Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
"The Company should hire "UL" ( Underwriters Laboratories")
to conduct a full inspection of the process and the fuel
and produce an opinion, to settle the matter of whether
the "process" is real or a fiction. With the stamp of "UL"
on the Company, the shareholders could evaluate whether
everything is legitimate. Every other legitimate company
in business hires "UL" to inspect their products, why
not USSE"
As usual, you havent a clue....nor any truth to check.
About two years ago, UL was hired to "certify" a facility of mine.
You want to know what it entailed.... they walked around for all of about 90 seconds (taking notes, of course) ...came in my office, asked 5 questions...jotted the answers that I provided....and said OK...YOU ARE NOW UL CERTIFIED.....LOL
Yeah...good choice...to have them certify anything
Get some real truth (and knowledge), before you spew BS from those MOMMY lips(as explained earlier in my past post)
Anybody catch MotorAge online ARTICLE
http://www.motorage.com/motorage/article/articleList.jsp?categoryId=993
"It is incombent upon everyone in this stock to go and
read the following link on pyrolysis"
It is??? You my mother now?? Or are you the claimed "savior" of all men??
How old did you say you were?
Sometimes, mommy, I can put my big boy pants on...all by myself!
PS , Mommy, when I make my own money, I'll do what I want with it!
got me "guessing" too....come on bio,,,give us more...TY
And who says i havent, if not more?.....again...lmao
You comprehend % now??
LOL...I have no clue....you cant multiply....lol
If you have $1.50 per share times 100% that = $1.5
so $1.50+ $1.50= $3.00
Now if you again had $1.50 per share times 1000% that = $ 15.00
So $15.00 + $1.5 = $16.5 per share
Another example...
If i take $.02 per share times 100% = $.02
.02+.02 = .04
If i take $.02 x 1000% = .20
.02+.20= $.22
To further this ...if we both start with $ 2000.00
and you can get 1333.33 shares x $1.5(profit) = $ 1999.99
I get 100000 shares x $.20(profit)= $20000.00
LOL...yeah...and I have no clue
Fur sure....I'll take 100% over 1000% anytime...LMAO
you did??
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=17434141
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=17353689
WOW..a 100% return...thats huge!!!LOL
I made that 10x over with this little "gem" of mine.....
PS thats 1000%....lol
Oh ,, and thats not even calculating the SSTP spinoff....LOL
And what has your precious GORO done lately......now thats a crock.... sure go lease some more already mined out land....good for shareholders
And when exactly, did the shares "take off"?
Seems to be after it was caught on (by this board), that this was the shell.
So , which part of "doing homework to make some cash" dont you understand?
The guy that did his homework and caught on that this was the shell, is really, really smart.....and it just so happened to make him some good money.....
Are you jelous of him?
You too can do some digging, and make some cash off your efforts.
Instead, you just like to spew BS...IMHO , it aint making you any dough, just gets you all in a tizzy. A true waste of time.
That is a nice gain....
I guess homework can pay.....in real dollars!! LOL
Poor ol PP cant do this ...makes him very angry lil boy....LOL
PP...try "learning" something here, instead of just pukeing BS , from your mouth.
The pay is better..
sure,'homework'* can.... it was brought to everybody's attention on this board, when the sstp "shell" was posted.
If anybody traded on that info, that is their right. I say, good for them..
*Homework can and will be, read this and other boards.
And gambling is all part of this wonderful game , in pinkieland.
If you havent figured that out yet, you really are not too bright.
"Doesn't anyone wonder who owned all the shares of SSTP before USSE decided to announce them as an integral part of their 'plan' while not giving the dividend shares to current USSE shareholders so they could sell? Somebody did well and it wasn't you or the other USSE shareholders."
Does this make you angry?
Obviously , someone that does their "homework" can , and will make money, off of this.
Is it possible that there are much smarter people (than yourself) out there?
Does it make you mad , that people make money, and you dont?
Grow up....and maybe learn a thing or two , from others....it will make you much wiser ( and wealthy)
Is this new? or am I the one who never noticed it before?
http://www.greenpowergroup.com/
LMAO....sooo true.....EM
a 4% correction..lol...we ,in pinkieland, see that daily..EM
Robert / Maximus,
Has anybody contacted these guys? Maybe you had a 'hand' in this already?
http://www.caledonianrecord.com/pages/top_news/story/32fc824dd
Nanobac Link?
My guess is yes....interesting point about soy based being standard.
Notice the PR agency....
http://app.quotemedia.com/streamer/newsItem.htm?storyId=4958824&;topic=NCSH
Nano Chemical Systems Holdings, Inc. Announces Process to Bring Palm 'Green' Biodiesel Prices to Below Crude Diesel
Company to Bring Benefits of Molybdenum From the Race Track to the Consumer in 'Green' Lubricants
SEAFORD, Del., Feb. 22 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Nano Chemical Systems Holdings, Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board: NCSH), announced today that nano-enhanced, environmentally friendly, 'Green' oils and lubricants can be made from a waste by-product of one Palm Biodiesel production process to offset costs and bring fuel pricing below the cost per barrel of crude oil. This breakthrough process will bring the performance enhancements previously available to automobile racers only, into the hands of consumers at low price points associated with the material miser quantities, which are linked with implementing nanotechnology.
Soy-based Biodiesel is the standard for performance at low temperatures with a lower cloud point than palm based Biodiesel. Palm based Biodiesel must be processed to remove these materials and in one process methyl ester form of component materials are removed to be able to bring the cloud point in line with soy-based Biodiesel. The material removed is a waste byproduct that reduces overall Biodiesel production by as much as 15%. The Company's process of incorporating the waste byproduct into high value lubricants brings Biodiesel cost below the price of crude oil, with the revenue generated by producing nano-enhanced oils and lubricants.
Corn, with its ever-increasing prices, is the principle feedstock for ethanol and is expected to continue to replace acreage traditionally intended for the cultivation of soy, thus increasing the demand for an alternative blend of BioDiesel derived from palm oil. As a feedstock for Biodiesel, palm oil has the advantage of requiring far less land than soy does and has a yield of 6,000 liters per hectare, compared to only 446 liters per hectare for soy.
The Company uses its patent applied for process to immerse nano-sized molybdenum metal ball bearings to produce high-value added oils and lubricants from the byproducts of palm-biodiesel production. These enhanced oils and lubricants give the consumer the advantages of longer machine life from reduced ware and superior performance at high temperatures and pressures associated with 'moly' lubricants from the automobile race track that are soon to be available at a low-consumer price point. These oils and lubricants are highly biodegradable and have the promise of non-hazardous waste disposal. These new oils and lubricants also offer the promise of reduced crank case and other lubricant emissions to improve air quality.
The oils and lubricants are a solid marketing complement to ethanol-fueled automobiles. It only makes sense to use 'Green', 'Clean technology' oils and lubricants once the car owner has made the commitment to a renewable, environmentally friendly energy solution. There are a number of testing, process, specification, approval, supply channel and distribution channel issues that need to be overcome before these oils and lubricants can be offered for sale.
Nano Chemical Systems Holdings, Inc. has a wholly owned subsidiary, Sea Spray Aerosol, Inc. that produces aerosol products for its own formulas and does private labeling for various customers. Sea Spray operates out of a 36,000 square foot facility that contains offices, research, warehouse and manufacturing operations. The Company is also engaged in enhancing the effectiveness of its product line using nanotechnology where applicable.
Forward Looking Statements
Certain statements in this release and other written or oral statements made by or on behalf of the Company are 'forward looking statements' within the meaning of the federal securities laws. Statements regarding future events and developments and our future performance, as well as management's expectations, beliefs, plans, estimates or projections relating to the future are forward-looking statements within the meaning of these laws. The forward looking statements are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties including market acceptance of the Company's services and projects and the Company's continued access to capital and other risks and uncertainties outlined in its filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which are incorporated herein by reference. The actual results the Company achieves may differ materially from any forward-looking statements due to such risks and uncertainties. These statements are based on our current expectations and speak only as of the date of such statements.
For more information on Nano Chemical Systems Holdings visit:
http://www.nanochemicalsystems.com
For Investor Relations please contact:
Redwood Consultants, LLC
415-884-0348
mailto:InvestorInfo@RedwoodConsultants.com
SOURCE Nano Chemical Systems Holdings, Inc.
Funny how Conneticut has one of the highest charges for electricity...yeah...GO NUCLEAR....LOL
http://www.aarp.org/states/ct/ct-advocacy/aarp_connecticut_2006_legislative_agenda.html
An excert:
Electricity
Connecticut residents pay some of the highest electricity rates in the nation. The state's largest electric company, CL&P, was forced to its rates 22.4 percent in 2006 and the second-largest company, United Illuminating, requested a 38 percent increase at the end of 2006 for 2007. AARP Connecticut will continue to support bill payment assistance and work to increase local control over the energy market through regulated utility owned generation to prevent privately owned electric generators from causing large rate increases while making excessive profits
Well E, I for one , will say.... CONGRATULATIONS on your finally purchasing USSE stock...
welcome to the ride (and even if it is only short term) may it always be a profitable ride.
Bingo...thanks for the help Max!
The other answer you may be happy to here is: USSEC isn't a grant taking, taxpayer subsidized company. It is ready for market and close to signing papers. Grants are normally given for companies to explore how they will provide future services. USSEC isn't lacking in market confidence. ;)
Your welcome King....EM
Your right about the gov R&D $...it would take forever....I imagine that would put USSE way behind, if it had to wait for that kind of funding...
now, if the gov wants to hand back some of the R&D $ spent...hell , take all you can get.
Just dont wait for it....
If the Gov wants to 'fund' the automotive fuel portion of the year 3 project, again, sure, take it.
Which part of the post , dont you understand?
"While USSEC has certainly spun up to take its place as one of the most actively traded pink sheets, the reporting issue is very simple: the company benefited from the grace of a few private investors who helped place the building, first reactor assembly components, and key infrastructure pieces. Reporting / future audits / financial reports will be forthcoming, and will be a structured part of any transition to a higher exchange. Right now the numbers look very simple: company members gave $x, USSEC spent that money on improvements that can be touched, and the financing world is wide open for joint ventures and specific project financing. The less it costs to borrow money for $700m plant creations, the more value shareholders inherit in the short and long term."
Who says USSE "needs" govt r&d money?
He also stated a long while back, that auto fuel was going to be gone after in year 3.
He already addressed this "issue" of yours, with this post 29774....go re-read it.
Sorry Robert, dont mean to step on a message directed towards you, but thought it might help E.
E, What makes you think USSE needs the Gov help?
A piece taken from the posted article.....
Patrick also announced that Massachusetts would begin buying renewable electricity for state agencies.
Patrick said the state Division of Energy Resources will seek proposals for the procurement of renewable electricity for five state agencies, including the departments of Environmental Protection, Conservation and Recreation, and Fish and Game, MassHighway and the Registry of Motor Vehicles.
The department represent approximately 15 percent of the electricity that will be used by the executive branch over the next 12 years, Patrick said.
Sure I would PP...and I ( notice the word I)...would have already done this ...or I would have moved on.
As far as I know, P&W is still in the loop.
You really should think a little bigger (you do have a brain, right)?
Excellant Post Robert....Keep up the great work!
If you happen to read my post....just wondering if I'm on the right track with my "thinking"..
I've got no beans to spill...just some hard #'s that PP can now disect...
Manufacturer Pratt & Whitney Model FT8
Primary Fuel Natural gas, 1018 Btu/scf
Back-up Fuel CARB diesel, 128000 Btu/gal
Fuel Consumption 0.28 MMscf/hr / 2200 gal/hr
Exhaust Flow 195 lb/sec
Gas Turbine Heat Input 282 MMBtu/hr (HHV)
Gas Turbine Output, ISO 27.7 MW
Net Plant Heat Rate, LHV 9190 Btu/kW-hr
Net Plant Heat Rate, HHV 10300 Btu/kW-hr
Now I will conjecture on how this pertains to USSE..
1st thing , I notice ... is the BTU/gal for the backup fuel...makes me go... HMMMMM
The 2nd thing is that it runs on Natural gas ( as a primary) with the gas BTU being 1018
What i cant recall...is "what is the BTU of the USSE biogas"...that also makes me go....HMMMM
If I happen to be P&W, and I just found a new fuel source (to satisfy both inputs) via the USSE product/process, I would be beating down their door too!
Found 3 interesting links while doing search on "FT8 Turbine Fuel"
I will reserve comments, till later.
http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?p=FT8+Turbine+fuel&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&ei=UTF-8&u...
http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?p=FT8+Turbine+fuel&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&ei=UTF-8&u...
http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?p=FT8+Turbine+fuel&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&ei=UTF-8&u...
I gotta get me one of those...lol
Couple of things with that e,
Who says that JR 'needs' the USDA or anyone else, to finance this operation?
And if he did go the route (IPO) , "you would have liked to see", It would have been to expensive for you, to invest ( or never invest ) in.
Quit micromanaging...you are no good at it.
I believe the data has been 'told' to you , quite a few times, "you" dont/wont "believe" it.
Oh well....
Also,
You say shareholders "want" and "need" to know....I (unlike you) am a shareholder....I dont "need" this info, that "you" need, soo badly.
PS...Why not just put up enough $ (as I have suggested) and you will get the info, you 'need' ( cause certainly, you will be purchasing a power plant very soon).
Just tell Max, that you will be buying a plant. Simple, really!
My turn...
PP, what makes you think that this testing has not been done?
Are you , in any way, shape, or form, here to "speak" for USSE?
Your statement suggests this ...as a fact.
Is it possible that "you" are not privy to this information, that you , sooo desire?
Maybe , if you put up enough $, to buy a genset, they would be happy to provide "you" with this information!
Better yet, put up enough $ for a new power plant...I'm pretty sure, "you" will get all the data, you want.
Per Max...
"Team USSEC sees itself as a clear leader in emerging technologies that will reduce this country’s dependence on foreign oil. Of equal importance is the company’s philosophy that it will use its future market position to grant emerging bio-energy companies better access to the market.
We’ve seen first hand the number of companies with incredible discoveries who face funding issues as they work to finalize their research. It is a heavily untapped area for both economic and environmental growth, and management believe clearly that their energy processes can pave the way for dozens of innovative companies and solutions that are vital for future generations"
Is this part of where 'we' are going? Will we VC other emerging companies, and 'take' a piece?
Jealous????....LOL...EM
E,
Call P&W yourself, tell them you want to BUY a genset (of course, you have the $ to even think about buying one, right)
then you will get the answer that you desire.
Simple, really!
EU moving on board with bio-fuels...good for USSE??
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070215/bs_afp/euenergy_070215162522
BRUSSELS (AFP) - The 27 EU nations were moving towards a common energy policy, agreeing on cleaner fuel targets while watering down a proposal to force the break up of the sector into production and distribution operators.
"We have made a breakthrough and we have now adopted a draft energy action plan," said German Economy Minister Michael Glos, who chaired Thursday's meeting.
The energy ministers agreed at a meeting in Brussels that bio-fuels should constitute at least 10 percent of fuels used in new vehicles by 2020.
But that 10 percent target will be subject to bio-fuels being available in sufficient quantities for commercial use, and for the necessary legal changes to be made.
"The binding character of this target is subject to production being sustainable, to second generation biofuels becoming commercially available and the fuel quality directive being amended accordingly to allow for adequate levels of blending," the ministers agreed.
They also agreed to increase the use of renewable energy to 20 percent of the EU's total energy consumption by 2020. The current level is just seven percent.
This second objective is non-binding, a fact which will disappoint the European Commission, the EU's executive arm, which first proposed the measures in a wide-ranging policy paper last month aimed at moving the bloc towards a common energy policy.
Neither did the ministers go along with the Commission's proposal to force the "unbundling" of the electricity and natural gas industry into separate production and distribution networks, though they backed the overall objective of an "effective" management separation.
European Union regulators want to split energy utility groups, in electricity and natural gas markets, into separate production and transmission businesses so as to make networks accessible to companies without their own grids.
The proposal by the EU's executive arm split the member states, with France particularly hostile to any idea of an imposed separation of its electricity company EDF and its transportation system RTE.
The energy ministers called on the European Commission to elaborate on its proposals "taking account of the characteristics of gas and electricity sectors and of national and regional markets," according to a joint statement.
They did however acknowledge the overall objective "where possible" of the "effective separation of supply and production activities from network operations," known as unbundling.
This should be based on "independently run and adequately regulated network operations systems which guarantee equal and open access to transport infrastructures and independence of decisions on investment in infrastructure".
The Commission believes that breaking the link between energy suppliers and the operators of distribution networks is required to introduce competition in energy markets.
The "unbundling" of supply and distribution, two functions carried out by monopolistic companies in many countries, is seen as necessary to enable new suppliers to enter national energy markets.
Glos said that when the 27 EU member states get together "it is not always easy to reach a common decision," while describing the original Commission proposals as "balanced".
"We didn't reject and we didn't endorse," said EU energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs, "we endorsed the goal".
He added that clarification was needed on what unbundling means. "Some members interpret it as (forced) privatisation," he said.
The energy ministers debated a package of measures presented by the Commission last month, aimed at launching a common European energy policy.
The theme will be at the heart of debate at an EU summit on March 8-9.
OT: LOL..Yeah J...If your a Farmer, than I'm a $5000.00 per night gigolo!
Keep up the good work!
I vote to name J_Livermore "our" resident scientist....
Any seconds?
I noticed the "jet engine" comment...HMMMM....P&W
Falls right in line with what I have been thinking (eventual Airplane uses) , all along.
Listen again......almost at the 3/4 mark (or before, cant remember)