holy cow, this stuff below must be useless then, it "looks" nasty, and has high viscosity!!!!.......it even stinks, and can be a carcinogen.....

(pity the fool paying $100 / bbl for this tar-like substance, just LOOK at it, yuck!!!!)

A sample of medium heavy crude oil

The nitrogen purge occurs BEFORE the premelt

care to explain that in more detail????

oxygen correcting, just correctin'

https://www.epa.ie/whatwedo/advice/envmon/guidanceinrelationtoqualityofairemissionsdata/correctionofconcentrationandvolumetricflows/

Moisture and Oxygen Correction:

Emissions of stack gases are usually expressed on a dry gas basis so that variations in the moisture content of the stack gas do not affect the assessment of the emissions.

Similarly oxygen corrections may be applied to reference periodic emissions monitoring data to a constant oxygen reference value:

Note that if the licence conditions also require moisture correction as well as oxygen correction, then the measured oxygen value should itself be corrected to a ‘dry’ value where the oxygen monitoring technique employed to measure oxygen measures on a ‘wet’ basis.

N.B. The above two equations relate to correction of concentration values, for correction volumetric flow data the reciprocal equations should be employed.

seems a bit unusual to include "oxygen" in an emissions report.....why not the majority gas N2 (nitrogen) as well if they are going to list the gases "just passing through, but not created" from the intake air????

In September 2010, CRA completed the stack tests analyzing the emissions from the P20 process. The profile of the emissions generated by the process is shown here:

so, they did or did not burn the "off-gas" now???.....if they do, a strange definition of "closed loop"

The furnace emissions aren't from within the closed-loop system

magical, mystery oxygen:

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=67795434

Jury Finds Samsung Violated Apple Patents

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444358404577609810658082898.html?ru=yahoo&mod=yahoo_hs

By JESSICA E. VASCELLARO

SAN JOSE, Calif.—A federal court jury delivered a big win to Apple Inc., AAPL +0.09% finding that Samsung Electronics Co. 005930.SE -0.93% infringed six of the Silicon Valley company's patents following a closely-watched trial.

The nine-person jury found that several Samsung phones and tablets infringed on Apple patents relating to touch-screen features, such as multi-touch gestures and zooming. The jury also found Samsung devices infringed on Apple design patents, such as the look of its iPhone icons.

The jury upheld the validity of all seven patents that Apple had presented in the high-stakes case and found that Samsung willfully infringed five of the seven patents.

The verdict, which includes patent claims by Samsung against Apple, was still being read in court. The jury reached its verdict after about 22 hours of deliberation spanning three days—a quick decision for such a complex case.

Streaming


The verdict ends a nearly month-long trial that pitted two of the world's largest and most recognizable companies—and their high-priced legal teams. While the ruling won't affect any of the companies' latest products, it could shape how smartphones and tablets are designed and the fortunes of companies that make them.

During the trial, Apple and Samsung considered much of the evidence so sensitive that their lawyers fought fiercely to exclude them from the case, arguing they would divulge corporate secrets or weren't relevant.

The two women and seven men sorted through 28 different Samsung devices that Apple alleges Samsung infringed as many as seven patents and two other related claims, which cover innovations ranging range from the look of on-screen icons to the detection of finger gestures on the touch-screen. Samsung has countered by accusing the iPhone, iPad and iPod Touch of infringing as many as five patents, two of which are related to how the iPhone and iPad send data.

Jury Verdict Form

View Interactive

Jury Instructions

View Interactive

More photos and interactive graphics
Apple, which sued Samsung last year, is leaning heavily on the South Korean technology firm's internal strategy documents to prove Samsung deliberately copied the iPhone. "Samsung was the iPhone's biggest fan," said Harold McElhinny, Apple's lead trial lawyer, during closing arguments on Tuesday. "They tried to compete with it, and when they couldn't, they copied it."

The Cupertino, Calif., company has frequently referenced a 132-page internal Samsung strategy document entitled "Relative Evaluation Report on S1, iPhone," dated March 2, 2010. It contains grids comparing a range of features of the iPhone and Samsung's Galaxy S1 smartphone, and lists "directions for improvement"—many of which entail mimicking a feature on the iPhone. Another 2010 email cited by Apple lawyers contains notes from the head of Samsung's mobile device division lamenting in a meeting how its phones fell short of the iPhone, calling it "a difference between heaven and Earth. It's a crisis of design."

Samsung lawyers argued that being inspired by one's competitors isn't illegal. They cite an email from Jan. 24, 2011, sent by Apple senior vice president Eddy Cue to Chief Executive Tim Cook and other executives expressing praise for a 7-inch Samsung tablet, a smaller size than the iPad. The email, providing a rare glimpse of opinion inside Apple's highest ranks, lent credence to earlier reports that the company will soon introduce a product in a class of devices it has previously dismissed.

But Samsung's case hung on the belief that Apple's design ideas weren't original. Devices introduced as evidence took the jury on a trip back in time.

Phone Wars

The fate of Apple and Samsung's patent trial is in the hands of a jury. The nine members must decide whether 28 Samsung phones and tablets, and five Apple devices, infringe multiple patents. Explore which patents are in contention.

Enlarge Image

There is the DiamondTouch, a computerized table with a touch-screen dating to about 2005. Samsung argues the little-noticed product and applications running on it beat Apple to the market with "pinch-to-zoom" and "bounce-back" functions and makes two key patents invalid.

Samsung urged the jury to consider the "Fidler Tablet," a device for reading e-newspapers conceived around 1994. Roger Fidler testified via video during the trial about the device, which has rounded corners like the iPad, and was never sold. Samsung contends the device was similar enough to Apple's to throw out one of the design patents in the case.

Another important document: a sketch of a Samsung tablet that appeared in an email dated Jan 6, 2010, three weeks before the first iPad was announced. Samsung argues the black-and-white mock-up—embedded in an email to a senior Samsung industrial designer, Jin Soo Kim—proves it conceived of its Galaxy tablet design before the iPad was unveiled. Mr. Kim and another Samsung designer testified that they didn't copy Apple's products.

The iPhone That Could Have Been

View Slideshow

Apple
Apple experimented with making the iPhone silver and boxy.

Lawyers following the case say that Apple has to do more than show Samsung wanted to make its products more like the iPhone.

"The real question is whether Samsung's designs are close enough to Apple's to be infringing," said Jorge Contreras, an associate professor at American University Washington College of Law.

For determining whether the devices infringe Apple's design patents or dilute its trade dress—the overall appearance of the device—a key issue is whether consumers could confuse Samsung and Apple products. To prove they could, Apple introduced a report from Best Buy Co. BBY -3.89% that mentions people returning Samsung's Galaxy Tab because they had been looking for an iPad.

Judge Koh earlier issued an injunction against one of the disputed products, the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1, on the grounds that Apple had a strong case.

Jurors, who had access to devices during deliberations, were expected to study them feature by feature, judging whether their thickness, rounded edges, fronts, backs and icons are "substantially the same" as those cited in Apple design patents. They must come to a unanimous decision to find any device infringes a patent.

In his final remarks Tuesday, Charles Verhoeven, a Samsung lawyer who works for Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, showed close up drawings of the iPhone's bezel—the casing that runs around the rim of the phone—from a related patent, and the Galaxy S 4G's bezel. He noted that the iPhone's casing was a uniform thickness and the Galaxy's wasn't. "It is a completely different design style," he said.

Write to Jessica E. Vascellaro at jessica.vascellaro@wsj.com

Jury rules for Apple in its huge smartphone patent infringement case involving Samsung


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/jury-rules-apple-huge-smartphone-230506208.html

I think Churchill said it best, and this is the case with capitalism's warts as well:

“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”

hey Sam, disregarding everything else, the problem is business is not in the habit of being "honorable", it's more of a Darwinian thing, at times....capitalism can be very "selfish" when it comes to survival....

I see from your bio you were an honorable military person to our country (and once again, a big THANKS for that), trusted even with decisions that could have altered the fate of the planet.....

unfortunately, in business, Cos take the "nuclear option" from time to time, and the laws clearly state how this is to proceed....we can't but the genie back in the bottle....the "fallout" of most BKs usually kill the common shareholder, it can't be avoided, just as there is often collateral damage in war.....

I know it sucks, but that's how it goes....

I was wondering that myself, so clicked on a few of their other articles....

some others do indeed have no specific authorship, but the majority do.......

PS: here is one that doesn't say who wrote it, but it just seems a reprint of statistics:

http://www.hazard-herald.com/view/full_story/19869212/article-Eight-die-on-Kentucky-roadways-last-week?

try this thing called reading my post, what part again do you disagree with???

JBI trade secrets not valuable? Yeah, because KFC and Coca-Cola haven't made any money with their trade secrets, right?

To which I could have sworn I said:

trade secrets are great for soft drinks and chicken recipes!!!!

yep, typically patents protect valuable tech......

but trade secrets are great for soft drinks and chicken recipes!!!!!

probably just sloppy reporting.......but I see that copies of this inaccurate article have spread to other sites already:

(for example):

https://www.planning.org/news/daily/story.htm?story_id=176196258

I don't understand your question.....can you be more specific????

(NSOL shares should have "automatically" converted into USFF with the name change)

if any of those naked shorts want to make an easy $1000, they can sell me 1M air shares at my bid of .001

get it before I slap myself, and change my mind!!!!

yes, mistakes, plural...this reporter seems mistake prone....besides the error in the 2nd word about "private":


The first facility will be built in Capital City, Muhlenberg County, in the Western Coalfields, according to information on the company’s website posted on Tuesday, and will lead to other “larger scaled commercial facilities.”

Read more: Hazard Herald (KY) - Plans announced for coal to fuel plant in Ky


(no Capital City found, I assume Central City was meant.....great reporting there...wonder what else is incorrect????)....

private company???

A private company announced plans this week to build a coal-to-liquid fuel plant in western Kentucky, which could also lead to additional facilities.

http://www.hazard-herald.com/view/full_story/19892672/article-Plans-announced-for-coal-to-fuel-plant-in-Ky-?instance=popular

they can make claims until they are blue in the face....

that does not change the fact that permits will be needed....I hope you are not implying otherwise (?????)

so, that said, has this Co EVER filed for a single permit?????
yes or not????

(considering that paying for their NV business license is an issue (why???), permit applications seems to be a bit more of a challenge!!!!)


PS: let me guess, let's look only forward yet again.....maybe we can discuss "fast-tracking" of permits once again as well!!!!

Sierra Club is part of the problem for most coal companies by working with the EPA to object to any new major or minor source air pollution permits.

kind of a moot point concerning a Co that does not seem to file for permits......no???

there was a show on the other day about many criminals who get caught because they keep using social media while on the lam.....some woman named Peaches and her boyfriend....

think it was an Investigation Discovery channel show, or something....

Oddly I was once told by someone at the SEC they don't use google/or don't get the same results we might because of their security software they have in place.

lol, must be those porn filters!!!!!

(yeah, I know, a horse that has been severely beaten.....)

edit: seems I was not the first to beat that horse today!!!

As the United States pursues the goal of increased energy security, discussions about
unconventional fossil fuel sources, such as oil shale and coal-to-liquids (CTL), have
re-emerged. With technologically recoverable reserves estimated at about 800 billion
barrels in the U.S.—three times the size of Saudi Arabia’s proved reserves—oil shale
offers vast development potential.
Investors considering investment in the development of these carbon- and waterintensive
fuel sources are advised, however, to obtain a comprehensive understanding
of the range of risks that these undertakings could present. Investors’ potential exposure
is significant, as companies are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on testing,
preparation and R&D, and dozens of projects are under development.
More than 25 companies are involved in some aspect of oil shale development,
including oil majors like ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Shell. While an industry-wide figure
for investments is not available, Shell’s recent agreement to develop oil shale in
Jordan illustrates the potential cost of these projects. That venture is projected to
cost $20 billion over the next two decades.
At least a dozen CTL projects are under development in the United States, at
a projected cost ranging from $2 billion to $7 billion per plant. Combined, these
plants would produce approximately 170 million barrels of liquid fuels per year. The
EIA, however, projects that CTL production in the U.S. will rise from virtually no
production today to about 250,000 barrels per day, or more than 91 million barrels
per year, by 2035. Major companies involved in CTL development include Shell,
Rentech, Baard and DKRW.

http://www.riversimulator.org/Resources/NGO/OilShaleCoalToLiquidRisksCeres2010.pdf

Update: November 2011

The proposed project has not moved forward in over 12 months.

Update: May 2011

There has been little development on Fuel Frontiers' proposal for the coal-to-liquids facility in Muhlenberg County, Kentucky. To date, the company has not submitted an air permit application for the facility to the Kentucky Division for Air Quality.

Update: June 2010

Fuel Frontiers, Inc. has yet to submit an air permit application to the Kentucky Division for Air Quality; the company's contact with the Division has been very limited.

Update: November 2009

To date, Fuel Frontiers, Inc. has not submitted an air permit application for the facility to the Kentucky Division for Air Quality.

Background:

On July 11, 2009, Fuel Frontiers, Inc., a subsidiary of Nuclear Solutions, Inc., and Kentucky Fuel Associates, Inc. announced the acquisition of approximately 80 acres of land for a proposed 400 tonne per day coal-to-liquid diesel production facility in Muhlenberg County, Kentucky. Fuel Frontiers and Kentucky Fuel Associates originally received $625 million for the project from Muhlenberg County’s Coal Severance Allotment Program in March of 2008. Shortly after they acquired the land, on July 28, Fuel Frontiers held a public groundbreaking ceremony on the plant’s proposed site.

To date, Fuel Frontiers, Inc. has not submitted an air permit application for the facility to the Kentucky Division for Air Quality, but has plans to start constructing the facility in the spring of 2010.

See Case Documents and Other Related Information
Password required - contact the Sierra Club Environmental Law Program.

http://www.sierraclub.org/environmentallaw/coal/getBlurb.aspx?case=ky-fuel-frontiers-inc.aspx

Not until I see the first shovel!!!!!!!!!"

lol, there already WAS a first shovel, years ago!!!!.....old carrot.....

(this is why I have ZERO respect for Yonts....I knew it was BS, but he DIDN'T?????....a groundbreaking, when there were not even permits????.....for a "proposed" plant???....hard to make this stuff up, surprised his political opponents do not roast him with this kind of history....)

Fuel Frontiers, Inc. Announces Details for Muhlenberg County

Fuel Frontiers, Inc. Announces Details for Muhlenberg County Coal-To-Ultra-Clean-Diesel Groundbreaking Event

Key State Legislators and Policymakers Expected to Attend

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=apb2zEedwBD0

WASHINGTON, DC -- (MARKET WIRE) -- 07/28/09 -- Fuel Frontiers, Inc. (FFI), a subsidiary of Nuclear Solutions, Inc. (OTCBB: NSOL), today announced additional details pertaining to tomorrow's groundbreaking event for FFI's proposed Coal-To-Ultra-Clean Diesel fuel facility in Muhlenberg County, Kentucky.

The event will be hosted by State Representative Brent Yonts of the 15th District. Scheduled to speak are: Kentucky State Senator Jerry Rhodes; Kentucky State Energy and Environment Cabinet Secretary Dr. Len Peters; Tom Doorman, Chief of Staff for the office of Kentucky House Majority Floor Leader Representative Rocky Adkins; Kentucky Fuel Associates, Inc. President Garry Sparks; and President of Fuel Frontiers, Inc. David Maland.

The groundbreaking event is scheduled to begin at 1:00 PM on Tuesday, July 28, 2009 on the FFI site located at 780 Rockport Paradise Road, Central City, Kentucky 42330, which is approximately six miles east of Central City, Kentucky on US Highway 62, near Rockport Bridge at GPS coordinates (37 degrees19.328'N, 87 degrees00.315'W).

About Fuel Frontiers, Inc.:

Fuel Frontiers, Inc., a subsidiary of Nuclear Solutions, Inc. (OTCBB: NSOL) reports operations and financial results on a consolidated basis within Nuclear Solutions, Inc.'s public filings. For further information about Fuel Frontiers, Inc. please contact an authorized representative of the company. The only authorized representatives of the company are: David Maland and Ken Faith. The only authorized investor relations telephone numbers are (800) 685-8132 or (202) 787-1951. The company is not responsible for information transmitted by an unauthorized third party or through calls made to or from an unauthorized telephone number.

Additional Information and Forward-Looking Statements:

Any statements made in this release that are not statements of historical fact, including statements about beliefs and expectations, are forward-looking statements according to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and should be evaluated as such. Forward-looking statements include statements that may relate to plans, objectives, strategies, goals, future events, future revenues or performance, and other information that is not historical information. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, these forward-looking statements may be identified by words such as "expected," "potential," "proposed," their negatives, other variations thereof, or comparable terminology. Although we believe that these forward-looking statements and projections are based on reasonable assumptions at the time they a re made, you should be aware that many factors could cause actual results or events to differ materially from those expressed in the forward-looking statements and projections. No forward-looking statement or projection in the future will be updated to reflect the occurrence of unexpected events or a change in conditions or circumstances, except as required by law.

In any event, undue reliance should not be placed on any forward-looking statements, which apply only as of the date of this press release. Accordingly, reference should be made to Nuclear Solutions, Inc.'s periodic filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Contact: David Maland President Fuel Frontiers, Inc. Tel: (800) 685-8132

you know why tom......p&d.....no need to pretend like we don't know what's going on.....AGAIN....

and those 8-Ks mean little when filed over a year late (for many of them), which just reinforces that they pick and choose compliance.....

there are no 10-K or Qs for years.

NV says they are in default....

they did not even claim this time that they are trying to get back into compliance, or did I miss that?????

MLM says it can't be done

how's that nuclear material detector coming along???....or the nuclear batteries, TWR, etc, etc....those "approved" NJ bonds???

new courthouse curtains, please!!!!

(see a pattern yet????)

it is indeed sad that this politician is so transparent.....he's been dangling this carrot for years, promising jobs, and an enabler of many people losing money via this stock.....

shame on him.....

or maybe he is waiting for a FFI revocation to come from NV ("wind-up"), so his case will have more teeth....

since we are speculating, and all that.....

must be another election year!!!!!

(didn't Yonts say this several times now over the years???)

is a whole bunch of truckloads," Yonts said.

lol, indeed!!!!!.....truckloads of something!!!



Muhlenberg Plants Could Create 400 Jobs: Potential Incentives Package is Credited

Posted on: Thursday, 27 September 2007, 09:00 CDT

By David Blackburn, Messenger-Inquirer, Owensboro, Ky.

Sep. 27--Muhlenberg County could get one, and possibly two, coal-to-diesel fuel plants that would each create at least 200 operating jobs with incentives approved in a state energy bill.

Louisville-based Kentucky Fuel Associates Inc. and Fuel Frontiers Inc. of Washington, D.C., initially plan to build a barge-loading plant on the Green River in northern Muhlenberg County.

"Their commitment to me is if things go right, they'll build two of them," state Rep. Brent Yonts said Wednesday in announcing the companies' plans.

The second one could be built near a railroad in the southern end of the county, said Garry Sparks, Kentucky Fuel president.

Though plans are not final, the company has letters of intent to build two $350 million, site-specific facilities in the county, Sparks said.

Long-term plans include building a total of five such plants in Kentucky within five years, Sparks said.

One might be in Yonts' district, which includes Christian and Hopkins counties -- the latter of which is the only other county with coal, Yonts said. Sparks wouldn't confirm a possible third site.

Neither Sparks nor Yonts were sure how many construction, mining, truck-driving and support jobs would be created.

The 1,500 or so tons of coal a day that would be used "is a whole bunch of truckloads," Yonts said.

Each plant would operate about 355 days a year to produce about 200 million gallons of ultra-clean diesel fuel annually, Sparks said. Coal could come from surface and underground mines, he said.

The plasma gasification technology to be used would produce no emissions, making the high-sulfur coal that is plentiful in the county desirable, Sparks said.

"We're taking the coal that nobody else wants," he said.

Being emissions-free would help bypass legal entanglements that have plagued Peabody Energy Corp.'s proposed coal-fired Thoroughbred power plant near Central City.

If obtaining permits, incentive funds and the designs go smoothly, construction could start next spring, Yonts said.

Engineering would take about four months, followed by 18 to 20 months for construction, Sparks said.

"It's all contingent on getting the initial money," Yonts said of venture funds in the bill he worked on and the General Assembly passed last month.

Kentucky Fuel is expected to apply for at least $2 million in the next few weeks and possibly another $2 million for the second plant, Yonts said.

It is likely to be approved because some of the bill's language is worded based on the company's needs, said Yonts, who has negotiated with the companies for several months.

"It's a matter of getting all the paperwork lined up, and I think it will happen," he said.

Plant would use all products

The bill requires carbon-capture-ready technology, Yonts said. That was included in anticipation of future federal standards to limit carbon dioxide emissions, he said.

The proposed process would use high temperatures starting at about 7,000 degrees to quickly break down coal, Sparks said.

A five- to six-pound block of coal will produce about one gallon of diesel fuel in 16 to 20 seconds, he said. The fuel would have less than 1 part of sulfur per million, he said.

"Everything that comes into the plant is used," Sparks said.

Sulfur and nitrogen are removed to make fertilizers, and 250 to 300 gallons of water per hour are consumed in the conversion process, he said.

The steam from the process would turn turbine generators, which produce electricity that the plant would use to operate, he said. The 16 to 20 kilowatt excess electricity would be sold, he said.

Instead of being emitted, the carbon dioxide is continuously cycled through the process until it is broken down into diesel fuel, Sparks said.

Carbon dioxide might be emitted during an emergency venting, but it would only be an amount equivalent to that produced by a five-pound block of coal, Sparks said.

Yonts credited John Hobgood, a retired Bremen businessman, in leading the plant's arrival in the county.

Hobgood said he learned about the process through a member of his church. He contacted Yonts, then talked to Charles Gilbert of Kentucky Fuel to learn about the process.

"It excited me because we have so much high-sulfur in Muhlenberg County, and we can't get rid of it," Hobgood said. "I'm just excited about getting 200 jobs here."

Muhlenberg County Judge-Executive Rick Newman, who talked to Yonts about the project for eight months, was excited about the announcement.

"Obviously, we're tickled to death," Newman said. "We're going to do anything we can to solidify them coming to Muhlenberg County."

But he was cautiously optimistic. Waiting nearly seven years for the Thoroughbred plant to materialize makes it tough to believe, "but this looks like the real deal," Newman said.

Shaw, Stone and Webster, an English engineering firm with American headquarters in Houston, is already under contract to build, design and operate the proposed plants, Sparks said.

A disclaimer in a press release by Nuclear Solutions Inc., Fuel Frontiers' parent company, noted it has never built or operated such a plant.

"There are inherent risks associated with the establishment of such new operations," the disclaimer said.

Yonts included the cautions in his press release.

Nothing is fully guaranteed, Yonts said, calling it "a big hope."

"But I think it's got some legs under it," he said.


http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=29156407

how is share dilution "long in the past"?????....dilution is forever.....(oh, unless there is a phony cash tender offer, that right there should have brought the SEC eyeball)

how do you know that the SEC won't revoke this in the future??? (no 10-Ks or Qs for years....how is not having adequate current information looking backwards???)

why do they refuse to pay the $750 to restore NV status????


All historical events, long in the past.


fool me once, shame on you.....fool me 10 times, shame on ????

http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/USFF/quote



OTC Markets Group's Policy Regarding Caveat Emptor and Promotional Activities



OTC Markets believes adequate current information must be publicly available during any period when a security is the subject of ongoing promotional activities having the effect of encouraging trading of the issuer's securities in the OTC market. As a matter of policy, when it has come to the attention of OTC Markets that a security has been the subject of promotional activities and adequate current information concerning the issuer is not publicly available, OTC Markets will label a security as "Caveat Emptor." Promotional activities may include spam email, unsolicited faxes or news releases, whether they are published by the issuer or a third party.

Generally, OTC Markets will remove the Caveat Emptor designation once the security meets the qualifications for Current Information and we are satisfied that there is no longer a public interest concern, typically no sooner than 30 days. In the case of reverse mergers, OTC Markets will remove the Caveat Emptor designation upon qualification for Current Information or, for SEC filers, with the submission of a super 8-K, with no 30 day minimum.

During the time it is labeled Caveat Emptor, any stock that is not in the Current Information category will also have its quotes blocked on www.otcmarkets.com.

http://www.otcmarkets.com/otc-101/caveat-emptor

PS:

“Better to Try and Fail Than Fail to Try”

BTW, when it comes to scamming people, I disagree 100%.....

ii. FFI shall make use of the net funds received from such sale to purchase another plot of land in Kentucky to build a CTL facility and shall take title to the second property in such a manner so that the property ownership would automatically revert to SCHRADER in the event of FFI’s petition in bankruptcy, wind-up or liquidation.

http://google.brand.edgar-online.com/EFX_dll/EDGARpro.dll?FetchFilingHtmlSection1?SectionID=6662329-27527-34539&SessionID=Y4fiFSP2nU4bAD7

10.1 Management Agreement

MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT
This Agreement is made as of this 12 th day of June, 2009 between and among FUEL FRONTIERS, INC., a Nevada corporation (“FFI”) and NUCLEAR SOLUTIONS, INC., a Nevada corporation (“NSOL”), (FFI and NSOL are sometimes collectively referred to herein as the “CORPORATIONS”) and SCHRADER & ASSOCIATES DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLAN, (“SCHRADER”).

BACKGROUND
(a)
A. SCHRADER desires to purchase shares of FFI owned by NSOL and NSOL desires to sell a portion of its FFI shares to SCHRADER on the terms noted in the Stock Purchase and Related Agreements (the “TRANSACTION DOCUMENTS”).

(b)
B. As an inducement to obtain the SCHRADER investment, the CORPORATIONS have respectively agreed to be bound by certain management covenants.

For valuable consideration, the receipt of which is acknowledged by the parties, the parties agree as follows:

AGREEMENT

1. Proceeds and Management .


a. Nuclear Solutions agrees to use the SCHRADER investment proceeds according to the “Use of Proceeds” attached as Schedule 1.0.


b. Nuclear Solutions agrees to nominate, appoint and, or vote into office one person named by SCHRADER who will be seated as a member of the board of directors of Fuel Frontiers, Inc. for a term of twelve (12) months commencing on the date of closing of the SCHRADER investment.


2. Muhlenberg Property.


a. FFI desires to purchase certain real property located in Muhlenberg, Kentucky for the construction of its CTL plant (the “Muhlenberg Property”) for approximately $150,000, which the parties agree shall be allocated from the SCHRADER investment proceeds as specified in Schedule 1.0 attached hereto. FFI agrees to take title to the Muhlenberg Property in such a manner so that the property ownership would automatically revert to SCHRADER in the event of FFI’s petition in bankruptcy, wind-up or liquidation.


b. The parties agree that the purchase of real property for the CTL plant from a portion of the SCHRADER investment proceeds is a material element of the consideration for the sale of FFI stock by NSOL. In the event that FFI is no longer pursuing its CTL plant on the Muhlenberg Property because of FFI’s inability after good faith efforts to obtain all appropriate approvals and permits required for the CTL plant, then:


i. FFI, on behalf of FFI and SCHRADER, shall sell their entire collective interest in the land, in a manner permitting it to sell an unencumbered fee simple interest to a third party purchaser at the prevailing market price; and


ii. FFI shall make use of the net funds received from such sale to purchase another plot of land in Kentucky to build a CTL facility and shall take title to the second property in such a manner so that the property ownership would automatically revert to SCHRADER in the event of FFI’s petition in bankruptcy, wind-up or liquidation.



3. Release of Schrader Property Interest

In the event that (i) FFI secures a fundable offtake agreement or fuel purchase agreement for fuel provided by FFI’s proposed CTL plant on the Muhlenberg Property or its replacement property; or (ii) financing for FFI which requires the grant of a security interest in FFI assets or similar encumbrance; then SCHRADER shall quitclaim his future interest in the land. The parties agree that no compensation is payable to Schrader in the event such quitclaim is requested by FFI. In such event, FFI shall pay the expense of the preparation of the documentation necessary for the quitclaim of the property. SCHRADER agrees to execute in a timely manner such documents as may be reasonably requested by the FFI board of directors or otherwise necessary to effect the terms and conditions of this Agreement.


4. General Provisions


a.
Entire Agreement. This Agreement (including the Schedule hereto and any written amendments hereof executed by the parties) constitutes the entire Agreement and supersedes all prior agreements and understandings, oral and written, between the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof.


b.
Sections and Other Headings. The section and other headings contained in this Agreement are for reference purposes only and shall not affect the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement.


c.
Governing Law. This Agreement, and all transactions contemplated hereby, shall be governed by, construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of Nevada. The parties hereto waive trial by jury and agree to submit to the personal jurisdiction and venue of a court of subject matter jurisdiction located in the District of Columbia. In the event that litigation results from or arises out of this Agreement or the performance thereof, the parties agree to reimburse the prevailing party’s reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, and all other expenses, whether or not taxable by the court as costs, in addition to any other relief to which the prevailing party may be entitled.


d.
Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, and such counterparts together shall constitute one Agreement. For the purposes of this Agreement, a faxed copy of an executed Agreement shall be deemed to be an original.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed by each of the individual parties hereto on the date first above written.


NUCLEAR SOLUTIONS, INC.
FUEL FRONTIERS, INC.

/s/ Patrick Herda

/s/ David Maland

By: Patrick Herda

By: David Maland

Title: President

Title: President



SCHRADER & ASSOCIATES DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLAN

/s/ Scott A. Schrader



By: Scott A. Schrader



Title:

looking forward, there is now a record amount of share dilution (which should be eligible for restriction removal, since the 8-K said this happened over a year ago), and still no NV fees paid:

http://nvsos.gov/sosentitysearch/FeeDetails.aspx?ctok=P1A0NcyRdMXs7bjzm%252bbCbA%253d%253d

hard to take anything very seriously until they show they can afford the $750, IMO......

also, since they stopped filings 10-Ks and Qs, the stock could be revoked at any time if the SEC wills it....(looking at "forward possibilities")

then there is the POOF of FFI (planned, according to the bat-phone posts last year, so I guess the spin-off is off!!), soon to be revoked by NV if the fees are not paid.....which might be why Schrader is another POed investor:

http://nvsos.gov/sosentitysearch/FeeDetails.aspx?ctok=n2fSAsgah9oIHQ64dXierA%253d%253d

Item 8.01 Other Events

On 30 September 2010, plaintiff Scott Schrader initiated litigation in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Franklin Circuit Court, Case No 10-CI-01548 against Nuclear Solutions, Fuel Frontiers and other individuals. In the lawsuit, plaintiff alleges a dispute over an investment in Nuclear Solutions and presents claims for

1.
Breach of Contract
2.
Negligent/Intentional Misrepresentations
3.
Fraud and Fraudulent Inducement
4.
Unjust Enrichment
5.
Breach of Constructive or Resulting Trust

Plaintiff is seeking actual and punitive damages.

There have been multiple Court appearances and both sides have filed Motions to Dismiss. The parties participated in a mediation session with a former Court of Appeals of Judge presiding as Mediator. During that mediation session, plaintiffs were invited make a record in support of their allegations, but failed to do so. The last time any motions were addressed to the Court was 26 July 2011; as of 15 August 2012, the Judge has not issued a ruling on any motions and plaintiff has taken no steps to move the case forward.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1116112/000139834412002711/fp0005404_8k.htm

thanks for logging all that!!!!

the perfect crime >> sux for them big time due to JBI's survival
courtesy of P2O

Mr Contradiction:

("based in LA", but can't afford to come to the US???!!!!)





PS: he's also an "accomplished filmmaker"???

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1153489/bio

Say it in Russian, one of the first films to be financed by a pink sheet public company.

http://www.newswire.net/newsroom/permalink/69489.html

Kenneth Eade is an attorney, based in Los Angeles, California, specializing in international law, transactional and corporate law, complex business litigation, securities litigation, Contract Law, Corporate Law, General Commercial And Business Law Matters, Licensing Agreements, Mergers & Acquisitions. He is a member of the Bar of California, the federal District Court for the Central District of California, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal. He holds a Juris Doctor in Law from Southwestern University School of Law, and a B.A. in Liberal Studies from California State University, Northridge. He is also an accomplished filmmaker.

Contact:
Law Office of Kenneth G. Eade

(323) 782-8802
kennetheade.com

Email Contact: keneade@gmail.com

what's up with this joker???

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/profilea.aspx?user=352460

the 8-K says this was over a year ago(!!!), so restrictions should not be an issue (it's a 1 year lock-up for nonreporting Cos)

On 10 June 2011, the board of directors ratified a Stock Purchase Agreement entered into between G&A Capital Development, LLC and Nuclear Solutions, Inc. on 12 May 2011. Under the terms of the Stock Purchase Agreement, G&A Capital paid Six Hundred Sixty-Two Thousand Five Hundred Forty Dollars And Thirty Seven Cents (US $662,540.37) for One Hundred Sixty-Four Million Four Hundred Two Thousand Seventy-Six (164,402,076) common shares.

just a slight delay in filing that, it seems:

On 10 June 2011, the board of directors ratified a Stock Purchase Agreement entered into between G&A Capital Development, LLC and Nuclear Solutions, Inc. on 12 May 2011. Under the terms of the Stock Purchase Agreement, G&A Capital paid Six Hundred Sixty-Two Thousand Five Hundred Forty Dollars And Thirty Seven Cents (US $662,540.37) for One Hundred Sixty-Four Million Four Hundred Two Thousand Seventy-Six (164,402,076) common shares.

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=78784925

nothing like a timely filing:


On 10 June 2011, the board of directors ratified a Stock Purchase Agreement entered into between G&A Capital Development, LLC and Nuclear Solutions, Inc. on 12 May 2011. Under the terms of the Stock Purchase Agreement, G&A Capital paid Six Hundred Sixty-Two Thousand Five Hundred Forty Dollars And Thirty Seven Cents (US $662,540.37) for One Hundred Sixty-Four Million Four Hundred Two Thousand Seventy-Six (164,402,076) common shares.
.
.
.

RESOLVED, that the corporation will have authority to issue Eight Hundred Fifty Million (850,000,000) shares of stock in the aggregate. These shares will be divided into two classes. The number of authorized common shares in the Articles of Incorporation is changed to 800,000,000 (Eight Hundred Million) shares authorized with a par value of $.0001, and the number of preferred shares is changed to 50,000,000 (Fifty Million) shares authorized with a par value of $.001

PS: still in default with the NV SOS, $750 due, don't break the bank or anything!!!


http://nvsos.gov/sosentitysearch/CorpDetails.aspx?lx8nvq=P1A0NcyRdMXs7bjzm%252bbCbA%253d%253d

http://nvsos.gov/sosentitysearch/FeeDetails.aspx?ctok=P1A0NcyRdMXs7bjzm%252bbCbA%253d%253d