Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
You are correct with your statement, "there is NO intrest in rcch, plain and simple."
However there is plenty of interest in RCCH.PK.
Interesting indeed how there are sooo many posts on this $0.0001 stock with no bid.
fun
To: Moderator: Art2Gecko Assistants: pennypusher1 and all visitors that can assist:
From I-box....
This is Now MGGL/ MGLG
Full Name
Magellan Energy Ltd
Address
#404, 4250 Alafaya Trail, Suite 212, Oviedo FL 32765 USA magellanenergy@mail.ru (Russian)
Questions:
1. Is the above physical address used in connection with the Select American Transfer Company?
2. I haven't had the opportunity to review everything that has transpired on this discussion bulletin board, but perhaps could sometime provide a summary? It would appear that Select American Transfer Company is alledgely involved with multiple companies facing serious acusations by both Canada and The United States?
Thank you in advance.
funmaxus
This is what I found upsetting the other day....
My Summary explanation: Below find the link for ATSDR, or Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, that produces reports by law on various chemical toxins found at Superfund sites. See the Legislative Background in bold below. The research I've conducted thus far has shown that the same toxic chemicals found in Superfund sites are the same chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing and added to gasoline. The Toxicological profile for Methyl tert-BUTYL Ether or MTBE report is nothing less than shocking. Chemical testing was conducted extensively on rabbits, mice, and rats, and repeatedly found statistically high results for various health concerns, including more serious concerns such as various cancers and death. Yet, despite the known toxicity of MTBE, it is used in hydraulic fracturing, and as a gasoline additive. When it was first "tested" on humans, it was directly introduced as a gasoline additive, and the government conducted "surveys" sometimes at random on the population to determine if any adverse health affects were noticed. Only individuals that consistently interacted with gasoline, or were involved with driving noticed an increase variance in health concerns. The study was conducted in multi cities, and my guess is that the population was nothing more than gunea pigs. At the moment, MTBE is now a standard gasoline additive, despite the fact it is a known toxin. The complete 268 page report found in the pdf file format, issued through the US Government is simply shocking and very upsetting. Of course, it is just one of numerous toxic chemicals being added in hydraulic fracturing and gasoline. Viewer discretion advised.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), based in Atlanta, Georgia, is a federal public health agency of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. ATSDR serves the public by using the best science, taking responsive public health actions, and providing trusted health information to prevent harmful exposures and diseases related to toxic substances.
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov
TOXICOLOGICAL PROFILE FOR METHYL tert-BUTYL ETHER
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Public Health Service
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
August 1996
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp91.pdf
*Legislative Background
The toxicological profiles are developed in response to the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA) of 1986 (Public Law 99-499) which amended the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA or Superfund). This public law directed ATSDR to prepare toxicological profiles for
hazardous substances most commonly found at facilities on the CERCLA National Priorities List and that pose the most
significant potential threat to human health, as determined by ATSDR and the EPA. The availability of the revised
priority list of 275 hazardous substances was announced in the Federal Register on April 29, 1996 (61 FR 18744). For
prior versions of the list of substances, see Federal Register notices dated April 17, 1987 (52 FR 12866); October 20,
1988 (53 FR 41280); October 26, 1989 (54 FR 43619); October 17, 1990 (55 FR 42067); October 17, 199l (56 FR
52166); October 28, 1992 (57 FR 48801); and February 28, 1994 (59 FR 9486). Section 104(I)(3) of CERCLA, as
Source: Page 6.
methyl tertiary butyl ether
"Thus, MTBE itself is an inducer of cytochrome P-4502B1, which can lead to the
enhanced metabolism and toxicity of a number of chemicals. Since MTBE is a component of gasoline in
oxygenated fuels, it is possible that MTBE may interact with other components of gasoline, such as
benzene and branched chain alkanes."
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp91.pdf
page 158
Found a blog on hydraulic fracturing. This is someone's personal crusade as their town has hydraulic fracturing. A very good read.
http://txsharon.blogspot.com/
H.R. 4173: Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-4173
This bill has been passed in the House. The bill now goes on to be voted on in the Senate. Keep in mind that debate may be taking place on a companion bill in the Senate, rather than on this particular bill. [Last Updated: Jan 21, 2010 6:31AM]
Last Action: Jan 20, 2010: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
summary:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-4173&tab=summary
Full Text: Note, there is a warning regarding this bill found on the website, its so large that it may crash your browser. Therefore use the pdf file.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h4173rfs.txt.pdf
commentary: A report, "Not later than the end of the 180-day period beginning on the date of the enactment of this title,the Chairman shall issue a report to the Congress containing any findings and determinations made in carrying 15 out the study required under subsection (a)" page 117
also see: "SEC. 1603. SYSTEMIC RISK DETERMINATION." page 278
Finally, using the search feature on the pdf file, type, the following word: systemic
then press enter. Notice that in the summary, the word was not mentioned one time?
The last line in the summary section it states, "Requires the FIO Director to study and report to specified congressional committees on: (1) the global reinsurance market; and (2) how to modernize and improve the system of insurance regulation in the United States."
House committee moves to force EPA disclosure of water pollution documents
Also approved was a bill to name a federal building after three civil rights activists
By Patrick Tutwiler for GovTrack Insider
Jan. 29, 2010
The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee voted Wednesday to approve a raft of resolutions, including a formal request that the EPA hand over all data in its possession regarding nutrient management in the Illinois River watershed areas of Oklahoma and Arkansas, and a resolution to rename a federal building in Mississippi after three civil rights era activists.
The Committee unanimously approved the watershed resolution, H. Res. 995,
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hr111-995
and recommended it to the full House without comment. Rep. John Boozman (R-AR3) introduced the resolution in December of last year as part of a long running feud between the states of Arkansas and Oklahoma over acceptable levels of phosphorus in the Illinois River watershed.
Since the late 1980s, Arkansas has attempted to allow certain of its wastewater treatment plants to discharge more phosphorous into the watershed than is permitted by Oklahoma law and the Clean Water Act. Oklahoma, in response, sought to prevent Arkansas from doing so and the matter was taken all the way to the Supreme Court in 1992. The Supreme Court sided with Oklahoma and the two states eventually signed a memorandum of understanding about which treatment plants could discharge what.
Nonetheless, in 2008, Arkansas yet again attempted to permit a treatment facility, this time in Benton County, to discharge higher than permissible levels of phosphorous. Both the EPA and the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality protested the move and the EPA suggested that the proposed facility could be built as long as it operated under stricter phosphorous discharge regulations.
Benton County is in Boozman’s district and he requested the EPA documents, he says, in order to get a full and accurate understanding of the scientific rationale for the EPA’s position. The EPA was apparently less than forthcoming with the information earlier, but has since agreed to brief Boozman on the data at his convenience.
Committee Chairman James Oberstar (MN8) and ranking Republican member John Mica (FL7) were united in supporting Boozman’s request. And Mica even praised the effort as an example of bipartisanship that the rest of the Congress might learn from.
Source: http://www.govtrackinsider.com/articles/2010-01-29/water
Just because I don't post everyday, doesn't mean I'm not around.
Over the last few weeks, I've had to change the batteries a few times in my meter.
So, instead of wasting my time reading endless speculation on rumors, I've been doing other things.... Of course if others
want to spend 24/7 trying to publicly post questionable statements to warn me and others that's fine. I just get tired of changing the batteries.
Looking forward to the next PR!
fun
Final Update on Federal Reserve Ruling on Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 (the "CARD Act").
Below, you will find:
1. Summary version link
2. Full Version link
3. Text of summary version.
4. Summary table of changes of open ended credit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Summary version link
Federal Reserve issues second stage of final rules implementing Credit CARD Act
Dykema Gossett PLLC
Richard E. Gottlieb and William (Lee) Logan
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=d733531f-594a-423f-94a5-3980c2b802eb
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Full Version link
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
12 CFR Part 226
Regulation Z; Docket No. R-1370
Truth in Lending
AGENCY: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
ACTION: Final rule.
Total pages: 1,155
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/bcreg/bcreg20100112a1.pdf
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Text of summary version.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the "Board") has issued a final rule implementing certain provisions of the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 (the "CARD Act"). The final rule amends various sections of Regulation Z ("Reg Z") and provides staff commentary on the amendments. Although the final rule becomes effective February 22, 2010, please read further regarding the different mandatory compliance dates for certain sections of the final rule. The 1155-page final rule may be accessed by clicking on the following link: http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/bcreg/bcreg20100112a1.pdf.
As we have discussed in previous Alerts (which may be accessed by clicking on this link or by going to the site provided at the end of this Alert), provisions of the CARD Act become effective in stages. Some provisions of the Act became effective August 20, 2009; others become effective February 22, 2010 and the remaining become effective August 22, 2010. The Board has indicated that it will issue its rules implementing the CARD Act in stages as well. The first stage was an interim final rule issued on July 22, 2009 which implemented provisions of the CARD Act effective on August 20, 2009. Among other things, the "second stage" final rules issued January 12, 2010 also finalize the "first stage" July 22, 2009 interim rules.
In addition, in January 2009 and prior to the passage of the CARD Act, the Board previously adopted two final rules pertaining to open-end credit. Since several of the provisions of the subsequently passed CARD Act are similar to the provisions of the January 2009 rules, the Board has withdrawn the January 2009 rules and has incorporated many provisions of the January 2009 rules into these final rules.
The following is a summary of major revisions to Reg. Z affected by the final rule. Among other things, the final rule will:
1.Implement the CARD Act's prohibitions on increasing an annual percentage rate during the first year after an account is opened;
2.Require credit card issuers to consider a consumer's ability to pay before opening a new credit card account or increasing the credit limit for an existing cardholder;
3.Prohibit an issuer from issuing a credit card to a consumer under 21 unless the consumer has submitted a written application which contains either (i) information indicating the underage consumer has the ability to make required payments on the account or (ii) the signature of a cosigner by someone over age 21 who has the means to repay the underaged consumer's debts;
4.Limit an issuer's ability to offer a student at an institution of higher education any tangible item to induce the student to apply for a credit card;
5.Require credit card issuers to obtain a consumer's express consent before imposing any fees for transactions which exceed his or her credit limit;
6.Prohibit an issuer from imposing more than one over-the-limit fee per billing cycle;
7.Provide that payments in excess of the minimum be allocated to the balance with the highest rate;
8.Require on-line disclosure of an issuer's credit card agreements on the issuer's web sites and to submit the agreements to the Board for posting on the Board's web site;
9.Limit the total fees charged during the first year after account opening to 25% of the initial credit limit;
10.Prohibit "double cycle" billing and charging fees for making a payment on the account, except for payments involving an expedited service; and
11.Require the following disclosures on the periodic statement: (i) the amount of time and the total cost involved in paying the balance in full making only minimum payments; and (ii) the monthly payment amount required to pay off the balance in 36 months and the total cost of repaying the balance in 36 months.
The final rule also has different mandatory compliance dates. Compliance with the following provisions of Reg. Z as amended by the final rule is mandatory by February 22, 2010:
1.Section 226.5(a)(2)(iii) regarding the term "fixed"
2.Section 226.5(b)(2)
3.Section 226.7(b)(11), (b)(12) and (b)(13)
4.Section 226.9(c)(2) except for (iv)(D)
5.Section 226.9(e)
6.Section 226.9(h)
7.Section 226.10
8.Section 226.11(c)
9.Section 226.16(f)
10.Sections 226.51-226.58
All remaining sections of the final rule must be complied with by July 1, 2010.
Finally, it should be noted that while several provisions of the CARD Act apply to all open-end credit, other sections of the CARD Act apply only to certain types of open-end credit, such as credit card accounts under open-end consumer plans. The table below summarizes the applicability of each of the major revisions to Reg. Z.
Click here to view table.
http://view.exacttarget.com/?j=fe7016777464007d7515&m=fefb1777776000&ls=fdfe17757763067b75147774&l=fe9517777066047f72&s=fdf515717262027e76177673&jb=ffcf14&ju=fe25167271610d7b731371
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Summary table of changes of open ended credit.
http://view.exacttarget.com/?j=fe7016777464007d7515&m=fefb1777776000&ls=fdfe17757763067b75147774&l=fe9517777066047f72&s=fdf515717262027e76177673&jb=ffcf14&ju=fe25167271610d7b731371
Federal Reserve Issues Second Stage of
Final Rules Implementing Credit CARD Act
January 25, 2010
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the "Board") has issued a final rule implementing certain provisions of the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 (the "CARD Act"). The final rule amends various sections of Regulation Z ("Reg Z") and provides staff commentary on the amendments. Although the final rule becomes effective February 22, 2010, please read further regarding the different mandatory compliance dates for certain sections of the final rule. The 1155-page final rule may be accessed by clicking on the following link: http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/bcreg/bcreg20100112a1.pdf.
As we have discussed in previous Alerts (which may be accessed by clicking on this link or by going to the site provided at the end of this Alert), provisions of the CARD Act become effective in stages. Some provisions of the Act became effective August 20, 2009; others become effective February 22, 2010 and the remaining become effective August 22, 2010. The Board has indicated that it will issue its rules implementing the CARD Act in stages as well. The first stage was an interim final rule issued on July 22, 2009 which implemented provisions of the CARD Act effective on August 20, 2009. Among other things, the "second stage" final rules issued January 12, 2010 also finalize the "first stage" July 22, 2009 interim rules.
In addition, in January 2009 and prior to the passage of the CARD Act, the Board previously adopted two final rules pertaining to open-end credit. Since several of the provisions of the subsequently passed CARD Act are similar to the provisions of the January 2009 rules, the Board has withdrawn the January 2009 rules and has incorporated many provisions of the January 2009 rules into these final rules.
The following is a summary of major revisions to Reg. Z affected by the final rule. Among other things, the final rule will:
1 Implement the CARD Act's prohibitions on increasing an annual percentage rate during the first year after an account is opened;
2 Require credit card issuers to consider a consumer's ability to pay before opening a new credit card account or increasing the credit limit for an existing cardholder;
3 Prohibit an issuer from issuing a credit card to a consumer under 21 unless the consumer has submitted a written application which contains either (i) information indicating the underage consumer has the ability to make required payments on the account or (ii) the signature of a cosigner by someone over age 21 who has the means to repay the underaged consumer's debts;
4 Limit an issuer's ability to offer a student at an institution of higher education any tangible item to induce the student to apply for a credit card;
5 Require credit card issuers to obtain a consumer's express consent before imposing any fees for transactions which exceed his or her credit limit;
6 Prohibit an issuer from imposing more than one over-the-limit fee per billing cycle;
7 Provide that payments in excess of the minimum be allocated to the balance with the highest rate;
8 Require on-line disclosure of an issuer's credit card agreements on the issuer's web sites and to submit the agreements to the Board for posting on the Board's web site;
9 Limit the total fees charged during the first year after account opening to 25% of the initial credit limit;
10 Prohibit "double cycle" billing and charging fees for making a payment on the account, except for payments involving an expedited service; and
11 Require the following disclosures on the periodic statement: (i) the amount of time and the total cost involved in paying the balance in full making only minimum payments; and (ii) the monthly payment amount required to pay off the balance in 36 months and the total cost of repaying the balance in 36 months.
The final rule also has different mandatory compliance dates. Compliance with the following provisions of Reg. Z as amended by the final rule is mandatory by February 22, 2010:
Section 226.5(a)(2)(iii) regarding the term "fixed"
Section 226.5(b)(2)
Section 226.7(b)(11), (b)(12) and (b)(13)
Section 226.9(c)(2) except for (iv)(D)
Section 226.9(e)
Section 226.9(h)
Section 226.10
Section 226.11(c)
Section 226.16(f)
Sections 226.51-226.58
All remaining sections of the final rule must be complied with by July 1, 2010.
Finally, it should be noted that while several provisions of the CARD Act apply to all open-end credit, other sections of the CARD Act apply only to certain types of open-end credit, such as credit card accounts under open-end consumer plans. The table below summarizes the applicability of each of the major revisions to Reg. Z.
Provision Applicability
§ 226.5(a)(2)(iii) All open-end (not home-secured) consumer credit plans
§ 226.5(b)(2)(ii)(A) Credit cards accounts under an open-end (not home-secured) consumer credit plan
§ 226.5(b)(2)(ii)(B) All open-end consumer credit plans
§226.7(b)(11) Credit card accounts under an open-end (not home-secured) consumer credit plan
§ 226.7(b)(12) Credit card accounts under an open-end (not home-secured) consumer credit plan
§ 226.7(b)(14) All open-end (not home-secured) consumer credit plans
§ 226.9(c)(2) All open-end (not home-secured) consumer credit plans
§ 226.9(e) Credit or charge card accounts subject to § 226.5a
§ 226.9(g) All open-end (not home-secured) consumer credit plans
§ 226.9(h) Credit card accounts under an open-end (not home-secured) consumer credit plan
§ 226.10(b)(2)(ii) All open-end consumer credit plans
§ 226.10(b)(3) Credit card accounts under an open-end (not home-secured) consumer credit plan
§ 226.10(d) All open-end consumer credit plans
§ 226.10(e) Credit card accounts under an open-end (not home-secured) consumer credit plan
§ 226.10(f) Credit card accounts under an open-end (not home-secured) consumer credit plan
§ 226.11(c) Credit card accounts under an open-end (not home-secured) consumer credit plan
§ 226.16(f) All open-end consumer credit plans
§ 226.16(h) All open-end (not home-secured) consumer credit plans
§ 226.51 Credit card accounts under an open-end (not home-secured) consumer credit plan
§ 226.52 Credit card accounts under an open-end (not home-secured) consumer credit plan
§ 226.53 Credit card accounts under an open-end (not home-secured) consumer credit plan
§ 226.54 Credit card accounts under an open-end (not home-secured) consumer credit plan
§ 226.55 Credit card accounts under an open-end (not home-secured) consumer credit plan
§ 226.56 Credit card accounts under an open-end (not home-secured) consumer credit plan
§ 226.57 Credit card accounts under an open-end (not home-secured) consumer credit plan, except that § 226.57(c) applies to all open-end consumer credit plans
§ 226.58 Credit card accounts under an open-end (not home-secured) consumer credit plan
Final Update on Federal Reserve Ruling on Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 (the "CARD Act").
Below, you will find:
1. Summary version link
2. Full Version link
3. Text of summary version.
4. Summary table of changes of open ended credit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Summary version link
Federal Reserve issues second stage of final rules implementing Credit CARD Act
Dykema Gossett PLLC
Richard E. Gottlieb and William (Lee) Logan
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=d733531f-594a-423f-94a5-3980c2b802eb
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Full Version link
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
12 CFR Part 226
Regulation Z; Docket No. R-1370
Truth in Lending
AGENCY: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
ACTION: Final rule.
Total pages: 1,155
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/bcreg/bcreg20100112a1.pdf
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Text of summary version.
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the "Board") has issued a final rule implementing certain provisions of the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 (the "CARD Act"). The final rule amends various sections of Regulation Z ("Reg Z") and provides staff commentary on the amendments. Although the final rule becomes effective February 22, 2010, please read further regarding the different mandatory compliance dates for certain sections of the final rule. The 1155-page final rule may be accessed by clicking on the following link: http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/bcreg/bcreg20100112a1.pdf.
As we have discussed in previous Alerts (which may be accessed by clicking on this link or by going to the site provided at the end of this Alert), provisions of the CARD Act become effective in stages. Some provisions of the Act became effective August 20, 2009; others become effective February 22, 2010 and the remaining become effective August 22, 2010. The Board has indicated that it will issue its rules implementing the CARD Act in stages as well. The first stage was an interim final rule issued on July 22, 2009 which implemented provisions of the CARD Act effective on August 20, 2009. Among other things, the "second stage" final rules issued January 12, 2010 also finalize the "first stage" July 22, 2009 interim rules.
In addition, in January 2009 and prior to the passage of the CARD Act, the Board previously adopted two final rules pertaining to open-end credit. Since several of the provisions of the subsequently passed CARD Act are similar to the provisions of the January 2009 rules, the Board has withdrawn the January 2009 rules and has incorporated many provisions of the January 2009 rules into these final rules.
The following is a summary of major revisions to Reg. Z affected by the final rule. Among other things, the final rule will:
1.Implement the CARD Act's prohibitions on increasing an annual percentage rate during the first year after an account is opened;
2.Require credit card issuers to consider a consumer's ability to pay before opening a new credit card account or increasing the credit limit for an existing cardholder;
3.Prohibit an issuer from issuing a credit card to a consumer under 21 unless the consumer has submitted a written application which contains either (i) information indicating the underage consumer has the ability to make required payments on the account or (ii) the signature of a cosigner by someone over age 21 who has the means to repay the underaged consumer's debts;
4.Limit an issuer's ability to offer a student at an institution of higher education any tangible item to induce the student to apply for a credit card;
5.Require credit card issuers to obtain a consumer's express consent before imposing any fees for transactions which exceed his or her credit limit;
6.Prohibit an issuer from imposing more than one over-the-limit fee per billing cycle;
7.Provide that payments in excess of the minimum be allocated to the balance with the highest rate;
8.Require on-line disclosure of an issuer's credit card agreements on the issuer's web sites and to submit the agreements to the Board for posting on the Board's web site;
9.Limit the total fees charged during the first year after account opening to 25% of the initial credit limit;
10.Prohibit "double cycle" billing and charging fees for making a payment on the account, except for payments involving an expedited service; and
11.Require the following disclosures on the periodic statement: (i) the amount of time and the total cost involved in paying the balance in full making only minimum payments; and (ii) the monthly payment amount required to pay off the balance in 36 months and the total cost of repaying the balance in 36 months.
The final rule also has different mandatory compliance dates. Compliance with the following provisions of Reg. Z as amended by the final rule is mandatory by February 22, 2010:
1.Section 226.5(a)(2)(iii) regarding the term "fixed"
2.Section 226.5(b)(2)
3.Section 226.7(b)(11), (b)(12) and (b)(13)
4.Section 226.9(c)(2) except for (iv)(D)
5.Section 226.9(e)
6.Section 226.9(h)
7.Section 226.10
8.Section 226.11(c)
9.Section 226.16(f)
10.Sections 226.51-226.58
All remaining sections of the final rule must be complied with by July 1, 2010.
Finally, it should be noted that while several provisions of the CARD Act apply to all open-end credit, other sections of the CARD Act apply only to certain types of open-end credit, such as credit card accounts under open-end consumer plans. The table below summarizes the applicability of each of the major revisions to Reg. Z.
Click here to view table.
http://view.exacttarget.com/?j=fe7016777464007d7515&m=fefb1777776000&ls=fdfe17757763067b75147774&l=fe9517777066047f72&s=fdf515717262027e76177673&jb=ffcf14&ju=fe25167271610d7b731371
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Summary table of changes of open ended credit.
http://view.exacttarget.com/?j=fe7016777464007d7515&m=fefb1777776000&ls=fdfe17757763067b75147774&l=fe9517777066047f72&s=fdf515717262027e76177673&jb=ffcf14&ju=fe25167271610d7b731371
Federal Reserve Issues Second Stage of
Final Rules Implementing Credit CARD Act
January 25, 2010
The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the "Board") has issued a final rule implementing certain provisions of the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 (the "CARD Act"). The final rule amends various sections of Regulation Z ("Reg Z") and provides staff commentary on the amendments. Although the final rule becomes effective February 22, 2010, please read further regarding the different mandatory compliance dates for certain sections of the final rule. The 1155-page final rule may be accessed by clicking on the following link: http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/bcreg/bcreg20100112a1.pdf.
As we have discussed in previous Alerts (which may be accessed by clicking on this link or by going to the site provided at the end of this Alert), provisions of the CARD Act become effective in stages. Some provisions of the Act became effective August 20, 2009; others become effective February 22, 2010 and the remaining become effective August 22, 2010. The Board has indicated that it will issue its rules implementing the CARD Act in stages as well. The first stage was an interim final rule issued on July 22, 2009 which implemented provisions of the CARD Act effective on August 20, 2009. Among other things, the "second stage" final rules issued January 12, 2010 also finalize the "first stage" July 22, 2009 interim rules.
In addition, in January 2009 and prior to the passage of the CARD Act, the Board previously adopted two final rules pertaining to open-end credit. Since several of the provisions of the subsequently passed CARD Act are similar to the provisions of the January 2009 rules, the Board has withdrawn the January 2009 rules and has incorporated many provisions of the January 2009 rules into these final rules.
The following is a summary of major revisions to Reg. Z affected by the final rule. Among other things, the final rule will:
1 Implement the CARD Act's prohibitions on increasing an annual percentage rate during the first year after an account is opened;
2 Require credit card issuers to consider a consumer's ability to pay before opening a new credit card account or increasing the credit limit for an existing cardholder;
3 Prohibit an issuer from issuing a credit card to a consumer under 21 unless the consumer has submitted a written application which contains either (i) information indicating the underage consumer has the ability to make required payments on the account or (ii) the signature of a cosigner by someone over age 21 who has the means to repay the underaged consumer's debts;
4 Limit an issuer's ability to offer a student at an institution of higher education any tangible item to induce the student to apply for a credit card;
5 Require credit card issuers to obtain a consumer's express consent before imposing any fees for transactions which exceed his or her credit limit;
6 Prohibit an issuer from imposing more than one over-the-limit fee per billing cycle;
7 Provide that payments in excess of the minimum be allocated to the balance with the highest rate;
8 Require on-line disclosure of an issuer's credit card agreements on the issuer's web sites and to submit the agreements to the Board for posting on the Board's web site;
9 Limit the total fees charged during the first year after account opening to 25% of the initial credit limit;
10 Prohibit "double cycle" billing and charging fees for making a payment on the account, except for payments involving an expedited service; and
11 Require the following disclosures on the periodic statement: (i) the amount of time and the total cost involved in paying the balance in full making only minimum payments; and (ii) the monthly payment amount required to pay off the balance in 36 months and the total cost of repaying the balance in 36 months.
The final rule also has different mandatory compliance dates. Compliance with the following provisions of Reg. Z as amended by the final rule is mandatory by February 22, 2010:
Section 226.5(a)(2)(iii) regarding the term "fixed"
Section 226.5(b)(2)
Section 226.7(b)(11), (b)(12) and (b)(13)
Section 226.9(c)(2) except for (iv)(D)
Section 226.9(e)
Section 226.9(h)
Section 226.10
Section 226.11(c)
Section 226.16(f)
Sections 226.51-226.58
All remaining sections of the final rule must be complied with by July 1, 2010.
Finally, it should be noted that while several provisions of the CARD Act apply to all open-end credit, other sections of the CARD Act apply only to certain types of open-end credit, such as credit card accounts under open-end consumer plans. The table below summarizes the applicability of each of the major revisions to Reg. Z.
Provision Applicability
§ 226.5(a)(2)(iii) All open-end (not home-secured) consumer credit plans
§ 226.5(b)(2)(ii)(A) Credit cards accounts under an open-end (not home-secured) consumer credit plan
§ 226.5(b)(2)(ii)(B) All open-end consumer credit plans
§226.7(b)(11) Credit card accounts under an open-end (not home-secured) consumer credit plan
§ 226.7(b)(12) Credit card accounts under an open-end (not home-secured) consumer credit plan
§ 226.7(b)(14) All open-end (not home-secured) consumer credit plans
§ 226.9(c)(2) All open-end (not home-secured) consumer credit plans
§ 226.9(e) Credit or charge card accounts subject to § 226.5a
§ 226.9(g) All open-end (not home-secured) consumer credit plans
§ 226.9(h) Credit card accounts under an open-end (not home-secured) consumer credit plan
§ 226.10(b)(2)(ii) All open-end consumer credit plans
§ 226.10(b)(3) Credit card accounts under an open-end (not home-secured) consumer credit plan
§ 226.10(d) All open-end consumer credit plans
§ 226.10(e) Credit card accounts under an open-end (not home-secured) consumer credit plan
§ 226.10(f) Credit card accounts under an open-end (not home-secured) consumer credit plan
§ 226.11(c) Credit card accounts under an open-end (not home-secured) consumer credit plan
§ 226.16(f) All open-end consumer credit plans
§ 226.16(h) All open-end (not home-secured) consumer credit plans
§ 226.51 Credit card accounts under an open-end (not home-secured) consumer credit plan
§ 226.52 Credit card accounts under an open-end (not home-secured) consumer credit plan
§ 226.53 Credit card accounts under an open-end (not home-secured) consumer credit plan
§ 226.54 Credit card accounts under an open-end (not home-secured) consumer credit plan
§ 226.55 Credit card accounts under an open-end (not home-secured) consumer credit plan
§ 226.56 Credit card accounts under an open-end (not home-secured) consumer credit plan
§ 226.57 Credit card accounts under an open-end (not home-secured) consumer credit plan, except that § 226.57(c) applies to all open-end consumer credit plans
§ 226.58 Credit card accounts under an open-end (not home-secured) consumer credit plan
FuturesJackal,
Thank you for sharing your story. I actually found more stuff, but it made me very upset and angry to the point that I haven't yet shared it with the board.
My personal background and interest in water stems from growing up in a community where the water was extremely contaminated. So much so, that there was a film or rather a foam like a root beer float on top of the ice tea. None of the dishes were ever clean because of this constant residue film.
My neighbors father died of cancer at an early age. It seemed like everyone had some form of cancer though, like it was normal. Years later, I had learned that my neighbor's father, while lying on his death bed had confessed to dumping barrels of chemicals in the local river, per the request of his employer, which poisoned the river, killed the fish and ruined the drinking water for the entire city. His confession, along with others helped win a court battle against the company, but the people that survived don't have their loved ones and eventually the community became a ghost town as people left and no one would move in.
Fast forward 30 something years later, I'm living in another state. When I first moved to this little sleepy town, I visited a park that had a lake. Next to the lake is a small park station that rents boats. On the side of the building are pictures of local residents displaying their fish caught from the lake. While looking at the pictures and reading the descriptions, I was struck how peculiar it was that most everyone tossed their fish back in the water. Later while at the park, my child met another child who had deformities and cancer. Her mother told me that there was a high rate of cancer in the area. At that moment, I hadn't "connected the dots" and continued to frequent the park.
Months later I read how there used to be a large chemical plant next to the lake and after a very heavy rainstorm, the retaining wall broke and flooded the lake decades ago... At first the town hauled their water in by trucks and then built new pipes to pump fresh water from the next town over because the lake was considered to be ruined. The chemical plant declared bankruptcy soon after the spill, which caused the town and the government to clean up the mess. After reading the article, I understood why that park was always so empty and I haven't been back to that pretty little lake since.
Clean water is a very precious resource.
In my next post, I'll share what I found to be so disturbing about "fracking."
Yes. I don't remember which PR it was from last year, but management released that information previously. From what I could determine previously, they are an outsourcing group with offices in India.
http://www.cosecant-tech.com/Contact_Us.htm
There are presently two bills in Congress under consideration to revise the previous exemption of the Safe Drinking Water Act
found in Title III, Sec 322 of H.R. 6: Energy Policy Act of 2005, Also known as Energy Policy Act of 2005
Aug 8, 2005: Became Public Law No: 109-58.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-6
Of the two bills, the Senate version S. 1215 appears to have slightly stronger language, however it only has 5 co-sponsors.
The House version H.R. 2766 has slightly weaker language and has 50 co-sponsors. With the exception of one (I)Independent,
all co-sponsors are (D)Democrats. Both bills have been stuck in committee for approximately 6 months.
Scroll down for both the Summary and Full Text Versions for both bills under consideration.
funmaxus
==================================================================
H.R. 2766: Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act of 2009
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2766
Summary:
6/9/2009--Introduced.
Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act of 2009 - Amends the Safe Drinking Water Act to: (1) repeal the exemption from restrictions on underground injection of fluids near drinking water sources granted to hydraulic fracturing operations under such Act; and (2) require oil and gas companies to disclose the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing operations.
Full Text:
HR 2766 IH
111th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 2766
To repeal the exemption for hydraulic fracturing in the Safe Drinking Water Act, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
June 9, 2009
Ms. DEGETTE (for herself, Mr. HINCHEY, and Mr. POLIS of Colorado) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce
------------------------------------------------------------------
A BILL
To repeal the exemption for hydraulic fracturing in the Safe Drinking Water Act, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act of 2009’.
SEC. 2. REGULATION OF HYDRAULIC FRACTURING.
(a) Hydraulic Fracturing- Section 1421(d)(1) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300h(d)(1)) is amended by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting:
‘(B) includes the underground injection of fluids or propping agents pursuant to hydraulic fracturing operations related to oil and gas production activities; but
‘(C) excludes the underground injection of natural gas for purposes of storage.’.
(b) Disclosure- Section 1421(b) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300h(b)) is amended as follows:
(1) In subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) insert before the semicolon ‘, including a requirement that any person using hydraulic fracturing disclose to the State (or the Administrator if the Administrator has primary enforcement responsibility in the State) the chemical constituents (but not the proprietary chemical formulas) used in the fracturing process’.
(2) Add the following new paragraph at the end thereof:
‘(4) The State (or Administrator) shall make the disclosure of chemical constituents referred to in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) available to the public, including a posting of the information on an appropriate Internet website. In addition, whenever the State or the Administrator, or a treating physician or nurse, determines that a medical emergency exists and the proprietary chemical formulas or specific chemical identity of a chemical used in hydraulic fracturing is necessary for emergency or first-aid treatment, the person using hydraulic fracturing shall immediately disclose the proprietary chemical formulas or the specific chemical identity of a trade secret chemical to the State, the Administrator, or that treating physician or nurse, regardless of the existence of a written statement of need or a confidentiality agreement. The person using hydraulic fracturing may require a written statement of need and a confidentiality agreement as soon thereafter as circumstances permit.’.
This bill is very large, and loading it may cause your web browser to perform sluggishly, or even freeze. This is especially true for old and/or bad browsers. As an alternative you can download the PDF of the bill or read the text on THOMAS.
Continue on to the bill...
===============================================================
S. 1215: Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals (FRAC) Act
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-1215
Summary:
6/9/2009--Introduced.
Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals (FRAC) Act - Amends the Safe Drinking Water Act to: (1) repeal the exemption from restrictions on underground injection of fluids near drinking water sources granted to hydraulic fracturing operations under such Act; and (2) require oil and gas companies to disclose the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing operations.
Full Text:
S 1215 IS
111th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 1215
To amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to repeal a certain exemption for hydraulic fracturing, and for other purposes.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
June 9, 2009
Mr. CASEY (for himself and Mr. SCHUMER) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A BILL
To amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to repeal a certain exemption for hydraulic fracturing, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals (FRAC) Act’.
SEC. 2. REGULATION OF HYDRAULIC FRACTURING.
(a) Underground Injection- Section 1421(d) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300h(d)) is amended by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
‘(1) UNDERGROUND INJECTION-
‘(A) IN GENERAL- The term ‘underground injection’ means the subsurface emplacement of fluids by well injection.
‘(B) INCLUSION- The term ‘underground injection’ includes the underground injection of fluids or propping agents pursuant to hydraulic fracturing operations relating to oil or gas production activities.
‘(C) EXCLUSION- The term ‘underground injection’ does not include the underground injection of natural gas for the purpose of storage.’.
(b) Disclosure- Section 1421(b) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300h(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(C), by inserting before the semicolon the following: ‘, including a requirement that any person using hydraulic fracturing disclose to the State (or to the Administrator in any case in which the Administrator has primary enforcement responsibility in a State) the chemical constituents (but not the proprietary chemical formulas) used in the fracturing process’; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
‘(4) DISCLOSURES OF CHEMICAL CONSTITUENTS-
‘(A) IN GENERAL- The State (or the Administrator, as applicable) shall make available to the public the information contained in each disclosure of chemical constituents under paragraph (1)(C), including by posting the information on an appropriate Internet website.
‘(B) IMMEDIATE DISCLOSURE IN CASE OF EMERGENCY-
‘(i) IN GENERAL- Subject to clause (ii), the regulations promulgated pursuant to subsection (a) shall require that, in any case in which the State (or the Administrator, as applicable) or an appropriate treating physician or nurse determines that a medical emergency exists and the proprietary chemical formula or specific chemical identity of a trade-secret chemical used in hydraulic fracturing is necessary for emergency or first-aid treatment, the applicable person using hydraulic fracturing shall immediately disclose to the State (or the Administrator) or the treating physician or nurse the proprietary chemical formula or specific chemical identity of a trade-secret chemical, regardless of the existence of--
‘(I) a written statement of need; or
‘(II) a confidentiality agreement.
‘(ii) REQUIREMENT- A person using hydraulic fracturing that makes a disclosure required under clause (i) may require the execution of a written statement of need and a confidentiality agreement as soon as practicable after the determination by the State (or the Administrator) or the treating physician or nurse under that clause.’.
This bill is very large, and loading it may cause your web browser to perform sluggishly, or even freeze. This is especially true for old and/or bad browsers. As an alternative you can download the PDF of the bill or read the text on THOMAS.
Continue on to the bill...
GovTrack.us is a project of Civic Impulse, LLC. Read about GovTrack. / Feedback (but not political opining) is welcome to operations@govtrack.us, but I can't do your research for you, nor can I pass on messages to Members of Congress. This site is "copyleft": You are encouraged to reuse any material on this site. Developers: GovTrack is open source and supports open knowledge.
Additional research:
Below is the act cited in the video and the specific reference to Hydraulic Fracturing.
What I've found interesting about this is that the summary version makes no reference to Hydraulic Fracturing
under Section 322. However, the full text version does specifically indicate Hydraulic Fracturing. Also, the
summary Version doesn't show that Section 323 exists at all! Please scroll down for screen prints made.
So who wrote the Summary Version of the bill?
"The following summary was written by the Congressional Research Service, a well-respected nonpartisan arm of the Library of Congress"
Source: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-6&tab=summary
While the intent of researching the bill was to validate the claims made in the movie trailer, I also included a few other miscellaneous items shown below the last screen print... Some of which may be of interest to the World Food Crisis Board as it touches on the use of various foods for bio-fuels...
H.R. 6: Energy Policy Act of 2005
Also known as
Energy Policy Act of 2005
Aug 8, 2005: Became Public Law No: 109-58.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-6
Summary Version:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-6&tab=summary
Full Version:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h6enr.txt.pdf
Summary Version,
Title III - Oil and Gas (If reading the full version starts on page 90)
Subtitle C - Production
Section 322 - (If reading the full version page 101)
Amends the Safe Drinking Water Act to exclude from the definition of underground injection the underground injection of fluids or propping agents (other than diesel fuels) pursuant to hydraulic fracturing operations related to oil or gas, or geothermal production activities
Below is a screen print of the summary....
Below is a screen print of the full text....
Summary Version Continued....
Title XIV - Miscellaneous
Subtitle A - General Provisions
Section 1406 -
Authorizes FY2006 appropriations for the Secretary to study the application of radiation to petroleum at standard temperature and pressure to refine petroleum products, with the goal of reducing the capital investment and the operating energy costs for cracking oil, as well as its sulfur content.
Subtitle B - Set America Free
Set America Free Act of 2005 or the SAFE Act -
Section 1423 -
Establishes the United States Commission on North American Energy Freedom to make recommendations on a coordinated and comprehensive North American energy policy to achieve energy self-sufficiency by 2025 within the three contiguous North American nation area of Canada, Mexico, and the United States. Authorizes appropriations for FY2005-FY2007.
Title XV - Ethanol and Motor Fuels
Subtitle A - General Provisions
Section 1502 -
Declares that Congress finds that: (1) since 1979 methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) has been used nationwide at low levels in gasoline to replace lead as an octane booster or anti-knocking agent; (2) the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 established a fuel oxygenate standard under which reformulated gasoline must contain at least 2% oxygen by weight; and (3) the fuel industry responded to such standard by making substantial investments in MTBE production capacity and systems to deliver MTBE-containing gasoline to the marketplace.
Section 1503 -
States that claims and legal actions filed after the date of enactment of this Act regarding actual or threatened contamination of MTBE may be removed to federal district court.
Section 1504 -
Amends the Clean Air Act to repeal general requirements governing the oxygen content of both gasoline and of reformulated gasoline.
Directs the Administrator of EPA to establish, for each refinery or importer, standards for toxic air pollutants from use of the reformulated gasoline produced or distributed by the refinery or importer that maintain the reduction of the average annual aggregate emissions of such pollutants during calendar years 2001 and 2002.
Prescribes implementation guidelines. Authorizes the EPA Administrator to adjust such standards.
Section 1505 -
Requires the EPA Administrator to study and report to certain congressional committees on the effects upon public health, air quality, and water resources of: (1) increased use of, and the feasibility of using specified substitutes for MTBE in gasoline; and (2) the adjustment for ethanol-blended reformulated gasoline to volatile organic compounds performance requirements.
Section 1506 -
Directs the Administrator to: (1) publish for public comment an analysis of the changes in emissions of air pollutants and air quality due to the use of motor vehicle fuel and fuel additives resulting from implementation of the Energy Policy Act of 2005; and (2) develop and finalize an emissions model that reflects the effects of gasoline characteristics or components on emissions from vehicles in the motor vehicle fleet during calendar year 2007.
Directs the Administrator to study and report to Congress on the effects of ethanol content in gasoline on permeation, the process by which fuel molecules migrate through the elastomeric materials (rubber and plastic parts) that make up the fuel and fuel vapor systems of a motor vehicle.
Requires such study to include estimates of the increase in total evaporative emissions likely to result from the use of gasoline with ethanol content in a motor vehicle, and the fleet of motor vehicles, due to permeation.
Section 1507 -
Requires the Administrator, upon application of the Governor of a state in a ozone transport region, to apply certain prohibitions to any area in the state (other than an area classified as a marginal, moderate, serious, or severe ozone nonattainment area) unless the Administrator determines that there is insufficient capacity to supply reformulated gasoline.
Section 1508 -
Amends the Department of Energy Organization Act to instruct the Administrator of the Energy Information Administration to survey and publish monthly the renewable fuels demand in the motor vehicle fuels market.
Section 1509 -
Instructs the EPA Administrator and the Secretary to study and report jointly to Congress on federal, state, and local requirements concerning motor vehicle fuels.
Section 1510 -
Directs the Secretary to establish a program to provide guarantees of loans by private institutions for the construction of facilities for the processing and conversion of municipal solid waste and cellulosic biomass into fuel ethanol and other commercial byproducts.
Section 1511 -
Amends the Clean Air Act to: (1) authorize funds for certain loan guarantees to implement commercial demonstration projects for cellulosic biomass and sucrose-derived ethanol; and (2) direct the Secretary to issue loan guarantees for up to four projects to commercially demonstrate the feasibility and viability of producing cellulosic biomass ethanol or sucrose-derived ethanol (including use of cereal straw and municipal solid waste as a feedstock).
Authorizes the Secretary to issue additional loan guarantees for a project to cover up to 80% of the excess of actual over estimated project cost but not to exceed 15% of the amount of the original guarantee.
Authorizes appropriations for FY2005-FY2007 for a resource center to develop bioconversion technology using low-cost biomass for the production of ethanol at the Center for Biomass-Based Energy at the Mississippi State University and the Oklahoma State University.
Directs the EPA Administrator to provide grants for research, development, and implementation of renewable fuel production technologies in specified states with low rates of ethanol production, including low rates of production of cellulosic biomass ethanol.
Authorizes the Secretary to provide grants to merchant producers of cellulosic biomass ethanol to build eligible production facilities for the product.
Section 1512 -
Authorizes the Secretary to provide grants to merchant producers of cellulosic biomass ethanol, waste-derived ethanol, and approved renewable fuels in the United States to assist them in building eligible production facilities for the production of ethanol or approved renewable fuels. Authorizes appropriations for FY2006-FY2008.
Section 1513 -
Amends the Clean Air Act to cite circumstances under which it shall not be a violation of the Act for a gasoline retailer to blend, at a retail location, batches of ethanol-blended and non-ethanol-blended reformulated gasoline.
Section 1514 -
Directs the EPA Administrator to: (1) establish an Advanced Biofuel Technologies Program to demonstrate advanced technologies for the production of alternative transportation fuels; (2) give priority to projects that enhance the geographical diversity of alternative fuels production and utilize feedstocks that represent 10% or less of domestic ethanol or biodiesel fuel production during the previous fiscal year; and (3) fund demonstration projects to develop conversion technologies for producing cellulosic biomass ethanol, and for coproducing value-added bioproducts (such as fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides) resulting from biodiesel fuel production. Authorizes appropriations for FY2005-FY2009.
Section 1515 -
Amends the Energy Policy Act of 1992 to redefine biodiesel to include biodiesel derived from: (1) animal wastes, including poultry fats and poultry wastes, and other waste materials; or (2) municipal solid waste and sludges and oils derived from wastewater and the treatment of wastewater.
Section 1516 -
Authorizes funds for, and authorizes the Secretary to issue, loan guarantees to projects to demonstrate commercially the feasibility and viability of producing ethanol using sugarcane, sugarcane bagasse, and other sugarcane byproducts as a feedstock.
As a follow up to the last post on the movie trailer "Gasland" I decided to conduct a little more research on Hydraulic Fracturing. One of the alarming aspects of he movie was the number of chemicals, and I've been trying to validate the chemicals that were shown in the movie.
In a Health Survey conducted on Dish, Texas by Earthworks Oil and Gas Accountability Project, the following airborne heath conditions are cited in the study by the local residents of Dish, Texas followed by the known chemical(s) associated with that health condition used in Hydraulic Fracturing.
Source: http://earthworksaction.org/pubs/DishTXHealthSurvey_FINAL_hi.pdf
Allergies
Benzene, Xylenes, Naphthalene, Trimethyl Benzene, Diethyl Benzene, Carbonyl Sulfide, Dimethyl Disulfide, Methyl Ethyl Disulphide,Ethyl-Methylethyl Disulfide
Breathing Difficulties
Benzene, Xylenes, Naphthalene, Trimethyl Benzene, Methyl-Methylethyl Benzene,Tetramethyl Benzene, Diethyl Benzene,Carbonyl Sulfide, Dimethyl Disulfide, Methyl Ethyl Disulphide, Ethyl-Methylethyl Disulfide
Bronchitis
Trimethyl Benzene
Difficulty in Concentrating
Naphthalene
Easy Bruising
Benzene
Eye Irritation
Benzene, Xylenes, Naphthalene, Trimethyl Benzene, Methyl-Methylethyl Benzene, Tetramethyl Benzene, Diethyl Benzene, Carbon Disulfide, Carbonyl Sulfide, Methyl Ethyl Disulphide, Ethyl-Methylethyl Disulfide
Frequent Irritation
Carbon Disulfide
Frequent Nausea
Benzene, Xylenes, Naphthalene, Diethyl Benzene, Carbon Disulfide, Carbonyl Sulfide, Dimethyl Disulfide, Methyl Pyridine, Dimethyl Pyridine
Muscle Aches and Pains
Carbonyl Sulfide
Nasal Irritation
Benzene, Xylenes, Naphthalene, Diethyl Benzene, Carbonyl Sulfide, Dimethyl Disulfide, Methyl Ethyl Disulphide, Ethyl-Methylethyl Disulfide
Severe Headaches
Benzene, Xylenes, Naphthalene, Trimethyl Benzene, Methyl-Methylethyl Benzene, Tetramethyl Benzene, Diethyl Benzene, Carbon Disulfide, Methyl Pyridine, Dimethyl Pyridine
Sinus Problems
Benzene, Xylenes, Naphthalene, Diethyl Benzene, Carbonyl Sulfide, Dimethyl Disulfide, Methyl Ethyl, Disulphide, Ethyl-Methylethyl Disulfide
Human Health Effects Associated with Chemicals Detected in the air in Excess of TCEQ Short and Long-Term Effects Screening Levels
Acute Health Effects
Irritates skin, eyes, nose, throat and lungs
Headaches
Dizziness, Light Headed
Nausea, Vomiting
Skin Rashes
Fatigue
Tense and Nervous
Personality Changes
Depression, Anxiety, Irritability
Confusion
Drowsiness
Weakness
Muscle Cramps
Irregular Heartbeat (arrhythmia)
Chronic Health Effects
Damage to Liver and Kidneys
Damage to lungs
Damage to Developing Fetus
Causes Reproductive Damage
Damages Nerves Causing Weakness and Fatigue Poor Coordination
Affects Nervous System
Affects the Brain
Leukemia
Aplastic Anemia
Changes in Blood Cells
Affects Blood Clotting Ability
Carcinogen
Mutagen
Teratogen — Developmental Malformations
The most prevalent health impacts reported by individuals surveyed during the Health Survey
and the health impacts associated with odor events correspond to the health effects of
chemicals detected in the air in DISH in excess of the TCEQ Short-term and Long-term Effects
Screening Levels.
I'm looking forward to being able to see the entire movie. When I find some time, I will be researching this "fracking" technology a bit more. I've already provided the link to the movie to a couple of people. Have a good day!
fun
That could be. However, I wasn't really sure how to add an Assistant Moderator, so I tried again just now.
fun
Movie: "GASLAND"
SELECTED FOR SUNDANCE
Film will Premiere in U.S. Documentary Competition Category
Jan 21-31, 2010 Exact Showtimes/days TBA
MOVIE CHRONICLES LARGEST US DRILLING BOOM IN HISTORY
Movie Trailer: http://vimeo.com/4731913
7min 38 sec
Below is a screenshot taken from the movie, where someone turns the tap water on, and then the water is ignited.
Movie Summary
The largest domestic natural gas drilling boom in history has swept across the United States. A new method of drilling known as “Hydraulic Fracturing”, has opened up new territory in 34 states to extensive drilling, including the Marcellus Shale a vast formation that underlies most of Pennsylvania and New York, including the New York watershed and the Catskills/Poconos.
A CROSS COUNTRY JOURNEY- Water on Fire from Pennsylvania to Colorado…
When filmmaker Josh Fox discovers that Natural Gas drilling is coming to his area—the Catskills/Poconos region of Upstate New York and Pennsylvania, he sets off on a 24 state journey to uncover the deep consequences of the United States’ natural gas drilling boom. What he uncovers is truly shocking—water that can be lit on fire right out of the sink, chronically ill residents of drilling areas from disparate locations in the US all with the same mysterious symptoms, huge pools of toxic waste that kill cattle and vegetation well blowouts and huge gas explosions consistently covered up by state and federal regulatory agencies.
Part verite travelogue, part expose, part mystery, part bluegrass banjo meltdown, part showdown, Josh and his banjo encounter EPA whistleblowers, congressmen, world recognized scientists, and some of the most incredibly inspiring and heart-wrenching stories of ordinary Americans fighting against fossil fuel giants for environmental justice.
BACKGROUND
A major upswing in production took place in 2005 when the Congress and the Bush Administration exempted the industry and its new process of drilling, “Hydraulic Fracturing” from the Safe Drinking Water Act and many of our primary environmental protection laws. While the PR campaign for the Natural Gas industry promotes its product as “clean burning” it hides the fact that the new form of drilling, pioneered by Halliburton, is incredibly harmful to our environment and threatens to permanently contaminate a huge amount of the country’s water supply, create drastic air pollution conditions, and despoil huge areas. Despite overwhelming evidence of contamination, mismanagement and corruption, the general public remains unaware of the extreme effect the drilling may have on their lives.
FEATURING:
Josh Fox, Dr. Theo Colborn, EPA Whistleblower Weston Wilson, Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Congresswoman Diana DeGette (D-CO), Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Al Appleton, (Former NYC DEP Commissioner), Scott Stringer, Manhattan Borough President, Lisa Bracken, Colorado Resident, Dr. Al Armendariz, EPA Administrator for Region 6, Wilma Subra, MacArthur Genius Award recipient in the field of Water/Soil contamination, John Fenton, Wyoming Rancher, Shirley McNall, New Mexico Resident, Rick Roles, Colorado Resident, James Gennaro, NYC Council Environmental Board Chair, and Residents from Dimock, PA, Booneville, AR, Dallas/Ft. Worth and more.
Source: http://waterunderattack.com/
Additional information and websites:
http://www.homegrown.org/video/gasland-trailer
The DEC Fracks NYC & Josh Fox of Water Under Attack's Responds
I-Hub discussion board announcement:
alliecorp has been added as an Assistant Moderator on the Spooz, Inc. discussion board here on I-Hub. Please help me welcome alliecorp as an Assistant Moderator.
Sincerely,
funmaxus
Two announcements for the I-Hub discussion board for 141 Capital, Inc:
1. The I-Box has been updated to reflect the most current share structure as per the last Press Release. Please kindly double check my math and provide feedback accordingly.
2. alliecorp contacted me and I've since added her as an Assistant Moderator. Please help me welcome alliecorp back on the 141 Capital, Inc. discussion board here on I-Hub.
Sincerely,
funmaxus
Nice find! Keep em coming!
fun
When I posted earlier today on AXP, it hadn't tested the first support line. Hmm, I wonder what the next support line is? By eyeballing it, $36.31? I'm thinking that the sell off we've seen was a spill over from the 'O speech the other day and the real news has yet to hit AXP...Now, granted the 30 minute chart looked a little better during the last hour, but to me this thing is looking bearish now for sure....
Note: Credit CARD Act of 2009 goes into full effect February 2010.
sources:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-627
http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/credit-card-law-interactive-1282.php
http://www.stopbuyingcrap.com/personal-finance/credit-card-act-2009/
I previously made a screen print of the T/A's website, so the response you received doesn't surprise me. Looking forward to the next PR...
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=45506826
Ok, looks like as February 2010 and the Credit Card act becomes effective we may see some further price movement on AXP. Since its still January, the 2nd price support may fall too! Ok, back to lurking.
fun
I've provided a private e-mail address for you to respond to. Or, if you feel more comfortable in posting it here, then that is fine as well.
fun
me2,
In your post you stated, "I have a bad feeling my state, FL will be the last one. If we have to count votes for it, WE'RE SCREWED!!!! " You should be concerned as well as many other citizens of The United States of America regarding the voting process. Take the topic of legalizing medical marijuana for a moment, which the publicly traded company, Health Sciences Group, or stock symbol HESG.PK is attempting to sell medical marijuana in the United States... In the last ABC News/Washington Post Poll: 81 Percent Support Legalizing Marijuana for Medical Use
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=45715800
One would think that with such a high support for legalizing medical marijuana that it would have happened already. Thankfully, Americans can vote to change laws and vote for individuals to represent the population. So, why aren't the laws and the elected representatives changing to match the public opinion polls? Obviously there is a disconnect between popular opinion and the reality of that popular opinion being reflected in laws and the elected representatives. Perhaps Americans should become more aware of the non-profit organization, Black Box Voting that tracks elections. Black Box Voting is operated by Bev Harris, who has written a book, "Black Box Voting: Ballot Tampering in the 21st Century." Black Box Voting.org also has created documentaries, and has been featured in documentaries and the news. For example, start with the approximate 10 min video "Silvestro the cat..." Note that the voting problems in the United States and Florida in particular have not been lost on the rest of the world, as Aljazeera even aired a video documentary on the voting problems entitled "People & Power" which refers to Black Box Voting.org and this documentary has been shown again in the United States on HBO.
Yes, Aljazeera. At the end of the video clip, the narrator specifically mentions that you can visit aljazeera.net or see the english version here: http://english.aljazeera.net/ and the last frame of the video on part 2 is the following picture:
Freedom must be earned every day and not taken for granted.
Don't be brainwashed by government propaganda, think independently.
fun
Silvestro the cat / NH voting (More:see Hacking Democracy)
More than just the SEC is involved with investigating the United States Financial System. Changes are coming.
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.5273/pub_detail.asp
http://www.justice.gov/ag/speeches/2010/ag-speech-100108.html
fun
Wow, that "other" site did a nice job with their I-Box. Hmm, I wonder where they got the design from? After going through previous PR's, I placed the big fish on the I-Hub I-Box for only a few hours. Since I wasn't sure if it should stay or not, I took it down. Looks like someone screen printed the moment that big fish was up. Interesting.
Just for fun, I should rename all the images in the I-Box so their screen goes blank.
fun
It means that there are now shares available to short. Keep your brain cells sharp people. Remember yesterday that there were no shares? Oooh yeah before that big trading day where people with shaky hands sold? Looking forward to the PR showing the share structure. You know. The REAL share structure...
fun
"...there will be second run .."
Thank you for the heads up.
fun
High Support for Medical Marijuana
ABC News/Washington Post Poll: 81 Percent Support Legalizing Marijuana for Medical Use
ANALYSIS By GARY LANGER
Jan. 18, 2010
http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Politics/medical-marijuana-abc-news-poll-analysis/story?id=9586503
Eight in 10 Americans support legalizing marijuana for medical use and nearly half favor decriminalizing the drug more generally, both far higher than a decade ago
With New Jersey this week poised to become the 14th state to legalize medical marijuana, 81 percent in this national ABC News/Washington Post poll support the idea, up from an already substantial 69 percent in 1997. Indeed the main complaint is with restrictions on access, as in the New Jersey law.
Click here for PDF with charts and questionnaire. http://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1100a3MedicalMarijuana.pdf
PDF File Contents:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABC NEWS/WASHINGTON POST POLL: MEDICAL MARIJUANA
EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE AFTER 5 p.m. Monday, Jan. 18, 2010
High Support for Medical Marijuana
Eight in 10 Americans support legalizing marijuana for medical use and nearly half favor
decriminalizing the drug more generally, both far higher than a decade ago.
With New Jersey this week poised to become the 14th state to legalize medical marijuana, 81
percent in this national ABC News/Washington Post poll support the idea, up from an already
substantial 69 percent in 1997. Indeed the main complaint is with restrictions on access, as in the
New Jersey law.
Fifty-six percent say that if it’s allowed, doctors should be able to prescribe medical marijuana to
anyone they think it can help. New Jersey’s measure, which is more restrictive than most, limits
prescriptions to people with severe illnesses. State health officials can add to the list.
DECRIMINALIZE? – Apart from medical marijuana, there have been recent efforts to
decriminalize marijuana more broadly in some states. A preliminary vote on one such measure is
to be held in the Washington state Legislature this week. In California organizers say they’ve
collected enough signatures to hold a statewide referendum on the issue next fall. And a separate
proposal in California to legalize and tax the drug cleared a legislative committee last week. A
Field poll there in April found 56 percent support for the idea, which its backers say would raise
$1.3 billion a year.
Nationally, this survey finds 46 percent support for legalizing small amounts of marijuana for
personal use – the same as it was last spring, and well above its level in past years, for example
39 percent in 2002 and 22 percent in 1997
GROUPS – Age is a factor. Just 23 percent of senior citizens favor legalizing marijuana for
personal use; that jumps to 51 percent of adults under age 65. There are political and ideological
differences as well: Thirty percent of conservatives and 32 percent of Republicans favor
legalization, compared with 49 percent of independents, 53 percent of Democrats and more than
half of moderates and liberals alike (53 and 63 percent, respectively).
Medical marijuana, for its part, receives majority support across the political and ideological
spectrum, from 68 percent of conservatives and 72 percent of Republicans as well as 85 percent
of Democrats and independents and about nine in 10 liberals and moderates. Support slips to 69
percent among seniors, vs. 83 percent among all adults under age 65.
There are similar divisions on whether medical marijuana should be restricted or made available
to anyone a doctor thinks it would help. Overall, 56 percent, as noted, prefer no restrictions,
while 21 percent say it should be limited to terminally ill patients and an additional 21 percent
say it should be limited to those with serious but not necessarily terminal illnesses.
Liberals are 23 points more apt than conservatives, and Democrats 20 points more likely than
Republicans, to oppose restrictions. There’s also a difference between the sexes, with men 10
points more likely than women to say the doctor should decide.
But the main difference is whether people think marijuana should be permitted for medical uses
in the first place. Among supporters, 63 percent would rely on the doctor’s discretion. Among
those who oppose medical marijuana, 75 percent say that if it is allowed, it should be limited to
seriously or terminally ill patients.
New Jersey passed its medical marijuana law this month and outgoing Gov. Jon Corzine is
expected to sign it tomorrow morning, his last day in office. Medical marijuana first became
legal in California in 1996, followed by Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Montana,
Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington state.
METHODOLOGY – This ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone Jan.
12-15, 2010, among a random national sample of 1,083 adults, including landline and cellphone-
only respondents, with an oversample of African Americans (weighted to their correct
share of the population) for a total of 153 black respondents. Results for the full sample have a
3.5-point error margin. Click here for a detailed description of sampling error. Sampling, data
collection and tabulation by TNS of Horsham, PA.
Analysis by Gary Langer.
ABC News polls can be found at ABCNEWS.com at http://abcnews.com/pollingunit
Media contact: Cathie Levine, (212) 456-4934.
Full results follow (*= less than 0.5 percent).
1-40 previously released or held for release.
41. In general, do you favor or oppose legalizing the possession of small amounts of
marijuana for personal use?
*Time/CNN: "Do you favor or oppose the legalization of marijuana? (IF FAVOR) What
about in small amounts, for example three ounces or less? Do you favor or oppose the
legalization of marijuana in small amounts?"
42. Regardless of what you think about the personal non-medical use of marijuana, do
you think doctors should or should not be allowed to prescribe marijuana for medical
purposes to treat their patients?
43. If doctors are allowed to prescribe marijuana to patients, should it be limited to
patients who are terminally ill and near death; or also allowed for patients who have
serious but not fatal illnesses; or should it be allowed for any patient the doctor
thinks it could help?
***END***
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fifty-six percent say that if it's allowed, doctors should be able to prescribe medical marijuana to anyone they think it can help. New Jersey's measure, which is more restrictive than most, limits prescriptions to people with severe illnesses. State health officials can add to the list.
DECRIMINALIZE? – Apart from medical marijuana, there have been recent efforts to decriminalize marijuana more broadly in some states. A preliminary vote on one such measure is to be held in the Washington state Legislature this week. In California organizers say they've collected enough signatures to hold a statewide referendum on the issue next fall. And a separate proposal in California to legalize and tax the drug cleared a legislative committee last week. A Field poll there in April found 56 percent support for the idea, which its backers say would raise $1.3 billion a year.
Nationally, this survey finds 46 percent support for legalizing small amounts of marijuana for personal use – the same as it was last spring, and well above its level in past years, for example 39 percent in 2002 and 22 percent in 1997.
GROUPS – Age is a factor. Just 23 percent of senior citizens favor legalizing marijuana for personal use; that jumps to 51 percent of adults under age 65. There are political and ideological differences as well: Thirty percent of conservatives and 32 percent of Republicans favor legalization, compared with 49 percent of independents, 53 percent of Democrats and more than half of moderates and liberals alike (53 and 63 percent, respectively).
Next Page--> http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Politics/medical-marijuana-abc-news-poll-analysis/story?id=9586503&page=2
Medical marijuana, for its part, receives majority support across the political and ideological spectrum, from 68 percent of conservatives and 72 percent of Republicans as well as 85 percent of Democrats and independents and about nine in 10 liberals and moderates. Support slips to 69 percent among seniors, vs. 83 percent among all adults under age 65.
There are similar divisions on whether medical marijuana should be restricted or made available to anyone a doctor thinks it would help. Overall, 56 percent, as noted, prefer no restrictions, while 21 percent say it should be limited to terminally ill patients and an additional 21 percent say it should be limited to those with serious but not necessarily terminal illnesses.
Liberals are 23 points more apt than conservatives, and Democrats 20 points more likely than Republicans, to oppose restrictions. There's also a difference between the sexes, with men 10 points more likely than women to say the doctor should decide.
But the main difference is whether people think marijuana should be permitted for medical uses in the first place. Among supporters, 63 percent would rely on the doctor's discretion. Among those who oppose medical marijuana, 75 percent say that if it is allowed, it should be limited to seriously or terminally ill patients.
New Jersey passed its medical marijuana law this month and outgoing Gov. Jon Corzine is expected to sign it tomorrow morning, his last day in office. Medical marijuana first became legal in California in 1996, followed by Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington state.
METHODOLOGY – This ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone Jan. 12-15, 2010, among a random national sample of 1,083 adults, including landline and cell-phone-only respondents, with an oversample of African Americans (weighted to their correct share of the population) for a total of 153 black respondents. Results for the full sample have a 3.5-point error margin. Click here for a detailed description of sampling error. Sampling, data collection and tabulation by TNS of Horsham, PA
The History Channel aired a nice documentary worth taking the time to view and in that documentary, the movie you brought up is discussed. The politics and laws are changing on the matter as the realization that bad laws were created and continue to be enforced. Health Sciences Group, with stock symbol, HESG.PK is attempting to be on the forefront of this public policy shift.
I fully expect that there will be those with differing opinions. However the majority of these opinions seem primarily morality charged, without scientific fact or historical understanding of the background of the first laws surrounding marijuana. Perhaps the real motives to prevent legalization in any form, are really just based in economics or worse rascism *(see History Channel Documentary) and the real opposition includes but isn't limited to the following industries: Alcohol, Tobacco, and Big Pharma. Of course there are others that would like to keep it illegal, and that would be the criminal elements that are currently able to command higher prices with the product remaining illegal.
The sad fact is that The United States of America has more people in prison than any other country on the planet, with a vast majority of the individuals incarcerated for marijuana. The drug war is a complete and total failure and the drug laws associated with marijuana are not consistent with a free society.
What is amazing to me is that the southwestern states were the ones that were the first proponents of making marijuana illegal *(History Channel Documentary), and now those same states are proponents of making it legal once again.
US Map: http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4516
Freedom must be earned every day and not taken for granted.
Don't be brainwashed by government propaganda, think independently.
History Channel (Hooked) - Marijuana; Part 1 of 5
Hello G!
The link described in your prior post was moved. The new link can be seen above in the I-Box, or just simply click here.
http://www.granadacapital.com/reports/RCCHoldingsCorp.pdf
Enjoy!
fun
I'll update the latest share structure later on when I have time.
fun
You have a verifiable link for that share structure? LOL! Nice try, but I'm still long too! Have a nice day!
fun
I had not realized that financials had anything to do with fails to deliver. Perhaps you can elaborate on how the two are directly correlated. Thank you for your time.
fun
Survey Results: 83% indicate 5 year low.
Now, by examining the information there appears to be a problem with the survey as the above line indicates 6 people took the survey, but the table shows 5 people voted. Thus, I'm guessing that there was in fact a problem as one person chickened out? LOL! I'm thinking that the real answer is 100% believe a 5 year low will happen first.
fun
"What is gonna happen in next two weeks, are we gonna hit the lottery?"
Interesting...
fun
Putting it into perspective:
First Quarter 2009 Fails To Deliver, various companies....
http://www.frontlinecompliance.com/compliance_consultant_resources/7-09IA%20Week%20issue%20Amy%20Lynch%2007-06-09.pdf
fun