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.
I presently own 1,125,000 of GSEG im concerned by the merger with GSGF , but I do belive the out come could be a good one over the next two years;GSGF will have revenue and 30,000,000 millon shares ;it could split 4 to 1 to expand and it has the potential to go to a major exchange in the future.
I presently own 1,125,000 of GSEG im concerned by the merger with GSGF , but I do belive the out come could be a good one over the next two years;GSGF will have revenue and 30,000,000 millon shares ;it could split 4 to 1 to expand and it has the potential to go to a major exchange in the future.
I presently own 1,125,000 of GSEG im concerned by the merger with GSGF , but I do belive the out come could be a good one over the next two years;GSGF will have revenue and 30,000,000 millon shares ;it could split 4 to 1 to expand and it has the potential to go to a major exchange in the future.
TerraPass and Expedia Partner to Bring Travelers Carbon Balanced Flight
Business Wire - October 17, 2006 09:54
NEW YORK, Oct 17, 2006 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- GS Carbon Trading, Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board: DRVW) announced that its TerraPass division teamed up last month with Expedia (NASDAQ: EXPE) to decrease the amount of carbon emissions released into the environment from air travel.
Air travel generates as much as 10% of the total U.S. transportation-based emissions of carbon dioxide, which is the primary greenhouse gas responsible for global warming, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation Center for Climate Change and Environmental Forecasting.
Air travel is a major source of the greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming. A single cross-country plane flight burns about 100 gallons of fuel per passenger and generates about 1 ton of carbon dioxide per passenger. That's as much as most people use in four months of driving.
Expedia and TerraPass have partnered to offer consumers "passes" to help offset the greenhouse-gas emissions caused by their travel. For a round-trip cross-country flight of about 6,500 miles, a TerraPass costs about $17. Expedia gives all of the sales directly to TerraPass, which invests in projects designed to decrease carbon emissions in other industries. TerraPass funds clean energy projects throughout the U.S., including wind farms and biomass energy.
The program enables consumers to balance out their "carbon footprint." By funding clean energy and conservation projects through Expedia and TerraPass, air travel consumers can sponsor a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions that is directly proportional to the emissions created by their plane flights.
How to Purchase
Expedia.com travelers can choose from three levels of TerraPass to purchase during the process of booking a flight or package, or as a standalone component on Expedia's Activities page (http://www.expedia.com/activities). Prior to checkout, Expedia customers are offered a chance to purchase a TerraPass that funds enough clean energy to balance out the carbon dioxide emissions caused by their flights.
Pricing starts at $5.99 per passenger to offset about 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide, the approximate amount per passenger emitted during a 2,200 mile round-trip. A TerraPass to cover cross-country and international flights is $16.99 for up to 6,500 flight miles, and $29.99 for up to 13,000 flight miles. Travelers who purchase a TerraPass for cross-country or international flights will receive a luggage tag that indicates their contribution to green travel.
About TerraPass
TerraPass is the leading consumer retailer of greenhouse gas reduction programs in the U.S. Thousands of individuals and businesses use TerraPass to balance out the global warming impact of their flying and driving. Collectively, TerraPass members have funded the reduction of over 150 million pounds of carbon dioxide emissions.
TerraPass' mission is to put practical tools for fighting climate change in the hands of ordinary citizens. Recognizing their success, last year Ford Motor Company chose TerraPass in a first-of-its-kind partnership to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Now Expedia has picked TerraPass for another pioneering program dedicated to positive environmental action.
Only two years old, TerraPass has received a lot of attention for its innovative model and message, including stories in the New York Times, Business Week, USA Today, Wired Magazine, and on CBS.
TerraPass is committed to accountability and all TerraPass purchases are verified by the non-profit Center for Resource Solutions, the creator of the Green-e program, the leading U.S. certification standard for renewable energy. TerraPass is the only member of the industry to have a published verification report created by an independent third-party auditor.
Where the Money Goes
Through their purchases, TerraPass members fund several different kinds of projects, carefully chosen for their environmental benefit. For example:
-- Ainsworth wind facility in Ainsworth, Nebraska. The plains states have a great natural resource that they've only begun to tap: abundant wind. For the past year, the 36 1.65-megawatt wind turbines in Ainsworth have been generating enough clean electricity to power 19,000 homes.
-- Haubenschild Dairy Farm in Princeton, Minnesota. Haubenschild produces 6,000 gallons of milk every day-and 21,000 gallons of cow manure. By harvesting the methane from this waste product, the farm is able to prevent the emission of a harmful greenhouse gas and create clean energy at the same time.
-- Chicago Climate Exchange. TerraPass supports industrial efficiency projects by purchasing and retiring carbon offsets on the Chicago Climate Exchange, a voluntary cap-and-trade system for carbon dioxide emissions. Companies who join the exchange agree to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions each year. By retiring these offsets, TerraPass ensures that the reductions are permanent.
Additional information on TerraPass and its innovative programs is available online at www.terrapass.com.
About GS Carbon Trading
GS Carbon Trading, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of DirectView, Inc., is a development stage company that was founded to facilitate decarbonization in ways that cost-effectively capitalize on the evolving carbon markets. GS Carbon owns about 10% of TerraPass, Inc. DirectView is in the process of changing its name to "GS Carbon Corporation" and is a GreenShift portfolio company (OTC Bulletin Board: GSHF).
Safe Harbor Statement
This press release contains statements that may constitute "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Those statements include statements regarding the intent, belief or current expectations of DirectView, Inc., and members of their management as well as the assumptions on which such statements are based. Prospective investors are cautioned that any such forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks and uncertainties, and that actual results may differ materially from those contemplated by such forward-looking statements. Important factors currently known to management that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in forward-statements include fluctuation of operating results, the ability to compete successfully and the ability to complete before-mentioned transactions. The company undertakes no obligation to update or revise forward-looking statements to reflect changed assumptions, the occurrence of unanticipated events or changes to future operating results.
SOURCE: GS Carbon Trading, Inc.
GreenShift Corporation
212-994-5374
Fax: 646-572-6336
investorrelations@greenshift.com
OTCBB: GSCT) For the six months ended 30 June 2006, GS CleanTech Corporation's revenues rose 3% to $6.9M. Net loss from continuing operations applicable to Common totaled $5.7M, up from $118K. Revenues reflect the adoption of a project to be conducted during the first six months and ongoing acquisitions. Higher loss reflects increased selling expenses, higher general & administrative expenses and presence of research & development expense.
Talk to other GSCT shareholders by clicking the following link: http://www.stockwire.com/talkback?GSCT.
Putting ethanol in the fast lane
Famed venture capitalist calls for four policy changes to help put the plant-based fuel back in the spotlight.
By Steve Hargreaves, CNNMoney.com staff writer
September 22 2006: 12:44 PM EDT
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Despite falling oil prices and a corresponding drop in the stock price of various ethanol companies, famed venture capitalist, Sun Microsystems co-founder and ethanol investor Vinod Khosla outlined four steps he said would help the country use more of the plant-derived fuel.
Speaking at a Cleantech Venture Forum conference in New York City, Khosla told a roomful of fellow venture capitalists that a couple of government mandates and a shift in the subsidy policy would go a long way in helping bring more ethanol to market.
All you need to know about energy
Where it comes from
• Top producers, consumers
• Oil and politics
• What goes into a gallon of gas
Environmental impact
• Calculate your energy use
• Top world CO2 emissions
• Climate change milestones
Alternatives
• Alternative energy sources
• Alternative motor fuels
• Green building goes big
Specifically, he called for a government mandate that 70 percent of all cars sold in the U.S. be flex-fuel - which is having the ability to run on gas, ethanol or other alcohol-based fuels - by 2014, and that 10 percent of all major-branded gas stations in the U.S. sell E85, a fuel that contains 85 percent ethanol.
The move is an attempt to allay concerns by the oil industry that there aren't enough ethanol cars to make installing E85 pumps worthwhile, and simultaneous concerns by the auto industry that people won't buy ethanol cars because there's no place to fill them up.
He also said the current government ethanol subsidy of 50 cents a gallon should be based on a sliding scale corresponding to the price of oil: 25 cents a gallon if oil is at $75 a barrel ranging up to 75 cents a gallon if oil falls to $25 a barrel.
"It indicates to Saudi Arabia, or (Venezuelan President Hugo) Chavez or whoever your favorite manipulator is that they can't manipulate the markets" and drive out alternative fuels, he said.
When asked who would pay for these mandates, Khosla indicated it would be up to to industry or the government. He said installing the gas pumps would cost something less than a billion dollars and making cars flex-fuel amounts to $35-$100 a vehicle.
"We're spending so much on energy security, spending that kind of money is a worthwhile investment," he said.
He also called for lifting tariffs on imports of ethanol from Brazil, a move strongly opposed by U.S. farmers, in exchange for increasing corn-derived ethanol in gasoline from 10 to 15 percent, a move he said was supported by some in the agriculture industry.
Most ethanol in America is currently derived from corn. Using corn-based ethanol as a fuel has been criticized for its potential to drive up food prices and its ability to provide only a fraction of the the country's total gasoline demand.
Khosla also has investments in cellulosic ethanol, a nascent but promising technology that involves making ethanol out of nearly any plant, wood or other biomass source, not just food crops.
"The president loves biomass, the farmers love biomass, even evangelicals love biomass" because it decreases the county's reliance on the Middle East, he said. "As investors we should make this happen because its good for the country."
Oil produced by such companies as BP (down $0.61 to $65.35, Charts), ConocoPhillips (down $0.39 to $57.82, Charts) and Exxon Mobil (down $0.14 to $64.64, Charts) has become the subject of debate as its cost rises, climate change becomes more visible and tensions in the Middle East and South America underscore the U.S. dependence on crude.
The Internet home of: Subscribe to Business 2.0 | Free Trial
SYMBOL
LOOK-UP
Entire Site FORTUNE Money Business 2.0 FORTUNE Small Business Web
HOME NEWS MARKETS TECHNOLOGY JOBS & ECONOMY PERSONAL FINANCE LIFESTYLE REAL ESTATE SMALL BUSINESS LISTS
Main
Companies
Economy
World Business
Newsmakers
Fun Money
Corrections
Main
Portfolio
News
Indexes
Pre-Market
After-Hours
Bonds
Commodities
Currencies
Actives
Gainers
Losers
Earnings
Hot Stocks
Sivy on Stocks
Investor Research Center
IPOs
Main
Personal Tech
Sectors & Stocks
Fortune 500 Tech
100 Fastest-Growing Techs
The Browser Blog
Fast Forward
B2Day Blog
Game Over
Main
Economic Calendar
Fed Focus
Top 50 Best Jobs
Best Companies to Work For
100 Top MBA Employers
Ask Annie
Employment Rates
Compare Cost of Living
Find a Job
Main
Retirement
Funds
Ask the Expert
ETFs
Top Tips
Sivy on Stocks
College
Insurance
Taxes
Interest Rates
Portfolio
Money 101
Main
Autos
Real Estate
Personal Tech
Good Life
Personal Finance
Main
Best Places to Live
Home Affordability Tool
Compare Cost of Living
Latest home prices
Best Places to Retire
Money 101
Mortgage Rates
Real Estate Tips
Main
50 Small Caps That Rock
100 Fastest-Growing Techs
FSB 100
10 Cool Entrepreneur Colleges
Hot Startups
Main
Best Places to Live
Fortune 500
Global 500
Fortune 500 archive
Best Places to Retire
50 Most Powerful Women
Best Cars 2006
Best Companies to Work For
Most Admired Companies
100 Top MBA Employers
100 Fastest-Growing Companies
Top 50 Best Jobs
50 Small-Cap Stock Picks
Sivy 70: Best Stocks
MONEY 65: Best Funds
Boom Towns
100 Fastest-Growing Techs
101 Dumbest Moments
FSB 100
Putting ethanol in the fast lane
Famed venture capitalist calls for four policy changes to help put the plant-based fuel back in the spotlight.
By Steve Hargreaves, CNNMoney.com staff writer
September 22 2006: 12:44 PM EDT
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Despite falling oil prices and a corresponding drop in the stock price of various ethanol companies, famed venture capitalist, Sun Microsystems co-founder and ethanol investor Vinod Khosla outlined four steps he said would help the country use more of the plant-derived fuel.
Speaking at a Cleantech Venture Forum conference in New York City, Khosla told a roomful of fellow venture capitalists that a couple of government mandates and a shift in the subsidy policy would go a long way in helping bring more ethanol to market.
All you need to know about energy
Where it comes from
• Top producers, consumers
• Oil and politics
• What goes into a gallon of gas
Environmental impact
• Calculate your energy use
• Top world CO2 emissions
• Climate change milestones
Alternatives
• Alternative energy sources
• Alternative motor fuels
• Green building goes big
Specifically, he called for a government mandate that 70 percent of all cars sold in the U.S. be flex-fuel - which is having the ability to run on gas, ethanol or other alcohol-based fuels - by 2014, and that 10 percent of all major-branded gas stations in the U.S. sell E85, a fuel that contains 85 percent ethanol.
The move is an attempt to allay concerns by the oil industry that there aren't enough ethanol cars to make installing E85 pumps worthwhile, and simultaneous concerns by the auto industry that people won't buy ethanol cars because there's no place to fill them up.
He also said the current government ethanol subsidy of 50 cents a gallon should be based on a sliding scale corresponding to the price of oil: 25 cents a gallon if oil is at $75 a barrel ranging up to 75 cents a gallon if oil falls to $25 a barrel.
"It indicates to Saudi Arabia, or (Venezuelan President Hugo) Chavez or whoever your favorite manipulator is that they can't manipulate the markets" and drive out alternative fuels, he said.
When asked who would pay for these mandates, Khosla indicated it would be up to to industry or the government. He said installing the gas pumps would cost something less than a billion dollars and making cars flex-fuel amounts to $35-$100 a vehicle.
"We're spending so much on energy security, spending that kind of money is a worthwhile investment," he said.
He also called for lifting tariffs on imports of ethanol from Brazil, a move strongly opposed by U.S. farmers, in exchange for increasing corn-derived ethanol in gasoline from 10 to 15 percent, a move he said was supported by some in the agriculture industry.
Most ethanol in America is currently derived from corn. Using corn-based ethanol as a fuel has been criticized for its potential to drive up food prices and its ability to provide only a fraction of the the country's total gasoline demand.
Khosla also has investments in cellulosic ethanol, a nascent but promising technology that involves making ethanol out of nearly any plant, wood or other biomass source, not just food crops.
"The president loves biomass, the farmers love biomass, even evangelicals love biomass" because it decreases the county's reliance on the Middle East, he said. "As investors we should make this happen because its good for the country."
Oil produced by such companies as BP (down $0.61 to $65.35, Charts), ConocoPhillips (down $0.39 to $57.82, Charts) and Exxon Mobil (down $0.14 to $64.64, Charts) has become the subject of debate as its cost rises, climate change becomes more visible and tensions in the Middle East and South America underscore the U.S. dependence on crude.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Ethanol is losing support on Wall Street.
SAVE | EMAIL | PRINT | | REPRINT
More Economy
Manufacturing index shows slower growth
U.S. construction spending rises 0.3% in August
New worry: A hard 'soft landing'
The Hot List
The Aroras: Millionaires in the Making
What's next for stocks
6 best beers for this fall
Top Stories
50 Most Powerful Women
Nasdaq slumps; Dow can't top record
Biotech stocks in the dog house
U.S.: Gas prices lowest since February
Marvell flags backdated options, stock falls
Investing in Ethanol
New report: Why now is the time to invest in ethanol.
www.investmentu.net
Buy Ethanol Today and Save
Buy Ethanol or browse from many other chemicals that are hard to...
www.thechemicalshop.com
Midwest Ethanol Producers, LLC
Midwest Ethanol Producers, LLC. is a Nebraska based ethanol...
www.midwestethanol.com
DNA Purification - Ethanol
American Bioanalytical offers tested and improved alcohol for any...
www.americanbio.com
YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS
Follow the news that matters to you. Create your own alert to be notified on topics you're interested in.
Or, visit Popular Alerts for suggestions.
Manage alerts | What is this?
Special Offer:
State/PrAAABAEAKALAPARASAZBCCACOCTDCDEFLGAHIIAIDILINKSKYLAMAMBMDMEMIMNMOMPMSMTNBNCNDNENHNJNLNMNVNSNTNUNYONOHOKORPAPEPRQCRISCSDSKTNTXUTVAVIVTWAWIWVWYYT
Privacy Policy
• Home • Portfolio • Calculators • Contact us • Newsletters • Podcasts • RSS • Mobile • Press Center • Site Map
• Advertise with Us • Magazine Customer Service • Datastore • Reprints
• Career Opportunities • Special Sections • Conferences • Business Leader Council
* : Time reflects local markets trading time. † - Intraday data is at least 15-minutes delayed. • Disclaimer
© 2006 Cable News Network LP, LLLP. A Time Warner Company ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
• TERMS UNDER WHICH THIS SERVICE IS PROVIDED TO YOU. • PRIVACY POLICY
Here is the compition!!!
Featured Partners
Get Total Access! New Corn-to-Ethanol Process Promises Lower Costs, Environmental Benefits
September 22, 2006
Li-fu Chen, a professor in food sciences at Purdue University, demonstrates the machine he helped invent. The new technology will be used to produce a lower-cost ethanol as well as biodegradable plastic containers.
Photo: Purdue News Service
West Lafayette, Indiana [RenewableEnergyAccess.com] Purdue University scientists have developed an environmentally friendly, cost-effective method for creating ethanol from corn. Using a machine originally designed to make plastics, the new Chen-Xu Method grinds the corn kernels and then liquefies the starch with high temperatures.
"The total operating cost of a Chen-Xu Method ethanol plant should be much less than that of a wet-milling plant, and total equipment investment is less than half. And with proper planning and management, total equipment investment should be less than that of a dry-milling plant."
-- Chen-Xu, Purdue University, professor The process produces about 2.85 gallons of ethanol for every bushel of corn processed. That output is slightly higher than current methods, but the same process that creates the ethanol also creates other marketable products. The team that developed the technology was led by professor Li-fu Chen and research assistant Qin Xu, both from the Purdue food science department.
"Our process, which we are calling the Chen-Xu Method, not only makes ethanol, but products that are fit for human consumption," said Chen. "This process also produces corn oil, corn fiber, gluten and zein, which is a protein that can be used in the manufacture of plastics so that the containers are good for the environment because they are biodegradable and easily decompose. The containers would actually be edible, although there probably wouldn't be much market for that."
The Purdue Research Foundation has licensed the technology to Bio Processing Technology Inc., which was formed to bring inventions from Chen and Xu to the marketplace.
"One of the common methods of manufacturing ethanol, called dry milling, is often the cause of air pollutants by drying and storage of DDG, a byproduct of the process," he noted. "Another method -- wet milling -- produces an odor because it requires the input of sulfur dioxide. The Chen-Xu Method eliminates both issues, and the only odor comes from the smell of the corn and yeast fermentation."
With the Chen-Xu Method, the water input required by wet milling is reduced by 90%, wastewater output is cut by 95%, and electricity use is reduced by 47%. It also meets federal Clean Air Act standards, eliminating costs that other methods incur in meeting environmental regulations, said Chen.
"The total operating cost of a Chen-Xu Method ethanol plant should be much less than that of a wet-milling plant, and total equipment investment is less than half," said Chen. "And with proper planning and management, total equipment investment should be less than that of a dry-milling plant."
Funding for the work came from industry donations and one year of support from the Value-Added Grant Program of the Indiana State Department of Agriculture. Chen said the next step for the fledgling company is to commercialize the technology worldwide. The technology was licensed to Bio Processing Technology Inc. through the Office of Technology Commercialization, a division of Purdue Research Foundation.
Here comes the compition!!!
top stories
daily news
product news
briefly noted
industry pr
podcast
re insider
in focus
q&a with scott sklar
china watch
archive search
news by section newsletters submit news rss feeds podcast
article tools
email story
print story
reader comments
Feeds
Podcasts
FREE! Weekly e–Newsletter
Daily e–Newsletter
only $89/yr.
Featured Partners
Get Total Access! New Corn-to-Ethanol Process Promises Lower Costs, Environmental Benefits
September 22, 2006
Li-fu Chen, a professor in food sciences at Purdue University, demonstrates the machine he helped invent. The new technology will be used to produce a lower-cost ethanol as well as biodegradable plastic containers.
Photo: Purdue News Service
West Lafayette, Indiana [RenewableEnergyAccess.com] Purdue University scientists have developed an environmentally friendly, cost-effective method for creating ethanol from corn. Using a machine originally designed to make plastics, the new Chen-Xu Method grinds the corn kernels and then liquefies the starch with high temperatures.
"The total operating cost of a Chen-Xu Method ethanol plant should be much less than that of a wet-milling plant, and total equipment investment is less than half. And with proper planning and management, total equipment investment should be less than that of a dry-milling plant."
-- Chen-Xu, Purdue University, professor The process produces about 2.85 gallons of ethanol for every bushel of corn processed. That output is slightly higher than current methods, but the same process that creates the ethanol also creates other marketable products. The team that developed the technology was led by professor Li-fu Chen and research assistant Qin Xu, both from the Purdue food science department.
"Our process, which we are calling the Chen-Xu Method, not only makes ethanol, but products that are fit for human consumption," said Chen. "This process also produces corn oil, corn fiber, gluten and zein, which is a protein that can be used in the manufacture of plastics so that the containers are good for the environment because they are biodegradable and easily decompose. The containers would actually be edible, although there probably wouldn't be much market for that."
The Purdue Research Foundation has licensed the technology to Bio Processing Technology Inc., which was formed to bring inventions from Chen and Xu to the marketplace.
"One of the common methods of manufacturing ethanol, called dry milling, is often the cause of air pollutants by drying and storage of DDG, a byproduct of the process," he noted. "Another method -- wet milling -- produces an odor because it requires the input of sulfur dioxide. The Chen-Xu Method eliminates both issues, and the only odor comes from the smell of the corn and yeast fermentation."
With the Chen-Xu Method, the water input required by wet milling is reduced by 90%, wastewater output is cut by 95%, and electricity use is reduced by 47%. It also meets federal Clean Air Act standards, eliminating costs that other methods incur in meeting environmental regulations, said Chen.
"The total operating cost of a Chen-Xu Method ethanol plant should be much less than that of a wet-milling plant, and total equipment investment is less than half," said Chen. "And with proper planning and management, total equipment investment should be less than that of a dry-milling plant."
Funding for the work came from industry donations and one year of support from the Value-Added Grant Program of the Indiana State Department of Agriculture. Chen said the next step for the fledgling company is to commercialize the technology worldwide. The technology was licensed to Bio Processing Technology Inc. through the Office of Technology Commercialization, a division of Purdue Research Foundation.
The Plan sets six complementary goals:
Reducing emissions from energy use and infrastructure;
Reducing emissions from energy supply;
Capturing and sequestering carbon dioxide;
Reducing emissions of other greenhouse gases;
Measuring and monitoring emissions; and
Bolstering the contributions of basic science to climate change
26 September 2006 About GCC Contact
Home Topics Monthly Archives Resources
Google
GCC Web
« Hybrid Technologies Places Lithium-Ion Powered Electric PT Cruiser as Taxi in NYC | Main | ZF Introduces Eco-Life Commercial Vehicle Transmission With Learning Software »
US DOE Releases Climate Change Technology Program Strategic Plan
21 September 2006
Technologies for strategic goal #1: Reducing Emissions from End Use and Infrastructure. Technologies shown are representations of larger suites. Transportation sector outlined in red. Click to enlarge. Source: DOE
The US Department of Energy (DOE) has released the Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP) Strategic Plan, which details measures to accelerate the development and reduce the cost of new and advanced technologies that avoid, reduce, or capture and store greenhouse gas emissions.
The CCTP Strategic Plan organizes roughly $3 billion in federal spending for climate technology research, development, demonstration, and deployment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase economic growth. Technologies emphasized for development are hydrogen, biorefining, renewable power generation, clean coal and carbon sequestration, nuclear fission and fusion.
The Plan sets six complementary goals:
Reducing emissions from energy use and infrastructure;
Reducing emissions from energy supply;
Capturing and sequestering carbon dioxide;
Reducing emissions of other greenhouse gases;
Measuring and monitoring emissions; and
Bolstering the contributions of basic science to climate change.
These six CCTP strategic goals focus primarily on mitigating GHG emissions to make progress toward stabilizing atmospheric GHG concentrations. They are not intended to encompass the broad array of technical challenges and opportunities that may arise from climate change. These may include such research areas as: mitigating vulnerabilities and adaptation of natural and human systems to climate change; addressing effects of acidification of the oceans; geoengineering to reduce radiative forcing through modification of the Earth’s surface albedo or stratospheric sunlight scattering; and others. Such topics are important, but they are beyond the scope of this Plan.
—CCTP Strategic Plan
The Plan notes that transportation worldwide accounts for a significant share of global energy demand and is among the fastest growing sources of emissions of GHGs, mainly CO2.
In the near term, advanced highway vehicle technologies, such as electric-fuel engine hybrids (“hybrid-electric” vehicles) and clean diesel engines, could improve vehicle efficiency and, hence, lower CO2 emissions. Other reductions might result from modal shifts (e.g., from cars to light rail), higher load factors, improved overall system-level efficiency, or reduced transportation demand.
In the long term, technologies such as cars and trucks powered by hydrogen, bio-based fuels, and electricity show promise for transportation with either no highway CO2 emissions or no net-CO2 emissions.
The current portfolio of Federally-funded technology development programs underway in the transportation arena addresses the “highest priority current investment opportunities” in the transportation arena, according to the Plan.
CCTP outlines several suggestions for future research, including:
Freight Transport. Strategies and technologies to address congestion in urban areas and freight gateways by increasing freight transfer and movement efficiency among ships, trucks and rail in anticipation of large growth in freight volumes.
Advanced Urban Concepts. Studies of advanced urban-engineering concepts for cities to evaluate alternatives to urban sprawl. Such engineering analysis would consider the co-location of activities with complementary needs for energy, water, and other resources and would enable evaluation of alternative configurations that could significantly reduce vehicle-miles traveled and GHG emissions.
Integrated Urban Planning. Concept and engineering studies for large-scale institutional and infrastructure changes required to manage CO2, electricity, and hydrogen systems reliably and securely. Analysis of the infrastructure requirements for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles is needed. By being plugged into the power grid at night, when electricity is cheapest and most available, and by operating solely on battery power for the first 10-60 miles, this technology could significantly reduce oil consumption.
Large-Scale Hydrogen Storage. Technologies for large-scale hydrogen storage and transportation and low-cost, lightweight electricity storage including advanced batteries and ultracapacitors.
Advanced Thermoelectric Concepts. Advanced thermoelectric concepts to convert temperature differentials into electricity, made more affordable through nanoscale manufacturing.
Battery and Fuel Cell Systems. Basic electrochemistry to produce safe, reliable battery and fuel cell systems with acceptable energy and power density, cycle life, and performance under temperature extremes.
New Combustion Regimes. Advanced combustion research on new combustion regimes in conventional vehicle propulsion technologies, using conventional fuels as well as alternatives such as cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel where near-zero regulated emissions and lowered carbon emissions can be achieved.
Resources:
CCTP Strategic Plan
September 21, 2006 in Climate Change, Research | Permalink | Comments (18) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/6129556
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference US DOE Releases Climate Change Technology Program Strategic Plan:
Comments
While $3 billion is a sizeable chunk of change, most of what is being proposed here will be spent on a very wide gamut of R&D projects. Nothing wrong with that as such, or with government spending to encourage private investment in high-risk projects that yield clear benefits to the community if they are successful.
Unfortunately, the present US energy policy is a poorly co-ordinated and hence inefficient patchwork of federal, state and local initiatives by politicians eager to outdo each other in terms of green credentials.
What is missing is a genuine national energy strategy committing government agencies at all levels to actually and preferentially buy reasonably priced products incorporating these low-GHG technologies once they hit the market and, giving private industry financial incentives to do the same. Having goals is not a strategy for achieving them. Nor is developing new technologies a substitute for putting them to work.
For example, note that the above strategic goals summarized int the above graphic do not explicitly include increasing the share of electrical and thermal power produced using renewable sources. The fine print does call for distributed generation but in the context of preventing overloading the grid (which was designed in the 1950s for emergency use only).
It specifically does not call for enhanced photovoltaics nor for the co-generation of heat and cold (via absorption chillers). Both are obvious and available options for large-scale green field construction projects.
It also omits all references to taxes, fines and other sticks to match the carrots on offer. Ostensibly, that is because the plan is strictly a technology roadmap. More likely, it reflects the pork-barrel nature of US policymaking and, the cowardice of its elected representatives.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Sep 21, 2006 8:05:41 AM
very nice, especially "wireless transmission of electricity" in the long-term
Posted by: Sebastian | Sep 21, 2006 8:49:53 AM
Sorry, I dont want wireless transmision of electricty. Superconducting power lines are good enough thank you!
On the mid term for cars:
cellulosic ethanol vehicles - Sorry, you dont dump the corn stalks INTO the vehicle so its still just an ethonol vehicle. The cellulosic part is at the ethonol refining plant.
The article talks a bit about batteries but the chart just has fuel cells for the future. Why do they hate battery electric vehicles so much?
Posted by: hampden wireless | Sep 21, 2006 9:00:36 AM
Rafael:
US is a federal state with widely distributed among 50 states legislative power. Abilities of every level of government are strictly limited by constitution and existed laws, which is probably the best way to manage country of continental scale. Moreover, role of government is traditionally severely limited too, with emphasis to private enterprise to move forward economy and technical progress. This is the way American society works, and it is naïve to expect then energy policy will be different. DOE by its mandate can not impose new taxes or regulate energy policy. It is prerogative of US Congress (look for example to recent Energy Bill). If you want to change this situation, you have to change US constitution first, but I believe some American citizens will be eager to welcome another Austrian passionate reformator on its soil.
Posted by: Andrey | Sep 21, 2006 9:09:51 AM
Technology R&D is nice, but what is most needed in the short term is *conservation* as the cheapest, most effective available alternative for reducing energy use, GHG emissions and pollution.
Longer term we need to change the development paradigm so that we build more sustainable communities with shorter commutes (enabling walking/bicycling), energy-efficient housing, attractive public transportation, etc. We need to promote a vision for our future which includes a much lower energy and GHG footprint while improving living standards (e.g. less time spent in cars). Energy, transportation and land development policies need to be aligned with such a vision.
Just MHO.
Posted by: Nick | Sep 21, 2006 10:02:06 AM
Nick: The plan does include "Advanced Urban Concepts" and "Integrated Urban Planning" (LOL ... big fancy names for the way towns used to be layed out in the days of the horse and buggy.) I live in a 140 year old town. I can walk or bike almost everywhere I need to get. Nice to see PHEV at the top of the list.
Posted by: Neil | Sep 21, 2006 10:34:54 AM
Good stuff Nick! We have to prove to the masses that overconsumption is bad.
Posted by: fyi CO2 | Sep 21, 2006 1:18:29 PM
And the next day, Richard Branson commits all his earnings to fight global warming.
Interestingly, papers estimate that Branson's commitment will be $3 billion over 10 years.
So Richard Branson is spending as much as the United States of America!
People. We need to spend heavily on solar cell & advanced battery research. Just those two things. And we should spend at least 10 billion a year on them. With those two things.. we'd have our problem solved.
Matt
Posted by: Matt | Sep 21, 2006 2:00:43 PM
Matt,
I agree with battery and solar research but we need a good dose of nuclear in the mix. It will be a long time, if at all, before solar/battery will be able to join baseload power to replace coal.
PV today is approximately 10X the cost per kwh of nuclear and coal. Solar thermal is perhaps 5X the cost.
Bill
Posted by: Bill Young | Sep 21, 2006 7:35:17 PM
Rafael's comment has hit the nail on the head. Just setting vague goals and developing technologies alone will not ensure desirable outcome. Many existing viable technologies have existed unapplied (on the shelf) for decades until favorable incentives came along. There must be tax and economic incentives to reward ecologically favorable behaviors, and to discourage otherwise. There must be a common roadmap, strategy, and cooperation between all levels of government, local, state and federal as well as all governmental agencies. In fact, some have suggested that the 911 disaster of 2001 has illustrated the lack of such vital cooperation between different US intelligence and law enforcement agencies.
Posted by: Roger Pham | Sep 21, 2006 9:07:21 PM
Roger;
I generally agree that US policy lacks coordination and agressiviness necessary to reduce/improve efficiency of energy consumption and to move to renewably energy sources. However, as a person spent most of my life in society with 100% planned economy (USSR), I can tell you that this approach just sucks.
Matt:
DOE spending is only a tip of the iceberg of governmental spending on energy research, and private enterprises spends 50 times more then all government agencies, federal or state, universities, etc., combined. See foe example list of about 50 alternative energy publicly traded companies – on NASDAQ only – with market capitalization of about 60 billion: http://www.cleanedge.com/CEindex.php
Take a look also at another list of publicly traded companies of so called Alt. Energy index: http://www.altenergystocks.com/stocks.html
Note that these are only publicly traded companies with main investments in clean energy. Private enterprises, and alt. energy divisions of diversified corporations effectively triples these numbers.
Posted by: Andrey | Sep 21, 2006 10:16:32 PM
By the time this program is implemented , we will already have reached the tipping point. We need to radically decrease energy use now with existing technology. Technology can't and won't save us if we are unable to make the hard choices necessary.
Technology should be the icing on the cake, not the cake itself. Bush touts technology because it is a low cost way to do virtually nothing and requires no sacrifice. This program will be about as successful as the Iraq war.
As Gore says, we need to freeze carbon emissions now and then proceed from there.
Comments about the necessity to change the constitution are total nonsense. We have all the legal tools we need to effect the necessary changes.
Posted by: t | Sep 22, 2006 7:44:18 AM
Interesting... The DOE, especially in the Bush era, will not be able to lead or re-apportion the load of players within the energy industry. The DOE is a regulator of existing industries and cannot be seen to be playing favorites. A truly independent DOE would of necessity be suggesting that electricity will be the primary energy carrier of the future, thereby putting it in enormous conflict with most oil and automobile companies.
About reform minded Austrians...though the Austrian that we have via Hollywood is not too bad on these issues.
Posted by: Michael | Sep 22, 2006 9:47:38 AM
Hi Bill --
You are right. Solar energy is currently 5-10x the level of nuclear.
One trouble with nuclear, however, is that we must create a solution for the whole planet. We don't want the whole planet having nuclear technology now do we?
Second trouble with nuclear power is terrorism. We don't want crazies blowing up nuke plants, do we?
Third problem with nuclear is of course, where does all the waste go? Less of an issue than global warming, granted. But when you've got all those plants.. that crap really starts to pile up.
Fourth... and I've read this from Nate Lewis of Caltech. There may not be enough Uranium in the world to fuel that many nuclear plants.
Fifth... accidents. Chernobyl. Recently there was a Swedish power plant that nearly had a severe accident. More plants you increase the odds.
But lets hedge our bets. Lets build nuclear power plants now. Also, lets make sure that we build out massive amounts of wind power -- wind is cost competative with nuclear. In the US, we can build out floating massive wind farms off the coasts of highly populated cities: NYC, Boston, DC, LA, SF.
In the short term, building out wind may seem expensive, compared with coal / nuke.
That is until we start driving battery electric cars. Once cars are electric, powered by batteries.. the cost of the electric fuel will be much less than that of ever increasing in price oil. This is due to the 3x efficiency of the electric motor vs. the engine, combined with the cost of oil vs. electricity.
At that point our investment in wind power will really start to save money.
Meanwhile, we continue the search for that silver bullet. It is our ONLY chance.
The search for a cheap solar cell & cheap battery system. With these two items, we've got climate change solved.
A report from 200 top scientists on state of solar cell development. Bush for whatever reason chose to ignore this & only commit 150 million for 2007. We spend 150 million in about 10 hours in Iraq. Time to rethink priorities.
http://www.er.doe.gov/bes/reports/files/SEU_rpt.pdf
Nice icing on the cake: The search for stationary hydrogen backup power plants to store backup power. We are well on this route given the massive research dollars being spent on mobile use fuel cells.
Matt
Posted by: Matt | Sep 22, 2006 4:18:22 PM
Andrey -
Thanks for the green stock index sites.
I realize there is alot of money going into stocks.
However, the nature of the stock market & how VCs typically invest -- they tend to go for quick return, big return sorts of items.
The quest for the ultra cheap solar cell is a bit like people landing on the moon. We CAN do it. Its just going to take a heck of alot of work.
This will be a massive, multi-year venture.
http://www.er.doe.gov/bes/reports/files/SEU_rpt.pdf
Notice on page 14 where they estimate that solar cells with a price target around 20 cents per installed Watt will be available.
1 dollar per installed Watt equates to about 0.05 cents per kiloWatt for the US.
20 cents per installed watt will mean 0.01 cents per kiloWatt.
Getting there will require a monumental effort. Righ along with solar cell research needs to be battery research / hydrogen research. Either batteries or hydrogen will be the way energy is stored in the future energy world. We should research both. Heavily.
This really is the challenge for humanity for the next 30 years.
We have to let law makers know this. We are willing to spend the money. Lets just do it.
Anyone have any figures on how much Germany & Japan are spending on Solar research?
Matt
Posted by: Matt | Sep 22, 2006 4:32:50 PM
Matt,
Some approx. generator comparative numbers as of today:
Nuclear (estimated new build): $1800/Kw
Solar (PV): $5000/Kw
Wind: $1500/Kw
Estimated annual capacity factor:
Nuclear: 90%
Solar : 25%
Wind : 30%
When looking at solar cells it is important to remember that one Kw of solar cells is the maximum that the cell will produce under optimum conditions. Haze and cloud can reduce output. Morning and evening sun are far from optimum (but better than night). One Kw installed in the desert southwest is probably 6 Kwh per day.
Nuclear fuel is not included in the cost numbers above. It is much, much lower than fossil but not negligible. Solar and Wind as renewables have no fuel cost.
Nuclear and solar are generally predictable. Wind is not. During the peak of the recent heat wave in California when generating capacity was strained to the limit, state wind generation was producing approximately 5% of installed capacity. Therefore wind cannot be counted on and must have backup generation (unless you are banking the power, generating hydrogen or some other form of buffering)
Posted by: Bill Young | Sep 22, 2006 6:31:33 PM
The nuclear numbers do not include the insurance (about $10B per year for the whole industry paid for by the government - tax payers), nor the disposal of spent fuel (for 1000s of years) nor decommissioning costs, which can be quite extensive.
Posted by: SJC | Sep 23, 2006 2:31:28 PM
Matt:
Arny appears to be good governor (I do not live in California, but at least we do not hear about California shortages of electricity, water, or catastrophic budget deficit any more). However, just recently we hear a lot of weird staff coming from California. Decision of CARB to regulate CO2 emission oversteps Clean Air Act, under which CARB is working, not to mention US Congress bill 95. Agreement between California and GB about GHG reduction oversteps US constitution. And most ridiculous of all, attorney general of California filed law suit against 6 auto manufacturers to litigate damage caused by GHG emissions from vehicles they produced. I believe these pieces of art are politically motivated, but man, you have to obey the Law of Land you live in, no matter that you have good intentions. The only result of such policy will be erosion of CARB reputation as world leader in “curbing” air pollution, and damage to California image as role model for US (and the world).
Posted by: Andrey | Sep 24, 2006 2:10:33 AM
Post a comment
[Please keep comments on topic. Disagreement is fine, insults, abuse or wild diversions are not. Comments not meeting those standards will be deleted. Abuse of another commenter’s email address will result in the banning of the offender from this site.]
Name:
Email Address:
URL:
Remember personal info?
Comments:
Green Car Congress © 2006 BioAge Group, LLC. All Rights Reserved. | Home | BioAge Group
From the Dashboard
Honda Previews New T2B5 Diesel and Exhaust System; Other Advanced Technologies
DOE Releases Climate Change Technology Program Strategic Plan
Performance and Emissions in BMW Hydrogen 7
First European Contracts for Allison Two-Mode Hybrid System
Air Force Flight Test of GTL Fuel Successful
Hybrids-Plus Converted PHEV Prius with A123Systems Battery Pack
GM Announces Chevrolet Equinox Fuel Cell; 100-Unit Fleet in 2007
MaxiFuels: Ethanol, Biomethane and Hydrogen from Cellulosic Biomass
Poplar Genome Published; Model Crop for Biofuels
AFS Trinity Files Patent for Plug-In Li-Ion + Ultracap Drivetrain
Gee I did not know we were a Mining company !!!
WhisperfromWallStreet.com: "Word on the Street- DPBM, GSEG, AUGC"
M2 Communications via COMTEX
Sep 26, 2006 8:33:11 AM
Sep 26, 2006 (M2 PRESSWIRE via COMTEX News Network) --
Wall Street, NYC-Today, while putting our collective ears to the street, WhisperfromWallStreet.com, has learned; Deep Blue Marine Inc. (Pink Sheets: DPBM), GoldSpring Inc. (OTC BB: GSEG), and Augrid Corp. (Pink Sheets: AUGC); are strong plays.
Deep Blue Marine Inc. (Pink Sheets: DPBM)
Deep Blue Marine Announces Partnership
Deep Blue Marine Inc. (Pink Sheets: DPBM) is pleased to announce the recent partnership of Deep Blue Marine and The Kirby Group. Kenny Rose, head of The Kirby Group and NOAA permit holder said, "The joining of the Kirby Group with Deep Blue Marine is a joyous event."
Wilf Blum, president and CEO, remarked that he too is pleased with the contract and also with the quality of the site and the integrity of the permits.
For more information on Deep Blue Marine Inc. (DPBM), go to www.alldeepblue.com or www.stockinformationsystems.com.
GoldSpring Inc. (OTC BB: GSEG)
GoldSpring, Inc. Enters Into Ten Year Mining Lease for Its Big Mike Copper Mine
GoldSpring, Inc. announced today that it has entered into a ten year lease with a local company, controlled by a former GoldSpring director, for a 10 year lease of all of its mining claims for its Big Mike copper mine. The lease calls for a $50,000 initial payment, which is scheduled to be made at the beginning of this week to cover royalty payments due for the first two years of the lease term. Additionally, the lessee must pay GoldSpring $75,000 when a production permit is awarded, and $125,000 when commercial mining commences. Additionally, the lessee agrees to a work expenditure of $300,000 for environmental and engineering matters in the first twelve months of the lease. During the term of the lease, Gold spring will also receive a production royalty of between 3% and 5% of net returns from copper mining, dependent on the price of copper.
In discussing the new lease arrangement, GoldSpring's CEO, Rob Faber, stated: "The Big Mike Lease is a great deal for the Company as it allows us to generate cash flow from our Big Mike copper mine without utilizing resources and taking away focus from our main business, gold mining. The payment structure yields an initial cash payment, in addition to the potential of adding $300,000 worth of engineering and environmental work in the first twelve months and $200,000 in cash between now and the beginning of actual production. We also have several other transactions in process at least one of which we hope to consummate in the near future, adding possible further immediate cash flow, in addition to long term revenue opportunity." About GoldSpring, Inc.
GoldSpring, Inc. is a North American precious metals mining company with an operating gold and silver mine in northern Nevada. The Company was formed in mid-2003 and acquired the Plum Mine property in November 2003. In the Company's relatively short history, it secured permits, built an infrastructure and brought the Plum project into production. During 2005, the Company acquired additional properties around the Plum project in northern Nevada, expanding its footprint and creating opportunities for exploration. GoldSpring is an emerging company, looking to build on its success through the acquisition of other mineral properties in North America with reserves and exploration potential that can be efficiently put into near-term production. The Company's objectives are to increase production, increase reserves through exploration and acquisitions, expand its footprint at the Plum mine, and maximize cash flow and return for its shareholders.
Turning hot air into hard cash
(Filed: 22/09/2006)
Founder of the world's biggest private carbon fund tells Charles Clover why he believes Kyoto will lead to real change
The launch of the world's biggest private carbon fund must have shocked those who believe that rapid climate change is "inevitable" and that the Kyoto agreement will be "ineffectual".
Climate Change Capital (CCC's) fund is valued at £455m and is expected to top £536m ($1bn). Among its heavyweight investors are two Dutch pension funds and the energy giant Centrica. Its rise, and that of the other carbon funds, shows that some very big players think Kyoto will be effectual - and will make a greenhouseful of money.
James Cameron founder of Climate Change Capital
James Cameron, the founder of the CCC, believes that Kyoto will do more than that. The 44-year-old, an international lawyer at both the Rio and Kyoto treaty talks before he switched to investment banking, believes that tackling climate change is a necessity and that Kyoto provides a workable framework for doing so. But what has made big investors listen is that he thinks Kyoto, and the green economy it introduced, means opportunity.
Specifically, Mr Cameron believes that the international legal framework it set up will, by placing a value on every ton of carbon saved, enable international markets to begin solving the world's most serious problem in ways more inventive than mere politicians could ever devise. You can tell when you arrive in CCC's offices in Grosvenor Street - the kind of address favoured by hedge funds and boutique merchant banks - that a number of very rich people are backing his legal knowledge, rather than the spluttering of the ideologues.
Three years ago, CCC was a company with three desks in the Park Lane offices of a friend of a friend of Mr Cameron's. It has gone from holding no funds to holding funds worth more than $1bn. It makes a profit, is already worth tens of millions of pounds, and those three employees have multiplied to 90. And in under two years, the lease runs out, it will need an office for 150 to 200.
CCC has on its advisory board Lord Oxburgh, a former chairman of Shell, who knows about fossil fuels and the alternatives to them. And its chairman is Otto Van der Wyck, the founder of BC Partners, who knows about private equity investment. CCC's latest carbon fund is 10 times larger than the one it launched last year – and a large fund by private equity standards. As Mr Cameron, its vice-chairman, says: "Anyone who understands business growth will be interested in that."
How, then, is one meant to reconcile the frantic scramble to get on the carbon fund bandwagon with the view that Kyoto will be ineffectual, expressed by Ruth Lea, a director of the Centre for Policy Studies and a Daily Telegraph columnist, and Frances Cairncross, president of the British Association, holder of this autumn's Festival of Science?
Mr Cameron believes the sceptics "simply don't understand the Kyoto Protocol and haven't done a good economic analysis". He describes Ms Lea's stated view that China and India were "excluded" from Kyoto, a treaty both countries have ratified, as "little short of ridiculous".
Drax power station, Britain's biggest coal-fired station. Some claim it is the UK's largest single emitter of carbon dioxide
Specifically what the sceptics have not understood, he says, is that while China and India, the two biggest drivers of developing world carbon emissions, were not given an emission reduction target under Kyoto, they are allowed to trade audited emission reductions with companies in the developed world. Western companies are likely to be short of allowances to pollute – under the European Union trading scheme which began last year and will get tighter from 2008.
And it will usually be cheaper to buy them from the developing world than achieve them here.
This mechanism – the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) - allows companies like his to buy emission reductions in China, at the current going rate of $7-$12 a ton of carbon saved by building Chinese wind farms, and sell them to European companies in a couple of years at whatever the going rate - currently fluctuating at between €15 and €30. The price depends on how good politicians are at capping emissions but is likely to be higher.
CCC's new fund made its first investment in the carbon credits generated by Zhejiang Juhua Co Ltd, a Chinese chemical company, which produced an HFC refrigerant rated 12,000 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas, molecule for molecule, than carbon dioxide. The gas will be incinerated using proven technology and the credits sold or traded under the EU's carbon trading scheme.
CCC estimates that this alone will achieve a reduction of 29.5m tons of carbon dioxide equivalent over six years, or more than a third of the annual greenhouse emissions of UK households.
What CCC does for its money is invest in projects, do the paperwork needed to get those projects accepted by the executive board of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), based in Bonn, and take the risk that there will be a profit in it. This week, the UNFCCC secretariat estimated potential annual green investment flows between developed and developing countries at up to $100bn.
Of course, there are plenty of uncertainties. The carbon market is based on a legal mechanism. "It depends on European governments holding their nerve and doing the right thing" – ie setting caps that makes industry actually do something.
That's a big if and will require sustained lobbying. There is also the sneaking suspicion that carbon projects could become scams which produce no reductions at all. Mr Cameron says the way he does it means the firm doesn't pay unless real reductions are proven by independent, indemnified auditors. All the projects are on the UNFCCC's website and are crawled over by accountants and environmentalists.
No one knows quite how successful carbon trading will be, either in reducing carbon or making money. The projections that Kyoto will mean only a two per cent reduction in carbon emissions - even including America are much quoted by sceptics. They were based on modest amounts of carbon being traded - still a possibility.
I remember another possibility was discussed as we whiled away the long hours in Kyoto back in 1997 while the global deal was done: that the carbon market might be so successful it would make countries' individual carbon-reduction targets irrelevant, because of what Cameron calls "capital markets' tendency to over-achieve."
Just think of it: a green economy in which politicians played very little part.
Turning hot air into hard cash
(Filed: 22/09/2006)
Founder of the world's biggest private carbon fund tells Charles Clover why he believes Kyoto will lead to real change
The launch of the world's biggest private carbon fund must have shocked those who believe that rapid climate change is "inevitable" and that the Kyoto agreement will be "ineffectual".
Climate Change Capital (CCC's) fund is valued at £455m and is expected to top £536m ($1bn). Among its heavyweight investors are two Dutch pension funds and the energy giant Centrica. Its rise, and that of the other carbon funds, shows that some very big players think Kyoto will be effectual - and will make a greenhouseful of money.
James Cameron founder of Climate Change Capital
James Cameron, the founder of the CCC, believes that Kyoto will do more than that. The 44-year-old, an international lawyer at both the Rio and Kyoto treaty talks before he switched to investment banking, believes that tackling climate change is a necessity and that Kyoto provides a workable framework for doing so. But what has made big investors listen is that he thinks Kyoto, and the green economy it introduced, means opportunity.
Specifically, Mr Cameron believes that the international legal framework it set up will, by placing a value on every ton of carbon saved, enable international markets to begin solving the world's most serious problem in ways more inventive than mere politicians could ever devise. You can tell when you arrive in CCC's offices in Grosvenor Street - the kind of address favoured by hedge funds and boutique merchant banks - that a number of very rich people are backing his legal knowledge, rather than the spluttering of the ideologues.
Three years ago, CCC was a company with three desks in the Park Lane offices of a friend of a friend of Mr Cameron's. It has gone from holding no funds to holding funds worth more than $1bn. It makes a profit, is already worth tens of millions of pounds, and those three employees have multiplied to 90. And in under two years, the lease runs out, it will need an office for 150 to 200.
CCC has on its advisory board Lord Oxburgh, a former chairman of Shell, who knows about fossil fuels and the alternatives to them. And its chairman is Otto Van der Wyck, the founder of BC Partners, who knows about private equity investment. CCC's latest carbon fund is 10 times larger than the one it launched last year – and a large fund by private equity standards. As Mr Cameron, its vice-chairman, says: "Anyone who understands business growth will be interested in that."
How, then, is one meant to reconcile the frantic scramble to get on the carbon fund bandwagon with the view that Kyoto will be ineffectual, expressed by Ruth Lea, a director of the Centre for Policy Studies and a Daily Telegraph columnist, and Frances Cairncross, president of the British Association, holder of this autumn's Festival of Science?
Mr Cameron believes the sceptics "simply don't understand the Kyoto Protocol and haven't done a good economic analysis". He describes Ms Lea's stated view that China and India were "excluded" from Kyoto, a treaty both countries have ratified, as "little short of ridiculous".
Drax power station, Britain's biggest coal-fired station. Some claim it is the UK's largest single emitter of carbon dioxide
Specifically what the sceptics have not understood, he says, is that while China and India, the two biggest drivers of developing world carbon emissions, were not given an emission reduction target under Kyoto, they are allowed to trade audited emission reductions with companies in the developed world. Western companies are likely to be short of allowances to pollute – under the European Union trading scheme which began last year and will get tighter from 2008.
And it will usually be cheaper to buy them from the developing world than achieve them here.
This mechanism – the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) - allows companies like his to buy emission reductions in China, at the current going rate of $7-$12 a ton of carbon saved by building Chinese wind farms, and sell them to European companies in a couple of years at whatever the going rate - currently fluctuating at between €15 and €30. The price depends on how good politicians are at capping emissions but is likely to be higher.
CCC's new fund made its first investment in the carbon credits generated by Zhejiang Juhua Co Ltd, a Chinese chemical company, which produced an HFC refrigerant rated 12,000 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas, molecule for molecule, than carbon dioxide. The gas will be incinerated using proven technology and the credits sold or traded under the EU's carbon trading scheme.
CCC estimates that this alone will achieve a reduction of 29.5m tons of carbon dioxide equivalent over six years, or more than a third of the annual greenhouse emissions of UK households.
What CCC does for its money is invest in projects, do the paperwork needed to get those projects accepted by the executive board of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), based in Bonn, and take the risk that there will be a profit in it. This week, the UNFCCC secretariat estimated potential annual green investment flows between developed and developing countries at up to $100bn.
Of course, there are plenty of uncertainties. The carbon market is based on a legal mechanism. "It depends on European governments holding their nerve and doing the right thing" – ie setting caps that makes industry actually do something.
That's a big if and will require sustained lobbying. There is also the sneaking suspicion that carbon projects could become scams which produce no reductions at all. Mr Cameron says the way he does it means the firm doesn't pay unless real reductions are proven by independent, indemnified auditors. All the projects are on the UNFCCC's website and are crawled over by accountants and environmentalists.
No one knows quite how successful carbon trading will be, either in reducing carbon or making money. The projections that Kyoto will mean only a two per cent reduction in carbon emissions - even including America are much quoted by sceptics. They were based on modest amounts of carbon being traded - still a possibility.
I remember another possibility was discussed as we whiled away the long hours in Kyoto back in 1997 while the global deal was done: that the carbon market might be so successful it would make countries' individual carbon-reduction targets irrelevant, because of what Cameron calls "capital markets' tendency to over-achieve."
Just think of it: a green economy in which politicians played very little part.
Turning hot air into hard cash
(Filed: 22/09/2006)
Founder of the world's biggest private carbon fund tells Charles Clover why he believes Kyoto will lead to real change
The launch of the world's biggest private carbon fund must have shocked those who believe that rapid climate change is "inevitable" and that the Kyoto agreement will be "ineffectual".
Climate Change Capital (CCC's) fund is valued at £455m and is expected to top £536m ($1bn). Among its heavyweight investors are two Dutch pension funds and the energy giant Centrica. Its rise, and that of the other carbon funds, shows that some very big players think Kyoto will be effectual - and will make a greenhouseful of money.
James Cameron founder of Climate Change Capital
James Cameron, the founder of the CCC, believes that Kyoto will do more than that. The 44-year-old, an international lawyer at both the Rio and Kyoto treaty talks before he switched to investment banking, believes that tackling climate change is a necessity and that Kyoto provides a workable framework for doing so. But what has made big investors listen is that he thinks Kyoto, and the green economy it introduced, means opportunity.
Specifically, Mr Cameron believes that the international legal framework it set up will, by placing a value on every ton of carbon saved, enable international markets to begin solving the world's most serious problem in ways more inventive than mere politicians could ever devise. You can tell when you arrive in CCC's offices in Grosvenor Street - the kind of address favoured by hedge funds and boutique merchant banks - that a number of very rich people are backing his legal knowledge, rather than the spluttering of the ideologues.
Three years ago, CCC was a company with three desks in the Park Lane offices of a friend of a friend of Mr Cameron's. It has gone from holding no funds to holding funds worth more than $1bn. It makes a profit, is already worth tens of millions of pounds, and those three employees have multiplied to 90. And in under two years, the lease runs out, it will need an office for 150 to 200.
CCC has on its advisory board Lord Oxburgh, a former chairman of Shell, who knows about fossil fuels and the alternatives to them. And its chairman is Otto Van der Wyck, the founder of BC Partners, who knows about private equity investment. CCC's latest carbon fund is 10 times larger than the one it launched last year – and a large fund by private equity standards. As Mr Cameron, its vice-chairman, says: "Anyone who understands business growth will be interested in that."
How, then, is one meant to reconcile the frantic scramble to get on the carbon fund bandwagon with the view that Kyoto will be ineffectual, expressed by Ruth Lea, a director of the Centre for Policy Studies and a Daily Telegraph columnist, and Frances Cairncross, president of the British Association, holder of this autumn's Festival of Science?
Mr Cameron believes the sceptics "simply don't understand the Kyoto Protocol and haven't done a good economic analysis". He describes Ms Lea's stated view that China and India were "excluded" from Kyoto, a treaty both countries have ratified, as "little short of ridiculous".
Drax power station, Britain's biggest coal-fired station. Some claim it is the UK's largest single emitter of carbon dioxide
Specifically what the sceptics have not understood, he says, is that while China and India, the two biggest drivers of developing world carbon emissions, were not given an emission reduction target under Kyoto, they are allowed to trade audited emission reductions with companies in the developed world. Western companies are likely to be short of allowances to pollute – under the European Union trading scheme which began last year and will get tighter from 2008.
And it will usually be cheaper to buy them from the developing world than achieve them here.
This mechanism – the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) - allows companies like his to buy emission reductions in China, at the current going rate of $7-$12 a ton of carbon saved by building Chinese wind farms, and sell them to European companies in a couple of years at whatever the going rate - currently fluctuating at between €15 and €30. The price depends on how good politicians are at capping emissions but is likely to be higher.
CCC's new fund made its first investment in the carbon credits generated by Zhejiang Juhua Co Ltd, a Chinese chemical company, which produced an HFC refrigerant rated 12,000 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas, molecule for molecule, than carbon dioxide. The gas will be incinerated using proven technology and the credits sold or traded under the EU's carbon trading scheme.
CCC estimates that this alone will achieve a reduction of 29.5m tons of carbon dioxide equivalent over six years, or more than a third of the annual greenhouse emissions of UK households.
What CCC does for its money is invest in projects, do the paperwork needed to get those projects accepted by the executive board of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), based in Bonn, and take the risk that there will be a profit in it. This week, the UNFCCC secretariat estimated potential annual green investment flows between developed and developing countries at up to $100bn.
Of course, there are plenty of uncertainties. The carbon market is based on a legal mechanism. "It depends on European governments holding their nerve and doing the right thing" – ie setting caps that makes industry actually do something.
That's a big if and will require sustained lobbying. There is also the sneaking suspicion that carbon projects could become scams which produce no reductions at all. Mr Cameron says the way he does it means the firm doesn't pay unless real reductions are proven by independent, indemnified auditors. All the projects are on the UNFCCC's website and are crawled over by accountants and environmentalists.
No one knows quite how successful carbon trading will be, either in reducing carbon or making money. The projections that Kyoto will mean only a two per cent reduction in carbon emissions - even including America are much quoted by sceptics. They were based on modest amounts of carbon being traded - still a possibility.
I remember another possibility was discussed as we whiled away the long hours in Kyoto back in 1997 while the global deal was done: that the carbon market might be so successful it would make countries' individual carbon-reduction targets irrelevant, because of what Cameron calls "capital markets' tendency to over-achieve."
Just think of it: a green economy in which politicians played very little part.
Turning hot air into hard cash
(Filed: 22/09/2006)
Founder of the world's biggest private carbon fund tells Charles Clover why he believes Kyoto will lead to real change
The launch of the world's biggest private carbon fund must have shocked those who believe that rapid climate change is "inevitable" and that the Kyoto agreement will be "ineffectual".
Climate Change Capital (CCC's) fund is valued at £455m and is expected to top £536m ($1bn). Among its heavyweight investors are two Dutch pension funds and the energy giant Centrica. Its rise, and that of the other carbon funds, shows that some very big players think Kyoto will be effectual - and will make a greenhouseful of money.
James Cameron founder of Climate Change Capital
James Cameron, the founder of the CCC, believes that Kyoto will do more than that. The 44-year-old, an international lawyer at both the Rio and Kyoto treaty talks before he switched to investment banking, believes that tackling climate change is a necessity and that Kyoto provides a workable framework for doing so. But what has made big investors listen is that he thinks Kyoto, and the green economy it introduced, means opportunity.
Specifically, Mr Cameron believes that the international legal framework it set up will, by placing a value on every ton of carbon saved, enable international markets to begin solving the world's most serious problem in ways more inventive than mere politicians could ever devise. You can tell when you arrive in CCC's offices in Grosvenor Street - the kind of address favoured by hedge funds and boutique merchant banks - that a number of very rich people are backing his legal knowledge, rather than the spluttering of the ideologues.
Three years ago, CCC was a company with three desks in the Park Lane offices of a friend of a friend of Mr Cameron's. It has gone from holding no funds to holding funds worth more than $1bn. It makes a profit, is already worth tens of millions of pounds, and those three employees have multiplied to 90. And in under two years, the lease runs out, it will need an office for 150 to 200.
CCC has on its advisory board Lord Oxburgh, a former chairman of Shell, who knows about fossil fuels and the alternatives to them. And its chairman is Otto Van der Wyck, the founder of BC Partners, who knows about private equity investment. CCC's latest carbon fund is 10 times larger than the one it launched last year – and a large fund by private equity standards. As Mr Cameron, its vice-chairman, says: "Anyone who understands business growth will be interested in that."
How, then, is one meant to reconcile the frantic scramble to get on the carbon fund bandwagon with the view that Kyoto will be ineffectual, expressed by Ruth Lea, a director of the Centre for Policy Studies and a Daily Telegraph columnist, and Frances Cairncross, president of the British Association, holder of this autumn's Festival of Science?
Mr Cameron believes the sceptics "simply don't understand the Kyoto Protocol and haven't done a good economic analysis". He describes Ms Lea's stated view that China and India were "excluded" from Kyoto, a treaty both countries have ratified, as "little short of ridiculous".
Drax power station, Britain's biggest coal-fired station. Some claim it is the UK's largest single emitter of carbon dioxide
Specifically what the sceptics have not understood, he says, is that while China and India, the two biggest drivers of developing world carbon emissions, were not given an emission reduction target under Kyoto, they are allowed to trade audited emission reductions with companies in the developed world. Western companies are likely to be short of allowances to pollute – under the European Union trading scheme which began last year and will get tighter from 2008.
And it will usually be cheaper to buy them from the developing world than achieve them here.
This mechanism – the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) - allows companies like his to buy emission reductions in China, at the current going rate of $7-$12 a ton of carbon saved by building Chinese wind farms, and sell them to European companies in a couple of years at whatever the going rate - currently fluctuating at between €15 and €30. The price depends on how good politicians are at capping emissions but is likely to be higher.
CCC's new fund made its first investment in the carbon credits generated by Zhejiang Juhua Co Ltd, a Chinese chemical company, which produced an HFC refrigerant rated 12,000 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas, molecule for molecule, than carbon dioxide. The gas will be incinerated using proven technology and the credits sold or traded under the EU's carbon trading scheme.
CCC estimates that this alone will achieve a reduction of 29.5m tons of carbon dioxide equivalent over six years, or more than a third of the annual greenhouse emissions of UK households.
What CCC does for its money is invest in projects, do the paperwork needed to get those projects accepted by the executive board of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), based in Bonn, and take the risk that there will be a profit in it. This week, the UNFCCC secretariat estimated potential annual green investment flows between developed and developing countries at up to $100bn.
Of course, there are plenty of uncertainties. The carbon market is based on a legal mechanism. "It depends on European governments holding their nerve and doing the right thing" – ie setting caps that makes industry actually do something.
That's a big if and will require sustained lobbying. There is also the sneaking suspicion that carbon projects could become scams which produce no reductions at all. Mr Cameron says the way he does it means the firm doesn't pay unless real reductions are proven by independent, indemnified auditors. All the projects are on the UNFCCC's website and are crawled over by accountants and environmentalists.
No one knows quite how successful carbon trading will be, either in reducing carbon or making money. The projections that Kyoto will mean only a two per cent reduction in carbon emissions - even including America are much quoted by sceptics. They were based on modest amounts of carbon being traded - still a possibility.
I remember another possibility was discussed as we whiled away the long hours in Kyoto back in 1997 while the global deal was done: that the carbon market might be so successful it would make countries' individual carbon-reduction targets irrelevant, because of what Cameron calls "capital markets' tendency to over-achieve."
Just think of it: a green economy in which politicians played very little part.
sorry that is given
Yes this is true but they were still gigen 24 million shares of the company
Your Welcome 911 im holding just over a Mill myself in GSEG and waiting for a big up tick , it will come if and when they see revenue from all their definite agreements thats the bottom line here 911
Stockster reportedly owns 24,000,000 free trading shares.
GS Energy Corporation (OTCBB:GSEG) jumped from an average volume over the past three months of 31,701,000 to over 141,619,000 million shares traded. The stock price also showed a sizeable increase of about 25 percent in intraday trading and at the close. The Stockster reportedly owns 24,000,000 free trading shares.
Like this company ?
http://recoveredenergy.com/index.html
My question is how come Gsct, gshf, or gseg have not become a part of the following, you can apply here ???
http://www.futuregenalliance.org/involved.stm#prospective
My question is how come Gsct, gshf, or gseg have not become a part of the following, you can apply here ???
http://www.futuregenalliance.org/involved.stm#prospective
My question is how come Gsct, gshf, or gseg have not become a part of the following, you can apply here ???
http://www.futuregenalliance.org/involved.stm#prospective
There was some nice news today on yahoo here it is.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=gseg.ob
Watching Our Water at Tyson foods
http://www.tyson.com/Corporate/AboutTyson/TysonCares/Environment.aspx
GreenShift consolidated its majority- and minority-held investments in connection with its transition to an operating company to more effectively focus on the growth of these companies. Effective July 1, 2006, GreenShift's corporate structure was streamlined into the following majority-held operating subsidiaries:
GS AgriFuels Corporation
GS AgriFuels (OTC Bulletin Board: HGOT) intends to build and
operate several clean fuel production facilities in America
based on innovative new clean technologies with a focus on
biodiesel and alternative ethanol production. GS AgriFuels'
first planned production facility, Mean Green Biodiesel, is
designed to initially operate at 45 million gallons per year.
According to a feasibility study commissioned by Mean Green, a
plant of this magnitude can be expected to generate in excess
of $90 million in revenue per year.
This shell company is being used by Gshf I think to fund mean greens bio desiel project which Insq has an interest in .
10QSB: HUGO INTERNATIONAL TELECOM INC
PrintE-mailDisable live quotesRSSDigg itDel.icio.usLast Update: 5:10 PM ET May 23, 2006
(EDGAR Online via COMTEX) -- ITEM 2. MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS AND PLAN OF OPERATION
Forward Looking Statements
In addition to historical information, this Quarterly Report contains forward-looking statements, which are generally identifiable by use of the words "believes," "expects," "intends," "anticipates," "plans to," "estimates," "projects," or similar expressions. These forward-looking statements are subject to certain risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those reflected in these forward-looking statements. Factors that might cause such a difference include, but are not limited to, those discussed in the section entitled "Business Risk Factors." Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which reflect management's opinions only as of the date hereof. We undertake no obligation to revise or publicly release the results of any revision to these forward-looking statements.
OVERVIEW
Hugo International Telecom, Inc. was a holding company. It no longer has any operating subsidiaries. In the past its operating subsidiaries, Hugo International Limited, and Hugo International Ltd. supplied cellular telephone, radio and wireless data communications solutions to business customers primarily in the British Isles who sought to improve their customer service levels and control their communications costs. Both of these operating subsidiaries are no longer in operation. Hugo Ireland was closed in 2002 and Hugo International limited was wound down in 2003. The Company lost significant capabilities of influencing the day to day operations from the administrator in October of 2001.
The Company incorporated in the State of Delaware on February 17, 2000 and acquired our now defunct Hugo International Limited operating subsidiary on February 24, 2000 and our defunct Hugo Ireland operating subsidiary on July 1, 2001.
BUSINESS RISK FACTORS
There are many important factors that have affected, and in the future could affect, Hugo International Telecom's business, including but not limited to the factors discussed below, which should be reviewed carefully together with other information contained in this report. Some of the factors are beyond our control and future trends are difficult to predict.
The Company is not a going concern.
The accompanying consolidated financial statements have been prepared assuming that the Company will continue as a going concern. The Company, however, is a shell company without any operations. As of March 31, 2006, the Company did not have any cash, and current liabilities exceeded current assets by $393,415. These matters raise substantial doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a going concern.
The bankruptcy proceeding of our Hugo International Telecom, Ltd., subsidiary exposes us to risks and uncertainties.
The wholly owned subsidiary, Hugo International Telecom, Ltd. (`Limited') was placed into administrative status of the UK bankruptcy code as of October, 2001. Limited was restated as a discontinued operation through the date of the bankruptcy filing for financial statement purposes and was deconsolidated as of the bankruptcy date for financial statement purposes. If Limited fails to honor certain of its contractual obligations because of the bankruptcy filing or otherwise, claims may be made against us for breaches by Limited of those contracts as to which we are primarily or secondarily liable as a guarantor. In addition, Limited bankruptcy might bring certain claims against us or seek to hold us liable for certain transfers made by Limited to us and/or for Limited's obligations to creditors under various equitable theories recognized under bankruptcy law. As of May 22, 2006, there have been no claims filed against the Company or any of its current or former officers or directors, and we do not expect any material claims to be filed. However, the outcome of complex litigation (including claims which may be asserted against us) cannot be predicted with certainty and its dependent upon many factors beyond our control; however, any such claims, if successful, could have a material adverse impact on our financial condition. Finally, we may incur additional costs in connection with out involvement in the Limited bankruptcy proceedings.
ITEM 2. MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS AND PLAN OF OPERATION
BUSINESS RISK FACTORS (CONTINUED)
The Company is not likely to hold annual shareholder meetings in the next few years.
Delaware corporation law provides that members of the board of directors retain authority to act until they are removed or replaced at a meeting of the shareholders. A shareholder may petition the Delaware Court of Chancery to direct that a shareholders meeting be held. But absent such a legal action, the board has no obligation to call a shareholders meeting. Unless a shareholders meeting is held, the existing directors elect directors to fill any vacancy that occurs on the board of directors. The shareholders, therefore, have no control over the constitution of the board of directors, unless a shareholders meeting is held. Management does not expect to hold annual meetings of shareholders in the next few years, due to the expense involved. Kevin Kreisler is currently the sole director of the Company and was appointed to that position by the previous directors. If other directors are added to the Board in the future, it is likely that Mr. Kreisler will appoint them. As a result, the shareholders of the Company will have no effective means of exercising control over the operations of the Company.
Some of our existing stockholders can exert control over us and may not make decisions that further the best interests of all stockholders.
Our officers, directors and principal stockholders (greater that 5% stockholders) together control approximately 67% of our voting stock. As a result, these stockholders, if they act individually or together, may exert a significant degree of influence over our management and affairs and over matters requiring stockholder approval, including the election of directors and approval of significant corporate transactions. In addition, this concentration of ownership may delay or prevent a change in control of us and might affect the market price of our common stock, even when a change in control may be in the best interest of all stockholders. Furthermore, the interests of this concentration of ownership may not always coincide with our interests or the interests of other stockholders and accordingly, they could cause us to enter into transactions or agreements which we would not otherwise consider.
Investing in our stock is highly speculative and you could lose some or all of your investment.
The value of our common stock may decline and may be affected by numerous market conditions, which could result in the loss of some or the entire amount invested in our stock. The securities markets frequently experience extreme price and volume fluctuations that affect market prices for securities of companies generally and very small capitalization companies such as us in particular.
Our common stock qualifies as a "penny stock" under SEC rules which may make it more difficult for our stockholders to resell their shares of our common stock.
The holders of our common stock may find it more difficult to obtain accurate quotations concerning the market value of the stock. Stockholders also may experience greater difficulties in attempting to sell the stock than if it were listed on a stock exchange or quoted on the NASDAQ National Market or the NASDAQ Small-Cap Market. Because our common stock does not trade on a stock exchange or on the NASDAQ National Market or the NASDAQ Small-Cap Market, and the market price of the common stock is less than $5.00 per share, the common stock qualifies as a "penny stock." SEC Rule 15g-9 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 imposes additional sales practice requirements on broker-dealers that recommend the purchase or sale of penny stocks to persons other than those who qualify as an "established customer" or an "accredited investor." This includes the requirement that a broker-dealer must make a determination on the appropriateness of investments in penny stocks for the customer and must make special disclosures to the customer concerning the risks of penny stocks. Application of the penny stock rules to our common stock affects the market liquidity of the shares, which in turn may affect the ability of holders of our common stock to resell the stock.
ITEM 2. MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS AND PLAN OF OPERATION
BUSINESS RISK FACTORS (CONTINUED)
Only a small portion of the investment community will purchase "penny stocks" such as our common stock.
Our common stock is defined by the SEC as a "penny stock" because it trades at a price less than $5.00 per share. Our common stock also meets most common definitions of a "penny stock," since it trades for less than $1.00 per share. Many brokerage firms will discourage their customers from purchasing penny stocks, and even more brokerage firms will not recommend a penny stock to their customers. Most institutional investors will not invest in penny stocks. In addition, many individual investors will not consider a purchase of a penny stock due, among other things, to the negative reputation that attends the penny stock market. As a result of this widespread disdain for penny stocks, there will be a limited market for our common stock as long as it remains a "penny stock." This situation may limit the liquidity of your shares.
[------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CRITICAL ACCOUNTING POLICIES AND ESTIMATES
The preparation of our consolidated financial statements requires us to make estimates that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses. The following are the areas that we believe require the greatest amount of estimates in the preparation of our financial statements.
As described more fully in Note 2 to the financial statements, Contingencies, above, we are subject to legal proceedings, which we have assumed in our consolidation process. Accruals are established for legal matters when, in our opinion, it is probable that a liabilities exists and the liability can be reasonably estimated. Estimates of the costs associated with dispute settlement are adjusted as facts emerge. Actual expenses incurred in future periods can differ materially from accruals established.
RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
The company is currently a shell with no operations. Expenses incurred are primarily related to professional fees to prepare the company for a strategic transaction.
LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL RESOURCES
The company had no cash balance as of March 31, 2006. There remains approximately $144,579 of accounts payable and $300 of accrued expenses unsettled as of March 31, 2006.
The company has incurred continued operating losses, has negative working capital and liabilities exceed assets as of March 31, 2006. These conditions are expected to continue unless new operating subsidiaries are acquired.
May 23, 2006
(c) 1995-2006 Cybernet Data Systems, Inc. All Rights Reserved
7:51AM 7/14/2006U.S. stock market futures up after in-line GE results
7:49AM 7/14/2006Petco agrees to $29 a share buyout valued at $1.8 bln
7:39AM 7/14/2006Crude at record high above $78 as Mideast tensions mount
7:07AM 7/14/2006General Electric posts in-line profit rise of 4%
7:00AM 7/14/2006Rosneft raises $10.4 billion in world's fifth-largest IPO
More newsE-mail | Print | Digg it | Del.icio.us | My Yahoo! | RSSSPONSORED LINKS