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.
pup: you should delete them both than, as he accused me of being a short or having "other motives"!
Pup. In all fairness, I should point why I am considering adding to my holdings. Since your buddy's last blow-up a few months ago regarding the stock dividend, he has managed to target some marketable industry segments. Even though some of it is recycled technology, the timing could be perfect. If he can manage to tap into either of the flu, E85 or after market engine treament markets in any substantial way, he could have a winner on his hands.
nez: Sorry, I want to see all the articles from reputable sources. This is one aspect of XLPI and I am not convinced it is a viable source yet? So stop crying short.
The fact that we have gone down this road before and failed...is a major concern.
Pup: No, sorry...I don't look for any certain kind of article...but lately they have been popping up on one of my accounts. It is just more information, good or bad. I still own it as you know....because I could not get out in time at my price. But, I am debating whether or not to pick up some more?
These threads are for information and this was out of Business Week so it had some legs, but yes, one man's opinion. And I am still firmly on the fence in regard to the technology and more negative as to the president's ability to fly off the handle.
I am still trying to figure it out?
More Data and opinions.
Are There Problems with E85?
By ED WALLACE || BUSINESSWEEK ONLINE
During the comment period for the RFG (reformulated gas) program, supporters of ethanol had argued that the volatile organic compound (VOC) emission standards in the program -- 42 U. S. C. 7545 (k) (3) (B) (i) -- would preclude the use of ethanol in RFG because adding ethanol to gasoline increases its volatility and raises VOC emissions, especially in the summertime.
Background
The American Petroleum Institute v. the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [Docket #94-1502 (Heard by the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and decided on April 28, 1995)]
If there were ever a time when the truth in advertising standards should be put back into place, it's now -- during the current (third) attempt to convince the public that the massive use of corn-derived ethanol in our gasoline supply will alleviate our need for foreign oil. Ultimately, the answer to just one question determines ethanol's actual usefulness as a gasoline extender: "If the government hadn't mandated this product, would it survive in a free market?" Doubtful -- but the misinformation superhighway has been rerouted to convince the public its energy salvation is at hand.
Act I, Scenes 1 and 2
The use of ethanol to reduce our dependence on foreign oil is nothing new. We also considered it during our nation's Project Independence in 1974, the year after the first Arab oil embargo. After the second energy crisis in 1979, an income tax credit of 40 cents per gallon of 190-proof ethanol produced was instituted as an incentive for refiners of ethanol to blend this product into gasoline.
Because this federal largesse now existed, within five years, 163 ethanol plants had been built -- but only 74 of them were still in operation. As gasoline availability opened up in the 1980s and gas prices went down, many ethanol plants simply went out of business.
More Autos Stories
Other autos articles from BusinessWeek Online:
Europe’s Hottest Diesel’s
MPG Winners and Losers
Get the Most from Your Fossil Fuel
Return of the High-End Fiat
Shortly thereafter, in yet another attempt to broaden the product's usage, Congress enacted a law that allowed car manufacturers to take excess mileage credits on any vehicle they built that was capable of burning an 85% blend of ethanol, better known as E85. General Motors took advantage of the credits, building relatively large volumes of the Suburban as a certified E85 vehicle. Although in real life that generation of the Suburban got less than 15 mpg, the credits it earned GM against its Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) ratings meant that on paper, the Suburban delivered more than 29 mpg.
Other manufacturers also built E85-capable vehicles -- one such car was the Ford (F) Taurus. Congress may have intended simply to create a market for this particular fuel by having these vehicles available for sale. But what the excess mileage credits actually did was save Detroit millions each year in penalties it would have owed for not meeting the CAFE regulations' mileage standards.
Act II, Scenes 1 and 2
In the mid-'90s the Clean Air Act of 1990 kicked in, mandating that a reformulated gasoline be sold in the nation's smoggiest cities. So the Clinton Administration again tried to create an ethanol industry in America, by having the Environmental Protection Agency mandate that fully 30% of the oxygenates to be used in gasoline under that program come from a renewable source. But members of the American Petroleum Institute had already geared up for the production of Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE), their oxygenate of choice. The ensuing lawsuit was argued before the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on February 16, 1995.
The EPA took the position that it had been given a mandate to find ways to conserve the nation's fossil-fuel reserves, so it needed a renewable fuel -- and ethanol neatly fit that bill. But there were problems with that argument, not least of which was the fact that the judges could find no charter or mandate from Congress that gave the EPA the statutory right to do anything about fossil fuel, reserves or otherwise.
Even more damaging, the EPA's own attorney admitted to the judges that because of its higher volatility, putting ethanol into the nation's fuel supply would likely increase smog where it was used. One of the judges, on hearing that the EPA was actively promoting a substance that could in fact diminish air quality, wondered aloud, "Is the EPA in outer space?"
The final decision favored the American Petroleum Institute. The judges agreed that the EPA was bound by law only to promote items that would improve air quality -- not to reverse the nation's advances in smog reduction. That decision was apparently forgotten with record speed. In the summer of 2000, ethanol as an additive was mandated for the upper Midwest, including the city of Chicago and parts of the state of Wisconsin.
More About E85
Learn more about the potential of E85:
Study Boosts Ethanol as Fuel
Does E85 Cost More?
New Ethanol Production Methods
Brazil Paves Ethanol Future
Act II, Scenes 3 and 4
After Asian economies had collapsed in the late '90s, the price of oil had fallen to as low as $10 a barrel. Gasoline was selling in many parts of the U.S. for as little as 99 cents a gallon. But by 2000, the per-barrel price had risen to $32, and gas was averaging $1.55 a gallon nationally. As they are today, the nation's drivers were incensed by the rising prices of gasoline and oil. And then reformulated gasoline made with ethanol hit Chicago and points north. Gas prices there suddenly soared over $2.00, with a few stations selling their product for as much as $2.54 per gallon.
At some stations in southeast Wisconsin, where reformulated gasoline wasn't required and gas cost considerably less, pumps ran dry in the panic, as savvy consumers topped off their tanks. Citing the Lundberg Survey, the Associated Press on June 12, 2000, stated, "Dealers in the Midwest, where many cities use a reformulated gas blended with the corn derivative ethanol, are paying a premium at wholesale."
Just a few months later, Brazil -- which had worked toward energy independence since the mid-'70s oil crisis and had already mandated that the percentage of ethanol in its fuel be raised to 24% -- was forced to import ethanol refined by the Archer Daniels Midland Co. when the nation's sugar-cane crop suffered a devastating drought. Brazil understood that a year of poor crops was just as damaging to its national fuel supply as Iran taking its oil off-market would be to the rest of the world.
Then came the third act in this ethanol play -- and possibly the most misleading and disingenuous PR campaign ever.
Act III: Cue the Fact-Checker
It started with Congress, which mandated that even more ethanol be used to extend the nation's fuel supply. From General Motors, an ad campaign called "Live Green, Go Yellow" gave America the impression that by purchasing GM vehicles capable of using E85 ethanol, we could help reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
What GM left out of its ads was that the use of this fuel would likely increase the amount of smog during the summer months (as the EPA's own attorneys had admitted in 1995) -- and that using E85 in GM products would lower their fuel efficiency by as much as 25%. (USA Today recently reported that the Energy Dept. estimated the drop in mileage at 40%.)
But one final setup for the public has gone unnoticed. At the Web site, www.fueleconomy.gov, which confirms the 25% to 30% drop in mileage resulting from the use of this blended fuel, another feature lets users calculate and compare annual fuel costs using regular gasoline to costs using E85.
But the government site's automatic calculations are based on E85 selling for 37 cents per gallon less than regular gasoline, when the USA Today article reports that at many stations in the Midwest E85 is actually selling for 13 cents per gallon more than ordinary gas. Using the corrected prices for both gasoline and E85, the annual cost of fueling GM's Suburban goes from $2,709 to $3,763. Hence the suggestion that truth in advertising should come back into play. Possibly GM could rename this ad campaign "Shell Out Green, Turn Yellow."
From BusinessWeek
Epilogue: Get this Wasteful Show Off the Road
The other negative aspect of this inefficient fuel is that numerous studies have found that ethanol creates less energy than is required to make it. Other studies have found that ethanol creates "slightly" more energy than is used in its production. Yet not one of these studies takes into account that when E85 is used, the vehicle's fuel efficiency drops by at least 25% -- and possibly by as much as 40%. Using any of the accredited studies as a baseline in an energy-efficiency equation, ethanol when used as a fuel is a net energy waste.
Furthermore, no one has even considered the severe disruption in the nation's fuel distribution that mandating a move into ethanol would cause. Over the past month, gas stations from Dallas to Philadelphia and parts of Massachusetts have had their tanks run dry due to a lack of ethanol to blend. The newswires have been filled with stories bemoaning the shortage of trucks, drivers, railcars, and barges to ship the product. Ethanol can't be blended at refineries and pumped through the nation's gasoline pipelines.
The recent price spikes for gasoline have forcibly reminded the people of Chicago and Wisconsin of what happened when ethanol was forced on them during the summer of 2000. Moreover, the promise of energy independence that Brazil has explored through ethanol is widely misunderstood. Recently a Brazilian official, commenting on our third and most recent attempted conversion to ethanol, said that when Brazil tried using agricultural crops for ethanol, it achieved only a 1:1.20 energy conversion rate, too low to be worth the effort.
Final Bow?
On the other hand, ethanol from sugar cane delivered 1:8 energy conversion, which met the national mandate. Unfortunately for us, sugar cane isn't a viable crop in the climate of our nation's heartland. But the part of Brazil's quest for energy independence that the media usually overlooks is that ethanol wasn't the only fuel source the country was working on: Its other, more important, thrust was to find more oil. To that end, last week Brazil's P50 offshore oil platform was turned on. Its anticipated daily output is high enough to make Brazil totally oil independent.
More smog, infinitely worse gas mileage, huge problems in distribution, and skyrocketing prices for gasoline. Maybe now that we're witnessing the third act in America's ethanol play, the upcoming epilogue will close this show forever. Even great advertising works only if the product does.
pak: The new company is not listed...therefore there is no symbol yet. It sounded like they would try and get it listed within a year.
repeat; $2.50! Wow. I must admit that I am a bit more optimistic now than I was yesterday or last year...but $2.50?
You do realize how many shares are out, right? Is this a number that you pulled out of the air, or have you projected this out?
Hmmmm, a Saturday morning bow tie? You were wrong more ways than one back then...lol.
Repeat...okay, i'll bite...what is your target price?
For those that were curious.
Alternative Fuel Dictionary
By ERIC PETERS
At the dawn of the automobile age, gasoline was the up-and-coming "alternative fuel" -- vying with electric batteries and steam power. Gas ultimately won out, of course. But now that we're running out of distilled dinosaur juice -- or at the very least, getting sick of being at the mercy of OPEC -- a variety of 21st century alternatives to gasoline are entering the pipeline (so to speak).
These include:
Alternative Fuel Poll
E85/ethanol
Essentially, alcohol created from vegetable matter and mixed with gasoline or used undiluted and "straight up." E85 is the commercial name for the mix that is currently available at a growing number of gas stations around the country. It is 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. GM and Ford both offer E85 compatible new cars and trucks designed to safely use this fuel (they can also run on regular gas).
The advantages of ethanol/E85 include lower emissions of unburned hydrocarbons (which form the precursors of smog) and the potential for a significant reduction in U.S. dependence on non-renewable, petroleum-based fuels. Also, most vehicles can be set up to operate on E85/ethanol at relatively low cost and there is no loss of performance or power. Ethanol fuel also degrades quickly in water and therefore presents a much lower risk to the environment than an oil or gasoline spill. (See http://www.e85fuel.com/index.php to learn more about E85 and ethanol fuels.)
Biodiesel
Vegetable oil can cook your fries as well as power the vehicle that gets you to the drive-thru. An interesting historical fact is that diesel engines were originally designed to run on vegetable oil, not petroleum-based diesel fuel. Engines can still run on vegetable oil and help keep the air cleaner and reduce our country's dependence on the oil cartels by doing so. Biodiesel is not the same as raw vegetable oil (though that can be run in diesel engines, too). It is, however, made from raw vegetable oil. Its chief advantage over raw vegetable oil is that it can be used in any compression-ignition (diesel) engine with little or no modification necessary. The use of raw vegetable oil in diesels requires pre-heaters and other fuel system upgrades. Biodiesel is also less toxic than table salt -- and degrades as fast as sugar. (See www.biodiesel.org for more information about biodiesel fuels.)
Electricity
Electric cars have been offered to the public as recently as the mid-1990s, when GM's EV-1 went on sale in California and a few other states. The idea of eliminating combustion engines entirely has always had tremendous appeal. However, engineers have not yet overcome the problems of limited range (typically less than 100 miles per charge), lengthy recharge times (several hours/overnight) and relatively poor performance compared with gas-powered (or diesel) vehicles.
There are also environmental concerns, including the storage/recycling of hundreds of pounds of lead-acid battery packs (per car) and the source of the electricity used to charge those battery packs. In the U.S., a large portion of the electrical energy we use is generated by coal-fired utility plants. They produce millions of tons of carbon dioxide, a known greenhouse gas, each and every year. Until the environmental issues are resolved, it's not likely we'll see mass produced electric cars. Solar-powered vehicles are also in their developmental infancy and unlikely to see production anytime soon.
Hydrogen/fuel cells
This technology uses a fuel cell to generate electricity, with liquid hydrogen as the "fuel." The electricity produced by the catalytic reaction in the fuel cell can then be used to run electric motors which propel the car. Unlike current electric cars, which have to be plugged in to recharge their batteries, a fuel cell vehicle creates its own electricity.
Hydrogen is the most abundant element and the energy is produced by a fuel cell free of harmful byproducts (water is the primary "emission"). However, practical problems remain: the economical mass production of pure hydrogen and the infrastructure (pipelines, refueling facilities, etc.) necessary to get the hydrogen to end users safely and efficiently. But several automakers -- including General Motors and Honda -- have prototype fuel cell vehicles under development and we may see a breakthrough sometime during the next five to 10 years. (See http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/fuelcells/basics.html for more information about fuel cells.)
Compressed Natural Gas
Like hybrid gas-electric vehicles, the use of compressed natural gas (CNG) is seen as a workable intermediate step between conventional gas-burning cars and a future form of propulsion which doesn't use gasoline. The U.S. has large reserves of clean-burning CNG and it is relatively easy to modify a conventional car engine to operate on this fuel. In addition, because CNG has long been used in the home, some of the necessary infrastructure to get CNG to end users is already in place. GM, Ford and Chrysler have been building CNG-capable cars and trucks for several years -- and offering them for sale to both private individuals and municipal fleets. The cost per car is roughly $1,500 to $4,000 more than a gas-only version of the same vehicle.
While development of these future fuels continues, the automakers are also devoting much effort to continuous refinement of the century-old internal combustion engine. Today's gas engines run cleaner and more efficiently than ever before -- with no loss of power or performance. Technologies being used today to maximize each and every drop of gasoline include:
Variable displacement/displacement on demand
This system, which is used in several new GM and Chrysler vehicles, allows for some of the engine's cylinders to be shut down when they're not needed. Chrysler's 5.7 liter Hemi V-8, for example, can operate in four-cylinder mode under light load conditions -- automatically reverting to all eight cylinders when the driver needs the power. This improves fuel economy by 10 percent or more and substantially lowers emissions of both smog-forming compounds and greenhouse gasses.
Variable cam/valve timing
Similar in concept to displacement on demand, this technology gives an engine two distinct personalities. At low speed/light throttle, the engine is quiet, docile and highly efficient. But as the driver demands more power, the cam/valve timing becomes more aggressive -- delivering max power for as long as the driver wants it. Honda pioneered this technology with its VTEC system, which first appeared in the Acura NSX more than 15 years ago. Today, almost every major automaker uses some form of variable valve/cam timing to maximize efficiency and power without compromising either.
Fast-light catalysts
Catalytic converters are chemical exhaust scrubbers which convert harmful exhaust byproducts into harmless compounds such as water vapor. They've been in use since 1975 and have helped to dramatically lower the emissions output of the typical car or truck (the average new car produces a mere fraction of the harmful emissions of a pre-controlled car). However, to work at peak efficiency, a catalytic converter must be heated to very high temperatures, very quickly. During the first few minutes of "cold start" operation a converter isn't especially efficient. The solution has been to place the converter on today's cars as close to the engine as possible. The result is faster "light off" for the converter and lower overall emissions.
2006-04-07 15:32:55
Pupp...either you are not very familar with Hydrogen and are pretending you are familar with it, or are trying to spread false facts?
The facts are:
The Nature of Hydrogen:
Hydrogen is less flammable than gasoline. The self-ignition temperature of hydrogen is 550 degrees Celsius. Gasoline varies from 228-501 degrees Celsius, depending on the grade.
Hydrogen disperses quickly. Being the lightest element (fourteen times lighter than air), hydrogen rises and spreads out quickly in the atmosphere. So when a leak occurs, the hydrogen gas quickly becomes so sparse that it cannot burn. Even when ignited, hydrogen burns upward. By contrast, materials such as gasoline and diesel vapors are heavier than air, and will not disperse, remaining a flammable threat for much longer.
Hydrogen is a non-toxic, naturally-occurring element in the atmosphere. By comparison, all petroleum fuels are poisonous to humans.
Hydrogen can be stored safely. Tanks currently in use for storage of compressed hydrogen (similar to compressed natural gas tanks) have survived intact through testing by various means, including being shot with six rounds from a .357 magnum, detonating a stick of dynamite next to them, and subjecting them to fire at 1500 degrees F. Clearly, a typical gasoline tank wouldn’t survive a single one of these tests.
"Bush may even know more than you on the subject. Amazing."
Sources:
Research by Addison Bain, NASA Investigator into the Hindenburg disaster.
McAlister, Roy. The Philosopher Mechanic.
Cox, Jack. "Will Hydrogen Bomb?" The Denver Post. April 5, 2000.
I tried to tell you pupp. For it not to take a hit after the ex date...would have been very, very unusual.
I have been in this stock for well over a year. And now I think I am stuck. Who knows, maybe tomorrow I will be surprised in a good way?
Yup and yup. You can still buy it at .029 though!
Nope. I am afraid that the stock will take too big of a hit tomorrow. And for the unspoken reasons why they created a holding company.
Gee, funny thing, I had orders in to sell at .025 and at .026. They managed to fill a partial of 6700 only. God help us tomorrow.
Hmmmm, not sure what kind of a house you can buy for $25,000? Sadly, even for a down payment that will not get you very far, at least here on the West Coast.
Big. That is SOP. Almost all stocks "leak" to some degree. And no, I don't worry about it at all.
Dang...and I was just going to start supporting the adminstration and say how great they are doing.
Petty.
Or some drop dead earnings.
There has been no volume in this stock for some time. If this stock was to pick up any kind of buying pressure....I think you would see a big pop in the share price very quickly.
Someone sure is desperate!
percy...okay your dumb. now let it go.
2da: A 50% net profit margin? Wow.
Leb. Thanks. Right in line....although...I think it could/should double or triple that if the earnings and growth hold up. The next couple of quarters will be interesting.
Lebanese: Care to put a PPS on your projection when it goes into "tulipville"?
Just curious if we are in the same range.
Hey percy is posting....that is very bullish. He is posting the same old stuff, over and over and over....but yet here he is. That means good things for CYGX.
Like clockwork. Now...what is the bottom going to be?
Posted by: hdhick
In reply to: Braden32601 who wrote msg# 26399 Date:12/28/2005 5:21:16 PM
Post #of 28067
....It is a little early...but I am thinking a solid correction might take it back down to the high 80's- low 90's...assuming this run will top out around 1.15-1.20 without any additonal news.
Percy, you sound like someone who was dumped and just can't let go. It is best to make it a clean break and not linger.
Giff. Thanks.
I can't argue with anything you said. I think syte's past performance is really hurting it, plus generating revenues from a dying segment of the industry does not help us.
They are going to have to show the market unexpected numbers and eventually, some sort of plan on how they are going to transition the company to a larger piece of the cutting edge technology segment.
I am not that up on the market, but I wonder how wireless is affecting the marketplace?
But, no matter how you look at it, are PPS is way undervalued and most of that is probably our history.
giff: Thanks giff. Do the other ISP's that you are referencing have the same aggressive growth patterns that syte is showing?
OT: I thought this was a cygx thread? But since you brought it up, I wonder if we can get bush for 4 more years?
giff...okay, I gotta ask...an 8x? How did you come up with that multiplier? Normally I would say that is way low...however, this stock in not trading like a growth stock should. It should be 24x or higher...at least at some point the market must see that it is achieving it goals.
Long..."$7+ within a few years"...or "$5 by the end of this year"? I think I will choose option C and hope you just have low expectations for this stock.
drbio: It is the facts of life...it will correct and present other opportunities.
Braden: I generally think this rally started around .60, and you think you see a triple+ in the near future? I have no idea how to put a value on the last PR? Could be?
If so, than a pull back to the 1.30 level would seem appropriate.
We will get it...and you all know the trick or fun of it...is timing your buy close to or at the bottom of the correction. What is the standard rule of thumb? 50%? But from what point? How much is it going to run tomorrow and Thursday?
It is a little early...but I am thinking a solid correction might take it back down to the high 80's- low 90's...assuming this run will top out around 1.15-1.20 without any additonal news.
It is unlikely that it will be a straight climb up, or daily as you say. There should be a correction this week or next. It is coming....it is just a matter of when? No need to go back to the strategies of 2000!
Now the runup makes sense....good news was leaking and/or insider buying.
I think I see the starting pistol being raised...
It does sound like the skooby fan club is growing...or at least getting closer to his estimates some months (or years?) back. Who knows...6 more months and maybe those numbers may change again?