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.
male1041 Is Frank D'Amelio still employed by CSMG Technologies?
Good luck
Skeeziks
(((((((((((((((((((A Big Yawn))))))))))))))))))))
Perhaps DR went fishing!
I watched it, The segment was similar to a recent article in the WSJ. After I read the article in the Journal, I contacted the writer.
The writer got in touch with me,I informed the writer about CSMG's
Technology. I sent him a email to see how things were coming along. He never got back to me. What happened? I don't know!
Perhaps the story on "Carbon Capture Technology" re CTGI wasn't that great. I have a few thousand shares left, sold the rest a year ago. One way or another, I'll probably sell the remaining shares this year. Have a good day, off to the hospital for tests.
Good luck
Skeeziks
male1041....When was the last time you called? I had been in contact with a writer from the Wall Street Journal, who does
research on Gas Capture Technology.
Evidently he hasn't gotten back to me. My guess it was a moot point, and not worth while to pursue. Oh well....As the barber would say "NEXT" Thank you very much for your input.
Good luck
Skeeziks
SLEE123455.... You are correct re their location, they are located in the Palos Verde Hills area.
I think (not sure) the majority of MM's are located in New Jersey.
Good luck
Skeeziks
I have been in contact with a writer from the WSJ, hopefully he will get in contact with Don Robbins, if he thinks the gas capture technology is up to date, and on the cutting edge.
Good luck
Skeeziks
For your perusal.....This article was in todays WSJ
Good luck
Skeeziks
LYNN COWAN
Though the IPO window appears closed to all but a select few companies, that hasn't stopped an optimistic breed of start-ups from pinning their dreams on going public.
Their initial public offerings aren't underwritten by investment banks, they price their stock for $1 a share or less, and they are hoping to sell enough to eventually list on the OTC Bulletin Board. Although they span a wide variety of industries, from mining to technology, they have a lot in common: no revenue and, in most cases, no product or operating business.
Some own land they seek to explore or develop. Others have product prototypes they want to manufacture and distribute. All are willing to give the public markets a shot at a time when only two mature companies have gone public in the past six months.
[Optimists]
"You put it out there, and whatever comes back, comes back. But my ideal would be to have one investor with deep pockets" buy all the shares and become a long-term partner, said Trevor Blank, chief executive of Skyhigh Resources Inc., which registered in October to raise $25,000.
The company, which incorporated nearly two years ago, has no revenue but owns a 1,200-acre property in Canada that it wants to explore for gold, silver and platinum. Its cash balance, according to its prospectus: "nil."
No data providers track self-underwritten IPOs. But a search of the Securities and Exchange Commission's online-filings database showed nine companies registered such deals in February, a month when no traditional IPOs underwritten by investment banks registered.
The early stage of many self-underwritten companies would ordinarily make them better candidates for private investment, either through small financiers or friends. While some already have such financing, obtaining more is tricky in this economic environment, say company owners.
"We see [an IPO] as an easier launch" than raising private funds, said Joe Wallace, the president of sports-drink maker Science Water Inc., which filed with the SEC in December to raise $1 million in the public markets.
The 16-month-old California company, which has an exclusive license to market a patented beverage to the sports- and nutrition-drink market, needs the IPO money to launch its first sales campaign and for working capital.
Investment bankers say they don't pay much attention to the self-underwritten world; the amounts being raised are so small that the fees wouldn't cover the cost of flying out to meet the owners.
Whenever the stock market stabilizes, smaller growth companies with strong businesses that warrant IPOs underwritten by investment banks will again be viewed as attractive investments, said J. West Riggs, head of Asia equity capital markets for Piper Jaffray. But earlier-stage businesses unready for an IPO usually are advised to take other routes even in better times.
"We usually will see smaller companies looking to reverse-merge into a shell and sometimes do a concurrent [private investment in public equity] to raise funds and increase liquidity," Mr. Riggs said. "This seems to be a challenging strategy in the current market. An IPO for a very small company also would be extremely challenging."
bbhuey.....Nice post, interesting!
Good luck
Skeeziks
Lately it seems that the amount of trades is about the same, but the volume is higher.
Albeit there was heavy trading last Friday.
Good luck
Skeeziks
Don't know, if any of you have read the article re the "face transplant" at the Cleveland Clinic.
Here's the article, wonder if the Dr. mentioned in the article,
from the Jewish Hospital in Louisville Ky. works with Dr, Joseph Kutz?
Good luck
Skeeziks
CLEVELAND – A woman so horribly disfigured she was willing to risk her life to do something about it has undergone the nation's first near-total face transplant, the Cleveland Clinic announced Tuesday. Reconstructive surgeon Dr. Maria Siemionow and a team of other specialists replaced 80 percent of the woman's face with that of a female cadaver a couple of weeks ago in a bold and controversial operation certain to stoke the debate over the ethics of such surgery.
The patient's name and age were not released, and the hospital said her family wanted the reason for her transplant to remain confidential. The hospital plans a news conference Wednesday and would not give details until then.
The transplant was the fourth worldwide; two have been done in France, and one was performed in China.
Surgeons not connected to the Cleveland case reacted cautiously since little is known about the circumstances, but generally praised the operation.
"There are patients who can benefit tremendously from this. It's great that it happened," said Dr. Bohdan Pomahac, a surgeon at Harvard-affiliated Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston who plans to offer face transplants, too.
Dr. Laurent Lantieri, a plastic surgeon at Henri Mondor-Albert Chenevier Hospital, near Paris, who did a face transplant on a man disfigured by a rare genetic disease, said: "This is very good news for all of us that doctors in the U.S. have done this."
Unlike operations involving vital organs like hearts and livers, transplants of faces or hands are done to improve quality of life — not extend it. Recipients run the risk of deadly complications and must take immune-suppressing drugs for the rest of their lives to prevent organ rejection, raising their odds of cancer and many other problems.
Arthur Caplan, a leading bioethicist who has expressed grave concerns in the past about such surgery, withheld judgment on the Cleveland case but said the woman's doctors should give her the option of assisted suicide if they wind up making her life worse.
"The biggest ethical problem is dealing with failure — if your face rejects. It would be a living hell," said Caplan, bioethics chief at the University of Pennsylvania. "If your face is falling off and you can't eat and you can't breathe and you're suffering in a terrible manner that can't be reversed, you need to put on the table assistance in dying."
Siemionow's long and careful preparation should help prevent such a horrific outcome, those familiar with her said. Siemionow, (pronounced SIM-en-now), 58, a noted hand microsurgeon, has been testing the surgical approach and ways to temper the immune system's response in experiments for more than a decade.
She has considered dozens of potential candidates over the past four years, ever since the clinic's internal review board gave permission for her to attempt the operation, and has said she would choose someone severely disfigured as her first case.
"She's a leader in this field. She's been investigating this for a long time. She has done the most amount of research in small animals looking at this," said Dr. Warren Breidenbach, a surgeon at Jewish Hospital in Louisville, Ky., who did the nation's first hand transplant, in 1999. Siemionow trained with him in Louisville.
The world's first partial face transplant was performed in France in 2005 on a 38-year-old woman who had been mauled by her dog. Isabelle Dinoire received a new nose, chin and lips from a brain-dead donor. She has done so astoundingly well that surgeons have become more comfortable with a radical operation considered unthinkable a decade ago.
Two others have received partial face transplants since then — a Chinese farmer attacked by a bear and a European man disfigured by a genetic condition. Both are believed to be doing well, though details, especially of the Chinese case, have been scant.
In the Cleveland case, "it is very important what kind of recipient they selected," and how great the need was, Pomahac (POE-ma-hawk) said. "Hopefully it will open the door both to the public and to other centers" wanting to do these operations.
Details of the Cleveland surgery are not known, but surgeons generally transplant skin, facial nerves and muscle, and often other deep tissue. That is done so the new face will actually function and not just be a mask.
In an interview at the Cleveland Clinic in 2005, Siemionow spoke of the terrible need she saw in people horribly disfigured, and how badly it scarred their social and emotional lives, not just their bodies.
"There are no really good alternative therapies for the severely burned or patients with a facial injury or damage," she said.
Her task now is to prevent organ rejection while managing the risk of infection from taking strong immune-suppressing drugs.
Rejection is a possibility whenever someone receives an organ or cells from someone else because the body regards this as foreign tissue. Two types of problems can result.
The first is graft-versus-host disease, which could happen if the new facial tissue were to attack the recipient's body. The second is if the patient's body were to attack the transplanted face, causing inflammation and other problems at the site of the new tissue.
Either of these can be life-threatening. They can come on suddenly, within days or weeks of the operation, or set in slowly.
___
AP Medical Writer Maria Cheng in London contributed to this report.
___
On the Net:
Cleveland Clinic: http://www.clevelandclinic.org
Related Searches:
* isabelle dinoire
OT: I realize this message is off topic, but I felt like I had to share it with you guys!
Good luck
Skeeziks
Once upon a time a man appeared in a village and announced to the
villagers that he would buy monkeys for $10 each.
The villagers, seeing that there were many monkeys around, went out to the
forest and started catching them.
The man bought thousands at $10 and, as supply started to diminish, the
villagers stopped their effort. He next announced that he would now buy
monkeys at $20 each. This renewed the efforts of the villagers and they
started catching monkeys again.
Soon the supply diminished even further and people started going back to
their farms. The offer increased to $25 each and the supply of monkeys
became so scarce it was an effort to even find a monkey, let alone catch
it!
The man now announced that he would buy monkeys at $50 each! However,
since he had to go to the city on some business, his assistant would buy
on his behalf.
In the absence of the man, the assistant told the villagers:
"Look at all these monkeys in the big cage that the man has already collected. Tell you what.
If you keep it to yourselves, I will sell them to you at $35 each and when the man returns from the city,
you can go forth and sell them back to him for $50 each."
The villagers rounded up all their savings and bought the monkeys for $700 billion. They never saw the man
or his assistant again and they were all stuck with lots and lots of monkeys. You now have a better understanding
of how the Wall Street Bailout Plan will work.
Market is up right now 268 points, albeit CTGI isn't moving!
What we need now is a meaty PR!
Good luck
Skeeziks
Steve1....You bring up a good point, especially since we ended up in the green!
Have a good weekend, I'll let you know when I get through e-mailing the "WSJ" re CTGI
Good luck
Skeeziks
I wonder, what are the odds that CTGI has more than 10 trades tomorrow?
Good luck
Skeeziks
bbhuey.....Addendum Carl Icahn isn't doing very well right now, but I do admire him for sticking up for the shareholders.
He seems to discourage this "E" FOR EFFORT and wants "R" FOR RESULTS! Perhaps he should take over the BIG 3. The CEO's would be the first to go, then the jet fleets. lol
Good luck
Skeeziks
bbhuey......Interesting post!
Good luck
Skeeziks
airdale1 Nice find!
Dead today, Where's the beef? eom
starboy......Thank you eom
Is the market closed Mon. or Tues? Thanks
Jagman.....Nice piece eom
I've heard that argument "Clean Coal" What I mean by that is, people that are in the BUSINESS stated there there isn't any "Clean Coal"
Good luck
Skeeziks
This article was in yesterdays WSJ, don't know if DR is aware of it, or any of his colleagues. Interesting piece.
Good luck
Skeeziks
CAPE MAY COUNTY, N.J. -- America's garbage dumps are reaping a windfall from the fight against global warming. But their payday might not be doing much to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.
For more than a decade, the landfill here has made extra profit simply by collecting methane given off by rotting trash, and selling it as fuel. Last year, the landfill learned that doing this also qualified it to earn hundreds of thousands of dollars via a new program that pays companies to cut their greenhouse-gas emissions.
Eliminating methane lets dumps sell "carbon credits" to environmentally conscious people and companies. The long-term goal of trading credits -- basically, vouchers representing reductions in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases -- is to reduce global pollution by encouraging others to cut emissions when the buyers of the credits can't or won't cut their own.
Trash Dumps Cash In on Carbon Credits
2:31
Concerns are mounting about projects that earn carbon credits for business practices they've been doing anyway. (Oct. 20)
"It seemed a little suspicious that we could get money for doing nothing," says Charles Norkis, executive director of the Cape May County Municipal Utilities Authority, which has raised $427,475 selling credits since February, or 3% of the authority's projected solid-waste revenue for the year.
The sale of credits by these landfills undermines a premise of the global fight against climate change. The credit system was designed to encourage pollution cuts that wouldn't have happened without a financial incentive. But the credits aren't helping the environment if they're merely providing extra profit for cleanups already made. And dumps already have an incentive to capture methane because selling it can be profitable.
The biggest carbon-credit market in the U.S. is the Chicago Climate Exchange. It's an experiment in which polluting companies are trying to develop an inexpensive way to comply with limits on greenhouse-gas emissions that they expect the government to impose. The companies promise to cut emissions partly by retooling their facilities, and partly -- and often more cheaply -- by buying extra credits representing reductions made at landfills or other outside sources.
Over the past two years, landfills from Pennsylvania to North Dakota have started selling extra credits on the Chicago exchange to profit from methane they were capturing anyway.
Jeffrey Ball/The Wall Street Journal
James Warner, executive director of the Lancaster County Solid Waste Management Authority, beside a methane-capture well.
Selling credits is "gravy to us," says Katherine Vesey, comptroller of the utility authority in Atlantic County, N.J., which was profitably capturing methane for two years before it started selling credits on the Chicago exchange.
The majority of the emission cuts reported by the Chicago Climate Exchange come from member companies' own facilities -- energy-efficiency improvements at factories, for instance. Only a small slice of the reported emission cuts come from outside projects such as landfills, the exchange says.
But the exchange acknowledges that on some of those outside projects, it is authorizing the sale of credits for cleanups that had been performed anyway. Richard Sandor, the exchange's chairman, says that doing so rewards "early action" and encourages other landfills to capture methane too.
Mr. Sandor says the exchange's main goal is to help develop a commodity that has financial value under any possible future U.S. law that to regulates greenhouse-gas emissions. The debate over whether or not a polluter would have cut its greenhouse-gas emissions without the financial incentive of credit sales is "quite interesting, but that's not my business," Mr. Sandor says. "I'm running a for-profit company."
The sale of credits is tied to rising interest among corporations and individuals in reducing their "carbon footprints," or the environmental impact of their daily activities. The U.S. carbon-credit trade more than doubled in value last year, to $131 million.
Outside credits from landfills represent only about 1% of the total emission cuts reported by the Chicago exchange. However, they point to growing questions about the environmental legitimacy of the broader carbon-credit trade. The federal government is joining the scrutiny. Last month, the Government Accountability Office, an investigative arm of Congress, concluded that the trade offers "limited assurance of credibility" that carbon credits represent real reductions in pollution.
The Federal Trade Commission also is examining whether the marketing is deceptive -- in particular, whether credits really represent emission cuts that wouldn't otherwise have happened. With a tangible product, say, an apple, a buyer can easily judge a seller's claims that it's "crisp and juicy and red," says James Kohm, associate director of the FTC's enforcement division. Intangible products, such as pollution credits, "have a greater potential for deception."
Each credit represents one ton of carbon dioxide, or an equally potent amount of other greenhouse gases, prevented from being released. Currently, a credit sells for about $2 on the Chicago exchange.
There is no single organization policing the sale or environmental soundness of credits in the U.S. In addition to the Chicago Climate Exchange, other organizations include the state-founded California Climate Action Registry and the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a program that's set to impose emission limits on power plants in 10 Northeastern states starting Jan. 1. Each organization has its own rules.
By contrast, most other industrialized countries have a more regulated system. The Kyoto Protocol, a 1997 agreement to curb greenhouse-gas emissions, created a global market in which companies in industrialized nations are required to cut their emissions over time. Those cuts can be achieved, in part, by buying credits from companies that reduce emissions. The U.S. didn't ratify Kyoto.
The global market is policed by the United Nations. A U.N. board reviews potential carbon-credit projects in an attempt to determine whether they're providing pollution cuts that wouldn't otherwise have occurred.
Both major presidential candidates, Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain, say they support imposing a mandatory limit on U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions. Concerns about carbon credits have big implications for how much such a limit would cost.
James Warner
That system would likely follow the so-called cap-and-trade model: The government would cap the amount of greenhouse gas companies could emit, and companies could meet the caps by cutting their own pollution or in part by trading in credits representing cuts elsewhere.
Now, a fight is erupting on Capitol Hill over how much latitude any cap-and-trade system should give companies to buy credits. Big polluters, particularly electricity producers, are lobbying for wide latitude, because credits can be a cheaper way to comply while they work on retooling their operations. Some members of Congress, questioning the credits' legitimacy, are pushing back.
Meantime, it is institutions like the Chicago Climate Exchange that are testing various ways to identify the middle ground. Under the Chicago exchange's rules, not all landfills qualify to sell credits. Larger landfills are ineligible because they're already required by federal law to capture their gas for air-pollution reasons. But that leaves hundreds of smaller U.S. landfills eligible, according to Environmental Protection Agency estimates.
The first landfill to join the Chicago exchange is in Lancaster County, Pa., about an hour's drive west of Philadelphia. The Lancaster County Solid Waste Management Authority spent about $1.5 million to install machinery back in 2005 to capture methane instead of letting it escape into the air. It makes about $50,000 a year selling the gas to a local power company. The power company uses some of it to generate steam for the Turkey Hill Dairy, a big ice-cream maker nearby. It uses the rest to make electricity.
The money the authority earns from selling gas is a tiny slice of its $55 million yearly budget. The authority never intended to make money on the project, says James Warner, its executive director.
In June 2006, Mr. Warner was attending a trash-industry conference in Nashville when he came upon a booth for the Chicago Climate Exchange. There, Mr. Warner learned that his landfill also qualified to sell carbon credits.
"Long story short, it was like, 'Holy s -- !'" Mr. Warner says.
The Chicago exchange accepts pollution credits from landfills that began capturing methane as far back as 1999, four years before the exchange began trading credits.
Mr. Sandor of the Chicago exchange predicts the federal government will settle on similar rules. That means companies that buy credits on the Chicago exchange today stand a good chance of being able to use them to comply with any future federal emissions rules.
Other credit-trading programs have slightly tougher rules than the Chicago exchange. For instance, the California program lets landfills sell credits based on methane-capture systems installed only since 2001, which gives its credits more "credibility," says Gary Gero of the California registry. Its credits sell on average for more than those on the Chicago exchange.
Among the companies buying credits on the Chicago exchange is American Electric Power Co., an Ohio-based electricity producer that's one of the largest U.S. greenhouse-gas emitters.
Bruce Braine, an AEP executive who sits on the Chicago exchange's board, says he views the exchange's rules as rigorous. But he acknowledges that it's often unclear whether or not the credits actually represent new pollution reductions.
That judgment will only get tougher, he says. "In most of the cases going forward, you're not going to know whether they would have" installed equipment to curb emissions even without the financial incentive from selling credits.
Another buyer of credits on the Chicago exchange is Fintura Corp., an Atlanta company that designs specialty credit cards. Last year, Fintura, working with MetaBank, a unit of Meta Financial Group Inc., launched the GreenPay MasterCard to appeal to environmentally conscious customers. For every dollar spent using the card, Fintura buys a fraction of a carbon credit.
Like most Chicago-exchange buyers, Fintura buys its credits without knowing their specific origin. Andrew Mathieson, Fintura's chief executive, knows landfills produce some credits, but trusts the Chicago exchange as "one of the best sources out there" for credits in the U.S.
Told that some landfills are selling credits on the Chicago exchange for methane-collection equipment they had installed already, Mr. Mathieson says that if "all of the credits I'm buying are that, would I have the same degree of comfort? I would not."
MetaBank, based in Storm Lake, Iowa, declined to comment.
After coming across the Chicago exchange at the trash conference, Mr. Warner told his staff in Lancaster to apply for selling credits. In October 2006, it made its first carbon-credit sale, netting $26,600 after paying $11,900 in fees and commissions to the exchange.
Including that initial trade, Lancaster County has so far made about $320,727 selling credits on the Chicago exchange. It's as if, Mr. Warner says, "I looked under a rock and found a couple hundred thousand bucks."
Mr. Warner has encouraged other landfill executives to join the credit program. Among them: Michael Pavelek II at a landfill in Lebanon County, Pa., about an hour's drive from Lancaster.
The Greater Lebanon Refuse Authority had installed a methane-capture system a quarter-century ago. In 2006, after the tip from Mr. Warner, Mr. Pavelek signed his landfill up for the Chicago exchange. The Lebanon County dump has since made about $125,000 selling carbon credits. It also sells its gas to a local power company.
Now, though, Mr. Pavelek fears the easy money could soon end. Pennsylvania regulators have discussed requiring even small landfills to capture their methane. But, under the Chicago exchange's rules, landfills that are required by law to capture methane aren't permitted to sell credits.
So Mr. Pavelek is now shopping for an authority with looser guidelines that will still accept his credits if Pennsylvania law changes. "We're just trying to get credit for whatever we can while it's available," he says.
Write to Jeffrey Ball at jeffrey.ball@wsj.com
SEC press release (naked shorts)
http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2008/2008-204.htm
Good Luck
Skeeziks
God help us! Another week like today, there will be nothing left in the portfolio! lol
Good luck
Skeeziks
Market is down 320 points, albeit oil is down, biggest problem?
I don't know.
CTGI and one other stock, are the only 2 that I own for over 2 1/2 years My other stocks that I hold or sold were trades.
Things don't look that bright right now, guess we're have to hang in there.
Good luck
Skeeziks
rocketeer357...... You touched on some interesting points re
CSMG. Unfortunately, I have to agree with you. Lets look forward to better days to come.
Good luck
Skeeziks
bing259....I think we would be better off on the NAZ.
Good luck
Skeeziks
lowman..... I'm not a medical writer, therefore I'm not sending any correspondence to JAMA. I feel that I'm not qualified to do so.
CTGI Should be on top of this topic, should it come to fruition everything will fall into place.
I've already sent my request to JAMA. Have you?
Good luck
Skeeziks
texasspeculator......Great post!!! Kudos!
Good luck
Skeeziks
ninjaturtle.......Hmmmmm B/O How about Buyout
Good luck
Skeeziks
texasspectulator... I agree with you regarding about medical journals......JAMA I think that would put us over the top.
I've tried to get info from the journals, but they cost a lot of money, plus the fact, I think you have to be a subscriber.
Perhaps TRAINING SUGEONS could shed some light on this subject.
Good luck
Skeeziks
GreenMan........Good post
Good luck
Skeeziks
Have a good weekend! All!!
Good luck
Skeeziks
drive.....Thanks for the update!
Good luck
Skeeziks
Portfolio just about all red!!!!! Looks like a lot of people bailed today.
How many of you have sold some of CTIG since its high? Thanks
Good luck
Skeeziks
honyaker...... Interesting piece Thanks!
Good luck
Skeeziks
Jagman, Why only stocks from the NAZ listed?
2 weeks ago we were @ 1.28 now we're down .20 a share, tomorrow should be interesting, with the release of jobs! Portfolio is not doing well. lol
Good luck
Skeeziks