Should be finalized by May 10th

based on April 10th press release...

"Consistent with the approach taken with the Toms River project, FFI anticipates finalizing all agreements pertaining to the eastern Pennsylvania site within the next 30 days."

The price drop does beg the question...

What's changed?

I would like to think FFI is still on track with bond money coming...

It seems someone on raging bull continues to put a negative spin on every piece of data that comes his way.

Truly amazing and very transparent.

Somebody must want this stock to go down in a bad way.

Why would that be? :)

Personally, today questioned my sanity

I felt like a deer in headlights

Just didn't expect the price drop

I guess that's what happens when you fall in love with a stock :)

I am not complaining though, I KNOW I would lose my sanity trying to trade/flip it

GLTA

PS I dont blame anyone for taking a profit! Thats not stupid to me...just don't miss the ride that IMO is ahead!

Wow, is there something behind the scene going on, or is this a normal pullback? I wish I knew...

An Alarming Gap


While many environmentalists, concerned with global warming, are thrilled that oil supply is on a decline (and we truly do need to replace oil with more renewable forms of energy, such as wind and solar power), there's another concern that must be considered. If energy costs continue to rise and our economy stops growing and starts shrinking, many stocks will crash, older Americans will not be able to retire, inflation may skyrocket, businesses will close or cut back, and jobs will be lost. Not only will we be facing global warming, we'll be facing civilized chaos.


The problem today is that oil companies are too short-sighted, the environmentalists too far-sighted, and politicians only concerned with being elected. As a result, there will be a gap between the end of oil and a conversion to less destructive forms of energy. In this gap, all hell may break loose.


In my next article, I'll go into what I'm doing to prepare for the gap, as well as why I believe the gap can't be avoided. In other words, it will not be 1973-1974, or stagflation, all over again. I believe it will be the end of civilization as we know it -- and possibly the birth of a brave new world.


As my greatest teacher, Dr. Buckminister Fuller, said to my class in 1982, "Humanity will soon have to choose between utopia or oblivion.... Do we work only for ourselves or for our planet?"

http://finance.yahoo.com/columnist/article/richricher/3721

$1 for ethanol compared to $1.60 for gasoline

Gil Gutknecht, Minnesota’s most senior member of the House Ag Committee, explained later that “it takes about $1 to produce a gallon of ethanol compared to $1.60 for gasoline.”

If Gutknecht’s figures are right, ethanol makers are swimming in profit margins wider than even the gasoline gang. According to the California Energy Commission, the terminal price for ethanol in Pekin, Ill., the center of the ethanol universe, was $2.45 per gal. at the end of March.

Wow: $1 cost of production; $2.45 terminal price.

Ethanol boom continues

By ALAN GUEBERT, Columnist
Monday, April 17, 2006 11:28 AM MDT

In his opening address to the 11th National Ethanol Conference Feb. 21, Renewable Fuels Association President Bob Dinneen declared loudly and proudly that “ethanol has arrived.” Dinneen ticked off fact after fact to bolster that belief with the biofuel faithful.

In 2005, “95 ethanol refineries were in production, 14 began operation, 30 began construction, 10 were expanded and the industry produced a record 4 billion gallons of fuel,” the RFA chief noted.

And, he continued, “In 2005, the U.S. ethanol industry contributed more than $32 billion to Gross Domestic Output, $5 billion to household income,” paid $3.6 billion in federal, state and local taxes, added $6 billion to net farm income, boosted corn prices by 35-cents per bushel, and supplied 153,000 jobs.



As such, Dinneen sang repeatedly, “My friends, ethanol has arrived.”

The message - boosted even more by the gravy-dripping 2005 Energy Act last August - has already been heard in Congress and the White House. Ag bigwigs in both the House and the Senate are beginning to note the not-yet-written 2007 Farm Bill could be “energy-based” rather than income supporting.

The Bush Administration’s biofuel vision foresees “a day where this industry does, in fact, stand on its own,” noted Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns recently during a visit to Minnesota.



Translation: Ethanol, and presumably biodiesel, will be so profitable soon that neither will require generous federal tax breaks nor mandated usage levels.

While Johanns did not peg a date when that might arrive, his traveling partner, Gil Gutknecht, Minnesota’s most senior member of the House Ag Committee, explained later that “it takes about $1 to produce a gallon of ethanol compared to $1.60 for gasoline.”

If Gutknecht’s figures are right, ethanol makers are swimming in profit margins wider than even the gasoline gang. According to the California Energy Commission, the terminal price for ethanol in Pekin, Ill., the center of the ethanol universe, was $2.45 per gal. at the end of March.

Wow: $1 cost of production; $2.45 terminal price.

Similar math can be done on the farm: a $2 bu. of corn that yields 2.5 gals. of $2.45 per gal. ethanol makes corn worth $6.16 a bushel. Ethanol, indeed, has arrived.

Of course, ethanol profits aren’t calculated in their own vacuum. Seventy dollar crude oil provides a wide, dry umbrella for the fuel’s fat margins and a 51-cent per gallon federal tax credit adds more cover.

And, too, mandated usage, now sought in Illinois and other states, pushes product onto a market that has no choice but to buy it. Also, the oil industry’s move away from MTBE, ethanol’s only competitor in the clean air-octane boosting battle, will add to future demand.

If there are any clouds anywhere on ethanol’s horizon all are tied to its success.

For example, the March 31 U.S. Department of Agriculture Planting Intentions Report showed U.S. farmers will cut 2006 corn acreage a shocking 3.7 million acres due - ironically - to sky-high energy costs.

That reduction, coupled with ethanol’s continued growth, virtually guarantees higher corn prices to farmers and substantially higher feedstock prices-lower margins to ethanol makers.

Ethanol’s climb, coupled with the cut in acres, also promises to rearrange corn exports. In fact, if 2006 ethanol production estimates are accurate (4.5 billion gals.), the domestic fuel industry will use nearly as much corn this year, 1.8 billion bu., as USDA anticipates America will export, 1.85 billion bu.

In 2007, however, ethanol will blow past corn exports. USDA guesses ethanol will need about 2.6 billion bu. of corn to produce an anticipated 6.5 billion gals. of the fuel. U.S. corn exports approached that altitude only twice, once during the 1970s and again in the late 1980s.

The biofuel boom has hunger advocates concerned. An adage often heard in that circle now coldly criticizes the still heavily-subsidized ethanol effort by noting Americans would rather make fuel to drive to DisneyWorld than “feed the world.”

True; America, 5 percent the world’s population, burns 45 percent of world’s gasoline. Our thirst, because of our wealth, is insatiable.

Well, at least as long as we have corn.

Up Down Up Down,

Ok, I bought more NSOL

Still have powder left if it goes south

30 days was stated in April 10th NSOL press release...

However, once concluded, we would have an additional ethanol production site that has all of the raw materials to produce hundreds of millions of gallons of ethanol annually," states FFI President Jack Young. Consistent with the approach taken with the Toms River project, FFI anticipates finalizing all agreements pertaining to the eastern Pennsylvania site within the next 30 days.

10k FFI Spinoff statement...

Due to the business model differences between the parent company Nuclear Solutions, Inc. and its subsidiary Fuel Frontiers, Inc., management anticipates establishing an exploratory committee to periodically evaluate if and when business conditions warrant a formal spin-off of FFI as a separately registered public entity. It is anticipated that the key criteria which will be used to make this determination may include; facilitating access to capital in a manner consistent and suitable for the company's specific business environment, allowing for a clearer assessment of each company's respective financial performance, encouragement of separate corporate cultures, increased management independence with specialized focus towards core business operations and the potential for establishing equity-based employee incentive programs linked directly and independently to the employees respective employer.

Sept. 30th 2005
was 42,778,809

10k is out

http://app.quotemedia.com/quotetools/showFilingOutline.go?symbol=NSOL&name=Nuclear%20Solutions%2...

$70 oil = more profit in ethanol

FFI/NSOL may be low cost ethanol producer

Whats not to like?

Coal rush
by John S. Adams

http://www.missoulanews.com/News/News.asp?no=5158

Schweitzer’s plan to convert coal to gas

You don’t have to be an independent trucker to feel the gas squeeze these days. With crude oil prices hovering close to $70 per barrel and gasoline topping $4 per gallon in some parts of the United States in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, Americans are looking for answers to the nation’s growing fuel crisis.

Gov. Brian Schweitzer believes Montana is sitting on the answer, and it’s in the form of the nation’s second largest coal reserve. Schweitzer wants the state to begin using an 80-year-old technology developed by Nazi Germany to turn Montana’s vast supplies of coal into usable, ultra-clean-burning diesel and aviation fuel. Sound like a plot from an Ira Levin novel? Maybe, but there’s far more fact than fiction to the process of converting coal into usable liquid fuels, and Schweitzer thinks it could be a boon for the state and the nation.

“Unless we choose to change our appetite for foreign oil, we will continue to put money directly into the hands of people who are trying to change our way of life,” Schweitzer told the Independent in an interview last week.

During a speech in Seattle last month to launch the Progressive Legislative Action Network, Schweitzer talked about his idea for turning coal into liquid fuels and billed it as a way for the United States to free itself from dependency on Middle East oil.

“We can do it cheaper than importing oil from the sheiks, dictators, rats and crooks that we’re bringing it in from right now,” he said.

The process of turning coal into liquid fuel isn’t new. During World War II, General George S. Patton’s Third Army drained synthetic fuels from captured German vehicles after he overextended his fuel supply lines. Patton’s troops later rolled into Germany using synthetic fuel manufactured from coal.

The original process was developed by German researchers Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch in the 1920s. The Fischer-Tropsch process, as it came to be known, uses gasified coal or natural gas to produce paraffin wax that can then be refined into diesel, naphtha and liquid petroleum gasses such as butane and propane.

Petroleum-poor but coal-rich Germany used the Fischer-Tropsch process to supply its war machine with diesel and aviation fuel after allied forces cut off petroleum imports. Germany’s yearly synthetic oil production reached more than 90 million tons in 1944.

The Fischer-Tropsch process was also used to produce most of South Africa’s diesel fuel during that country’s isolation under apartheid. The South African company Sasol has produced about 1.5 billion barrels of synthetic fuel from about 800 million tons of coal since 1955 and continues to supply about 28 percent of that nation’s fuel needs from coal.

While the technology for producing synthetic fuels from coal or natural gas has been around for decades, it was not profitable when oil prices were below $30 per barrel.

“The only reason you would have built [a Fischer-Tropsch plant] over the last 20 years is because of political reasons,” says Schweitzer. “South Africa is producing about 200,000 barrels a day, but they built those plants in response to fuel embargoes.”

With oil prices more than doubling the break-even point of producing synthetic fuels, oil companies and world leaders are beginning to take a serious look at the future of Fischer-Tropsch fuels. Schweitzer predicts they could be produced at a cost of about $1 per gallon in Montana if large-scale commercial plants could be developed in the state.

China, the world’s top producer and consumer of coal, is escalating efforts to make use of its estimated one trillion tons of coal. China planned to invest about $15 billion in several new projects, according to the Xinhua News Agency. Royal Dutch/Shell and Sasol are separately in the process of constructing 10 coal-to-liquids plants there.

Sasol and the natural-gas rich country of Qatar are working on a $900 million joint venture to build the Oryx GTL (gas-to-liquids) plant. The project is billed as the world’s largest and most advanced gas-to-liquids plant and is “poised to deliver the world’s cleanest diesel early in 2006” when the plant begins commercial operation. Closer to home, the Great Plains Synfuels Plant near Beulah, N.D., began operating in 1984 in response to the 1970s energy crisis and today produces more that 54 billion cubic feet of natural gas using the Fischer-Tropsch process.

“The Department of Energy was going to build hundreds of those plants but then oil prices dropped and we all forgot about it,” says Schweitzer, who visited the Beulah plant three weeks ago. “The cost of production [of syngas] at that plant last year was $3 per MCF (thousand cubic feet). Now the price of [natural gas] is $7 per MCF.”



Franz Fischer at work in 1918.





Cleaner energy
Whereas petroleum-based fuels are high in greenhouse gas emissions, Fischer-Tropsch fuels burn cleaner and are more environmentally friendly to produce. According to a 1999 study published by the Society of Automotive Engineers, when burned in a standard semi tractor, conventional diesel emitted 12 percent more nitrogen oxides and 25 percent more particulate matter than Fischer-Tropsch fuel. Nitrogen oxides are the primary contributor to smog, while particulate matter is a threat to human health.

“I would not even be interested in this if this wasn’t a cleaner, less polluting process than gasoline and diesel,” Schweitzer says.

According to Eric Stern, the governor’s senior adviser on the project, one of the reasons Fischer-Tropsch fuels burn cleaner is because many of the impurities are removed during the synthesis.

“Sulfur, arsenic and mercury are removed entirely,” says Stern. “They are taken and sold off for safe use in other industries.”

Carbon dioxide, the major contributor to global warming, is also removed and sequestered underground or used for advanced oil recovery.

Mel Scott, a spokesman for Syntroleum, a gas-to-liquids company with a demonstration plant in Tulsa, Okla., says Americans would probably be surprised if they started up a diesel engine burning Fischer-Tropsch fuel.

“The first thing you would notice is there is no smoke behind your vehicle; there’s no odor and your engine is going to run smoother and would start immediately,” Scott says.

Scott says that’s because Fischer-Tropsch diesel is ultra-clean and contains almost none of the impurities found in petroleum diesel.

According to Schweitzer, getting to the coal is also more environmentally friendly than the hard rock mining responsible for much of the environmental damage in the western part of the state.

“For 40 years we have been surface mining in eastern Montana. Basically you peel off the top forty feet of overburden and remove about 40 feet of coal. When you’re done mining you put the material back in,” Schweitzer says. “This process is basically deep farming. The overall environmental impacts are substantially less than hard rock mining.”


Building partnerships
Significant public and private investments will be required before Montana can become a national energy powerhouse. Shell, BP and Exxon are all working on gas-to-liquids technology and Schweitzer recently met with Shell president John Hofmeister and General Electric’s CEO Jeff Immelt to discuss the future of coal-to-liquids in Montana. Schweitzer said representatives from Sasol are coming to Montana later this month as well. Sasol is the only company in the world producing liquid fuels from coal on a commercial level, and they do it with patented technology that can’t be bought off the shelf. Syntroleum is also interested in the prospect of turning Montana coal into liquid fuels, but the company will need large investments to develop its own technology.

Syntroleum uses a patented process of turning natural gas into synthetic fuels, and Mel Scott says the company, with Sen. Conrad Burns’s support, is trying to secure federal research and development dollars set aside in the recent highway and energy bills to add coal gasification to the front end of the process.

“What we’re looking at is trying to help build an industry. I think the government has the foresight to see we can’t continue down the crude path forever,” says Scott.

Scott says if only five percent of domestic coal reserves are converted to synthetic fuel, that would be equivalent to the 21 billion barrels in the United States crude oil reserves.

The federal government sees the possibilities of the technology, and built an 80-percent loan guarantee from the Department of Energy into the new energy bill. According to Schweitzer, lenders are interested in investing in the development of a coal-to-liquids technology with such a guarantee.

“If we build a $1.5 billion plant, $1.2 billion of that is guaranteed by the federal government,” says Schweitzer. “I just came back from a meeting with venture capitalists in San Francisco. Once we explained what we are trying to do their tongues were hanging down to their bellybuttons.”

The Department of Defense is also interested in seeing the nation’s coal converted to battlefield diesel fuels. According to Stern, Schweitzer met with Dr. Theodore K. Barna, assistant deputy under secretary of defense for advanced systems and concepts, when he was in Washington, D.C., last May. Barna reportedly told Schweitzer the U.S. military wants to convert all battlefield equipment, including fighter planes, to one single fuel.

“When [Barna] said, ‘we want this fuel that we can make out of coal,’ the governor was very interested and immediately began researching Fischer-Tropsch,” says Stern.

Schweitzer predicts Fischer-Tropsch plants could begin producing synthetic fuels in as little as five years.

“We are already the leaders in this,” says Schweitzer of Montana’s role in the future of Fischer-Tropsch fuels. “I want to create the first coal-to-liquids plant in the country here in Montana. This will be the precursor to others who want to build plants in the West.”

Since the state owns much of Montana’s coal reserves, Schweitzer says the state would have an equity partnership role in the production of Fischer-Tropsch plants here.

Schweitzer says one ton of Montana coal could produce 1.5 barrels of diesel or aviation fuel. Considering the state has an estimated 120 billion tons of coal, that would mean Montana could produce 180 billion barrels of fuel, says Schweitzer.

“My vision is that in a dozen years from now, well after I’ve left office and people don’t even remember my name, that the Legislature will have more money than they know what to do with,” says Schweitzer.

Too good to be true? Not according to the governor.

“Here’s the deal,” explains Schweitzer, “This sounds too good be true. Well, this happens to be one of those cases where it’s a win-win-win. More jobs, cleaner energy and a better economy.”

Eco-industry looking to launch in Superior
March 15, 2006

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2006/03/14/ecoindustry/

Ethanol plant to spark local eco-industry?

http://www.sustainablenorthshore.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=54&Itemid...

It's a dream ripe with possibility -- a process that takes waste and turns it into ethanol with no ecological impact. The byproducts in this closed system would instead generate electricity.


No toxic fumes, no waste products to pass on and new jobs created -- it sounds like a science fiction utopia.


But it's science, not fiction, according to leaders at Elkhorn Industries Inc., housed in the former Georgia-Pacific plant on Superior's Connors Point.


"We're an independent business first and foremost," said Erik Monge, operations manager for Elkhorn. "We're just finding a very unique way to go about it."


Elkhorn is a reload center for logging trucks that employs nine people. The business is installing machinery to produce wood pellets for stoves. It should be operational in April.


Meanwhile, a regional push has been under way to create eco-industrial parks.


"Eco-industries consume raw materials, but they try to recycle everything else and dispose as little as possible," Monge said. "Everything is a closed loop."


"This kind of initiative fits Northwestern Wisconsin," said Bob Browne, Douglas County Board supervisor, at a recent Superior Days training session.


"This is not a new idea; this is a work in progress."


It also is one of the four main issues delegates will speak to state legislators about during Superior Days 2006, Feb. 28 and March 1 in Madison, Wis. The Superior Days delegation will ask for money for a regional eco-industrial development team that can focus on planning and executing eco-industrial businesses. Browne told delegates that they are hoping for about $200,000 annually for two to five years.


"I can't tell you how important this is to northern Wisconsin," he said. "It will affect all of our lives, all of our kids' lives, all of our grandkids' lives."


The $94 million plan for Elkhorn would pair emerging technology with technology that has been in use for more than 100 years.


According to Barry Hanson, an independent renewable energy consultant and author of the book "Energy Power Shift," the process has no emissions of any significance.


And, said Hanson, with feed stock that could range from garbage and sewage to used tires and demolition waste, "You would actually get paid to take the fuel."


The possible benefits to the region include energy production, jobs and even a local fuel source.


"Ethanol is being considered very seriously as a basis for the whole economy," Hanson said.


"This region could stand alone and shine," Monge said. "Minnesota and Wisconsin would be the ethanol hot spot of the nation."


And, both Hanson and Monge said, this type of ethanol production is not competitive with corn-based ethanol production.


"This would be ethanol made from something other than corn -- biomass waste, basically stuff they're putting in landfills now," Monge said. "This process, if you put it right next-door to a standard ethanol plant, they would feed each other."


Monge ticked off the hurdles left to clear: Getting the permits, receiving the financing and proving the technology. Although a pilot catalytic bioreactor has been in operation for more than four years, Monge said, it has never been tested in a commercial operation.


Elkhorn has requested funding in the form of grants or loan guarantees from the state and federal government.


The rest of the money would come from owners and private investors, Monge said.


If all three hurdles are cleared, the eco-industrial business would be up and running within 18 months, Monge said.


And that would bring another dream to life for Elkhorn -- more employees.


"We'd love to have several hundred cars parked out here," Monge said.

FFI is a clean coal technology company

FFI is not on the radar screen with the coal industry or any one else as having a clean coal solution. I suppose if it was, NSOL price would be a lot higher.

I wonder if FFI stopped calling itself a waste-to-ethanol company and instead called itself a "clean coal" company it might get more visibility???

Lets face it, the larger FFI ethanol plants will use coal. Why not play off that fact???? NSOL...you listening???

Maybe FFI/NSOL should be talking to the people below


-----------------------------------------------------------------

NCC Study Demonstrates Maximizing Coal Use Will Reduce Energy Costs and Create Unprecedented U.S. Socio-Economic Benefits


WASHINGTON, March 22 /PRNewswire/ -- The National Coal Council (NCC) today
released "Coal: America's Energy Future," a study that contains
recommendations to the U.S. Secretary of Energy to maximize use of abundant
coal for clean electricity generation, transportation fuels, natural gas,
hydrogen and ethanol over the next 20 years.
The study recommends the additional use of coal to reduce U.S. energy
costs 33 percent while creating more than 1 million new American jobs per year
and an aggregate gain of more than $3 trillion in gross domestic product
(GDP), which increases to $4 trillion with enhanced oil recovery.
The study identifies ample amounts of U.S. coal reserves to support
100 gigawatts of new electricity generation, 2.6 million barrels per day of
refined liquid products, and 4 trillion cubic feet (TCF) per year of natural
gas production for all applications, in addition to support for ethanol,
enhanced recovery of oil and coalbed methane, and hydrogen production.
The study also looks at supply challenges associated with imported oil and
imported liquefied natural gas in addition to the explosive economic growth in
China and India. To meet increased energy needs, an additional 1.3 billion
tons of U.S. coal would be used annually, more than doubling current use.
"We have a vast supply of domestic coal resources to meet soaring energy
needs while improving energy security, lowering costs and maintaining the
U.S. economy as the premier world economy," said Thomas G. Kraemer, Chairman
of the National Coal Council and Coal Group Vice President for Burlington
Northern Santa Fe Railway Co.
According to the study, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
projects that energy consumption will increase 27 percent through 2030. Coal
is the only domestic fuel that has the flexibility and reserve base to meet
this escalating demand, with enough reserves to last more than a century, even
at elevated levels of use.
"Our vision for future coal development in the United States is to use
clean coal technology for greater use of our most secure and affordable
domestic energy resource to meet the energy needs of the American people,"
said Gregory H. Boyce, Chair of the NCC Study and President and Chief
Executive Officer for Peabody Energy.
"By creating a new energy manufacturing industry in the United States that
will generate millions of new jobs, ensure our economic competitiveness and
enhance our national security, we will improve the quality of life for
Americans while providing a foundation for sustainable economic growth in the
decades to come," said Boyce.
The year-long study was conducted by National Coal Council members
following a request by U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman. The Council
identified eight priority findings and developed a suite of proposed policy,
fiscal and legislative recommendations to address the findings. The
implementation of these proposals would strengthen the nation's energy
security and meet the significant increase in demand for energy over the next
several decades using clean coal technologies.
"The study is especially timely given recent geopolitical events and the
hurricane devastation in the Gulf, which demonstrates the fragile balance
between energy supply and demand," said Jeffrey D. Jarrett, U.S. Assistant
Secretary of Energy. The report addresses the Secretary's request in the
context of the Administration's focus to keep America competitive through
affordable energy.
Research by Pennsylvania State University economists highlighted in the
report indicates that transforming the Btus in coal for other energy needs
generates profound socio-economic benefits:

-- By converting coal to transportation fuels and natural gas, energy
prices will decline by nearly 33 percent as a result of Btu
Conversion.
-- Lower energy prices resulting from coal energy conversion and the
stimulus from plant construction and operation would result in a GDP
that is more than $600 billion higher in 2025 and total employment
increases of 1.4 million per year.
-- The present discounted value of the cumulative gains in GDP from 2007
to 2025 is $3 trillion. These gains increase to $4 trillion if carbon
dioxide from clean electricity generation, transportation fuels,
natural gas, hydrogen and ethanol is used to enhance domestic oil
production.

The National Coal Council is a private, nonprofit advisory body chartered
by the U.S. Secretary of Energy in 1984 under the Federal Advisory Committee
Act. Members of the National Coal Council are appointed by the Secretary of
Energy and reflect diverse interests from business, industry, academia and
other groups. Upon final publication in April, the study may be downloaded at
http://NationalCoalCouncil.org .

"COAL: AMERICA'S ENERGY FUTURE"
NATIONAL COAL COUNCIL FINDINGS

COAL-TO-LIQUIDS
Application of coal-to-liquids technologies will move the United States
toward greater energy security and relieve cost and supply pressures on
transportation fuels by producing 2.6 million barrels per day of ultra clean
coal-derived diesel fuel while utilizing an additional 475 million tons of
coal per year. This will enhance the U.S. oil supply by 10 percent.
The United States continues to increase its dependence on foreign oil as
domestic production declined 11 percent from 2001 to 2005. Global demand is
increasing, led by a growing middle class and the forces of industrialization
and urbanization in China and India while concerns are mounting that world oil
production is depleting reserves at rates faster than replacement reserves can
be deployed.

COAL-TO-NATURAL GAS
Using coal to produce natural gas would ease supply pressures by providing
an alternative to at least 15 percent of America's annual consumption, or
4 trillion cubic feet (TCF) per year. The additional supply would moderate
natural gas prices and use an additional 340 million tons of coal per year.
This natural gas could be used for home heating and all other applications
that use natural gas, including repowering existing underutilized combined
cycle units. The amount is also roughly equal to EIA's projection of
liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports in 2025.
Conventional natural gas production in the United States is in decline,
leading to supply and deliverability issues, higher prices and increasing
dependence on foreign sources. These problems will become far more serious as
domestic supplies continue to decline and natural gas demand increases. LNG
presents the same economic cost and national security challenges as imported
oil.

COAL-TO-CLEAN ELECTRICITY
Construction of 100 gigawatts of coal-to-clean electricity plants by 2025
would mean that coal could satisfy more than 60 percent of the expected
increase in electricity generating capacity by using an additional 375 million
tons of coal per year. Increased coal-to-clean electricity capacity would
relieve price pressures on natural gas and allow it to be used in more
cost-efficient and productive ways.
The nation's focus on relatively expensive and price volatile natural gas
to meet incremental demand for electricity has not served the public interest.
Reserve margins of inexpensive baseload coal electricity generation capacity
have been rapidly depleted. America must develop new coal-fueled generating
capacity to avoid additional increases in natural gas demand that would
further strain supplies and lead to much higher prices. The administration's
proposed FutureGen project is a major step toward developing the next
generation of coal-based electric power plants targeting zero emissions.

COAL TO PRODUCE ETHANOL
Increasing the use of coal for heat and electricity to produce ethanol
would reduce costs and displace oil and natural gas by significant amounts
while utilizing an additional 40 million tons of coal per year, thereby
freeing up natural gas for other uses and relieving price pressures. The
United States is committed to expanding the use of ethanol to displace a
significant amount of foreign oil as a transportation fuel. Currently,
natural gas, diesel fuel and electricity are used to produce ethanol.

COAL-TO-HYDROGEN
The United States has identified the Freedom Fuel and Freedom Car
Initiatives as ways to transition the country to a hydrogen economy and use
coal-fueled energy to power fuel cells. Development of a fleet of
coal-to-hydrogen plants would mean that coal could satisfy at least 10 percent
of the nation's transportation needs with Freedom Car efficiencies. This
application would use an additional 70 million tons of coal per year.

ENHANCED OIL AND GAS (COALBED METHANE) RECOVERY AS CARBON MANAGEMENT
STRATEGIES
Major regional carbon storage projects and partnerships are under way
around the country. One promising carbon management opportunity is enhanced
oil recovery, which could potentially lead to production of an additional
2 million to 3 million barrels of oil per day, assuming a technically
recoverable reserve base of up to 89 billion barrels in 10 basins.
Captured carbon dioxide can also be used to produce methane from coalbeds.
This increase in domestic production would be an important step toward energy
security and would help moderate price pressures on imported oil and natural
gas. Other carbon capture and storage technologies should be developed to
complement advanced coal utilization technologies.

DELINEATE U.S. COAL RESERVES AND TRANSPORTATION CONSTRAINTS AS PART OF AN
EFFORT TO MAXIMIZE U.S. COAL PRODUCTION OVER THE NEXT 100 YEARS
The National Coal Council has conducted an in-depth survey of existing
data and finds that the mining industry and U.S. transportation infrastructure
can be expanded to accommodate growth in coal production by over 1.3 billion
tons per year by 2025. Maximizing coal production would build a platform for
strong new job creation and economic growth for Americans.

STIMULATE ECONOMIC GROWTH AND ENHANCE NATIONAL SECURITY THROUGH THE
DEVELOPMENT OF U.S. COAL RESERVES
The National Coal Council finds that the United States could increase coal
production by over 1.3 billion tons per year by 2025 for Btu conversion
technologies and still have a supply that would last at least 100 years.
Maximizing coal production would reduce dependence on imported energy and the
economic benefits for the United States would be enormous.
An independent analysis highlighted in the NCC report shows that using
1.3 billion tons of additional coal for Btu conversion technologies would
result in more than $600 billion in increased annual economic growth and
1.4 million new jobs per year by 2025. The present value of these cumulative
gains in GDP would total almost $3 trillion, which increases to $4 trillion
with enhanced oil recovery. The capital investment needed for large-scale
coal conversion projects would be approximately $515 billion (present value of
$350 billion).

Media Contacts
Robert Beck Fred Palmer, Peabody Energy
Executive Vice President Technical Work Group Chair
National Coal Council National Coal Council
202-223-1991 314-342-7619

Tom8oes, Ethanol is the hot market

Right place, right time, right product

Everyone should own commodities now. The dollar will continue to slide...very sad

You may be right

Got a little more at 1.79, don't want to be too greedy...lol

Bought some for 1.83

Looking for cheaper

Looking to buy later today

I think today will be another bargain day, like last Friday.

Been waiting for the stock to correct

So I could buy my last round!

Not sure I am gonna get that chance anytime soon though. The volume has to die off so mms can have their way with it.

BTW, looks like Robnjr wants in, in the worse way...lol

Well, if he can talk the stock down, I will be buying with him.

Right now though, the message boards have little influence.

Military's push to turn coal into fuel picking up speed

JAMES HANNAH
Associated Press

DAYTON, Ohio - The Pentagon is trying to persuade investors and the energy industry to embrace an 80-year-old technology to turn coal into liquid fuel to power planes, tanks and other battlefield vehicles.

Officials have been crisscrossing the country, meeting with energy companies and state government officials to sell them on the idea. At the same time, military researchers have been testing fuel produced by the process to make sure it is suitable for military vehicles, especially older ones.

Michael Aimone, an assistant Air Force deputy chief of staff, was in North Dakota last week to discuss a search for sites for a plant to turn coal into fuel for jets and trucks. He said a study to explore the idea of a plant to make 30,000 barrels of fuel a day from coal is focusing on North Dakota and Ohio, though other states will be considered as well.

The military is worried that political pressure or terrorist acts could cut the flow of oil from the Middle East or hurricanes or terrorists could destroy U.S. refineries.

"We know what the technical challenges are, but we don't see any show-stoppers," said William Harrison, senior adviser for the Pentagon's Assured Fuels Initiative. "There is still a level of uncertainty, but it looks like the technology is mature enough."

There are roadblocks. Building coal-to-fuel plants is expensive - possibly up to $5 billion. Investors worry that their money could go up in smoke if the global price of oil drops, budding government subsidies dry up, or tougher environmental rules are put into place, said Kevin Book, a Virginia-based senior analyst for Friedman, Billings, Ramsey & Co. Inc.

But then there is coal - lots of it.

The Middle East has about 685 billion barrels of oil compared with 22 billion barrels in the United States. However, there is enough coal in the United States to produce 964 billion barrels of fuel, according to the Pentagon.

Montana, with enough coal to produce 240 billion barrels of fuel, leads the pack, followed by Illinois, Wyoming, West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania and Ohio.

"We have probably 250 years' worth of coal," said Mike Carey, president of the Ohio Coal Association. "It would have a tremendous impact on the coal industry."

The industry is already on the rise.

Demand for U.S. coal is expected to be a record 1.2 billion tons this year, up from 1.18 billion in 2005, according to the National Mining Association. Production is forecast to be 1.16 billion tons, a 3.2 percent increase over 2005.

Coal is used mainly to generate electricity and in steel-making. Although experts say the coal-to-fuel process works, it is being done in just a few small demonstration projects.

The Pentagon began looking at coal in 2001 when Congress earmarked $13 million to investigate the Fischer-Tropsch process in which coal is gasified and then liquefied into fuel. The technology was developed by Germany in the 1920s and used by South Africa beginning in the 1950s.

The military accounts for about 4 percent of U.S. fuel consumption.

The process promises to produce a cleaner fuel that gives off more energy per pound and be less subject to freezing. It would reduce transportation costs and ease logistical headaches by enabling the military to use one fuel for all its planes and vehicles instead of the more than half dozen different fuels now used.

"See how beautifully clean that fuel is," Harrison said, pointing to a dancing flame inside a large glass tube at a Wright-Patterson Air Force Base lab. The flame turned from orange to blue as the soot was reduced when the fire began to burn fuel similar to what would be produced from coal.

Harrison, chief of the Air Force's fuels lab at the base, has been trying to light a fire in the private sector. He has spoken to state and industry officials in Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Montana and North Dakota.

Some energy companies are eager to have the military for a customer.

Houston-based DKRW Energy hopes to begin producing coal-based diesel fuel in 2010. The company needs to complete the permitting process and obtain financing for a $1 billion plant that would produce 11,000 barrels of fuel a day in Medicine Bow, Wyo.

Syntroleum, based in Tulsa, Okla., converts natural gas into liquid fuels and is currently involved in several coal-to-fuel projects.

President Jack Holmes said increasing demand for oil should keep the price high and coal-based fuel attractive.

"We think that now's the time," Holmes said. "If we can get these first few plants built and running and get the acceptability in the government and industry, there's a big market to do this."

Others point out that similar talk in previous years evaporated when Mideast producers cut the price of oil.

Dick Bajura, director of the National Research Center for Coal and Energy at West Virginia University advised supporters of the coal-to-fuel idea to make sure "the people in OPEC land aren't going to pull the rug out from underneath you."

Crude oil is selling for more than $60 a barrel. In December, the U.S. Department of Energy scrapped its predictions that oil prices would drop to around $30 a barrel by 2025, saying that costs will persist near or above $50 a barrel for years.

As the military evaluates the fuel made from coal, the Energy Department has funded efforts to refine the process. In January, the department awarded a $100 million grant for the construction of what may end up being the nation's first commercial coal-to-fuel plant, in eastern Pennsylvania. Private financing is still being secured for the $612 million plant, which could be up and running by 2009.

The risk to Mideast oil supplies was underscored in February when suicide bombers in explosives-packed cars attacked the world's largest oil processing facility. The attack was the first on an oil facility in Saudi Arabia and sent world oil prices soaring.

Syntroleum's Holmes said that even though a commercial plant would be expensive to build, it could operate for 30 years or more.

"We're not just trying to build a company, we're trying to build an industry," he said. "The acceptance of a new idea is always difficult. Everybody wants to be the first person to build the second plant."

Ethanol Investment Has Few Drawbacks
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Jessica Calefati
Apr 11, 2006

WASHINGTON, (UPI) -- Government incentives combined with low prices make ethanol an attractive investment opportunity, supporters of the biofuel say.

"Investors should look at ethanol as a multibillion dollar market that can grow 30 percent for the next 10 years," Vinod Khosla, a founder of Sun Microsystems who is now a partner at California-based venture capital firm Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield and Byers, told United Press International.

The Renewable Fuels Standard outlined in 2005's U.S. Energy Policy Act calls for the production and use of 4 billion gallons of biofuels such as ethanol this year and as many as 7 1/2 billion gallons by 2012. Supply is not expected to be much of a problem, either

Ethanol is a domestically produced, alcohol-based alternative fuel made by fermenting starch crops that have been converted to simple sugars and most ethanol now produced in the United States comes from corn grown by farmers.

But critics say if 20 percent of the U.S. oil supply came from ethanol-based blends, it would use 100 percent of the nation's corn crop. The current corn crop cannot exceed 15 billion gallons of ethanol produced, or approximately 10 percent of U.S. gasoline supply.

Still its supporters say ethanol is a viable alternative to gasoline.

"The price of oil is high, while the price of ethanol has come down below the price of oil and below what gas would cost if oil was to drop to $35 a barrel," Khosla said.

Government subsidies and mandates such as requiring oil companies to distribute ethanol in at least 10 percent of stations are expected to drive costs even lower.

Although Khosla has invested tens of millions of dollars in private companies working toward advancement in ethanol technologies, he says his interest in the biofuel is largely altruistic.

"Investing in ethanol is the right thing to do," he said. "If I were interested in making money, I would invest quietly, without competition, and work behind the scenes."

Khosla views ethanol as the most viable solution to relieving a dependence on foreign oil he believes the United States can eliminate in the next 25 years.

"It is fairly widely recognized that we have an oil crisis, an energy crisis, and a climate crisis, all of which government officials and private figures alike are working to solve," he said.

Khosla is an advocate of ethanol as E85, which is a fuel made 85 percent from pure ethanol and 15 percent from gasoline, not as a gasoline additive -- a petroleum-based fuel infused with a much smaller percentage of ethanol. In the case of E10, the ethanol acts as a gasoline additive that improves the emissions quality of gasoline, and does little to help wean Americans away from their addiction to foreign oil.

"For the first time as far as I know, we have an unusual alignment of automakers, environmentalists, farmers, neoconservatives, economists and consumers," who all have different reasons to support ethanol investment and production, Khosla said.

Oil companies, who Khosla describe as "the worst of big business," are on a short list of those who are not enticed by investment in E85.

E85 made with cellulose-based ethanol represents the economic and environmental benefits of investing in this biofuel.

"When looking at greenhouse gas emissions, the way ethanol is produced from corn in the United States is not a great solution to climate change," John Coequyt, energy policy specialist for Greenpeace, told UPI.

However, he added, "Investment in technologies that focus on developing cellulose-based ethanol is most definitely something we are interested in."

Coequyt stressed that investing in cellulosic ethanol, the type derived from biomass like trees, plants or grasses, is important because it has "a greater positive energy balance than corn-based ethanol."

A fuel is said to have a positive energy balance when fewer fossil fuels were used to produce that fuel than are normally used when producing petroleum-based fuels, he added.

"It's the difference between using kernels of corn or the entire corn plant to make this fuel, and clearly you will have a better positive energy balance if you're able to use the entire plant to produce the fuel" Coequyt said.

Though the American Petroleum Institute supports the use of ethanol as a gasoline additive, it has significant reservations about investing in E85.

"This is the first year with renewable fuel standards in place, and it's extremely difficult to predict where the path of ethanol technology will lead in the future," Edward Murphy, group director for refining and marketing at American Petroleum Institute, told UPI.

Murphy said it's additionally difficult to determine which type of renewable fuel will dominate the market 10 years from now and thus would be a beneficial fuel to invest in today.

"Some are very enthusiastic that ethanol technology will develop, others say hybrid vehicles represent the fuel of the future, while still others predict hydrogen fuel cells will dominate the transportation sector," he said.

Murphy described ethanol as a competitor among other renewable fuels, but does not view E85 as a fuel in competition with gasoline.

"The market for E85 is not terribly strong, but we're not opposed to it," he said.

Murphy added that E85 is a relatively new fuel that can only be used in a small number of cars in a limited number of locations.

"Right now petroleum is the most cost effective fuel on the market, but what that answer will be 10 to 20 years from now will depend on investment in various fuels' technological development between now and then," Murphy said.

Amazing volume...again!

Looks like we got a meaty press release. I expect there will be more to come, IMHO I hope they pace em apart well.

That big gap this morning must have upset a few of the traders!

mickey, sorry but thats not me

I am hoping the float has been reduced.

Question is, of the 19.3 million shares traded, how many shares found their way to long term holders? Also, how many sellers are now done?

I think we move up faster now with any meaty news release, and there should be a number of them coming.

"He also charged ethanol refiners and oil companies with expanding the availability of E85 and finding cheaper ways to produce it."

Hmmmm...who's gonna be the low cost producer of Ethanol???

Energy chief pushes ethanol

DETROIT -- Ethanol is the most promising short-term solution to Americans' foreign oil addiction, U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman said Thursday.

Bodman called on automakers to make more vehicles capable of running on E85, a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. For the 2006 model year, about 700,000 so-called "flex-fuel" vehicles were produced.

He also charged ethanol refiners and oil companies with expanding the availability of E85 and finding cheaper ways to produce it.

Currently about 600 gas stations across the country sell E85. In Metro Detroit, the fuel is available at Citgos in Southfield and Dearborn Heights and a Sunoco in northwest Detroit.

"It should be our common goal that E85 become a nationwide fueling option," Bodman said. "In the coming days, I will be asking that we do more to make consumers aware of the flex-fuel option both when they are considering a new car purchase and for existing owners of flex-fuel vehicles."

Ultimately, Bodman said, electric cars and hydrogen fuel cells are the answer to the country's energy problems. Hydrogen produces more energy than other fuels but no harmful emissions.

General Motors Corp. scientist Candace Wheeler said no single alternative fuel will end the nation's dependence on foreign oil, since the United States uses 140 billion gallons of fuel a year.

"It's going to take a number of different fuels," Wheeler said.

Over the next three years, the federal government plans to award $50 million worth of grants to universities, national laboratories and private companies researching hydrogen. The program, aimed at developing vehicles that run can more than 300 miles on a single fill-up of hydrogen, furthers the Bush administration's goal of commercializing fuel cells by 2020.

If hydrogen is widely used by 2040, the United States would reduce its daily oil consumption by 11 million barrels a day.

But Americans shouldn't wait until fuel cells are viable to start weaning themselves off gasoline, Bodman said. He mentioned clean diesel and hybrid technology as positive steps but spent much of his speech at the Society of Automotive Engineers World Congress talking up ethanol.

Thirty-three ethanol plants are under construction, Bodman said, and nine of the 97 existing facilities are expanding. When completed, the projects will increase nationwide output by 40 percent.

In addition to production capacity, the use of ethanol is being hindered by its price. Most ethanol is made from corn, and corn prices have risen because about 14 percent of the nation's crop is used to make ethanol.

As a result, E85 costs about the same as regular gasoline per gallon and most drivers actually end up paying more to use E85 because it causes fuel economy to decline. On Thursday, the Sunoco station on Eight Mile near Lahser was selling E85 for $2.60 a gallon, 10 cents less than regular gas.

To drive prices lower, the Energy Department is encouraging ethanol producers to use materials such as wood chips, wild grasses and corn cobs instead of corn.

Until the fuel is appealing financially, experts say the government likely will need to provide incentives to encourage its use.

"The cost involved in the production of flexible fuel vehicles and the nonexistent ethanol fuel infrastructure are the strong barriers currently prohibiting the extension of automotive fleets to dual-fuel capacity," researchers at Iowa State University wrote in a report this week. "In order to make alternative fuels available to consumer the federal government must be prepared to aid distributors in making E85 available."

Bodman said he's surprised the national economy has continued to create jobs despite near-record gas prices and oil prices above $60 a barrel but worries that continued increases will eventually stymie growth.

"Whether it's $95 or something north of that, I don't know," Bodman said. "I worry about anything above current levels."

Never got off the train

I am not a very good trader or timer. Like most of you here I think this has a long way to go.

I also happen to believe in what they are doing. Guess you could say I fell in love with the stock...sigh

Gateway...shoot me...lol

Pullbacks are expected

Nobody should be surprised.

The volume is amazing and I do expect we will move up again soon.

IMHO the public float is now much smaller

GLTA

I can't watch anymore

LOL GLTA

wow, energizer bunny

where's the next resistance level?

Techoman, why 2.50 by Monday?

What do you base this on?

I wouldn't mind you being right, but I also want to keep it real.

Just gonna state the obvious...

Expect a pullback, seldom does a three day 100% gain hold. Let people take a profit before taking off again.

I am tempted to sell some off myself.

I wouldn't mind if the market proves me wrong though :)

Please allow me my "I told you so" moment...

Posted by: techjunkie
In reply to: ride2retirement who wrote msg# 5486 Date:3/27/2006 1:41:49 PM
Post #of 5949

The Ethanol market is HOT

At some point, NSOL/FFI will be recognized as a REAL player by the market. I have my shares ready for that event, for when it does happen, it will go up fast.


OK, I feel better now...lol

VCs start own ethanol company...

They screwed up by not working with the lowest cost ethanol producer, FFI!

This reminds me of the "Bay of Pigs"...a lot of big egos thinkin they can't go wrong.

April 05, 2006 10:31 PM ET
Ethanol maker Altra gets funding, sets growth

All Reuters NewsLOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A small Los Angeles company on Wednesday announced ambitious plans to become a major ethanol producer with backing from five private investment firms.

Altra Inc. of Los Angeles began two years ago as an investment firm called Malibu Capital Partners with a portfolio centering on renewable energy projects. On Wednesday, it announced the new name and completed the switch to investing in its own ethanol projects, said its Chief Executive Officer, Larry Gross.

Recent investing newsAt Forbes: Local Ads Could Be Big Opportunity For Google At Forbes: Sarin's Vodafone Splits Into Three Pieces At Forbes: Fannie Mae Finally Recovering From Scandals At Forbes: Teens Pick iTunes Over Napster At Forbes: Split Decision For Merck
As oil prices hover near record highs, renewable fuels such as ethanol are in increasing demand.

Three private equity firms and two private equity funds will be the main backers of Altra, Gross said.

Among the investors are Silicon Valley venture capitalist Vinod Khosla, one of the most influential investors in ethanol.

Gross did not say how much the investors have chipped in to support Altra's expansion plans, but said "it's significant capital" and did not dispute reports of it being more than $50 million.

"We're looking to build a national footprint of ethanol plants across the country from the West Coast to the East Coast and places in between," Gross said in a telephone interview.

Gross said he hopes that Altra in a few years will be able to produce "several hundred million gallons" of ethanol each year.

Ethanol, or ethyl alcohol, is made mainly from corn.

Ethanol is mixed with gasoline to help it burn cleaner, and its use is on the rise as half of the 50 U.S. states have banned the gasoline additive MTBE, a carcinogen that has seeped into some groundwater.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency repeals on May 5 the federal oxygenate requirement for reformulated gasoline, which is expected to cause every major oil refiner to switch to ethanol from MTBE.

Altra has permits in hand and in June will begin construction of a grass-roots ethanol refinery in Coshocton, Ohio between Columbus, Ohio and Pittsburgh. That plant will be able to make about 70 million gallons per year of ethanol from corn.

Gross said Altra now has less than a dozen employees. That figure will certainly grow once Altra begins running ethanol plants, Gross said.

Altra expects to finish the purchase of an existing ethanol refinery in Goshen, California, which now makes about 25 million gallons per year from corn. Gross said his company will expand that to about 35 million gallons annually.

Current U.S. ethanol production at 97 ethanol refineries is about 4.5 billion gallons per year, with another 2 billion gallons per year to be produced by plants now under construction, according to the industry group Renewable Fuels Association.

The same group shows that the biggest producer by far in the United States is Archer Daniels Midland which makes about 1.07 billion gallons a year at seven Midwestern refineries.

Second in production is VeraSun Energy Corp., which makes about 230 million gallons at refineries in Iowa and South Dakota.

According to published reports Khosla also is helping to bankroll a ballot initiative to tax oil production in California to help fund a range of alternative energy efforts, which could include ethanol.

Altra said its leading investors are private equity firms Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, Omninet Private Equity, LLC and Sage Capital Partners, L.P. along with private equity funds focused on high growth companies in the energy sector - Angeleno Group, LLC and Khosla Ventures.

"The name Doug Durante and ethanol are nearly synonymous. Doug has been a major driving force behind the evolution of the ethanol industry, and we believe FFI stands to immensely benefit from the expert knowledge and experience he offers."

Patrick Herda

hmmm, maybe it was Cramer, not Fred...

Tight Supply of Ethanol Stocks Fuels Rise

By Jim Cramer

About this article:
When is the Street going to create more ethanol plays? I know that we are tired of continuing to go back to the ADM/Pacific Ethanol well. I was thrilled to popularize The Andersons as a place to go. But let's be honest, there is worse a shortage of ethanol plays than of ethanol. This...

The complete article you requested is available only to RealMoney subscribers. Get this article and more with a FREE TRIAL.