silverado goldmines (867737)
(ps. war effektiv eine Verwechslung mit ZN, passiert halt wenn man immer nur kurz auf den Screen schauen kann ,hab halt auch noch ein zweites Leben nebenbei )
L.G.
INHOFE AMENDMENT TO ENERGY BILL SEEKS TO INCREASE DOMESTIC REFINING CAPACITY
June 12, 2007
WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.) today offered the Gas Petroleum Refiner Improvement and Community Empowerment Act of 2007, or the Gas Price Act (S.1503), as an amendment to the energy bill currently before the Senate. The Gas Price Act, which is designed to ease America’s soaring gas prices, address true energy independence and increase refinery capacity, was first introduced on May 24, 2007 by Senator Inhofe.
The Gas Price Act would improve the permitting process for the expansion of existing and construction of new domestic fuels facilities, as well as encourage and fund the development of future fuels including coal-to-liquids and cellulosic biomass ethanol. In addition, Senator Inhofe’s amendment would provide for a more stable and certain regulatory environment and it would have numerous economic benefits including locating refineries in distressed communities.
Senator Inhofe introduced the amendment on the Senate Floor today; a vote is expected on the amendment tomorrow. The following remarks are from Senator Inhofe’s Floor statement:
“I was pleased to hear that the majority leader recognized that the US has become too reliant on foreign sources of energy,” Senator Inhofe said. “Unfortunately, the majority’s bill – at present - does not improve the situation, and indeed could worsen it. The fact is that Americans are paying more at the pump because we do not have the domestic capacity to refine the fuels consumers demand.
“Americans are starving for affordable energy. The majority’s bill tells them to go on a diet. The good news is that it’s not too late to do something to improve the situation. And it is in that good faith to improve the energy security position of our country that we are offering the Gas PRICE Act.”
Senator Inhofe’s amendment also requires the EPA to establish a demonstration project to assess the use of Fischer-Tropsch (FT) diesel and jet fuel as an overall emission control strategy. Initial tests have found that FT diesel significantly reduces criteria pollutants over conventional fuels, and it can easily be transported with existing infrastructure. Ongoing tests at Tinker Air Force Base have demonstrated that blends of FT aircraft fuel reduced particulates 47-90% and completely eliminated sulphur-dioxide emissions over fuels in use today. Syntroleum, a Tulsa based corporation, is a leader in gas-to-liquids (GTL) and coal-to-liquids (CTL) based fuels and is a partner with Tinker Air Force Base in the testing of gas-to-liquids based fuels in B-52s.
http://inhofe.senate.gov/public/...fe582f-a6f2-26f4-864e-b9d55562c2a4
U.S. Senate Says No to "Clean Coal" & Nuclear in RPS
by Sara Parker, Staff Writer
Washington, DC [RenewableEnergyAccess.com]
National Renewable Energy Portfolio (RPS) legislation introduced by Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), which included clean coal technology and nuclear power alongside traditional sources of renewable energy, was voted down in the U.S. Senate this afternoon 56-29. ......
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=48960&src=rss
Eine Meinung ist eine Meinung ist eine Meinung...
Seine ist seine und der Trend hat ebenfalls seine eigene...
Ich werde in dieser Aktie bleiben bis sie bei 0,00001 steht und dann immer noch hoffen das es eine 1€ Dividende gibt. Messt mich an meinen Worten, ich gehe mit dieser Aktie unter wenn es sein muss aber ich kann nicht vor dem letzten Kind und der letzten Frau von Board gehen. Ausserdem steht das gar nicht zu Diskussion. Wir haben freie See voraus und tiefes Wasser unter uns, die Lagerräume sind voll und Vitamine sind gebunkert.
Lets go !
Ach, ich hab da eine Aktie daran steht "don't touch",
also halte ich mich einfach daran.
Und angenehmen Abend noch SWAY ;-)
bon weekend
Mathou
The new political enthusiasm for coal rests on something called coal-to-liquid technology, or CTL, which converts coal into a diesel-like fuel that can be used ...
http://online.wsj.com/article/...799177136187.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Noch ist das letzte Wort nicht gesprochen und sogar ohne gesetzliche Unterstützungen sehen die Erfolschancen für Green Fuel mal gar nicht so schlecht aus ,vorausgesetzt die bislang erfolgreiche Finanzierung gelingt ihnen durch eigen erworbenes Kapital oder durch private Investoren
Es könnte sogar von Vorteil sein so früh mit einer eigenen ,revolutionären und erprobten Technik vor der Konkurenz in diesem doch so wichtigen Markt vertreten zu sein.
Noch ein schönes WE an alle Investierten.
(SK im plus und die 0.100 fast gesichert ,beruhigend)
so long
Despite the delay, Pelosi vowed that the House would adopt some kind of energy legislation before the July 4 recess, even if other energy measures are introduced later. .....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/.../AR2007061202127.html
Na also
Monday, June 18, 2007
By Rob Lever WASHINGTON, AFP
A fiery debate has been rekindled in Washington as U.S. lawmakers mull proposed incentives to produce diesel fuel from coal.
Backers of coal-based liquid fuels say they can help reduce U.S. dependence on imported oil. Critics contend the use of coal in any form would lead to increased greenhouse gas emissions and other harmful environmental effects.
Synthetic motor fuel from coal has been around for decades, but interest has been growing as a result of the surge in petroleum prices. Some point to the experience in South Africa, which produces much of its transportation fuel from coal.
In the U.S. Senate, a proposal to provide up to US$10 billion in loans for coal-to-liquid projects is gathering steam and may be attached to a wide-ranging energy bill, which would among other things mandate more ethanol production and increased fuel economy for automobiles.
Other proposals being studied in Congress could provide fresh tax credits and other incentives for coal-to-liquid fuels that can be used in cars, trucks and even airplanes.
The technology for using coal for liquid or "synthetic" fuel has been known since the 1920s, and Germany used it extensively during World War II. The process being studied now would convert coal into a gas to remove impurities such as mercury and sulfur and, in a second stage, into liquid fuels and other chemical products.
Corey Henry, spokesman for the Coal-to-Liquids Coalition, said that the overall process of making motor fuel from coal could result in lower greenhouse gas emissions if combined with technology to capture and store carbon gases.
"The question is whether people want clean fuel from our own coal or dirty imported oil," said Henry, whose coalition includes big energy companies, labor unions and the South African firm Sasol.
He said the carbon dioxide from the process could in some cases be pumped into oil fields for hard-to-recover reserves.
Henry said South Africa produces more than 30 percent of its transportation fuel from coal, proving that it can be practical, and that other countries including China are interested in efforts to replace oil-based motor fuels with coal.
But environmental activists worry about any move to increase coal use, saying the fuel leads to a variety of negative impacts from mining, processing and burning.
Ted Glick, coordinator of the U.S. Climate Emergency Council, said that without carbon sequestration, liquid fuel from coal would lead to twice the level of emissions as from gasoline.
"Even with carbon sequestration coal is still worse than gasoline, and it would cost a tremendous amount of money," Glick said.
Glick said the US$10 billion proposed for coal-to-liquid technology would be better spent on alternatives such as wind power, solar energy and other conservation efforts.
For the auto sector, Glick said more effort should be concentrated in technology such as plug-in electric hybrid cars "not this old and dirty and destructive coal ... going from coal to liquids is going backwards."
Bill Wicker, spokesman for the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee, said senators are trying to reach consensus on a loan program that could help coal conversion without increasing greenhouse gas emissions.
"Committee staff is actively trying to make a path forward to address both the issues of oil security and climate change," Wicker said.
He said committee chairman Senator Jeff Bingaman is "unwilling to look at one without the other."
Wicker said there is momentum in Congress to encourage clean-coal use and to take advantage of the abundant energy source in the United States that could replace imported oil.
The Senate leadership "recognizes that coal is and will be an important part of the nation's energy mix," Wicker said.
In the House of Representatives, Virginia lawmaker Rick Boucher offered a proposal to establish price guarantees for liquid fuels from coal to encourage production.
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/business/112719.htm
WASHINGTON, June 19 — The Senate Finance Committee approved $28 billion in tax breaks on Tuesday to underwrite renewable fuels and “clean coal” technology, all at the expense of the oil industry.
The coal industry would reap substantial benefits from the committee package, which is to be attached to a broader energy bill being debated on the Senate floor.
But the industry suffered an unexpected defeat when the full Senate rejected two measures in the overall energy bill aimed at vastly expanding the production of diesel fuel made from coal.
Senate leaders plan to attach the tax package to a broader energy bill, which they hope the full Senate will approve by the end of this week. But the mixed signals made it hard to say what shape the package will take in the end.
In a separate vote that could lead to a veto fight with President Bush, the Senate voted 70 to 23 to add a provision that would allow the United States to sue oil-producing nations for price fixing and other violations of antitrust law.
The White House warned last week that the provision, nicknamed the NOPEC clause, would damage American business interests abroad by inviting retaliatory action by other governments. It said Mr. Bush’s advisers would urge him to veto any bill with such a provision.
Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico and chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, also opposed the NOPEC provision as a “feel good” vote that would “undoubtedly be popular but would also be unwise.”
The Senate floor votes on coal cheered environmental groups, which have argued that production of heat-trapping gases linked to global warming would be at least as great from coal-based liquids as from gasoline.
The tax package would provide $10 billion in additional breaks for companies that produce electricity from renewable energy sources like wind and solar power and methane from landfills.
It would also underwrite tax-free bonds for plants that produce electricity with renewable fuels, offer new incentives for transmission lines for wind and solar power and extend tax breaks for ethanol and other gasoline substitutes.
Oil companies immediately attacked the measure as short-sighted, saying that reducing tax benefits for oil producers and refiners would reduce investment in domestic production. But oil industry lobbyists have stopped short of engaging in a full campaign to kill the legislation.
“While promoting alternative energy sources is a worthy goal, doing so by imposing new taxes on the U.S. oil and natural gas industry would actually work against ensuring reliable and stable energy supplies for American consumers,” the American Petroleum Institute said after the vote.
Democrats from coal states had proposed offering up to $10 billion in loans for companies that build coal-to-liquid-fuel plants, provided the companies captured and stored at least 75 percent of the carbon dioxide produced in making the fuel.
Republicans had pushed a much stronger bill that would have required fuel producers to generate six billion gallons a year of coal-based fuels by 2022.
Democrats voted almost uniformly against the Republican bill and it was defeated by a vote of 55 to 39.
But by an even bigger bipartisan majority, 61 to 33, the Senate then rejected the Democratic bill on coal. The opposition to that bill came almost equally from Republicans who were peeved at having their own bill rejected and from Democrats who opposed subsidies for coal-based fuels because of the possible impacts on global warming.
As Senate Democrats rush to complete an energy bill before the end of this week, lawmakers who place top priority on promoting renewable fuels had been trying to put together compromises with coal-state lawmakers to prevent the broader bill from being blocked by filibuster.
Senator Bingaman was blocked by the threat of a filibuster last week from holding a vote on a provision that would have required electric utilities to generate 15 percent of their power from renewable fuels by 2020.
Democratic leaders are also struggling to preserve a provision that would increase average fuel economy standards in cars and trucks. Automobile manufacturers, saying that the proposed energy bill would cost them billions of dollars and could jeopardize the ability of some companies to survive, are fighting hard for a much weaker measure.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/20/business/...rssuserland&emc=rss
Wir hatten ja einen kleinen Aufwärtstrend zu verzeichnen der heute direkt gebrochen wurde und uns ein minus von 9% eingehandelt hat!
Erwartet hatte ich eigentlich die andere richtung...
Morgen muß der Kurs drehen, wenn nicht ist der 2007 erkämpfte Widerstand zerstört, traurig aber wahr... heutige Kerze ist ein "Inverted Hammer" zählt positiv! Volumen kam auch mal wieder mit ins spiel!
Der nächste Widerstand ist erst bei 0,067$
das gute ist wenigstens das die neugedruckten Aktien und damit mal eben einen schönen gruß nach vancouver!!! auch nichts mehr wert sind! Wohl auf die falschen Chartanalysten gehört...
U.S. Senator Pete Domenici, ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, today joined Senator Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) to introduce an amendment that would displace conventional gasoline with cleaner, more efficient liquid coal.
U.S. Senator Pete DomeniciThe amendment, introduced today by Domenici on behalf of Bunning, would establish a mandate for 6 billion gallons of coal-to-liquid (CTL) fuel between 2016 and 2022. The mandate requires that greenhouse gas emissions from coal-to-liquids fuels be 20 percent better than conventional gasoline, the same standard applied to cellulosic ethanol in the underlying bill. Among the amendment’s cosponsors are Senators Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), Larry Craig (R-Idaho) and Mel Martinez (R-Fla.).
“I believe that the way to address our need for more domestic energy while still lowering emissions is to pursue as many options as possible. Coal-to-liquids makes sense as part of the solution because it is cleaner than the conventional gasoline it will displace. CTL is available now. It can be moved in existing pipes, and be used in existing vehicles. Additionally, advancing coal-to-liquids will create jobs,” Domenici said.
“America needs to use all the resources we have to address energy prices and national security. Ethanol and coal-to-liquid fuel will help America break our addiction to Middle Eastern oil. My amendment will provide the same fuel mandate and the same environmental standard for coal-to-liquid that we use for ethanol,” Bunning said. “Coal-to-liquid fuels that are as clean as biofuels will help lower the energy bills of American working families, improve the environment, and provide a secure fuel for our military,” Bunning said.
The coal-to-liquids mandate would be one-sixth the size of the renewable fuels mandate in S.1419, and would be entirely separate from the biofuels program. Only coal-to-liquid fuel that can meet the same lifecycle greenhouse gas standard as biofuels will be eligible for the program.
The Bunning-Domenici amendment is significantly different than an amendment introduced in the Energy Committee during its May 2nd markup. That amendment called for a 21 billion gallon CTL mandate, and did not require the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
The Bunning-Domenici amendment also contrasts sharply with the Tester-Bingaman amendment, which creates a direct loan program for plants that sequester 75% of greenhouse gases emitted, but does not require that coal be used as a feedstock. Currently, the technology to sequester carbon has not been commercially developed on the scale necessary, rendering the program essentially meaningless. The underlying bill, S.1419, does contain provisions to promote research and development of carbon sequestration, which Domenici supports.
http://www.co2-handel.de/article187_5920.html
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Printable Format
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Ben LaBolt
WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) released the following statement on the coal-to-liquid fuel proposals considered by the Senate today:
"Achieving energy independence and significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions are two of the greatest challenges America faces. With the right technological innovations, coal has the potential to be a cleaner burning, domestic alternative to imported oil. However we are not there yet. The Bunning amendment would have been premature in requiring the production of billions of gallons of coal-to-liquids without providing strong environmental safeguards to ensure that this new fuel alleviates, not worsens, our climate crisis. The Tester amendment, on the other hand, gives us the tools to determine whether we can make coal into a clean fuel source. We cannot solve the climate crisis without addressing coal – which generates half of America's electricity.”
"Moving forward, I believe we should only invest in coal-to-liquid fuels that burn at least 20 percent less lifecycle carbon emissions than conventional fuels. I also introduced a low-carbon fuel standard to mandate a 10 percent reduction in emissions for all vehicle fuels by 2020, with incentives for producers to make their fuels more efficient and to exceed that level, without prejudging which fuel will turn out to be the best for our environment and our economy
http://obama.senate.gov/press/070619-obama_statement_69/
der sollte eigentlich bei 0,067€ sein!
Viele hängen jetzt mit -30%-40% Verlust im Kurs
bin mal gespannt wo die Schmerzgrenze ist!
WIR MÜSSEN EINFACH MEHR AKTIEN KAUFEN WIE DER DRUCKER NEUE DRUCKEN KANN!!!
das ist des Rätsels Lösung!!!!!!!!!