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.
Technoman-Thank you for sharing the information about the FFI meeting. How high do you think NSOL will go if FFI announces the bond approval?
Here is an interesting article about Real Estate and home building.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20051109/bs_usatoday/homebuilderdemandfading
Future Fuels, Inc. Exercises Lease/Permit Option and Secures Feedstock for Proposed Waste-To-Ethanol Facility
Wednesday November 9, 9:30 am ET
WASHINGTON, Nov. 9, 2005 (PRIMEZONE) -- Five weeks after signing a lease option and environmental permit agreement to develop a site for what is proposed to be the first waste-to-ethanol production facility in the northeast United States, Future Fuels, Inc. (FFI), a subsidiary of Nuclear Solutions, Inc. (OTC BB:NSOL.OB - News), announced today that it has exercised that option. FFI signed a lease for an approximate six-acre site in Toms River, New Jersey. According to the lease agreement, the terms of which are disclosed in an 8-K Informational Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, FFI committed to a fifteen-year lease, renewable for up to 90 years, in exchange for cash, equity and a three percent share of net profits.
ADVERTISEMENT
``Clearly, the decision to exercise this option now and to conclude the terms well before the December 1st date indicates our confidence in our progress in securing the remaining components critical to operating a waste-to-ethanol conversion facility. Once those remaining elements are finalized, this lease agreement gives FFI a strategic advantage by bringing land, permits and feedstock into play in expediting the facility's development to meet increased market demand for alternative fuels. Moreover, since one of the sources of feedstock is tires, we welcome the favorable consideration shown by the New Jersey Solid and Hazardous Waste Program Office toward our proposed facility and toward our intended efforts to produce ethanol from waste products otherwise destined for landfills in a manner that has positive implications for the environment,'' explains FFI President Jack Young.
In conjunction with signing the lease agreement, FFI executed a feedstock agreement which includes access to on-site environmental permits and guarantees FFI an on-site feedstock source believed adequate for the operation of the proposed 52 million gallon waste-to-ethanol production facility. Pre-approved state and local environmental permits believed sufficient to operate the facility in Toms River have eliminated the typical 3 to 5 year permitting process, thereby assisting FFI in the acceleration of its ability to construct its new ethanol production facility. Moreover, with acquisition rights to the on-site, immediately available source of feedstock suitable for conversion into ethanol, FFI is not subject to the uncertainties of weather conditions, seasonality and transportation logistics that typically affect the supply and costs of feedstock. While feedstock is typically a major cost component in the overall ethanol production process, securing an appropriate feedstock source within the context of the concluded lease agreement significantly minimizes or altogether eliminates this cost factor for FFI.
Future Fuels, Inc., a subsidiary of Nuclear Solutions, Inc., focuses on implementing technology to transform low-value, end-of-life carbonaceous waste materials such as used tires, waste coal, wood wastes, raw sewage, discarded corn stalks, and other agricultural byproducts into high-value, environmentally-friendly, clean-burning ethanol. Future Fuels, Inc.'s operations and financial results will be reported on a consolidated basis within Nuclear Solutions, Inc.'s public filings. Contact 202-536-4653 for more information about Future Fuels, Inc.
DISCLAIMER
The matters discussed in this press release are forward-looking statements that involve a number of risks and uncertainties such as our plans, objectives, expectations, and intentions. You can identify these forward-looking statements by our use of words such as ``to develop,'' ``proposed,'' ``what is proposed,'' ``once,'' ``to exercise,'' ``to meet,'' ``indicates,'' ``believed,'' ``it is believed,'' ``believed sufficient,'' ``focuses,'' or other similar words or phrases. Some of these statements include discussions regarding our future business strategy and our ability to generate revenue, income and cash flow.
With regards to forward-looking statements on the proposed waste-to-ethanol facility, a facility like this has never before been constructed nor operated and there are inherent risks associated with the establishment of such new operations. There could be unexpected problems or delays in the funding, construction and operation of the facility. While we believe that the appropriate technologies for waste-to-ethanol conversion are commercially available, we cannot guarantee that commercially available technologies will be suitable for producing ethanol in the proposed Future Fuels, Inc. facility.
Overall, actual future results for Nuclear Solutions, Inc., and its subsidiary Future Fuels, Inc., could differ significantly from statements contained in the press release. Factors that could adversely affect actual results and performance include, among others, the companies' limited operating history, dependence on key management, financing requirements, technical difficulties commercializing any projects, government regulation, technological change, and competition. 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. Additionally, patent pending status or licensing does not guarantee that a patent will issue or that the technology will be commercially successful. Accordingly, reference should be made to Nuclear Solutions, Inc.'s periodic filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, also available through the web site at http://www.nuclearsolutions.com.
Contact:
Future Fuels, Inc.
(202) 536-4653
NEWS!
Technoman-You really think this will be it. Within the next 2 trading days? I like your optimism and I hope you are right. You have called things before so I lets see what happens. I want to see a run with NSOL. Its been over a year since this stock has moved.
I will be gone Friday until Tuesday so if it does happen I will not know about it until I get back. When it does hit, I want to meet all of the other longterm shareholders in Las Vegas for a party.
If the stock did move to $30 I think most longs would be set for life.
Techno-I have enough shares to make a difference in my life if their is any kind of movement in NSOL. Just been waiting and I have been busy the last two weeks. I hope you are right. You have been accurate before so I will keep my fingers crossed. Have a good weekend!
Well another month has gone by and no significant developments. Its been a long time and I want to see NSOL actually make some money. I wonder how much longer TWR will have to go in order to commercialize their technology? It might tkae 6 months to a year.
It is interesting that the nuclear detection technology was not considered classfied or a secret patent by the US government. Now everybody will have access to it in due time and may find ways around the technology. I wanted to see it kept secret.
Kind of like radar was invented first, then came technology that could prevent the detection.
I wonder if the option license agreements for the environmental permits are being bought at above market rates in order to secure the sites since it appears NSOL will use a better technology that will turn a higher revenue rate than the conventional ethonal plants. What are other peoples thoughts?
Technoman-Do you think that once the bond approval is done NSOL will announce the contract news?
I look forward to late October, early November. The FFI bond repreentatives stated that there are other plants pending bond approval? Could you imagine if FFI had 3-5 plants pending construction. I wonder if this will be inveiled before December 1st, 2005.
Tom- You know everything is going to be fine. Do not worry! This is NSOL and they have an excellent team!
Thanks technoman. Your post today really made my day. I have been trying to close on a home that I am buying well below market value due to special circumstances. Today I find out that everything is good to go except the REO is missing the elctrical panel required for a conventional loan to get approved. Now if the seller extends the close of escrow to fix this I will still get the home. If this deal falls through because of a small $1000 item I will just throw some of my excess money into NSOL and add to my position.
Either way this is good news that FFI is getting bond approval. I am now more confident that NSOL is going to succeed and become a BIG COMPANY!
Technoman-I was wondering if you have heard anything about TWR? You seem to have good contacts. Also do you think the Nuclear Detection Patents will be given "Secret" status? If they are will NSOL update the shareholders or would they not update the shareholders and keep in secret? The TWR passed and they updated the shareholders. I want to see some results with the company. I want to see NSOL meet the deadline of Decemeber 1, 2005 this time around.
I do not think management would have put that date out there unless it was already a done deal. This is because of what happened the during the 2001 PTI of Europe, Transmutation technology Letter of Intent back in November 2001. After Pauls death it was put on hold and never finished.
I would expect NSOL to annouce the licensing of the technology next, followed by concurently executing the licensing option for the permits and site. Then after that management team put in place PR, followed by the contract news.
Tom-have you heard anything on NSOL's nuclear detection for this Fall?
Bush, Urging Conservation, Seeks to Boost Fuel Supply By Warren Vieth and Richard Simon Times Staff Writers
Tue Sep 27, 7:55 AM ET
WASHINGTON — President Bush on Monday urged Americans to drive less and embrace conservation more in the wake of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and he said he would work with Congress to enact incentives for energy production and refinery construction.
ADVERTISEMENT
The president also said that he was directing federal agencies to reduce energy consumption and that he would release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as needed to ease the shortages and price increases caused by the hurricanes.
In Congress, Republican leaders prepared to move ahead with legislation that would provide tax breaks to spur refinery construction and expansion; they also said they would consider other measures left out of a major energy bill Bush signed into law in August.
The developments underscore the extent to which Katrina and Rita have reconfigured the legislative agendas of the White House and Congress and the breadth of the storms' effect on a domestic petroleum market that is increasingly sensitive to supply disruptions.
One measure would allow companies to write off, in the first year of operation, the cost of building a refinery, rebuilding one destroyed by Katrina or installing equipment in an existing facility to increase overall output by 5% or more. Any energy legislation also was expected to include White House proposals to make former military bases available as sites for refineries and to streamline the issuing of permits for new or expanded refineries.
More immediately, the White House said the Department of Homeland Security would extend a waiver, begun after Katrina, of a federal law called the Jones Act so that foreign-flag ships could temporarily transport fuel from one U.S. port to another. And the Environmental Protection Agency was extending waivers relaxing gasoline blending rules and diesel fuel restrictions.
Environmental groups said Monday that they were gearing up to fight a possible effort to roll back protection rules. Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch, said Republican leaders were "racing faster than a hurricane to smash through alleged environmental barriers before anyone realizes what they are up to."
In remarks reminiscent of Jimmy Carter's 1977 appeal to Americans to turn down their thermostats, Bush said Monday that everyone had a role to play in responding to the back-to-back storms, which have hampered offshore oil production, refinery operations and fuel distribution in the Gulf Coast region.
"We can all pitch in … by being better conservers of energy," Bush said after hearing a briefing at the Energy Department. "I mean, people just need to recognize that the storms have caused disruption and that if they're able to maybe not drive … on a trip that's not essential, that would be helpful."
The president said he was ordering agencies in the executive branch to cut back on fuel consumption. Federal employees were being told to curtail nonessential travel, increase use of carpools and mass transit and reduce electricity use during peak hours, he said, "as a way for the federal government to lead when it comes to conservation."
Asked whether Bush — who today takes his seventh trip to the Gulf Coast since Katrina struck in late August — would curtail his own travel to the area, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said: "It's important for the president of the United States to travel to the region and get firsthand accounts of the operations and to provide comfort and support to those who have been affected…. That's an important responsibility of the president of the United States."
Bush said the storms had called particular attention to the need to increase refining capacity in the U.S. He noted that no new refineries had been built since the 1970s and said excessive federal regulation had discouraged oil companies from expanding existing plants.
In addition to a lack of new construction, refining capacity has been affected by other factors. Years of heavy financial losses and a wave of mergers have wiped out many refineries, leaving the industry with only 148 fuel-making plants today, down from a peak of 324 in 1981.
In the last decade, the industry has largely offset the lost production by expanding existing plants. At the same time, refiners have spent money in recent years to comply with more-stringent environmental regulations. They have not increased production enough to keep up with the swelling demand for gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and other petroleum products.
Critics such as Jamie Court, president of the Santa Monica-based Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, have contended that the industry resisted expansion because keeping supplies tight boosted profits.
"The answer is not more carrots for the industry, like gutting environmental laws and immunizing companies for the harm they cause, but sticks, such as forcing companies to invest in beefing up refining capacity when it is needed," Court said.
In Congress, Republican leaders said they had not decided whether to draft another comprehensive energy bill or try to attach provisions aimed at building more refineries to a package of hurricane relief measures.
Even before Katrina hit, knocking out a good chunk of the nation's oil refineries and driving up prices at the pump, lawmakers were getting an earful from constituents about high fuel costs. But it appeared that the hurricanes might have whipped up a favorable political climate for industry-backed initiatives that did not make it into the energy bill approved this year.
High gas prices also have emboldened pro-production lawmakers to make a push to open up coastal waters to new drilling.
Such efforts appeared unlikely to win White House support. "We have repeatedly reaffirmed our pledge to support the existing moratoria based on deference to the wishes of the states to determine what activities take place off their coasts," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said.
D.J. Peterson, lead author of think tank Rand Corp.'s 2003 report on the state of refining, cautioned against rushing into new laws to fix the refinery shortfall.
"You're in a period after a significant event, and people are scrambling for solutions," Peterson said. "What our research points out is that this is the result of long-term trends, and you can't necessarily untangle them overnight, or with simple policy fixes."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Times staff writer Elizabeth Douglass in Los Angeles contributed to this report.
I say the world stops wasting time in negotiations and go in there and remove the leadership within IRAN. THe world has been playing games for 3 years now and nobody does anything.
Iran Threatens to Resume Enrichment By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 46 minutes ago
TEHRAN, Iran - Iran on Tuesday threatened to resume uranium enrichment and block U.N. inspections of its nuclear facilities unless the U.N. atomic watchdog agency stepped back from its resolution to refer Tehran to the Security Council for possible sanctions.
ADVERTISEMENT
Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said Iran also would consider reducing trade with those countries that voted for Saturday's resolution, particularly India.
"We were very surprised by India," he said. The country is interested in importing Iranian natural gas through a pipeline that will pass through Pakistan.
The International Atomic Energy Agency resolution put Iran on the verge of referral to the U.N. Security Council unless Tehran eases suspicions about its nuclear activities. The resolution told Iran to suspend all enrichment activities, including uranium conversion, to abandon construction of a heavy water nuclear reactor, and to grant access to certain locations and documents.
Iran has rejected the resolution, saying it was politically motivated and without legal foundation.
Asefi said Iran was asking its European negotiating partners — Britain, France and Germany — and the IAEA for two things:
"First, they should not insist (on the terms of the resolution). Second, they should correct it. If the other parties' reaction is not along these lines, the Islamic Republic of Iran will take these measures," Asefi said.
He said Iran would cease to abide by the "voluntary measures" that it has been implementing as an expression of good will.
"If the IAEA and European countries don't make up for their error, we will cancel all voluntary measures we have taken," he said.
Effectively, this means that Iran would resume enrichment of uranium, which is currently suspended, and disregard the Additional Protocol to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty under which it grants IAEA inspectors the right to unfettered inspections of its nuclear facilities.
Asefi warned that referral to the U.N. Security Council could have unforeseen consequences. The resolution set no date for referral, but said it would be considered later.
"It's always easy to create a crisis, but not easy to control it," Asefi said. "We are giving the IAEA and the Europeans a very serious warning about this."
Iran would consider punishing those countries that voted for the resolution by cutting trade, Asefi said.
"We will regulate our relations with other countries based on mutual interest," he said. "There are different levers in different areas to reduce economic ties."
Asefi said Iran's offer to give foreign countries and companies a role in its nuclear program was a "sincere measure of transparency."
Europeans have disregarded the offer, which was made by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at this month's U.N. summit in New York.
"What should we do to prove our sincerity?" Asefi asked rhetorically. "We are allowing them to lay their beds inside our facilities."
Asefi reiterated that Iran would never abandon its uranium enrichment program, a right to which it is entitled as a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
This is a good sign and I hope this is the week. The next major spike I will try to flip some of my shares, but it has to be at least 200-400% gain in order to flip. Maybe its the Nuclear Detection news about their patent that the company filed in October.
I can remember my dream that happened about 4 months ago that had NSOL moving up and down 3 times in a row and then during the 4th time it went from the $1.5 range all the way to $11 in one day and then closed at $9. During my dream I tried to sell a few thousand shares for some spending cash, but the MM did not fill it. LOL!
Yes, technoman, if permits are transferable which I believe they are then you would save at least 3 years of time. I know for the industrial side of things when it comes to air pollution, companies can sell air pollution rights or permits back and forth between each other. The regulators have a catch on the tranfer of the air pollution control permits and that is everytime a permit is transfered within industry the allowable pollutants is reduced by 10%. There are also regulations for water and land as well. It depends on how the company disposes of its waste. I do not think NSOL will have to deal with air pollution control. IF anything it will deal with water quality issues after their product is made they will have non biodegradables to dispose of at a land fill that is approved to take their waste.
What normally takes a long time is the Environmental Assessment and/or an Environmental Impact Statement (this takes longer and cost more) which is costly, plus you have public input and variopus government agencies to review the permit and EIS. The whole process is at minimum 3 years.
I was trained to do EIS. THe government regulators are ussally your Department of Environmental Quality. The laws are various environmental laws established over the last 4 decades, i.e. NEPA. However if the activity is near a water way the Army Corp of Engineers may be involved because of they manage all water ways as defined by federal law. The endagered species act is also critical too if tehre are protected species involved. Then, mitigation would be neccessary such as for every 1 acre destroyed of habitat that the company would have to buy 3-5 acres of land to replace it for habitat conservation.
Professor Using High Tech to Detect IEDs By CARL MANNING, Associated Press Writer
Sat Sep 24, 7:23 PM ET
MANHATTAN, Kan. - Hardly a day passes without news of U.S. troops being killed or wounded in Iraq, often from car bombs, roadside explosives and similar methods.
ADVERTISEMENT
Halfway around the world, Bill Dunn, a Kansas State University nuclear engineering professor, works on ways to detect such explosives at a safe distance. Since November, he has been applying technology about neutron and gamma ray radiation to detect improvised explosive devices, or IEDs in military jargon.
Dunn isn't seeking just scholarly satisfaction for proving some abstract theory.
"Everybody knows somebody affected by this war. Every single day somebody is being killed over there," said Dunn, whose expertise is radiation measurement and applications. "There's an urgency about this project because it could potentially save lives."
As of Sept. 14, at least 1,897 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the Iraq war in March 2003, with more than 14,000 more wounded, according to an Associated Press count.
Lt. Col. Barry Venable, a Department of Defense spokesman, said IEDs are a major problem, largely because of munitions left behind after the fall of Saddam Hussein.
"When you consider about 70 percent of all attacks are made with IEDs of all types and account for more than one-third of all U.S. casualties, they are a big problem," Venable said.
With some modifications here and a few tweaks there, Dunn believes technology routinely used to figure soil density or measure muscle fat in meat can detect explosives.
Dunn envisions two types of sensors. One would be large and transported in a van, capable of detecting explosives several yards away. The van could be at a vehicle checkpoint and data could be fed into a computer a safe distance away.
Right now, the sensors can work up to a couple of yards, but Dunn's goal is to extend that range to at least 10 yards and be able to detect an explosive in less than 10 seconds.
After the London transit bombings in July, Dunn started work on a smaller version — about 3 feet by 2 feet — that could be wheeled around to check smaller items such as suitcases and knapsacks.
It may be some time before the sensor could be carried by hand.
"Working with existing technology, we're not optimistic about making something hand portable, but as technology advances, that may be possible," he said.
Dunn also wants to find out how small an explosive can be and how many items can be around it and still be detected.
"Obviously, if we deploy something that detects explosives, the enemy will simply try to obscure them more and more," Dunn said. "We want to be able to detect the explosives within a lot of clutter."
Cornelius Beausang, a nuclear physicist at the University of Richmond in Virginia who's not involved in Dunn's research, said while he's not an expert in looking for explosives, "I know this can work in practice, but whether you can make it work for a roadside bomb in Baghdad is a challenge. But it's not impossible, I think."
The timetable from research to reality depends on funding. Dunn is operating with a $200,000 grant from the Marine Corps but hopes to get more. "If we get more money, we could develop a small detector in a year and a larger one in less than two years. At the current rate, it would take four years," Dunn said.
John Blair, program manager for the Lexington, Ky.-based M2 Technologies Inc., a conduit between researchers and the military, brought the idea to Dunn. Blair said research elsewhere that deals with detecting IEDs takes different approaches.
"They're looking at everything from better sniffers to better X-ray machines," Blair said. "What is unique about his research is the methods used to analyze the data."
He said Dunn's research shows promise and more government money has been requested.
"We gave him a little bit of seed money to see if it can work and he did it," Blair said. "Because of recent events in London, we have looked at accelerating this."
Blair said the eventual goal is being able to identify a bomb from 200 yards away and detect roadside IEDs while traveling at a high rate of speed.
"Are we there? No. Are we close? No. Are we on the path that could be successful? And the answer is yes," Blair said.
Recently, Dunn was busy in his laboratory, which looks like a storage yard.
Several plastic 10-gallon barrels filled with fertilizer, sand or water are near a platform on which there's a 3-square-foot aluminum box. Cables and electrical cords snake around the floor. Three metal canister-shaped detectors relay information to a laptop computer.
Part of the testing includes placing a barrel of fertilizer inside the metal box, which stands in for a vehicle. Fertilizer substitutes for explosives because it has some of the same properties, such as a high nitrogen content that reacts much the same way to the radiation.
Neutrons and gamma ray radiation from various sources are beamed into the box. The detectors read the return signals, somewhat like a radar gun. The signals go into a computer to determine whether there's something to worry about.
"We're trying to get as many signatures as possible to see if it's likely that an explosive is present," Dunn said. "Any one by itself wouldn't be conclusive, but in combination, we're trying to show it's likely to be an explosive material."
Beausang said using radiation to locate high concentrations of several elements present in explosives seems like a good approach.
"Instead of looking for one aspect of the data, you look at multiple aspects at the same time and that is what I think he's doing," he said. "Certainly, it is a legitimate way to detect explosives."
It's complex technology, but Dunn has a simple goal.
"We're looking for one thing. We're only interested if there are explosives on board," he said.
___
On the Net:
Kansas State University: http://www.ksu.edu
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050924/ap_on_sc/apn_detecting_explosives
I hope they do get clobbered. Time will tell!
Technically the MACD crossed over from poistive to negative!
http://stockcharts.com/def/servlet/SC.web?c=nsol
I cannot wait until October. I hope it is a better month than September. At least we should hear something about their first patent for Nuclear Detection Technology.
This is ridiculous 0.81/0.82.
There is a little over 40 million shares O/S with 100 million authorizable
Are there any rumors about Nuclear Detection Devoice updates. October is almost here so maybe the company will state whether or not their patent filed in October is to be a secret patent. I would like to see an update on the Rome, Italy Office about exactly what they are going to do for NSOL that they promised back in January.
There are alot of unknowns that will need to revealed. THe government will have the testing for prototype devices early next year so if NSOL is going to participate they better get a partner with experience and build a full scale prototype in order to have a chance to compete for the multi-billion dollar government contract.
Does anybody think that near future means by the end of this year? Mr. HErda has never made a statement like this before. Ussally he says in the future or in the months ahead.
How long would it take to negotiate large contracts between multiple parties?
You would think NSOL would have waited until after the contract is completed because last time in 2001 it fell through. I was thinking that if NSOL can make 30% profit on the FFI venture that a stock price of $15-25 may be justified.
OT: Here is an interesting link of mapping data. It is amazing when they combined maps and satelight imagery.
http://earth.google.com/
OT: IMO is a nice stock if you got in earlier. It has only gone up and split with very little down trends. It looks like it might split again.
OT: CRUDE REALITIES: MINING THE FUTURE
The Dark Magic of Oil Sands
Canada's Alberta province has oil reserves second only to Saudi Arabia's, but they're not a liquid asset. We visit Fort McMurray, the boomtown where oil-rich sands are mined-and a black-gold rush is on.
By Abrahm Lustgarten
(Photo: Alex Webb--Magnum)
Pedro Mujica settles in low over home plate, his golden Caracas jersey fluttering in the wind. The pitch comes in fast, and Mujica swings, lining the softball to left field. "Aut, aut," a throng of Venezuelan and Colombian players chant from the sidelines as Mujica is tagged out sliding into second.
It's a familiar scene, except that this August day is cold and blustery, and the field we're on is far from South America—about as far north as you can get and still play ball. It might seem strange to find 40 families from Venezuela living here in Fort McMurray, Alberta, a former fur-trading outpost closer to the Arctic Circle than to the northern border of the U.S. But lately people have been flooding in from places like Newfoundland and South Africa and Indonesia. "They've given me a second chance here," says Mujica, who lost his engineering job in Venezuela when Hugo Chavez came to power in 1998 and who was hired by Shell Canada in January.
Downtown Fort McMurray, where residential side streets hang like fish bones off a strip-mall spine, is bursting. Buying a cup of coffee at Starbucks can take 45 minutes, and bars like Diggers and the Oil Can are packed most nights. New F-150s, Durangos, and Excursions fill the parking lots, and it's not just workers who are coming. It's investment dollars, international corporations, and entrepreneurs, all looking for a stake in Canada's booming oil-sands industry.
Unlike the smooth crude oil that spurts from wells in Kuwait and Texas, oil sands are essentially black mud. "It's like you took a bucket of sand and dumped your old motor oil in it," says Peter Duggan, a manager at the Aurora mine, which is operated by Syncrude, a partnership of Exxon, ConocoPhillips, and several other companies. Through a complicated series of steps (see following diagram) the mud is transformed into gas you can put in your car.
Canadian companies have been mining Alberta's oil sands for nearly 40 years, but since production costs run seven times higher than for the cheapest conventional crude, the frenzy didn't really get going until oil prices spiked. "The oil-sands potential is huge," says Frederick Lawrence, a vice president of the Independent Petroleum Association of America. Oil & Gas Journal estimates that Alberta has 174.5 billion barrels of recoverable reserves in its oil sands, enough to meet Canada's needs for 250 years. That figure is second only to Saudi Arabia's estimated reserves of 264 billion barrels. All told, including deposits beyond the reach of today's technology, there could be 1.6 trillion barrels of oil embedded in Alberta.
The race to lock up those riches has begun in earnest. "The oil sands is the most significant development in crude oil in North America and one of the most significant worldwide," says Richard Kinder, CEO of the American pipeline company Kinder Morgan, which last month agreed to pay $5.6 billion for Canadian tar-sands player Terasen. "We've been looking for the right way in for a year." The day after that deal was announced, French oil giant Total put down $1.1 billion for Deer Creek Energy, another Canadian company. Those buys follow a string of new Chinese stakes: Sinopec acquired 40% of Synenco in May, and CNOOC invested in MEG Energy as well as in a pipeline project.
China's investments in the sector, about $255 million, are little more than a dabble so far, but a proposed venture with Canadian pipeline builder Enbridge to pipe 400,000 barrels a day from Fort McMurray to a Pacific port is widely believed to have caught Washington's attention. In July, Treasury Secretary John Snow toured the area. In August a delegation of U.S. Senators paid a visit. And Vice President Dick Cheney had scheduled a September trip before Hurricane Katrina forced him to change plans. Canada sends two million barrels a day to the U.S., from both oil sands and conventional drilling sites. That accounts for almost 16% of U.S. imports and 99% of Canada's oil exports. As Robert Esser, director of global oil and gas resources at Cambridge Energy Research Associates, puts it, Canada is the only U.S.-friendly country on earth where lots more oil is expected to come online. The White House's 2001 report on national energy policy, spearheaded by Cheney, called Canada's oil sands "a pillar of sustained North American energy and economic security."
http://www.fortune.com/fortune/investing/articles/0,15114,1105691,00.html?promoid=yahoo
All right! The technials are going to start reversing. That pull back was artifical. I cannot wait to see a huge contract signed. I want to see the shorts get squeezed.
http://stockcharts.com/def/servlet/SC.web?c=nsol
Techno-I just want to see progress that is all I want to see. I would define progress as significant cash flow followed by significant profits generated from licensing the rights to use or sell products derived from the company's technologies. It has been 3 years and Patrick has basically rebuilt this company from nothing to something. I and many other longs have been waiting for years and we all want to see progress. It appears that NSOL is close to accomplishing what we want to see happen. I have thrown most of what I have into this stock and that is a high risk, but I figure NSOL is worth the gamble because of people like Patrick Herda, Boris Muchnick and now Devito (the deal maker). The good thing is most of my risk has been removed since I did flip my shares once and significantly lowered my price per share.
I can remember the last letter of intent that fell through with Paul Brown back in Novemeber 2001 when I first bought a small amount of shares in NSOL. Those were the days of a low float and the stock would move in increments of 4-7 cents.
I hope your friend is right and I look forward to between now and the end of next year. NSOL has not moved higher for a while and has just bounced between $0.5 and $1.3. It is time that the stock form a higher base.
I appreiciate you sharing your knowlege and connections with people on this board. Keep up the good work!
Lets see if it happens by January 1st next year. We should have an update about whether or not NSOL formed a partnership for commercializing their Nuclear Batteries or will this get delayed until next year just like last time? Maybe they will just forget about them since not much has been accomplished with the batteries anyways. If they are talking about next generation maybe they should wait until one of their other technologies are off the ground.
Well I still think the most valuable is the TWR followed by the Ethonal gas facility followed by the Nuclear Detection.
This pull back seems like it could be artificial. I do not know. I wish NSOL would just focus on one technology instead of being unfocused on 4 different technologies. Maybe the company would have commercialized a tech by now. I am not going to watch NSOL today. Lets hope for a good week beginning on Monday!
The close was interesting. Is Friday the day?
Well I wonder if NSOL will close in the green. The MM got quite a few shares in the low 90's.
0.91. THe MM are getting their panick selling that they have wanted for teh last two weeks.
I wish management would inform us this week. Why wait until next week if it is a done deal. This was a bad week in general unless this is the MM raking up shares because the volume has been weak. The technicals have reversed and hopefully they will release an update before the MACD crosses from poistive to negative terriory.
However, with Devito anything is possible. He would not join NSOL unless the company had something good.