Any idea what will prevent cheapskates from sterilising and reusing the "disposable" tools?If you say software,we should remember the pirates of the printer cartridge industry apparently have little problem with blocking software.

Wouldnt it be something if they figured out how to weld bone?I wonder if Paton spent any time on that one?

They Criticized Vista. And They Should Know.

By RANDALL STROSS
Published: March 9, 2008

ONE year after the birth of Windows Vista, why do so many Windows XP users still decline to “upgrade”?

Microsoft says high prices have been the deterrent. Last month, the company trimmed prices on retail packages of Vista, trying to entice consumers to overcome their reluctance. In the United States, an XP user can now buy Vista Home Premium for $129.95, instead of $159.95.

An alternative theory, however, is that Vista’s reputation precedes it. XP users have heard too many chilling stories from relatives and friends about Vista upgrades that have gone badly. The graphics chip that couldn’t handle Vista’s whizzy special effects. The long delays as it loaded. The applications that ran at slower speeds. The printers, scanners and other hardware peripherals, which work dandily with XP, that lacked the necessary software, the drivers, to work well with Vista.

Can someone tell me again, why is switching XP for Vista an “upgrade”?

Here’s one story of a Vista upgrade early last year that did not go well. Jon, let’s call him, (bear with me — I’ll reveal his full identity later) upgrades two XP machines to Vista. Then he discovers that his printer, regular scanner and film scanner lack Vista drivers. He has to stick with XP on one machine just so he can continue to use the peripherals.

Did Jon simply have bad luck? Apparently not. When another person, Steven, hears about Jon’s woes, he says drivers are missing in every category — “this is the same across the whole ecosystem.”

Then there’s Mike, who buys a laptop that has a reassuring “Windows Vista Capable” logo affixed. He thinks that he will be able to run Vista in all of its glory, as well as favorite Microsoft programs like Movie Maker. His report: “I personally got burned.” His new laptop — logo or no logo — lacks the necessary graphics chip and can run neither his favorite video-editing software nor anything but a hobbled version of Vista. “I now have a $2,100 e-mail machine,” he says.

It turns out that Mike is clearly not a naïf. He’s Mike Nash, a Microsoft vice president who oversees Windows product management. And Jon, who is dismayed to learn that the drivers he needs don’t exist? That’s Jon A. Shirley, a Microsoft board member and former president and chief operating officer. And Steven, who reports that missing drivers are anything but exceptional, is in a good position to know: he’s Steven Sinofsky, the company’s senior vice president responsible for Windows.

Their remarks come from a stream of internal communications at Microsoft in February 2007, after Vista had been released as a supposedly finished product and customers were paying full retail price. Between the nonexistent drivers and PCs mislabeled as being ready for Vista when they really were not, Vista instantly acquired a reputation at birth: Does Not Play Well With Others.

We usually do not have the opportunity to overhear Microsoft’s most senior executives vent their personal frustrations with Windows. But a lawsuit filed against Microsoft in March 2007 in United States District Court in Seattle has pried loose a packet of internal company documents. The plaintiffs, Dianne Kelley and Kenneth Hansen, bought PCs in late 2006, before Vista’s release, and contend that Microsoft’s “Windows Vista Capable” stickers were misleading when affixed to machines that turned out to be incapable of running the versions of Vista that offered the features Microsoft was marketing as distinctive Vista benefits.

Last month, Judge Marsha A. Pechman granted class-action status to the suit, which is scheduled to go to trial in October. (Microsoft last week appealed the certification decision.)

Anyone who bought a PC that Microsoft labeled “Windows Vista Capable” without also declaring “Premium Capable” is now a party in the suit. The judge also unsealed a cache of 200 e-mail messages and internal reports, covering Microsoft’s discussions of how best to market Vista, beginning in 2005 and extending beyond its introduction in January 2007. The documents incidentally include those accounts of frustrated Vista users in Microsoft’s executive suites.

Today, Microsoft boasts that there are twice as many drivers available for Vista as there were at its introduction, but performance and graphics problems remain. (When I tried last week to contact Mr. Shirley and the others about their most recent experiences with Vista, David Bowermaster, a Microsoft spokesman, said that no one named in the e-mail messages could be made available for comment because of the continuing lawsuit.)

The messages were released in a jumble, but when rearranged into chronological order, they show a tragedy in three acts.

Act 1: In 2005, Microsoft plans to say that only PCs that are properly equipped to handle the heavy graphics demands of Vista are “Vista Ready.”

Act 2: In early 2006, Microsoft decides to drop the graphics-related hardware requirement in order to avoid hurting Windows XP sales on low-end machines while Vista is readied. (A customer could reasonably conclude that Microsoft is saying, Buy Now, Upgrade Later.) A semantic adjustment is made: Instead of saying that a PC is “Vista Ready,” which might convey the idea that, well, it is ready to run Vista, a PC will be described as “Vista Capable,” which supposedly signals that no promises are made about which version of Vista will actually work.

The decision to drop the original hardware requirements is accompanied by considerable internal protest. The minimum hardware configuration was set so low that “even a piece of junk will qualify,” Anantha Kancherla, a Microsoft program manager, said in an internal e-mail message among those recently unsealed, adding, “It will be a complete tragedy if we allowed it.”

Act 3: In 2007, Vista is released in multiple versions, including “Home Basic,” which lacks Vista’s distinctive graphics. This placed Microsoft’s partners in an embarrassing position. Dell, which gave Microsoft a postmortem report that was also included among court documents, dryly remarked: “Customers did not understand what ‘Capable’ meant and expected more than could/would be delivered.”

All was foretold. In February 2006, after Microsoft abandoned its plan to reserve the Vista Capable label for only the more powerful PCs, its own staff tried to avert the coming deluge of customer complaints about underpowered machines. “It would be a lot less costly to do the right thing for the customer now,” said Robin Leonard, a Microsoft sales manager, in an e-mail message sent to her superiors, “than to spend dollars on the back end trying to fix the problem.”

Now that Microsoft faces a certified class action, a judge may be the one who oversees the fix. In the meantime, where does Microsoft go to buy back its lost credibility?

Yes it seems like a screaming bargain.Rediculously cheap for the property they have.So why has it been beaten down so far given the globes present oil supply situation?I have heard nothing bad about management but you have to suspect cockroaches.I havent heard of them getting any offers.

sorry if this has already been posted

Search:
Free Zone | User's Groups | Traders Cooperative

Public Reply | Private Reply | Keep | Last Read Replies (1) | Next 10 | Previous | Next
Posted by: steviee Date: Friday, August 01, 2008 12:27:03 PM
In reply to: None Post # of 42383
Solar-Power Breakthrough
Researchers have found a cheap and easy way to store the energy made by solar power.
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/21155/page1/
By Kevin Bullis
Splitting water: Daniel Nocera poses with a device for breaking down water into hydrogen and oxygen. The device uses an inexpensive catalyst that he has developed.
Credit: Donna Coveney, MIT
Multimedia
Watch Daniel Nocera explain how his catalyst can be used to store sunlight.

Researchers have made a major advance in inorganic chemistry that could lead to a cheap way to store energy from the sun. In so doing, they have solved one of the key problems in making solar energy a dominant source of electricity.

Daniel Nocera, a professor of chemistry at MIT, has developed a catalyst that can generate oxygen from a glass of water by splitting water molecules. The reaction frees hydrogen ions to make hydrogen gas. The catalyst, which is easy and cheap to make, could be used to generate vast amounts of hydrogen using sunlight to power the reactions. The hydrogen can then be burned or run through a fuel cell to generate electricity whenever it's needed, including when the sun isn't shining.

Solar power is ultimately limited by the fact that the solar cells only produce their peak output for a few hours each day. The proposed solution of using sunlight to split water, storing solar energy in the form of hydrogen, hasn't been practical because the reaction required too much energy, and suitable catalysts were too expensive or used extremely rare materials. Nocera's catalyst clears the way for cheap and abundant water-splitting technologies.

Nocera's advance represents a key discovery in an effort by many chemical research groups to create artificial photosynthesis--mimicking how plants use sunlight to split water to make usable energy. "This discovery is simply groundbreaking," says Karsten Meyer, a professor of chemistry at Friedrich Alexander University, in Germany. "Nocera has probably put a lot of researchers out of business." For solar power, Meyer says, "this is probably the most important single discovery of the century."

The new catalyst marks a radical departure from earlier attempts. Researchers, including Nocera, have tried to design molecular catalysts in which the location of each atom is precisely known and the catalyst is made to last as long as possible. The new catalyst, however, is amorphous--it doesn't have a regular structure--and it's relatively unstable, breaking down as it does its work. But the catalyst is able to constantly repair itself, so it can continue working.

In his experimental system, Nocera immerses an indium tin oxide electrode in water mixed with cobalt and potassium phosphate. He applies a voltage to the electrode, and cobalt, potassium, and phosphate accumulate on the electrode, forming the catalyst. The catalyst oxidizes the water to form oxygen gas and free hydrogen ions. At another electrode, this one coated with a platinum catalyst, hydrogen ions form hydrogen gas. As it works, the cobalt-based catalyst breaks down, but cobalt and potassium phosphate in the solution soon re-form on the electrode, repairing the catalyst.


[1] 2 Next »

Maybe best to avoid PTCH.I think its down because they cant get any finance for drilling to prove their reserves.But there might be other problems.There might be cockroaches in management.I find it a worry that they apparently received no buyout offers at any price.

Browns gas?
Right now the scammers are ramping up the market for devices which make hydrogen for your car engine to improve its mileage.Basicaly they use spare current from your cars alternator and a couple of anodes in a container of water electrolising the water into oxygen and hydrogen for the engine to burn.
A local TV station had a mechanic check it out.He tried it this way and experimented that way and after a month he reported he could detect NO BENEFIT.

???????????? I was rumaging around in my puter when I found a folder full of Lexmark files.The Lexmark printer is gone years ago.I did a START SEARCH files or folders with Lexmark.It found exactly nothing.???????
So I deleted this entire Lexmark folder.
My puter hasnt crashed yet.

I think it is time for the company to update us where we are in the process.
http://www.emergogroup.com/ce-marking-process-chart

Uh,do I dare mention the competition?

Cosmetic Medicine / Plastic Surgery News



CryoLife's BioGlue(R) Surgical Adhesive Receives European Approval For Use In Browlift Cosmetic And Reconstructive Plastic Surgery
Main Category: Cosmetic Medicine / Plastic Surgery
Also Included In: Regulatory Affairs / Drug Approvals
Article Date: 11 Jun 2008 - 3:00 PDT


CryoLife, Inc. (NYSE: CRY), and BioForm Medical, Inc. (Nasdaq: BFRM) announced that they have received a CE Mark for the use of CryoLife's BioGlue Surgical Adhesive for periosteal fixation following endoscopic browplasty or brow lift, a reconstructive plastic surgery procedure. The CE Mark approval allows the product to be marketed in the European Community (EU).

BioGlue will be distributed by CryoLife's partner BioForm Medical, for use in approved cosmetic and reconstructive plastic surgery in the EU, under the name "BioGlue Aesthetic(TM) Medical Adhesive." Under the terms of the agreement, CryoLife is the exclusive supplier of BioGlue to BioForm for all cosmetic and plastic surgery applications, and BioForm is responsible for all clinical trials and regulatory filings, and for sales and marketing of BioGlue in these applications in 12 EU countries.

"BioGlue has many potential applications in aesthetic surgery, and we are particularly excited about its promise in brow lift surgery. This is an important step in our overall development strategy to evaluate the use of BioGlue as a quick and easy-to-use fixation method in plastic surgery," said Steven Basta, chief executive officer, BioForm Medical, Inc. "The CE Mark will enable us to accelerate development and evaluation of BioGlue applications with European physicians."

"We will not commercially launch BioGlue in the EU until further clinical development is completed, but the product will be available in Europe on a limited basis to early users who will help us in the evaluation and development program," added Mr. Basta. "This program will complement the development program in the U.S., where we are advancing toward a planned U.S. pivotal study of BioGlue for use in browplasties."

"BioGlue has proven to be a safe and effective product and it has been used in over 400,000 procedures worldwide," said Steven G. Anderson, president and chief executive officer, CryoLife, Inc. "We are pleased that BioGlue is now available for use in browlift cosmetic and plastic surgery in the European Community. We look forward to continuing to expand BioGlue's applications and availability worldwide."

About BioGlue

BioGlue is a two-component adhesive that creates a flexible, mechanical seal, independent of the body's clotting mechanism, within 20 to 30 seconds, and reaches its maximum bonding strength in two to three minutes.

CryoLife's BioGlue Surgical Adhesive is FDA approved as an adjunct to sutures and staples for use in adult patients in open surgical repair of large vessels. BioGlue is approved for soft tissue repair in the European Community, Canada and Australia.

FDA ignores landslide senate vote (who do they think they are?)


Senate Votes to Speed FDA Approval Process for Drugs, Medical Devices

From:
The Washington Post
Date:
September 25, 1997
Author:
John Schwartz; Helen Dewar | Copyright information Copyright 1997 The Washington Post. This material is published under license from the Washington Post. All inquiries regarding rights should be directed to the Washington Post.

The Senate yesterday overwhelmingly approved legislation to speed Food and Drug Administration approval of new drugs and medical devices, marking a narrow but significant victory in the Republican-led effort to overhaul the federal regulatory process.

The bill was passed by an unusually lopsided vote of 98 to 2 after protracted negotiations and floor struggles that produced a bipartisan compromise aimed at accommodating both industry and consumer interests, although consumer groups complained about the outcome while industry officials praised it.

"It is an important step forward in ensuring a stronger and more efficient FDA," said Labor and Human Resources Committee Chairman James ..

* Regulatory Approval Process (European Union)


Though there are many similarities in the regulatory process in the United States and countries within the European Union, there are important differences that impact the time and cost associated with the introduction of a new medical device. We have identified 3 illustrative examples: Use of notified bodies, criteria for approval, and local site (IRB/site negotiation).

The European Union system relies heavily on notified bodies (NBs), which are independent commercial organizations to implement regulatory control over medical devices. NBs have the ability to issue the CE mark, the official marking required for certain medical devices. NBs are designated, monitored, and audited by the relevant member states via the national competent authorities. Many functions performed by the FDA/CDRH within the United States are performed by NBs, including medical device certification, device type designation, assessment and verification of quality systems, and review of design dossiers for high-risk devices.11,12 Currently, there are more than 50 active NBs within Europe. A company is free to choose any notified body designated to cover the particular class of device under review. After approval, post-market surveillance functions are the responsibility of the member state via the competent authority. NBs typically function in a closed manner, providing little visibility on criteria required for approval. This dynamic allows for a high degree of variation as well as competition among NBs. As a result, NBs are perceived by industry to be less bureaucratic organizations that can respond more quickly and efficiently than the FDA. These potential benefits may be offset by a system that is intrinsically more fragmented and highly variable and has resulted in the approval and continued marketing of devices, eg, abdominal aorta stent grafts, in Europe that failed efficacy trials in the United States.

Criteria for approval of high-risk devices are different in the European Union. To receive approval to market a class III high-risk (and some class II) device in the United States, the manufacturer must demonstrate the device to be reasonably safe and effective, which typically requires a prospective, randomized controlled clinical trial. To receive approval to market a device in the European Union, the manufacturer must demonstrate that the device is safe and that it performs in a manner consistent with the manufacturer’s intended use.12 This difference has a profound impact on the size and scope of the clinical studies for regulatory approval. This significant difference is illustrated by examining the introduction of distal protection systems. The GuardWire developed by PercuSurge, Inc (later acquired by Medtronic) is a specialized coronary guidewire with an elastomeric balloon mounted at the tip. During an angioplasty/stent procedure, the operator crosses the lesion with the GuardWire and inflates the balloon. Stent placement is then performed, after which a specialized catheter is used to evacuate any arterial debris that may have become dislodged during the procedure. The GuardWire balloon is then deflated. Demonstration of safety and performance, ie, ability to aspirate material during the stenting procedure, was demonstrated in a 22-patient single-arm study.13 In contrast, in the United States, this device was designated class II (requiring 501[k] clearance and clinical data). To satisfy US criteria for clearance, the standard of safety and effectiveness required in this case was defined as the ability to reduce complications associated with stenting of saphenous vein grafts. To meet this criterion, an 800-patient multicenter trial randomized trial comparing distal protection to usual care (no protection) was performed. At 30 days, a 42% relative reduction in major adverse cardiac events (primarily myocardial infarction) was observed.14 A trial of this type is estimated to cost US$10 to $12 million and may take 24 months to perform.


* Conclusion


As this review highlights, the demonstration of safety and efficacy for a new medical device is a long, arduous, and expensive developmental path from early concept to introduction into clinical practice. Only by understanding this path and its complexity may we hope to make the most efficient use of this critical process and allow the timely introduction of important new devices into our therapeutic armamentarium. The above review outlines this process and highlights some of the differences in the clinical and regulatory environments in the United States and Europe. Understanding these differences, moreover, helps explain why much early device testing takes place outside of the United States, and why the introduction of new devices into clinical practice is usually significantly delayed in the United States when compared with Europe. Both phenomena are direct results of inherent differences in the criteria for approval and the process required to obtain approval. In particular, the European CE Mark process requires demonstration of safety only (and not efficacy) and relies heavily on non-governmental notified bodies to regulate the approval and post-approval process. In contrast, the approval of a new high-risk device in the United States requires demonstration of both safety and efficacy and is more highly regulated by a central governmental agency (CDRH/FDA). Even when the FDA has authorized early US clinical trials, clinical testing must pass significant additional hurdles at each clinical site in terms of IRB and contract approvals. This process has become significantly more arduous in the wake of recent misadventures in drug and gene therapy testing.

Taken together, these factors account for the 1- to 3-year delays in the introduction of new device technologies into general clinical practice within the United States as compared with Europe. Each system has strengths and weaknesses that must be evaluated within the context of different health delivery systems. Through better understanding of these systems, will we be able to recommend modifications and improvements toward improving speed and efficiency (shorter delay to US versus European testing and ultimate clinical approval), without compromising the basic demonstration of safety and efficacy that remains the US regulatory mandate.

Dr. Hirsch was commissioned by the DoE 4 years ago to do a comprehensive study on the time required to mitigate rising oil prices by e.g., coal to liquids, better fuel efficiency of the vehicles on the road and so on. His talk at the 2005 ASPO meeting in Lisbon was one of the best at that meeting.

So this guy is not a flake, he is one of the planet's few real experts on oil. On CNBC he said that he believed that in 3-5 years oil would reach $500 a barrel. This is in broad agreement with Jeffrey Brown's prediction at theoildrum.com that oil would about double in price every year. And Matt Simmons has recently given a roughly equivalent forecast.

Why will energy definitly be a problem in the next few years?

* We have accelerating declines in base production of oil. This means that we need more and more new oil every year just to keep production at the same level.
* We know how much oil is going to be available to the market over the next 7 - 10 years.

From the Mega Projects database (Volumes shown are in thousand barrels per day.)
Year 1000 BPD The bulge is now. We are probably never going to have as much new oil coming onto the market as we do this year.

It drops by almost ONE MILLION barrels next year, and the 2010 value is HALF that of 2008. Yes, there is a minor rally over the next two years, and then it's all downhill.

We WILL almost certainly see rationing by the end of 2010. Our only real hope of avoiding it is an industry-stopping recession. Gee, doesn't that sound like fun.

So, in the meantime...

* Get out of debt.
* Don't take on extra debt.
* Get used to eating from your own garden.
* Will your livlihood be at risk? Teaching? OK. Police? OK. Dairy farming? Maybe OK... Tourism? Uhmmm. Car sales? Uhmmm. Real Estate? Uhmmm.

2003 3172
2004 2747
2005 3776
2006 3855
2007 3314
2008 6912
2009 6146
2010 3770
2011 4563
2012 5111
2013 1237
2014 680
2015 672
2016 30
2017 162
2018 130
2019 50

Meanwhile, in another part of the galaxy, the Reserve Bank Of Scotland issues a global stock and credit crash alert. Are they right? Probably not. But they don't issue this sort of warning just for fun. There are major challenges facing our globalised economy that are going to be playing out over the next few years.

By 2050 we may all be riding hydrogen-powered motorbikes and holidaying on the moon. Or not. But between now and then we may just miss a few meals.

I hope your school is preparing your children for "Tomorrow's World."

ERHE
Public Reply | Private Reply | Keep | Last Read Replies (4) | Next 10 | Previous | Next
Posted by: midtieroil Date: Saturday, July 12, 2008 7:52:59 PM
In reply to: None Post # of 134707
Long time reader

And an ever longer term ERHE shareholder. For some unkown reason I decided I would start posting now. My small brain can only handle one topic at a time so I want to lay out my thoughts on the investigations. To quote Shakespeare these investigations seem to be MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING.

After years of investigation ERHE attorneys say they are "inactive". I believe them and think nothing will ever come of them. Whether these investigations started out from the STP AG, Big Oil or from Jefferson seems irrelevant at this point. None of these investigative bodies has the ability to rescind ERHE's rights in the JDZ so who cares? Some may worry about a fine but I don't. I have always found fines in these instances to be more about ability to pay than about anything else. If Exxon was going to be fined $50 million for some transgression, ERHE might be fined $5 million or less for the same wrongdoing. It might sting a little but they are not going to impose a fine that affects a company's ability to compete or could threaten to put them out of business.

The Homeland security investigation is a joke as most congressional inquiries are.

The SEC is normally satisfied as long as you correct the problems and they don't reoccur. ERHE obviously had some reporting shortcomings and, as an investor, I'm glad the SEC became involved and corrected those problems. With Offor gone and the reporting on track I see no further problems with the SEC.

The IRS "investigation" is just a routine audit because ERHE used an NOL carryover to offset the profit from the "sale" of their JDZ interest to obtain their carries. This is a routine audit and has nothing at all to do with the other investigations. Every company that uses NOLS to offset income WILL get audited. It's automatic and since ERHE has a large NOL carryover remaining there is nothing here to be concerned about.

As far as the DOJ audit goes, it's inactive and the fine, if not zero, will do nothing to damage ERHE's ability to compete.

So, like I said, this is MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING. That Shakespeare play was a comedy and those that think these investigations are going to go anywhere are comedians. They obvioulsy have an ulterior motive and want to bring it up over and over and over again. Unlike some others here, I would prefer to ignore them than continue to debate a dead issue. That is what they want you to do. This will be my final word on the investigations and I really hope everyone else will follow suit. Let them talk about it to themselves because I no longer care and neither should anyone else.

Thanks for that post honyaker.Its the best explanation I have seen of what can happen at the FDA.I have said long ago,"to hell with the FDA,lets get busy in Europe".But now I think CTGI management have said we will not get EU approval before FDA.Can anyone confirm this?Can anyone say why they would say this?Do the European regulators have a history of riding on the FDA coat tails?

Why Are Oil Prices Rising? “The Answer” Comes into Focus

Recent information and analysis has clarified the dimensions of the energy Tsunami - what is causing the price to rise and how future prices and supplies will behave. The distinguishing characteristic of the picture is complexity. People want simple answers which is why so few of them understand oil. The oil world is huge and its behavior is multifaceted. Understanding it takes more than a simple minded idea like “blame the speculators.”

The reality is that the oil market is undergoing a sort of “perfect storm” of many different factors, including:

1. A group of countries that together produce 13% of the world’s oil are mismanaged or infested with political violence causing them to produce far less oil than they could if they had a stable government and market economy. The underproduction could be as much as 5 to even 10 mb/d (million barrels a day).

2. Russian oil production is declining. That fact has dire implications for the amount of oil available to future export markets, as discussed in the link. When you combine declines in Russia with those of Mexico and the North Sea, the extent to which non-OPEC supply could decline in coming periods becomes significant.

3. Within OPEC it is uncertain as to whether Iran and Nigeria will increase or decrease their oil exports in future years. Saudi Arabia, Angola, and Libya are the only OPEC countries likely to increase oil production near term. Iraq is a potential bright spot starting in a few years at best.

4. Old oil fields produce less oil each year, which is called the decline rate and the amount by which they decline must be made up by production from new fields. Global decline is estimated to be about 3.5 - 4 mb/d per year, a much greater number than additional oil demand that is estimated to range from 1 - 2 mb/d per year.

Decline rates for existing fields have been rising and will probably continue to rise as more extreme methods of recovery are applied to old wells. The geological rule is that as efforts to increase the output of a field by extraordinary pressurization and drilling efforts becomes greater, the field will decline much more rapidly once the decline starts. For that reason, there is a risk that the largest Saudi fields - and others such as Russian fields - may decline more rapidly than currently is projected and such increased declines could start to happen fairly soon.

An additional important fact regarding decline is that newer fields tend to be offshore and offshore fields exhibit much higher decline rates than land based fields. Offshore fields often decline by 8% - 15% per year compared with 5% - 8% for land fields.

5. Megaproject analysis indicates oil supplies coming from new oil fields will substantially drop after 2010 and will drop even more steeply after 2013. Some projects scheduled for the next few years could face substantial delays. If so, some of the projects now projected to start up in 2008 - 20010 will be delayed into the 2011 - 2015 time frame. That will add to price pressures in the near term. The megaprojects work is the most tangible evidence of a coming oil supply crisis.

6. New oil fields are located in increasingly difficult environments such as deep offshore or difficult fields like Kashagan. Costs of oil recovery in these fields are much higher. Higher costs are partly due to the fact that it takes more energy to recover the oil from these fields, so the Energy Return on Investment is declining.

This means the amount of net oil recovered after oil expended in the process of recovery is lower in these new, more expensive fields. If you project this trend into the future, at some point there would be no net gain at all from the process of extracting oil from new fields. At that point, which is well out into the future, there could be no more oil available at all.

7. In addition to the real historical phenomena discussed above, oil prices reflect to some degree whatever fears there may be that future political events may reduce oil supplies. The most important risk today is clearly the possibility that military action will be undertaken to keep Iran from having nuclear weapons. There are clearly no good choices for the West. An Iranian bomb would be a very clear and present danger to the security of the developed world but a military attack would clearly bring immediate instability and the risk of even greater future conflicts.

8. At the same time that all the above factors are influencing oil prices, higher oil prices are moderating demand somewhat, particularly in OECD countries. But while demand is declining in developed countries it is continuing to increase from developing countries, particularly in oil-exporting countries where fuel prices are subsidized and therefore market mechanisms do not impact consumer oil demand. The enormous - almost unimaginable - new wealth of oil exporting countries is being used by many of them to develop new industrial bases, which growth adds to their enhanced consumer demand to yield huge increases in their own use of their oil and thus decreases in their ability to export it.

It is not clear that the reduction in subsidies in developing countries that do not export oil such as China will reduce demand. In fact it could have the perverse impact of increasing usage in developing countries if higher prices cause an increase in the supply of fuel available to their consumers.

9. One way to sum up the outlook for the oil supply available to importing countries is to look at all the countries which produce more than one million barrels per day and which together supply 88.4% of world oil. An analysis of these countries that accounts for the projected internal use of their own oil production projects that their exports (which is not the same thing as production) are likely to decline going forward from today. If true, that would account for an increasing price of oil.

I’m sorry this discussion was so long. Unfortunately, there are simply a great many influences on the price of oil. It is quite wonderful that all this complexity gets boiled down into a single price that changes minute-to-minute. Oh well, blame the speculator.

Meanwhile, if all this is just too much, you might enjoy a more general perspective and one better expressed by Peter Lynch that I recently came across. Happy Independence weekend, and may we some day become independent from oil.

On the other hand ,and as a final note on investing in the energy Tsunami, the S.E.C. is currently revising its rules for reporting by oil and gas companies. The revision will allow them to count oil sands as reserves which could unleash a massive oil sands acquisition program by the oil majors. Best to own these stocks before Exxon starts writing checks.

Oh, and India is another rumored buyer of oil sands properties, but because they need the oil, as discussed below.

Thanks.I use crap cleaner and Iobit windows care daily.
Had a bit of bother with Iobit.I downloaded their Beta windows care.It was slow as molasses and also a smart ram thingy appeared which I dont recall asking for.Also the text size/type displayed on my screen was altered.I uninstalled the Beta and went back to the current windows care but the smart ram thingy stayed put.I could find no way to uninstall it.I searched files and folders for it and got nothing.I used another program to stop it starting but I think it is still lurking.

Thanks,that worked.I am still able to define what I want to copy so just have to remember ctrl C and ctrl V.
Just for laughs,this is what I sent to a friend
A guy fell asleep on the beach for several hours and got horrible sunburn, specifically to his upper legs. He goes to the hospital, and was promptly admitted after being diagnosed with second-degree burns. With his skin already starting to blister, and the severe pain he was in, the doctor prescribed continuous intravenous feeding with saline, electrolytes, a sedative, and a Viagra pill every four hours.

The nurse, who was rather astounded, asked, 'What good will Viagra do for him, doctor'?

The doctor replied, 'It won't do anything for his condition, but it'll keep the sheets off his burned legs.'

Thanks but it didnt work.Rebooted the puter but no difference.

Yahoo email.
Looks like I can no longer copy and paste into Yahoo email.Not sure when I lost this function.Anyone have any ideas apart from system restore?

My alternative to Firefox is K-Meleon. Like the Firefox this browser
is based in the Gecko engine. Support the most recent standards and is
very lite and fast.

K-Meleon use the minim RAM memory (20 MB with 5 layers) and can be
running in W98 without problems.

Cosmetic surgery booming in UK
Jun 16, 2008 12:31 PM

Britons might be feeling the pinch of the global credit crunch, but they're still ready to pay thousands of pounds for cosmetic surgery, a report suggested.

Britain's largest cosmetic surgery provider the Harley Medical Group said demand for procedures had grown by 35% over the past 10 months.

Abdomnoplasty or "tummy tuck" operations, a procedure costing nearly 5,000 pounds ($NZ12,992), were up 59%, while breast augmentation surgery swelled 40%, it said.

Demand was high from the city of London to Leeds and Cheshire, a region popular with footballers and their wives.

The group said it carried out more than 300 tummy tuck operations in the last 10 months, compared with 160 operations in the previous 10-month period.

"It's interesting to see what people cut back on during a credit crunch," said Harley Medical Group's Liz Dale.

"Research among our patients has shown that despite cutting back across all other areas ... people aren't cutting back on money they spend on themselves.

"For many who are undertaking an abdomnoplasty this is something they've planned for years. For this reason, they're unlikely to want to now put this off and instead they consider their procedure to be an investment."

POGI up 50%.Whats up with that?

Abandon ship!380k volume today going down.

hy a hydrogen economy doesn't make sense
Lead [-]

avatar

Posts: 7248

(12/12/06 09:38:06)

Board Moderator

* Reply
* Quote
*
More
o My Recent Posts
o Message Me
o Connection
o Blocking
o Invite
o Ignore User's Posts



Tags : None
Why a hydrogen economy doesn't make sense
www.physorg.com/news85074285.html





This chart compares the useful transport energy requirements for a vehicle powered from a hydrogen process (left) vs. electricity (right). Image Credit: Ulf Bossel.
In a recent study, fuel cell expert Ulf Bossel explains that a hydrogen economy is a wasteful economy. The large amount of energy required to isolate hydrogen from natural compounds (water, natural gas, biomass), package the light gas by compression or liquefaction, transfer the energy carrier to the user, plus the energy lost when it is converted to useful electricity with fuel cells, leaves around 25% for practical use an unacceptable value to run an economy in a sustainable future. Only niche applications like submarines and spacecraft might use hydrogen.


More energy is needed to isolate hydrogen from natural compounds than can ever be recovered from its use, Bossel explains to PhysOrg.com. Therefore, making the new chemical energy carrier form natural gas would not make sense, as it would increase the gas consumption and the emission of CO2. Instead, the dwindling fossil fuel reserves must be replaced by energy from renewable sources.

While scientists from around the world have been piecing together the technology, Bossel has taken a broader look at how realistic the use of hydrogen for carrying energy would be. His overall energy analysis of a hydrogen economy demonstrates that high energy losses inevitably resulting from the laws of physics mean that a hydrogen economy will never make sense.

The advantages of hydrogen praised by journalists (non-toxic, burns to water, abundance of hydrogen in the Universe, etc.) are misleading, because the production of hydrogen depends on the availability of energy and water, both of which are increasingly rare and may become political issues, as much as oil and natural gas are today, says Bossel.

There is a lot of money in the field now, he continues. I think that it was a mistake to start with a Presidential Initiative rather with a thorough analysis like this one. Huge sums of money were committed too soon, and now even good scientists prostitute themselves to obtain research money for their students or laboratoriesotherwise, they risk being fired. But the laws of physics are eternal and cannot be changed with additional research, venture capital or majority votes.

Even though many scientists, including Bossel, predict that the technology to establish a hydrogen economy is within reach, its implementation will never make economic sense, Bossel argues.

In the market place, hydrogen would have to compete with its own source of energy, i.e. with ("green") electricity from the grid, he says. For this reason, creating a new energy carrier is a no-win solution. We have to solve an energy problem not an energy carrier problem."

A wasteful process

In his study, Bossel analyzes a variety of methods for synthesizing, storing and delivering hydrogen, since no single method has yet proven superior. To start, hydrogen is not naturally occurring, but must be synthesized.

Ultimately, hydrogen has to be made from renewable electricity by electrolysis of water in the beginning, Bossel explains, and then its energy content is converted back to electricity with fuel cells when its recombined with oxygen to water. Separating hydrogen from water by electrolysis requires massive amounts of electrical energy and substantial amounts of water.

Also, hydrogen is not a source of energy, but only a carrier of energy. As a carrier, it plays a role similar to that of water in a hydraulic heating system or electrons in a copper wire. When delivering hydrogen, whether by truck or pipeline, the energy costs are several times that for established energy carriers like natural gas or gasoline. Even the most efficient fuel cells cannot recover these losses, Bossel found. For comparison, the "wind-to-wheel" efficiency is at least three times greater for electric cars than for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.

Another headache is storage. When storing liquid hydrogen, some gas must be allowed to evaporate for safety reasonsmeaning that after two weeks, a car would lose half of its fuel, even when not being driven. Also, Bossel found that the output-input efficiency cannot be much above 30%, while advanced batteries have a cycle efficiency of above 80%. In every situation, Bossel found, the energy input outweighs the energy delivered by a factor of three to four.





power plants have to be erected to deliver the output of one plant to stationary or mobile consumers via hydrogen and fuel cells, he writes. Three of these plants generate energy to cover the parasitic losses of the hydrogen economy while only one of them is producing useful energy.

This fact, he shows, cannot be changed with improvements in technology. Rather, the one-quarter efficiency is based on necessary processes of a hydrogen economy and the properties of hydrogen itself, e.g. its low density and extremely low boiling point, which increase the energy cost of compression or liquefaction and the investment costs of storage.

The alternative: An electron economy

Economically, the wasteful hydrogen process translates to electricity from hydrogen and fuel cells costing at least four times as much as electricity from the grid. In fact, electricity would be much more efficiently used if it were sent directly to the appliances instead. If the original electricity could be directly supplied by wires, as much as 90% could be used in applications.

The two key issues of a secure and sustainable energy future are harvesting energy from renewable sources and finding the highest energy efficiency from source to service, he says. Among these possibilities, biomethane [which is already being used to fuel cars in some areas] is an important, but only limited part of the energy equation. Electricity from renewable sources will play the dominant role.

To Bossel, this means focusing on the establishment of an efficient electron economy. In an electron economy, most energy would be distributed with highest efficiency by electricity and the shortest route in an existing infrastructure could be taken. The efficiency of an electron economy is not affected by any wasteful conversions from physical to chemical and from chemical to physical energy. In contrast, a hydrogen economy is based on two such conversions (electrolysis and fuel cells or hydrogen engines).

An electron economy can offer the shortest, most efficient and most economical way of transporting the sustainable green energy to the consumer, he says. With the exception of biomass and some solar or geothermal heat, wind, water, solar, geothermal, heat from waste incineration, etc. become available as electricity. Electricity could provide power for cars, comfortable temperature in buildings, heat, light, communication, etc.

In a sustainable energy future, electricity will become the prime energy carrier. We now have to focus our research on electricity storage, electric cars and the modernization of the existing electricity infrastructure.

Citation: Bossel, Ulf. Does a Hydrogen Economy Make Sense? Proceedings of the IEEE. Vol. 94, No. 10, October 2006.

By Lisa Zyga, Copyright 2006 Physorg.com
Our pending energy supply contraction= no economic growth= no debt service= chaos.

status offlineThinker102 Re: Why a hydrogen economy doesn't make sense #1 [-]

avatar

Posts: 508

(12/13/06 03:47:57)

* Reply
* Quote
*
More
o My Recent Posts
o Message Me
o Connection
o Blocking
o Invite
o Ignore User's Posts


Converting to a viable `Hydrogen economy' is not feasible with *present* technology, true.

However, this does not mean that there might not be some efficient way of producing a lot of hydrgen quickly and cheaply. Wild thought - possibly the hydrogen could be produced *biologically*, using some sort of engineered bug? Think there is a (fictional) book out there suggesting such.

I seem to recollect reading a while back that there were a plan once upon a time to plate the washington monument with Alunimum - because that metal was considered rare and difficult to make - until a new process was developed.

status offlinesczech Re: produce methane instead of hydrogen #2 [-]

avatar

Posts: 591

(12/13/06 09:18:19)

* Reply
* Quote
*
More
o My Recent Posts
o Message Me
o Connection
o Blocking
o Invite
o Ignore User's Posts


The main problem with hydrogen is that we do not really know how to store it. BMW showed a new hydrogen car in Germany a few weeks ago. The car comes with the warning that the hydrogen in the tank will evaporate within a few days if the car is not being driven. In other words, leakage losses with hydrogen are intolerable - much worse than with gasoline fumes. We simply did not learn yet to store and transport hydrogen efficiently. Much more research needs to be done before a large scale conversion to the hydrogen economy is feasable.

However, instead of hydrogen, we should seriously contemplate the methane (CH4) economy. We already have a long experience in storing and transporting methane. As long we continue to burn fossil fuels, we need to solve the problem with the excess carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere. One solution is to catch the CO2 and combine it with hydrogen to make methane. It is a variation of the hydrogen economy idea, however, the technology for the methane economy does already exist while the hydrogen technology is presently only a dream. To convert carbon dioxide into methane requires lots of energy - energy which could be obtained from wind and direct solar electricity.

The main problem with any renewable energy production is the problem of energy storage. We still do not know how to store large amounts of electricity in an efficient way. Storing renewable electricity in form of methane could help solving the energy problem as well as the global warming problem.




Right on and just burn the methane in the vehicle directly. Why convert it to straight hydrogen? All this hydrogen hype and it doesnt make much sense.
Our pending energy supply contraction= no economic growth= no debt service= chaos.

Iraq could have largest oil reserves in the world
by Sonia Verma in Sharm el-Sheikh

Iraq dramatically increased the official size of its oil reserves yesterday after new data suggested that they could exceed Saudi Arabia’s and be the largest in the world.

The Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister told The Times that new exploration showed that his country has the world’s largest proven oil reserves, with as much as 350 billion barrels. The figure is triple the country’s present proven reserves and exceeds that of Saudi Arabia’s estimated 264 billion barrels of oil. Barham Salih said that the new estimate had been based on recent geological surveys and seismic data compiled by “reputable, international oil companies . . . This is a serious figure from credible sources.”

The Iraqi Government has yet to approve a national oil law that would allow foreign companies to invest. Mr Salih said that the delay was damaging Iraq’s ability to profit from oil output, robbing the country of potentially huge revenues. With oil selling for more than $125 dollars a barrel and demand rising, Mr Salih is frustrated that Iraq still struggles over the establishment of a regulatory framework. “There is a real debate in the Government and among political leaders about the type of oil management structures we should have. I am for liberalising this sector and allowing the private sector to come in to develop these vast resources.”

BP, Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Royal Dutch Shell and Total have been queuing for rights to exploit Iraqi reserves. Mr Salih confirmed that Iraq was negotiating the outlines of two-year deals with some of the companies. He was optimistic that a draft law could be approved in the near future.

“We need to recognise after so many decades of mismanagement of the oil industry that we need to call a spade a spade,” he told a group of delegates at the World Economic Forum in Sharm el-Sheikh. “We can regulate it, but we need private investment to develop Iraq’s production capacities.” He said that Iraq was pumping 2.5 million barrels of oil a day at present, earning about $70 billion (£35.9 billion) in revenue this year.

The price of oil bounced back to record highs yesterday when OPEC refused to increase supplies following Saudi Arabia's promise to the US that it would provide an extra 300,000 barrels a day. In New York, the price of light, sweet crude for June delivery rose from $125.92 to US$126.35. In London, Brent crude for July delivery was up 82 cents at $125.81 per barrel.

New, Lower Estimate of Bakken Recoverables


ND Study: 167 Billion Barrels of Oil in Bakken

From Rigzone.com
AFX News Limited Monday, April 28, 2008

The Bakken shale formation in North Dakota holds up to 167 billion barrels of oil but only about 1 percent of it can be recovered using current technology, a new study says. The study released Monday said current technology could lead to the recovery of about 2.1 billion barrels in North Dakota’s portion of the formation, where oil-producing rock is sandwiched between layers of shale about 10,000 feet under

New, Lower Estimate of Bakken Recoverables


ND Study: 167 Billion Barrels of Oil in Bakken

From Rigzone.com
AFX News Limited Monday, April 28, 2008

The Bakken shale formation in North Dakota holds up to 167 billion barrels of oil but only about 1 percent of it can be recovered using current technology, a new study says. The study released Monday said current technology could lead to the recovery of about 2.1 billion barrels in North Dakota’s portion of the formation, where oil-producing rock is sandwiched between layers of shale about 10,000 feet under



Bakken Shale
(Click to Enlarge)

the ground. The estimate of recoverable oil included in the study by the state Department of Mineral Resources was similar to that of a federal study released earlier this month.
“The future potential is enormous — it means we will be able to exploit this for the rest of the century,” said Lynn Helms, the department’s director, at the annual state oil conference Monday.
Ron Ness, president of the North Dakota Petroleum Council, cautioned against over-hyping the Bakken play.
“This study gives a number that by no means guarantees those are the amount of barrels we can count on,” Ness said.
The U.S. had some 20.9 billion barrels of proven oil reserves in 2006, the most recent year available, said John Wood, director of reserves and production for the U.S. Department of Energy’s information administration.
North Dakota contributed 422 million barrels of proven oil reserves to that number two years ago, before the Bakken estimates were released, he said.
The Bakken shale formation encompasses some 25,000 square miles in North Dakota, Montana, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. About two-thirds of the acreage is in western North Dakota.
To capture oil from the portion of the Bakken in North Dakota, companies drill wells that plunge vertically to about 10,000 feet and then “kick out” for as many feet horizontally. Pressurized fluid and sand are then forced into the horizontal wells to break oil-containing pores in the sandstone and siltstone.
Ness said it costs more than $5 million to drill a Bakken well, and dozens are currently producing.
The state study’s findings are similar to those of a separate federal study released on April 10.
The U.S. Geological Survey estimated that up to 4.3 billion barrels of oil could be recovered from the Bakken shale formation in North Dakota and Montana combined, using current technology.
The federal report found up to 2.6 billion barrels could be recovered in North Dakota, compared with the state’s estimate of 2.1 billion barrels, said Ed Murphy, the state geologist and director of the state Geological Survey.
“We were quite surprised the numbers were so close,” he said.
Helms said the federal study focused on the performance of wells currently working in the Bakken, while the state “went back and looked at the rock.”
The most recent federal study does not estimate how much oil may be in the formation — only what the agency believes can be recovered using current technology.

ERHE

You keep asking me what I think the price of this stock will be down the road, given many barrels of oil.

I've been shying away from answering you on this board because I know that this post might "disappear" lol. However, my thoughts have been expressed quietly here and more discussed on Ghosts.

But since you are persistent here goes:

Given my tendency to try to balance both negatives and positives, I tend to focus on the negatives, because this board more than compensates for the positives. I do see more risks in this stock than I think people will give credit. I will start with the negatives and end with the positives.

1) While the alphabet soup gang's investigation will soon reach the statute of limitations and be gone, the IRS investigation's statute of limitations is 10 years. That is a new investigation and adds more issues. The good news is that the IRS issue is not a big deal, but nevertheless, as long as this "dark cloud" of investigations is around, the charters and policies of mutual funds and major institutions will prevent purchase of this stock regardless of the oil found, imo. I'm sorry but that is the nature of the big Fidelity funds, etc.

2) You say that the charges will be minor, but when I searched a company that does business and has the three criteria such as being in Nigeria, Oil-related and charged with FCPA charges for a precedent, I found Baker Hughs. Baker Hughs paid a fine of $44 million. This is no small charge.

http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/company/cnn72264.htm

After a fine like this is paid, the company will desperately need to "dilute" shares in order to get cash. Since the cash spent is was used to pay a fine, and it wasn't used for growth/PEG ratio analysis, one wonders how the shareprice will react.

3) Many here don't know about a little known aspect of the FCPA. I tried posting it here. Here I go again.

The FCPA also has an "Alternative Fines Act". This act stipulates that the U.S. government is entitled to "double the benefit" of any bribe. If it turns out that the government can prove that Erhc's rights were garnered as a result of a bribe, then the government can get DOUBLE the value of those rights, i.e. not only take the rights away but also ask for more. With such a huge incentive, will the government back down?

"Under the Alternative Fines Act, the actual fine may be up to twice the benefit that the defendant sought to obtain by making the corrupt payment."

http://www.fcpaenforcement.com/explained/explained.asp


4) Ledbetter has one million options that expire in December. The positive might be that he has a lot of stake in the game and that the company doesn't have to spend its precious cash. But these are not stocks they are options, which means they expire, so it is in his interest to "spin" a lot before December. For a lawyer who is supposed to be unbiased, I find it a little surprising that he would be compensated in options.

5) Then there's the issue of SEO's relative/friend who was a CFO claiming to be a CPA and wasn't, this was 3 years ago and is old news, however remember that the IRS is allowed to investigate 3 years into the past. As someone pointed out here, the IRS will not have much of a case here because there's no income and so how could there be a tax no payment issue? So I honestly don't know what to make of this. Maybe they fudged the interest income on the bank returns on their cash? I just don't know.

6) Then there's the steep Nigerian/Sao Tomean taxes. I tried fiddling around with the formula to determine just how much of Erhc's royalties would be taxed. After much fiddling I'm coming up with 60% or more, which therefore halves any estimate you or the board may come up with based on barrels of oil.

Furthermore, it would appear according to the tax formula that Sinopec or any oil company drilling on Erhc's rights would make money only if they drill less than 20,000 barrels a day, when no tax royalties are paid. That makes sense from a Nigerian/Sao Tome point of view because limiting the drilling preserves the reserves for many more years. But then, I am not an expert, and freely admit it, so I don't if I'm doing the wrong calculations.

7) Burn rate is on the order of $1.2 million per quarter. For such a small company, I think that is pretty heavy. Since there's no income there are only 2 ways to value the company:

a) Pretend the company is an "option" on finding oil. This option increases in value the higher the liklihood.

b) Value the company as a multiple of cash available.

If the company is valued on (b) then we want to keep the burn rate down as much as possible. But all this may be moot anyway see point 2.

8) The whole AIM thing and the potential for an R/S. You know that I've studied R/S since the WG days and what a kiss of death it is to penny stocks. I hope there is no R/S.

9) Of course, there has to be oil in the first place.


So yes, a lot of potential negatives. So why am I investing in this stock?

Well first,

I haven't gone in heavy. I bought 30,000 shares just to keep my interest in the stock. I could obviously buy much much more.

I like a good "penny stock" opportunity, and there aren't many out there that have this much interest, this many smart people, and this much potential. If oil is found, money can solve a lot of problems, I guess. Ever since WG, I've enjoyed the entertainment value of good penny stock message boards, and the entertainment value of seeing my stock really move. So I look at this right now as just an expensive trip to Vegas, lol.

Many of my WG/Starnet friends are in this stock and they tend to pick winners as a group anyway.

I like the good communication between management and shareholders, although I'm not to crazy about Oily's cryptic b.s.

There's excitment in the stock, I can feel it. Just the fact that the stock has tripled over recent weeks says something too.

A lot of my concerns have been vetted out on Ghosts and now I am feeling a little bit better about Erhc's prospects.

I've already made some money on this stock so why not let it ride?

Krombacher

1best,I saw a news item that said al Quida intends to cause some serious trouble in Nigeria.Nigeria has a large muslim population.

Yes.I think the fix is not to concentrate on the crooks but fire the bureaucrats who are supposed to go after them.Make it plain to their replacements that they have to perform and deliver.

OT.Of interest to those interested in short situations.
Wonders when SEC will Enforce Regulation SHO

SALT LAKE CITY, May 8 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Overstock.com, Inc.
(Nasdaq: OSTK) announces that yesterday marked the 800th trading day that
the company has appeared on the Regulation SHO threshold list (see
http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/aspx/regsho.aspx).

Regulation SHO requires the U.S. stock exchanges to publish daily a
list of companies whose stock had failures-to-deliver above a certain
threshold. It also requires mandatory close-outs for open
failures-to-deliver in threshold securities persisting for more than 13
days, with the aim that no security would appear on the threshold for any
extended period. In fact, when it passed Regulation SHO, the Securities and
Exchange Commission countered criticisms that the regulation had no teeth
by claiming that companies would not remain on the list for more than 13
days.

Overstock.com chairman and chief executive officer Patrick Byrne
commented, "While this may seem paradoxical, the facts can be reconciled.
One need only understand that our capital markets have been hijacked: our
settlement system no longer settles, our New York financial media no longer
investigates, and our regulators no longer regulate. For further
explanation, see the fine example of investigative journalism that appeared
this week on DeepCapture.com."

SEC Chairman Christopher Cox noted at a March 4, 2008 open hearing that
when companies are "chronically listed on Reg SHO's Threshold Security List
for months and years at a time [there] is ample evidence that there is also
fraud in the market that needs to be arrested." Chairman Cox continued,
"Abusive naked short selling saps the confidence of investors and issuers
who depend upon our markets to value securities in a fair, efficient, and
orderly way."

Despite Regulation SHO's requirement that a clearing broker-dealer must
close-out failures-to-deliver in a threshold security that have persisted
for 13 consecutive days and despite Chairman Cox's observations,
Overstock.com has now been on the Regulation SHO threshold list for 800
trading days. "Will the SEC ever enforce the close-out provisions of
Regulation SHO or prosecute what Chairman Cox has called 'market
manipulation that is clearly violative of the federal securities laws'?"
asks Overstock.com chairman and chief executive officer Patrick Byrne.
"After Overstock.com's more than three-year run on the Regulation SHO
threshold list, I have my doubts. Yesterday's milestone gives new meaning
to our customer service number: 1-800-THE BIG O."

"Eight hundred trading days is an unacceptably long time for any
company to be on the Regulation SHO threshold list," said Jonathan Johnson,
Overstock.com's senior vice president legal. "The SEC could easily remedy
the situation by acting on its proposed rule to eliminate the options
market maker exception and by requiring short-sellers to locate and borrow
shares before selling them - rather than merely have a belief that they
will be able to locate them at some point in the future. Overstock.com has
been on the Regulation SHO threshold list nearly the entire time the list
has been in existence. Clearly, merely publishing the threshold list,
without active and meaningful enforcement, is not an effective deterrent
against manipulative naked short selling."

Many companies, besides Overstock.com, continue to appear on the
Regulation SHO threshold list for extended periods of time and, despite
constant criticism from Members of Congress, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
public companies, informed market experts and legions of investors, the SEC
has been slow to adopt meaningful Regulation SHO reform.

Overstock.com renews its calls for the SEC to eliminate quickly
Regulation SHO's options market maker exception, to require short-sellers
to locate and borrow shares before selling them, and to require the full
and prompt disclosure of the aggregate failures-to-deliver for every
company listed on the Regulation SHO threshold list. In addition,
Overstock.com calls for the SEC to enforce the close-out requirements of
Regulation SHO so that no failure-to-deliver ever persists for more than 13
days.

Harry Newton writes
Don't mess with it. There's an old rule in the computer industry: If it works, don't mess with it. Microsoft has just released something called SP3 (Service Pack 3) for Windows XP. Microsoft recommends you install SP3 because it provides more protection and 1,174 patches and hotfixes. I didn't make that number up. I have not installed it. But reading ComputerWorld makes me fearful. There are potential problems -- from your computer may simply not work after you've installed SP3 to a host of incompatible driver problems. If your XP is working fine -- and mine are (I have several machines with XP on it them) -- don't tempt fate by installing SP3.

Most importantly, turn off the software that's called "Automatic Updates." You don't want Microsoft messing up your machine while you're at lunch. What blew me away: the XP SP3 stand-alone installer weighs in at an incredible 316 megabytes. That's a lot of code. To me, that looks like a brand-new replacement operating system. That's not a gamble I want to make. For more, read ComputerWorld.

Harry Newton writes
8:30 AM EST Thursday, May 8, 2008: I'm on a list. Random brokers call me randomly with hot tips. They have great pitches. "We're making a move on..." They're always so solicitous. "How are you Mr. Newton today?" In the old days, I'd hang up on them. These days, I listen. I squeeze their hottest tips out of them, and put them in my little spreadsheet. I follow their "progress."

And the results of my "research?" ... Drumroll. Not one tip of the past six months has gone up. Yup. I would have lost money on every hot tip.

I've also applied the same research to my friends' hot tips. Guess what? Their hot tips do even worse. Some of my friends have The Reverse Midas Touch in spades. Everything they touch (and recommend to me) turns instantly into shit.

Thanks for that.Seems to me,as time goes by,zone alarm is telling me more of these security programs are seeking "extra " internet access.I suspect they are reporting back on my activities.(I reckon the buggers should find their own porn sites.)Can you comment on how "invasive" Avira is?

Thanks cintrix.Seems I didnt dig deep enough to find the free version.Man,it is getting fat.Took 15min to download and another 15 to install.Win patrol is warning me of half a dozen things that are going to run automatically at startup.

I will be looking forward to your report.

Yes that could be.Looks like the only way for me to close their popup is to click the "upgrade later".

Yesterday, my favorite oil guru, Jim Kingsale, who writes Energy Investment Strategies, posted a big important piece. Excerpts:

Oil’s Surprise Party: Who Was There

The game plan was that the Fed was done and the economy seemed suddenly not so weak so the dollar would continue to strengthen. Plus the Saudi’s are bringing on their last big new fields this year and next. Plus oil demand growth is slowing all over except among the oil exporting countries. Plus oil tried to bust $120 for a while and failed after a long and strong rise. So clearly the fundamentals and the technicals are aligned to say that oil is headed for a correction. Right?

And right on schedule oil headed down for a test of $110, which held. It seemed like everyone was following the script, but then things went kaplooey. What’s happened? Well, there are a number of suspects who might resolve this mystery.

1. The dollar stopped getting stronger. That might be partly because a number of analysts over the weekend explained that last weeks’ miraculous Q1 GDP number up .6% annualized was, like a lot of miracles, a bit questionable. It depended importantly on the assumed inflation rate on which the government might have been a tad optimistic, thus reporting stronger GDP than may actually be the case. Furthermore, last week’s report of only a small loss of jobs last month - 20,000 - was also a function of an assumption, this time something called the birth/death number that relates to smaller businesses. Their birth/death assumption turns out to be highly questionable and it resulted in a jobs report that may have been vastly off base. So, bottom line, the economy may be a lot weaker than the reports had caused the stock and futures markets to assume it was. Today, those markets corrected taking the dollar down and gold and oil up.

2. Things are getting worse in Nigeria, aggravating recent oil supply problems caused by the British strike and previous Nigerian supply disruptions. I cannot accurately describe what is happening in Nigeria. I’m not sure many people really know. A comprehensive report on the Nigerian oil situation in April’s Petroleum Review titled, “Risky Business” is the stuff of movie scripts - think Casablanca. It seems the authorities are involved in the crimes. The report says that when a kidnapping occurs, a fairly regular event,

“It tends to be the norm that SSS - the state security service responsible for intelligence within the country - already knows who the perpetrators are and in what circumstances the hostages are being held.”

Moreover, MEND, the militarily sophisticated rebel group that is supposedly seeking social justice, has become more efficient. They have warned that during their attacks on the oil infrastructure, if any security guard returns their fire he will be killed. The result is that the guards flee when MEND arrives. There is little or no effective security for the oil infrastructure now. MEND (which may be short for “mendacious”) recently vowed to shut down the entire oil export business. I doubt that would happen because MEND needs the oil companies to be producing oil so that MEND can steal it. Still, Nigeria used to supply 2.3 million b/d and now they are down a lot. I’m not sure how much, but the direction seems to be south.

3. It is starting to appear that the Saudi’s are saving whatever spare capacity they may have in case there is a true global emergency. Thus, they seem not to have additional spare capacity to simply make up for ordinary supply disruptions such as Nigeria and Bournemouth. Perhaps when KSA brings on its new fields sometime later this year and next they will be more capable of bringing discipline to the oil markets, but at this point they seem to have lost any pricing power on the upside.

4. It is also starting to seem that the Bushies are increasingly serious about reducing the Iranian military involvement in Iraq. They frequently refer to a “price that must be paid” by the Iranians for interference. Clearly they are now pushing to put out new carrots. But it feels like they know the carrots will be rejected and they just want to get the gesture out of the way to clear the field for other actions. What sort? I would guess there could be limited strategic bombings of munitions factories and like targets.

A military strike against Iran could well bring chaos to the oil markets. No doubt that would bring on whatever reserves KSA has, plus there would likely be releases from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in the U.S. and other countries. Still, the possibility of a Bush military strike against Iran is a growing threat to anyone short of oil.

5. Which brings me to a major participant in the surprise oil rally: short covering. It appears that all the reasons advanced above for oil to fall had attracted a significant number of shorts to the oil market. Apparently, there was a mass exodus of the shorts from the oil market Friday and today, as oil topped $120.

We are living in interesting times.