State/Prov) Edmonton, Alberta
Product1: Electricity 270.00 MW
http://www.gasification.org/database1/gasifier.aspx?GasId=425


Hmm, so now we know that creosote and coal consists of the same elements. We also know that coal gasification is a proven technology and we can also see evidence that there are currently active coal gasification plants worldwide, with more being built. So, if creosote is derived from coal, a gasification facility utilizing waste rail ties as the feedstock would be able to share the same proven technology and achieve the same proven results.

Next, let’s look at the performance of gasification facilities. Below is an article from the US Department of Energy:

Gasification Plant Cost and Performance Optimization – Final Report by The US Department of Energy: National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) – September 2003
Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations:
“Gasification systems are inherently clean, relatively efficient, and commercially available for
converting inexpensive fuels such as coal and petroleum coke into electric power, steam,
hydrogen, and chemicals.” – page 50
http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/fuelcells/publications/fuelcell/fc-cleanup/Gasification%20Plant%20Cost-Perf%20Optimization_9-01-03.pdf

Wait, so the US D.O.E. claims that gasification is inherently clean and efficient? I wonder if they have any additional facts to share?

US Department of Energy:
- Gasification, in fact, may be one of the most flexible technologies to produce clean-burning hydrogen for tomorrow's automobiles and power-generating fuel cells.
- The environmental benefits of gasification stem from the capability to achieve extremely low SOx, NOx and particulate emissions from burning coal-derived gases
- In an Integrated Gasification Combined-Cycle (IGCC) plant, the syngas produced is virtually free of fuel-bound nitrogen. NOx from the gas turbine is limited to thermal NOx. Diluting the syngas allows for NOx emissions as low as 15 parts per million. Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) can be used to reach levels comparable to firing with natural gas if required to meet more stringent emission levels. Other advanced emission control processes are being developed that could reduce NOx from hydrogen fired turbines to as low as 2 parts per million.
http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/powersystems/gasification/index.html

Above they reference “IGCC”, what does that mean?

An integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) is a technology that uses a gasifier to turn coal and other carbon based fuels into gas—synthesis gas (syngas). It then removes impurities from the syngas before it is combusted. Some of these pollutants, such as sulfur, can be turned into re-usable byproducts. This results in lower emissions of sulfur dioxide, particulates, and mercury.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_gasification_combined_cycle

Wow, this technology sounds great. I wonder how new it is and how this technology is projected to grow?
-Gasification has been reliably used on a commercial scale for more than 75 years in the refining, fertilizer, and chemical industries, and for more than 35 years in the electric power industry.
-World gasification capacity is projected to grow by more than 70% by 2015. Most of that growth will occur in Asia, with China expected to achieve the most rapid growth
- Gasification does not involve combustion (burning), but instead uses little or no oxygen or air in a closed reactor to convert carbon-based materials directly into a synthetic gas, or syngas. It is this intermediate product, syngas, that makes gasification so unique and different from combustion
- Gasification is a time-tested, reliable, and flexible technology that converts carbon-containing materials, including waste and biomass, into electricity and other valuable products, such as chemicals, fuels, substitute natural gas, and fertilizers.
http://www.gasification.org/page_1.asp?a=85

Boy, this gasification technology sounds super complicated and must only be available to expensive and monstrous intricate facilities, or I bet it must pass a cavalcade of obstacles in order to obtain making its availability, or I bet it’s too futuristic and even too far-fetched to even consider being a viable solution…wait, one can essentially get something comparable on a small scale from Northern Tool & Equipment?!
AAA Outdoor Boiler Outdoor Wood/Coal Gasification Boiler — 160,000 BTU, Model# Reburn R-120
http://www2.northerntool.com/heaters-stoves-fireplaces/item-175577.htm

“…citizens aren't willing to be the Guinea Pigs of the unknown.”

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=84403374&txt2find=guinea

Hmm, ok, …so now the last issue to address is your contention of the difficulty for GESI building their own gasification facility in Alberta. In 2011, Alberta Energy contributed $285 million towards the building of a coal gasification plant. Based on this fact, I do not see any issue with GESI building their own gasification facility in that same region. Why would there be an issue with a gasification facility utilizing waste rail ties, when the local government is already contributing a substantial sum to the production of a coal gasification facility? The link to the article below talks about the how the Alberta power grid is among the country’s most coal-dependent. Coal plants produce 80% of Alberta’s power and 20% of the carbon emissions. With this new urgent directive towards lowering emissions in the region, GESI’s potential value multiplies in my opinion.
1) Eliminating disposal issues for waste rail ties (provided for free)
2) Producing electricity in a manner not utilizing coal
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/under-fire-over-emissions-alberta-banks-on-unproven-coal-gasification/article591101/