Thread Rating:
  • 5 Vote(s) - 4.2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Dead Zone: The Algae Biofuels and Carbon Exchange Agenda
07-16-2010, 04:33 AM,
RE: Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Dead Zone: The Algae Biofuels and Carbon Exchange Agenda
Excellent Find. Thanks. I ran across an old article that supports this and a video, thought I had bookmarked it but didn't. The article predated bio-fuels being mentioned to the public.
07-24-2010, 10:00 PM,
RE: Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Dead Zone: The Algae Biofuels and Carbon Exchange Agenda
Curious to find this Wired article while I was researching geoengineering a tactic that was thouroughly debunked since it killed marine ecosystems. It's being brought to the front burner once again. I suppose you can't kill marine life that is already dead. With introducing iron and nitrates into the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Dead Zone you'd have a perfect soup for algae biofuel or, as some like to call it, Algenol. Even wikipedia did a promo for it, how sweet of them.

Quote:Algenol, headquartered in Bonita Springs, FL, is a company developing a process to produce ethanol directly from algae. Rather than grow algae and then harvest them, the ethanol is removed without killing the algae. Their process appears somewhat unique in this regard as nearly all other fuel comes from either long dead organic matter in the case of fossil fuels or recently dead organic matter in the case of normal biofuel.


Algenol's process uses seawater, carbon dioxide and sunlight to produce ethanol and freshwater[2]. The source of the carbon dioxide can be "captured industrial or captured atmospheric"[3].

Comparison with other alternative biofuels

Algenol claim the process can produce 6,000 US gallons per acre per year (5,600 m3/km2·a) as compared with around 370 US gallons per acre per year (350 m3/km2·a) produced by growing corn and fermenting it and 890 US gallons per acre per year (830 m3/km2·a) for sugar cane. The algae is grown in salt water and so can be grown in desert areas using sea water rather than needing existing agricultural land and water sources. Their process also uses carbon dioxide generally obtained as a waste product from power stations.


The company operates the world's largest algae library in Baltimore, Maryland and the algae they are using was chosen from a collection of more than 10,000 strains and modified to enhance certain traits.


They have committed $850 million to build an algae farm in the Sonoran Desert in northwest Mexico and intend to sell the ethanol fuel at about US$3 per US gallon (80¢/l). Production was planned from Mexico in 2009, now delayed to 2010 due to planning delays and the company says it plans to produce 1 billion US gallons (3,800,000 m3) by the end of 2012 which would make it the worlds largest ethanol producer. [4][5] They have claimed production costs as low as 85¢ per US gallon (22¢/l).[6]


On June 9 they announced a partnership with Dow Chemical to build a demonstration project at Dow’s Freeport, Texas site with 3,100 bioreactors in addition to 40 that they have in Florida. The bioreactors shown in 09 were long troughs covered with a flexible plastic looking rather like a long hot dog balloon. Dow will provide the balloon material. The Georgia Institute of Technology and Membrane Technology will also work on the process [7][8]

Grants Awarded

In December 2009, Algenol got a $25m United States Department of Energy grant to help build the Freeport project. [9] In addition, the company announced they will be building a new site in Lee County, Florida[10]. The Lee County site is planned to include a research lab, new corporate headquarters and a production utility[11]. It is to cover 43,000sqft[12] and to include 40 acres of photobioreactors[13].


1. ^
2. ^
3. ^
4. ^ "Algae farm in Mexico to produce ethanol in '09". cnet. 2008-06-12.
5. ^ "Algenol Enters The Algae Biofuel Race With Process Economics Advantage". TreeHugger. 2008-06-12.
6. ^ "Fuel the World". Gulf Coast Business Review.
7. ^ "Baltimore lab seeks fuel in pond scum". Baltimore Sun.,0,2228536.story/.
8. ^ "Algae Farm Aims to Turn Carbon Dioxide Into Fuel". New York Times.
9. ^ "US Names Biofuel Projects". CNN.
10. ^ "Biofuel company plans lab, headquarters in Lee County". The News-Press.
11. ^ "Impending verdict on Algenol’s biofuel production utility". Biofuels International, February 2, 2010.
12. ^ "Algenol Partners With Lee County as Commission Votes to Approve Incentive Funding for Florida-Based".
13. ^ "Algenol Partners With Lee County as Commission Votes to Approve Incentive Funding for Florida-Based".

External links

* Algenol company website
* Marketwatch article with video of the Algenol process from March 2010

They aren't the only Algal Fuel Producers either:

Here is a listing of the bigger players (highlighted ones are ones I've noticed a lot in the news I've digested so far):

* Algenol
* Aquaflow Bionomic Corporation
* Bio Fuel Systems
* BioFields (company)
* Cellana (company)
* Chevron Corporation
* GreenFuel Technologies Corporation
* Sapphire Energy
* Solazyme
* Aventine Renewable Energy
* BioFields (company)
* Blue Flint Ethanol
* BlueFire Ethanol
* Coskata, Inc.
* DuPont Danisco
* Forbes Energy
* Gulf Coast Energy
* Iogen Corp.
* Mascoma Corporation
* Panda Energy International
* Range Fuels
* Renova Energy
* Tereos
* VeraSun Energy
* Verenium Corporation

Full List of Algal Fuel Producers

Here are some snippets from the Wired Article.

Quote:Q&A: Geoengineering Is ‘A Bad Idea Whose Time Has Come’
# By Alexis Madrigal Email Author
# March 23, 2010

The Pinatubo option involves spraying some kind of particles (usually people talk about sulfur) into the upper atmosphere to form a kind of haze that blocks a small percentage of the sun’s rays before they can enter the lower atmosphere.

The carbon methods involve generally enhancing natural systems to take in more carbon, perhaps genetically modifying plants so they have more carbonaceous cells or growing large blooms of algae in the ocean by using some sort of key nutrient that can catalyze and fertilize their growth. The main way has been to use iron. You could also build machines to suck in the carbon dioxide.

And when it comes to iron fertilization, which is growing algae blooms, there are a variety of scientists but most notably John Martin.

For iron fertilization, there is an ecologist, Penny Chisholm at MIT, who is mostly focused on a variety of ecological and environmental issues related to growing these giant algae blooms.

I titled the chapter on the history of climate and weather modification as a pursuit of levers. Because what I think geoengineering comes down to is looking for levers, making small changes that have big effects in the climate system. And that’s usually the goal of a company, they look for ways to profit off a small investment and yield big returns.

We’re looking for good investments for our geoengineering buck, so it doesn’t surprise that you’d have [private companies] Climos and Planktos interested in the very lucrative leverage involved in iron fertilization.

Excellent Comment:

Dumping Iron into the oceans to capture CO2 is a bad idea. The plankton it grows produces domoic acid, which is a neurotoxin.
“The effects of long-term exposure to low levels of the neurotoxin are unknown.
The new study is “less a prediction of ecological doom than it is a lesson about not knowing the consequences of our actions,” Trick adds.
Alo, see March 15 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Quote:Fe At Sea
Don't Try This In A Cast iron Bathtub
December 2007

.. and now finally the long debunked idea a large amount algae is good for the ecosystem. Pointed out by that astute commenter (check the ref) and this article.

Quote:Scientists find ocean fertilization won't work - final blow to controversial geoengineering option
Thursday, November 29, 2007

Scientists have revealed an important discovery that raises serious doubts concerning the viability of plans to fertilize the ocean to solve global warming, a projected $100 billion 'geoengineering' venture that has attracted a lot of criticism from environmentalists, climate scientists, civil society and oceanographers who think the scheme may destroy marine environments. The concept was recently deemed 'not scientifically justified' by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) (earlier post). The bioenergy community for its part is opposed to the idea, because it distracts attention from a much safer solution to global warming, namely the production of negative emissions from bioenergy. But now scientists deal the final blow to the controversial concept, saying it simply won't work.

Ocean fertilization, the process of adding iron or other nutrients to the ocean to cause large algal blooms, has been proposed as a possible 'geoengineering' solution to global warming because the growing algae absorb carbon dioxide as they grow. But research performed at Stanford University, the Carnegie Institution of Washington and Oregon State University, published in the Journal of Geophysical Research, now concludes that ocean fertilization is not an effective method of reducing CO2 in the atmosphere because of the seasonal dynamics of the way in which algae sink to the bottom of the ocean.

This technique of ocean fertilization, which is analogous to adding fertilizer to a lawn to help the grass grow, only reduces carbon dioxide in the atmosphere if the carbon incorporated into the algae sinks to deeper waters. This process, which scientists call the 'Biological Pump' (image, click to enlarge), has been thought to be dependent on the abundance of algae in the top layers of the ocean. The more algae in a bloom, the more carbon is transported, or 'pumped', from the atmosphere to the deep ocean.

To test this theory, researchers compared the abundance of algae in the surface waters of the world's oceans with the amount of carbon actually sinking to deep water. They found clear seasonal patterns in both algal abundance and carbon sinking rates. However, the relationship between the two was surprising: less carbon was transported to deep water during a summertime bloom than during the rest of the year. This analysis has never been done before and required designing specialized mathematical algorithms. By jumping a mathematical hurdle the scientists found a new globally synchronous signal.

This discovery is very surprising. If, during natural plankton blooms, less carbon actually sinks to deep water than during the rest of the year, then it suggests that the Biological Pump leaks. More material is recycled in shallow water and less sinks to depth, which makes sense if you consider how this ecosystem has evolved in a way to minimize loss. Ocean fertilization schemes, which resemble an artificial summer, may not remove as much carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as has been suggested because they ignore the natural processes revealed by this research. - Dr. Michael Lutz, lead author, University of Miami's Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science

The global study of Dr. Lutz and colleagues suggests that greatly enhanced carbon sequestration should not be expected no matter the location or duration of proposed large-scale ocean fertilization experiments.

According to the researchers, the limited duration of previous ocean fertilization experiments may not be why carbon sequestration wasn't found during those artificial blooms. This apparent puzzle could actually reflect how marine ecosystems naturally handle blooms and agrees with our findings. A bloom is like ringing the marine ecosystem dinner bell. The microbial and food web dinner guests appear and consume most of the fresh algal food:

The study highlights the need to understand natural ecosystem processes, especially in a world where change is occurring so rapidly, concluded Dr. Lutz.

This study closely follows a September Ocean Iron Fertilization symposium at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) attended by leading scientists, international lawyers, policy makers, and concerned representatives from government, business, academia and environmental organizations.

Topics discussed included potential environmental dangers, economic implications, and the uncertain effectiveness of ocean fertilization. To date none of the major ocean fertilization experiments have verified that a significant amount of deep ocean carbon sequestration occurs:

Some scientists have suggested that verification may require more massive and more permanent experiments. Together with commercial operators they plan to go ahead with large-scale and more permanent ocean fertilization experiments and note that potential negative environmental consequences must be balanced against the harm expected due to ignoring climate change.

During the Ocean Iron Fertilization meeting Dr. Hauke Kite-Powell, of the Marine Policy Center at WHOI, estimated the possible future value of ocean fertilization at $100 billion of the emerging international carbon trading market, which has the goal of mitigating global warming. However, according to Professor Rosemary Rayfuse, an expert in International Law and the Law of the Sea at the University of New South Wales, Australia, who also attended the Woods Hole meeting, ocean fertilization projects are not currently approved under any carbon credit regulatory scheme and the sale of offsets or credits from ocean fertilization on the unregulated voluntary markets is basically nothing short of fraudulent.

There are too many scientific uncertainties relating both to the efficacy of ocean fertilization and its possible environmental side effects that need to be resolved before even larger experiments should be considered, let alone the process commercialized. All States have an obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment and to ensure that all activities carried out under their jurisdiction and control, including marine scientific research and commercial ocean fertilization activities do not cause pollution. Ocean fertilization is 'dumping' which is essentially prohibited under the law of the sea. There is no point trying to ameliorate the effects of climate change by destroying the oceans - the very cradle of life on earth. Simply doing more and bigger of that which has already been demonstrated to be ineffective and potentially more harmful than good is counter-intuitive at best. - Professor Rosemary Rayfuse, University of New South Wales

The findings of Dr. Lutz and colleagues coincide with and affirm this month's decision of the London Convention (the International Maritime Organization body that oversees the dumping of wastes and other matter at sea) to regulate controversial commercial ocean fertilization schemes. This gathering of international maritime parties advised that such schemes are currently not scientifically justified.

Strategies to sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide, including the enhancement of biological sinks through processes such as ocean fertilization, will be considered by international governmental representatives during the thirteenth United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change conference in Bali next month.

Virtually all of the radical geoengineering options proposed so far have been rejected for being too risky. These include emulating volcanoes' cooling effects by pumping sulphur into the atmosphere (debunked as outright dangerous to the planet - earlier post), creating a giant space mirror (which would be prohibitively costly), or generating highly reflective clouds (more here). Most of these proposals have been simulated and some have been shown to be full of uncertainties and hence generate a high number of risks (previous post). Other, safer proposals have been found to be too costly (a recent example).

One of the only geoengineering proposals seen as economically viable, environmentally safe and efficient, is the production of carbon-negative bioenergy. By planting biomass (trees, energy crops), and utilising them as feedstocks for energy production to replace fossil fuels, a 'carbon-neutral' form of energy is obtained. But when the CO2 that is released into the atmosphere during this process is captured and locked up - either in geological formations or in soils - then carbon-negative energy and fuels can be generated. Scientists have found that, when implemented on a planetary scale (hence 'geoengineering'), such negative emissions energy systems can take us back to pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 levels by mid century (previous post, here and here).

These 'bio-energy with carbon storage' (BECS) systems are currently becoming the object of more attention in the energy and climate change community. With these systems it becomes possible to take historic CO2 emissions back out of the atmosphere. Other renewables, like wind or solar energy, are 'carbon neutral' at best (schematic, click to enlarge). That is, they do not add new emissions to the atmosphere. But BECS systems go much further: they actually take carbon dioxide emissions from the past out of the carbon cycle, thus radically tackling the main cause of climate change. Now that we are facing the potential doom scenario of 'abrupt climate change', negative emissions bioenergy will have to be promoted.

Michael J. Lutz, Ken Caldeira, Robert B. Dunbar, Michael J. Behrenfeld, "Seasonal rhythms of net primary production and particulate organic carbon flux to depth describe the efficiency of biological pump in the global ocean", Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 112, 2007, C10011, doi:10.1029/2006JC003706.

Eurekalert: New research discredits $100B global warming 'fix' - November 29, 2007.

Biopact: International maritime body rejects risky ocean geoengineering - November 09, 2007

Biopact: The end of a utopian idea: iron-seeding the oceans to capture carbon won't work - April 26, 2007

Biopact: WWF condemns Planktos Inc. iron-seeding plan in the Galapagos - June 27, 2007

Bioapct: Scientists propose new geoengineering option: increasing ocean's alkalinity to soak up more carbon dioxide - November 19, 2007

Biopact: IPCC to warn of 'abrupt' climate change: emergency case for carbon-negative biofuels kicks in - November 16, 2007

Biopact: Scientists propose artificial trees to scrub CO2 out of the atmosphere - but the real thing could be smarter - October 04, 2007

Biopact: A quick look at 'fourth generation' biofuels - October 08, 2007

Lots of charts and links on this one best to view it on site.
There are no others, there is only us.
08-27-2010, 02:44 PM,
RE: Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Dead Zone: The Algae Biofuels and Carbon Exchange Agenda
I came across an interesting article in the latest Popular Mechanics (my uncle gave it to me - thanks Frank) that reveals the issues that present themselves. Fairly level headed analysis coming from the AGW proponent side that think CO2 is a poison. I found there were some good facts within the article. Take from it what you will.

Copy/Paste didn't work out too well and I didn't want to up a torrent with such a mixed message so I decided on hosting this one myself.
PDF (Pages 72-81) & JPGS (med quality):
There are no others, there is only us.
08-27-2010, 09:25 PM,
RE: Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Dead Zone: The Algae Biofuels and Carbon Exchange Agenda
This may or may not be up already and maybe not as related to the Algae think but it seems a bit relevant concerning the oils spill.

09-23-2010, 03:03 AM,
RE: Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Dead Zone: The Algae Biofuels and Carbon Exchange Agenda
Yet another Monetizing Dead Zones for Algae the bigger, the better - I suppose the Gulf of Mexico would do quite nicely, but all that oil and those pesky shrimpers are in the way. Well it only took 6 months after they announced this technological breakthrough to clear it out, or was it 3?

You'll remember NASA / NOAA / GISS being involved in the Climategate / Carbon Scam fiasco .. or have we gotten distracted by a CIA funded Mosque or another 9/11 Re-Installation Program.

Quote: NASA applies space technology to turn sewage into algae-based fuel
26 November 2009

By growing algae in ocean floating plastic containers filled with sewage, NASA has created plastic osmotic containers which produce oil.

The NASA process starts with algae being placed in sewage-filled plastic bags called OMEGA which stands for ‘offshore membrane enclosures for growing algae’. The OMEGA bags are semi permeable membranes which NASA developed to recycle astronauts' wastewater on long space missions. When used with sewage, the membranes let freshwater exit but prevent saltwater from entering.

Jonathan Trent, lead researcher and scientist on the project at NASA's Ames Research Centre in California, said: “Firstly it is possible to produce sustainable quantities of biofuels that can replace the use of fossil fuels without competing for resources and land needed for food production. Secondly these valued products are produced, while at the same time they help cleanse municipal wastewater and remediate dead zones such as those in the Baltic Sea and thirdly it is possible to produce products, clean the oceans, and at the same time remove the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, from the atmosphere.”
There are no others, there is only us.
10-15-2010, 10:35 AM,
RE: Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Dead Zone: The Algae Biofuels and Carbon Exchange Agenda
Quote:Air Force Bullish About Biofuels: Will the Market Respond?

A plentiful and low-cost supply of biofuels could free the U.S. military from its dependence on foreign oil**.

But biofuels are not going to be bountiful or cheap until the commercial and military aviation buyers can create a large enough demand for the product to make it cost-competitive with petroleum-based jet fuel.

Such is the chicken-or-the-egg dilemma now confronting the Defense Department as it searches for ways to reduce its consumption of fossil fuels. The thinking is that the military should switch to alternative fuels sooner rather than later, not only because analysts expect oil prices to rise in the years ahead but also because the Pentagon is the nation’s largest U.S. consumer of foreign oil and wants to be seen as making a real effort to switch to cleaner sources of energy.

Both the Navy and the Air Force have launched multimillion-dollar test programs to demonstrate that their high-performance jets can fly on blends of biofuel and conventional JP-8. Officials from both services have trumpeted the success achieved so far in early testing and have predicted that within a few years, most military aircraft could be certified to operate with green fuels.

The biggest unknown, however, is the economics of biofuels. The Defense Department is proceeding on the assumption that if it creates a substantial demand, the private sector will make the necessary investments in biofuel production, refineries and the like to make products in large enough quantities so they will be no more expensive than conventional fuel.

“It’s like the reverse of Field of Dreams,” says Navy Secretary Ray Mabus. “If we come, they will build it. As we build demand, the supply will come.”

Air Force officials echoed that thinking as they discussed last week’s test flight of an A-10C Thunderbolt II fueled with a blend of hydro-treated renewable jet, or HRJ, and JP-8. The HRJ is a family of renewable jet fuels that can be made from a variety of feedstocks, including plant oils** and animal fats.

“Last week's flight demonstration is a small step in a much broader test effort that the Air Force has undertaken to certify a family of biomass-derived fuels,” Jeff Braun, director of the U.S. Air Force alternative fuels certification office, tells reporters during a bloggers’ roundtable.

For the A-10 test, Air Force engineers mixed 1,200 gallons HRJ biofuel with another 1,200 gallons of JP-8.

The Air Force has partnered with the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuel Initiative, or CAAFI, to further push the technology, says Tim Edwards, senior chemical engineer at the Air Force Research Laboratory’s propulsion directorate. “We're just trying to figure out which kinds of processes for making jet fuel for aviation seem to be the winners as far as we can tell and look into those for further development,” Edwards says.

The technical hurdles appear minor compared to the economic ones, considering that jet fuel costs less than $3 a gallon and biofuels so far are boutique products. Manufacturers have yet to provide realistic estimates of how much it would cost to make them in large enough quantities to meet the aviation sector’s demand.

“What we're really after is fuels that can make a, you know, pretty large dent in the aviation market,” Edwards says. “The Air Force has a 2016 goal that they'd like to be able to buy 400 million gallons of alternative fuel, and commercial aviation would like to buy even more than that.”

Braun stresses that the Air Force “intends to use fuels that are cost-competitive with petroleum fuels.

“Our hope is that once we complete our testing and we demonstrate that the fuel can in fact be used not only in military applications but also in promotional applications, that that would generate additional production, would generate industry to create a viable source of the fuel, which will in turn bring the cost down,” Braun says. “These HRJ fuels can actually be produced using current refining capacity with minor modifications.”

Edwards notes that Tyson/Syntroleum announced it will build a plant in Geismar, La., that is going to take animal fat from Tyson's operations and make either HRJ jet fuel or a green diesel fuel. Another consortium called AltAir Fuels said it would build an HRJ plant near a refinery in Washington state.

“It turns out the primary part of the cost comes from the feedstock,” says Edwards. “The processing isn't all that expensive, so in places where you can get affordable feed stock, at least the industry seems to think it's cost-competitive because they're getting capital to start building plants.”

One of the hottest biofuels now are the algae-derived. “That's getting a huge amount of money,” Edwards says. “We're helping to enable the use of that algae feedstock for aviation application.”

But Braun cautions that the Air Force is not going to cheerlead any particular biofuel. “We are feedstock-agnostic on these fuels,” he says. “There's any number of different feedstocks that can be used. … We're not going to declare a winner. Algae is not going to be declared a winner.”

If this market takes off, there could be enough biofuel business to spread around the entire United States. Algae fermentation facilities are located in Arizona, oil fat in Louisiana, camelina fuel is grown in Montana and Washington. “Different parts of the country would have different things,” says Edwards. “Some of the fuels beyond HRJ include fuels made from forest waste or agricultural waste.”

The Air Force plans to test biofuels in F-15, F-16 and F-22 fighter engines, as well as in the C-17 airlifter and the Global Hawk high altitude unmanned aircraft. “We'll also be looking at infrastructure. We'll be looking at toxicology, all of the supporting areas that we'll need to investigate,” says Braun.

If these efforts pan out, the aviation sector could soon become one of the nation’s biggest contributors to a green economy. But it should be noted that even if every airplane switched to biofuels, that still would not make any significant dent in the nation’s dependence on foreign oil. Aviation uses about 20 billion gallons of jet fuel a year, which sounds like a lot, but it's only one-seventh of how much gasoline the United States consumes.

** They don't mention the subsidized (potentially as high as 75% to make it 'competitive') Jatropha Biofuel - made in India backed by Chinese finance that is a component to the jet fuel they signed on for ... coming in my next post on this topic. Along with some evidence that GM Soy and Corn crops and land may be banned for human consumption but that it will be grown more and subsidized more to meet Biofuel 'demand'. Our very source of food and arable land is under threat if GM is banned without it being replaced with Non GMO crops.

Energy Independence (by way of subsidizing foreign countries?) inf exchange for having a potential food dependence?

Here's a EPA Ruling that just passed that takes a big step in that agenda's direction:

Quote:E15 ethanol approved in US for 2007+ model years: critics, supporters react
October 14, 2010
by Jim Lane

In Washington, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) waived a limitation on selling fuel that is more than 10 percent ethanol for model year 2007 and newer cars and light trucks. The waiver applies to fuel that contains up to 15 percent ethanol – known as E15 – and only to model year 2007 and newer cars and light trucks. This represents the first of a number of actions that are needed from federal, state and industry towards commercialization of E15 gasoline blends.

EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson made the decision after a review of the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) extensive testing and other available data on E15’s impact on engine durability and emissions. 

“Thorough testing has now shown that E15 does not harm emissions control equipment in newer cars and light trucks,” said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “Wherever sound science and the law support steps to allow more home-grown fuels in America’s vehicles, this administration takes those steps.”

Impact of the ruling

Initial impact of the ruling is expected to be minimal, as retailers consider the logistic and legal implications of offering 15 percent blends to some customers, and 10 percent to others. But over the next 12 years covered by the Renewable Fuel Standard the ruling will open up the market for ethanol to more than 19 billion gallons, without the use of higher ethanol blender pumps for flex-fuel cars, as more and more post-2007 cars arrive in the marketplace.

2001 through 2006 model data

A decision on the use of E15 in model year 2001 to 2006 vehicles will be made after EPA receives the results of additional DOE testing, which is expected to be completed in November. However, no waiver is being granted this year for E15 use in model year 2000 and older cars and light trucks – or in any motorcycles, heavy-duty vehicles, or non-road engines – because currently there is not testing data to support such a waiver.

Since 1979, up to 10 percent ethanol or E10 has been used for all conventional cars and light trucks, and non-road vehicles. 

Additionally, several steps are being taken to help consumers easily identify the correct fuel for their vehicles and equipment. First, EPA is proposing E15 pump labeling requirements, including a requirement that the fuel industry specify the ethanol content of gasoline sold to retailers. There would also be a quarterly survey of retail stations to help ensure their gas pumps are properly labeled.

Industry reaction: pro

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack:

“Today’s announcement from EPA is an important step toward making America more energy independent and creating much-needed jobs in rural America. The announcement will help get existing ethanol capacity into the market.

Increasing the use of ethanol in automobiles and light trucks not only provides biomass and biofuel producers with additional revenue enhancing opportunities, it will help us reach the Obama Administration’s goal of increasing renewable fuels usage in the U.S. marketplace to 36 billion gallons by 2022.

Today’s action by Administrator Jackson and the EPA provides assurance to farmers, ranchers and the renewable fuels industry that the government backs the use of home grown energy in our cars and trucks. At the same time, more work is needed and we hope EPA and the Department of Energy complete an evaluation of 2001-2006 models soon.”

National 25×25 Steering Committee:

“The National 25x’25 Steering Committee today commended the EPA for approving fuel blends of up to 15 percent ethanol (E15) for model year 2007 and newer cars and light trucks. Based on extensive testing conducted by the Department of Energy and other available data, the EPA has used sound science to determine that fuels containing up to 15 percent ethanol do not harm emissions control equipment in newer cars and light trucks.

“Today’s EPA announcement represents an important interim step in the continuing development of a U.S. biofuels industry that creates thousands of jobs, boosts the economy and reduces our dependence on foreign oil. However, the DOE continues to test the use of E15 in 2001 model vehicles and later, and the Steering Committee urges EPA to finalize its analysis and reach a quick decision on the use of E15 for those vehicles as well. Policy makers in Washington are also urged to address and adopt those incentives that can boost the ethanol market through the installation of more blender pumps and the addition of more flex-fuel vehicles to our nation’s automotive fleet.

Poul Ruben Andersen, Novozymes’ global marketing director:

“Novozymes is encouraged by the EPA’s approval of a higher ethanol blend for 2007 and newer model cars, as this is necessary to meet the federal mandate for renewable fuels. This sends a strong signal to the market and further drives development and commercialization of advanced biofuels. Increasing the blend wall from E10 to E15 is estimated to create more than 136,000 new green jobs in the biofuel industry and related industries in the U.S.”

Glenn Nedwin, EVP of Genencor:

“We applaud the action taken today by the EPA and hope that they will quickly move to approve E15 for all vehicles. The adoption of sound, tested policies for cleaner fuels is critical to reducing our dependence on foreign oil, supporting our agricultural sector and cutting greenhouse gas emissions.”

Tom Buis, CEO, Growth Energy:

“Today’s approval of E15 for newer vehicles is the first crack in the blend wall in more than 30 years, and proves what was laid out in Growth Energy’s Green Jobs Waiver – that E15 is a good fuel for American motorists. And while this is an important first step, there are many more steps we can take toward strengthening our national security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil, creating jobs here in the United States and improving our environment,” Tom Buis, CEO of Growth Energy, said.

Jeff Broin, CEO, POET:

“Approval of E15 in 2007 and newer vehicles is a positive first step toward opening the market for more ethanol to compete with gasoline. However, the EPA must move quickly to take the next step: approval of E15 for use in older vehicles.

“The arguments being made right now against E15 are the same as those made about E10 back in the late 1980s, when I entered the ethanol industry. Seventy billion gallons later, we have proven those arguments false, just as research on E15 is proving critics wrong today.

“Greater market access will help give investors the needed confidence to commit to bringing cellulosic ethanol to commercial scale. Many projects, POET’s Project LIBERTY among them, are ready for commercialization but hindered by unnecessary limits on ethanol content in fuel.”

Industry reaction: mixed

Bob Dinneen, CEO, Renewable Fuels Association:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is missing an opportunity to reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil and create new economic opportunity by limiting its decision on E15 (15% ethanol/85% gasoline) to only model year (MY) 2007 and newer vehicles, the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) said today.

“EPA’s scientifically unjustified bifurcation of the U.S. car market will do little to move the needle and expand ethanol use today,” said RFA President and CEO Bob Dinneen. “Limiting E15 use to 2007 and newer vehicles only creates confusion for retailers and consumers alike. America’s ethanol producers are hitting an artificial blend wall today. The goals of Congress to reduce our addiction to oil captured in the Renewable Fuels Standard cannot be met with this decision.”

Dinneen highlighted the importance of an expanded market to next generation technologies, saying, “This decision continues to leave the market artificially constrained and further limits market opportunities for next generation biofuels very close to commercialization. While we appreciate the work put into this waiver request, especially the 2-plus years of testing by the Department of Energy, it is clear EPA is missing an opportunity to meaningfully increase America’s use of renewable fuels and reduce our dependence on imported oil.”

Dinneen also pointed out the apparent legal and scientific disconnect inherent in EPA’s outright denial for MY2000 and older vehicles. “EPA is providing no scientific justification for its decision to bifurcate the market. It’s almost as though they pulled the number out of a hat. As test after test has demonstrated, E15 is safe and effective in all light duty vehicles. ”

Dinneen noted that on January 1, 2011, vehicles MY2000 and older will all be out of warranty coverage and beyond their useful lives, thus putting them beyond the regulation of EPA. “EPA’s overreach to deny E15 for use in vehicles over which they no longer have jurisdiction is beyond puzzling.”

To this point, RFA notes that EPA is ignoring well-documented evidence that E15 is safe for all light duty vehicles. RFA recently released a report from Ricardo, Inc. that used EPA’s own engineering assessment methodology to determine the efficacy of E15 in vehicles MY2000 and older. The report concluded, “…that the adoption and use of E15 in the motor vehicle fleet from the studied model years should not adversely affect the vehicles or cause them to perform in a sub-optimal manner when compared with their performance when using the E10 blend that is currently available.”

Wholesale adoption of E15 based upon EPA’s bifurcated approach is unlikely, according to gasoline marketers and retailers. In its weekly newsletter from September 17, 2010, the Petroleum Marketers’ Association of America stated, “Limiting the waiver to a specific class of vehicles based on date of manufacture means retailers would be forced by market conditions to carry both E-10 and E-15 product, thus increasing the risk of consumer misfueling. The good news is that the waiver will likely not require E-15 but only allow its use. Refiners are not expected to supply E-15 as a result of the waiver approval alone.”

Dinneen scoffed at EPA’s implicit denial of other blends, including E12, which could be used in all vehicles and pumps immediately. “I find it hard to believe that there is not a level between E10 and E15 at which EPA could approve for use in all vehicles. An interim step to anything above E10 for all vehicles would have a more immediate impact on the market than today’s announcement.”
Joel Velasco, UNICA’s chief representative in North America:

Many U.S. ethanol groups have argued recently that after 30 years of tax credits and trade protection they are ready to compete without subsidies provided the government grants them greater access to America’s fuel pumps. With the EPA’s decision to increase ethanol limits by 50% for newer vehicles, that day has arrived.

The attention now shifts to the U.S. Congress where lawmakers are debating what to do with the 30-year-old ethanol tax credit and import tariff that cost $6 billion annually. Allowing these subsidies to expire as scheduled at the end of the year will help lower gas prices, save taxpayers money and provide Americans with greater access to advanced renewable fuels like sugarcane ethanol.

As we indicated in our comments during the agency’s rulemaking, Brazil has decades of successful experience blending ethanol with gasoline at 25% concentrations. Brazilian ethanol is primarily sugarcane ethanol – a renewable fuel that is typically less expensive and cuts greenhouse gases much more sharply than other ethanol options. Allowing other alternative fuels like sugarcane ethanol to compete fairly in the U.S. would save American consumers money at the pump, cut dependence on Middle East oil and improve the environment.

Brazil took an important first step to build an open and global biofuels marketplace by eliminating its tariff on imported ethanol through the end of 2011. UNICA is asking the Brazilian government to make the tariff elimination permanent if the U.S. Congress will do the same and drop the tax on imported ethanol. As the world’s top producers of ethanol, the United States and Brazil should lead by example in creating a free market for clean, renewable fuel.

Industry reaction: against

Nathanael Greene, Natural Resources Defense Council:

The new ethanol blends, known as E15, come with serious risks for our engines, wildlife, water, and the air we all breathe.

A broad coalition of environmentalists, public health advocates, livestock ranchers, and automakers have long opposed EPA’s move, calling on Congress and the administration to follow the science and conduct more thorough testing of the impacts of higher ethanol blends on air pollution before approving E15 gasoline.

These groups have pointed to serious environmental and public health concerns around the tailpipe emissions of vehicles that run on gasoline blended with ethanol. Burning ethanol can cause toxic air pollutants to be emitted from vehicle tailpipes, especially at higher blend levels like E15. The chemistry is fairly straightforward: ethanol burns hotter than gasoline, causing catalytic converters to break down faster. Cars with broken tailpipe controls are disproportionally responsible for air pollution from vehicles.

Newer vehicles have oxygen sensors which allow them to adjust combustion and protect the catalysts, but there has been a lack of sufficient testing of E15 blends in older vehicles. Supporters of EPA’s decision will argue that by allowing E15 blends only in newer vehicles made after 2007, EPA is mitigating these air pollution concerns. But this “pump first, ask questions later” attitude is unlikely to work in the real world. Even well-intentioned safeguards have to be implemented well in order to actually protect public health.

With millions of individual drivers filling their cars each day, it seems unlikely that EPA—or fuel retailers—will be able to prevent a whole lot of misfueling at the pump. Fueling older cars with the new blend could result in serious damage to those engines, potentially voiding warranties and raising the specter of consumer lawsuits. Corn ethanol advocates clearly agree, since they’ve been pushing hard for a liability waiver for oil companies and retailers that would protect them from ethanol-related lawsuits when drivers inevitably fill their tanks with the wrong fuel.

American Meat Institute President and CEO J. Patrick Boyle:

“USDA’s recent estimate that corn production for this year was going to be 3.4 percent less than 2009 has sent corn prices higher. This will put pressure on the meat and poultry supply which will lead to higher food prices for consumers. For those consumers worried about climbing food prices, this decision will increase the amount of corn being diverted to our gas tanks and away from meat and poultry production. It’s unfortunate that EPA acted hastily and approved the use of E15, and now the American consumer will pay for it at the grocery store.”

Grocery Manufacturers Association Vice President for Federal Affairs Scott Faber:

“We are disappointed in the Administration’s decision to allow more ethanol in gasoline before truly sustainable advanced biofuels are commercially available. Not only will this decision adversely affect millions of consumers who don’t drive brand new cars, but also countless Americans who are struggling to feed their families in a slowly recovering economy. Recent spikes in corn prices due to supply concerns will only be exacerbated by this decision.”

National Council of Chain Restaurants Vice President Scott Vinson:

“Economists were already forecasting higher food prices over the coming year, and today’s decision by the EPA is sure to make the situation even worse. The restaurant industry’s small business franchisees are already struggling to make it as the economy tries to recover, and more piling on by the federal government is the last thing they need.”

National Chicken Council President George Watts:

“Rising grain prices driven by the voracious demand for feedstock from the heavily subsidized ethanol industry caused an increase of six percent in the retail price of fresh whole broiler chickens from 2008 to 2010. Channeling even more corn into ethanol will, in time, only drive up the cost of chicken even more. Consumers will end up paying for the ethanol industry’s demands. It is time to put an end to government mandates and interference in the market that raise the price of corn.”

American Bakers Association President and CEO Robb MacKie:

“EPA’s decision to increase the ethanol blend to E15 will further increase volatility in the grain markets. Other grains, including wheat, may increasingly be in shorter supply; potentially this may impact food prices in the future as the nation continues to lose wheat acreage. ABA strongly opposes this ill advised decision and calls on EPA to consult with relevant government agencies to carefully study how this would impact market volatility, to review the science behind the decision and analyze the economic impact on the already weakened economy.”

National Meat Association CEO Barry Carpenter:

“EPA’s action regarding the E15 waiver barely puts a band-aid on the oil dependency it is intended to alleviate, yet negatively impacts food security by further raising food and feed prices. Higher feed prices will eventually be passed on to consumers in higher meat and poultry prices. This is not a good decision for either consumers or U.S. agriculture.”

National Turkey Federation President Joel Brandenberger:

“Feed accounts for 70 percent of the total cost of raising a turkey, and corn is the single-largest ingredient in turkey feed. The spike in corn prices caused by the expansion of corn-based ethanol could be crippling at a time when the turkey industry is just starting to recover. This dramatic increase in feed prices has led most turkey processors to cut production. Increasing the ethanol blend to 15 percent would destroy any chance our industry has of recovery in the near future.”

More in the Digest:

Corn ethanol’s stock rises, as its stocks rise.
E15 to have “bullish impact”: ethanol analysts.

FYI: Not surprisingly Biofuel Stock Prices are at an All Time High and continue to rise.
There are no others, there is only us.
10-21-2010, 11:26 AM,
RE: Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Dead Zone: The Algae Biofuels and Carbon Exchange Agenda
[x] Subsidized Science (UN, IPCC, CRU)
[x] Subsidized Science Whitewashes
[x] Subsidized Media and Education Greenwashing
[x] Subsidized Corn and Soy (90% patented GMOs)
[x] Subsidized Science Whitewashes
[x] Short Selling of Oil Stocks (Taxpayer, Union, Social Security Investments Suffered)
[x] Subsidized Banks that invest in the Startups
[x] Subsidized Research and Development (University, NASA Participation, )
[x] Subsidized Commercial Cost Offsets
[x] Subsidized Fuel and Energy Cost
[x] Subsidy, Carbon Credits Given to Land BioFuel Producers*
[x] Subsidy, Carbon Credits Given to Water Algae Producers**

Subsidy = Grants, Tax Breaks, Free Advertising, Manipulative Law that selectively kills competition.

* That create the Dead Zone with nitrogen fertilizers etc...
** That "clean up" and utilize the Dead Zone for a perfect Algae Growth medium

This also creates a food shortage killing marine sources as well as using arable farmland as fuel crop. GMOs look to be outlawed sooner or later and deemed unfit for human consumption. So the only alternative for the farmland would be to plant subsidized biofuel as a cash crop since the corn and soy crops are over 90% GMO. Combine this with the targets set for "Green" fuel and the 10% to 15% ethanol upgrade in fuel that will try to be forced on us one way or another. In Canada you can't even get the non GMO seed for these two crops in many provinces.

Who owns the seed crops?

World's top seed companies. (2008). In UNEP/GRID-Arendal Maps and Graphics Library. Retrieved 12:04, October 21, 2010 from

2003 Data

This is only Monsanto's share of corn and soy seed.

Quote:Dead zone in gulf linked to ethanol production
July 06, 2010|By Carolyn Lochhead, Chronicle Washington Bureau

Washington - — While the BP oil spill has been labeled the worst environmental catastrophe in recent U.S. history, a biofuel is contributing to a Gulf of Mexico "dead zone" the size of New Jersey that scientists say could be every bit as harmful to the gulf.

Each year, nitrogen used to fertilize corn, about a third of which is made into ethanol, leaches from Midwest croplands into the Mississippi River and out into the gulf, where the fertilizer feeds giant algae blooms. As the algae dies, it settles to the ocean floor and decays, consuming oxygen and suffocating marine life.

Known as hypoxia, the oxygen depletion kills shrimp, crabs, worms and anything else that cannot escape. The dead zone has doubled since the 1980s and is expected this year to grow as large as 8,500 square miles and hug the Gulf Coast from Alabama to Texas.

As to which is worse, the oil spill or the hypoxia, "it's a really tough call," said Nathaniel Ostrom, a zoologist at Michigan State University. "There's no real answer to that question."

Some scientists fear the oil spill will worsen the dead zone, because when oil decomposes, it also consumes oxygen. New government estimates on Thursday indicated that the BP oil spill had gushed as much as 141 million gallons since an oil-rig explosion and well blowout on April 20 that killed 11 workers.

Corn is biggest culprit

The gulf dead zone is the second-largest in the world, after one in the Baltic Sea. Scientists say the biggest culprit is industrial-scale corn production. Corn growers are heavy users of both nitrogen and pesticides. Vast monocultures of corn and soybeans, both subsidized by the federal government, have displaced diversified farms and grasslands throughout the Mississippi Basin.

"The subsidies are driving farmers toward more corn," said Gene Turner, a zoologist at Louisiana State University. "More nitrate comes off corn fields than it does off of any other crop by far. And nitrogen is driving the formation of the dead zone."

The dead zone, he said, is "a symptom of the homogenization of the landscape. We just have a few crops on what used to have all kinds of different vegetation."

In 2007, Congress passed a renewable fuels standard that requires ethanol production to triple in the next 12 years.
The Department of Agriculture has just rolled out a plan to meet that goal, including building ethanol refineries in every state. The Environmental Protection Agency will decide soon whether to increase the amount of ethanol in gasoline blends from 10 percent to 15 percent.

A 2008 National Research Council report warned of a "considerable" increase in damage to the gulf if ethanol production is increased.

Pet cause of Congress

One of the authors of that report, agricultural economist Otto Doering at Purdue University, said that a 50 percent boost in the ethanol blend in gasoline will significantly raise corn prices, driving farmers to pull land out of conservation and pastureland and into corn production. They are also likely to add more nitrogen fertilizers to boost yields.

Corn ethanol has been heavily subsidized since the Arab oil embargo in the 1970s. Viewed by the corn industry as a lucrative market, ethanol is a perennial favorite in Congress.

Ethanol consumes two-thirds of all federal subsidies for renewable fuels, said Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group, an advocacy group, leaving solar, wind and the rest to fight over the remaining third. Corn ethanol cost taxpayers $17 billion from 2005 to 2009, his group estimates.

"This is another industry that's entirely a creature of the government, even more so than corn growing per se," Cook said. "The production of ethanol wouldn't happen at all without government subsidies and protection."

The National Corn Growers Association ran a media blitz in Washington last week to press for the renewal of the 51-cents-a-gallon tax credit for ethanol. With pictures of the BP oil spill looming in the background, the Corn Growers' video announces, "Ethanol: Now is the time."

Conservation plan hurt

The ethanol boom over the past decade has lured farmers to withdraw millions of acres from the Conservation Reserve Program, which pays farms not to plant fragile land. Much of this land has been returned to native prairie grasses, at taxpayer expense. Millions more acres are up for renewal over the next few years.

"There's been a very large-scale conversion of these CRP lands to biofuel production," Ostrom said. Those soils have accumulated carbon from the atmosphere and stored it, becoming "a pretty significant sink for atmospheric CO2," he said. "If we suddenly start farming those soils, we basically release all of the carbon that's been sequestered for decades, and that may more than offset any carbon benefit of switching to biofuels."

Scientists alarmed by ocean dead-zone growth

Along with the Gulf of Mexico the United States government has also appointed a Tsar to Chesapeake Bay another dead zone. This move provides insulation from decisions and bypasses congress.

Quote:Tidal wetlands of the Chesapeake Bay

In the 1970s, the Chesapeake Bay was discovered to contain one of the planet's first identified marine dead zones, where hypoxic waters were so depleted of oxygen they were unable to support life, resulting in massive fish kills. Today the bay's dead zones are estimated to kill 75,000 tons of bottom-dwelling clams and worms each year, weakening the base of the estuary's food chain and robbing the blue crab in particular of a primary food source. Crabs themselves are sometimes observed to amass on shore to escape pockets of oxygen-poor water, a behavior known as a "crab jubilee". Hypoxia results in part from large algal blooms, which are nourished by the runoff of farm and industrial waste throughout the watershed. The runoff and pollution have many components that help contribute to the algal blooms which is mainly fed by phosphorus and nitrogen.[12] This algae prevents sunlight from reaching the bottom of the bay while alive and deoxygenates the bay's water when it dies and rots. The erosion and runoff of sediment into the bay, exacerbated by devegetation, construction and the prevalence of pavement in urban and suburban areas, also blocks vital sunlight. The resulting loss of aquatic vegetation has depleted the habitat for much of the bay's animal life. Beds of eelgrass, the dominant variety in the southern bay, have shrunk by more than half there since the early 1970s. Overharvesting, pollution, sedimentation and disease has turned much of the bay's bottom into a muddy wasteland.[13]

One particularly harmful source of toxicity is Pfiesteria piscicida, which can affect both fish and humans. Pfiesteria caused a small regional panic in the late 1990s when a series of large blooms started killing large numbers of fish while giving swimmers mysterious rashes, and nutrient runoff from chicken farms was blamed for the growth.[14]

Attached Files
.pdf   hypoxia-dead-zones-diaz_data.pdf (Size: 279.64 KB / Downloads: 132)
There are no others, there is only us.
10-28-2010, 06:52 AM,
RE: Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Dead Zone: The Algae Biofuels and Carbon Exchange Agenda
Another subsidy for biofuel. This time with Jatropha. The EPA is financing a studies to determine feasibility of the cash crop for liquid fuel.

Oh .. and it's produced in India financed in by a multi-naitonal (HC International, Inc. based in China and funded by China) and potentially HEAVILY subsidized by US taxpayers by a proposed Biodiesel Blender Credit (First I heard of this someone want to look into it?).

Quote:Mission NewEnergy Limited is a global renewable energy provider with operations in Australia, Malaysia, India and Mauritius. Our biodiesel refineries are located at Kuantan Port in Malaysia. Currently operating a 100,000 tonne per annum biodiesel facility, Mission's second refinery adjacent to the first facility will be completed early 2009 providing for a combined capacity of 350,000 tonnes of biodiesel per annum.

Mission has a well-developed upstream feedstock business in India, focused on the use of Jatropha Curcas, a non-food, drought resistant crop. Our wind power business provides electricity to the state utility of India.

They are also affiliated with Seambiotic which they will be producing the new green jet fuel from. Seambiotic is an algae biofuel producer

Quote:Investment, successful testing accelerate demand for biojet fuel

Test results show that the jatropha and algae oil biofuel blend used in Continental Airlines' Jan. 7 biofuel demonstration flight... (actual article is gone .. but I didn't search too hard.

.. and here's NASA again .. I'll tie this post together later on.

Date Released: Thursday, July 2, 2009
Source: Seambiotic 'USA'

Seambiotic 'USA' and NASA Glenn Research Center Signed Agreement for Large Scale Microalgae Process Optimization

Seambiotic, a global leader in the development and production of marine microalgae for the nutraceutical and biofuel industries, has announced that its U.S. subsidiary, Seambiotic USA, has entered into an agreement with NASA Glenn Research Center to develop an on-going collaborative R&D program for optimization of open-pond microalgae growth processes.

"Under a Space Act Agreement (we'll have to look into that), NASA is partnering with Seambiotic USA to model growth processes for microalgae for use as aviation biofuel feedstock," said Prof. Ami Ben-Amotz, Chief Scientific Adviser to Seambiotic. "The goal of the agreement is to make use of NASA's expertise in large-scale computational modeling and combine it with Seambiotic's biological process modeling to make advances in biomass process cost reduction."

Under the Agreement, NASA Glenn and Seambiotic USA will work together to improve production processes and to study and qualify algae oil from alternative species and production processes as candidate aviation fuel at NASA's test facilities.

About NASA Glenn Research Center

The NASA John H. Glenn Research Center NASA Glenn Research Center is one of NASA's 10 field centers, empowered with the resources for developing cutting-edge technologies and advancing scientific research that address NASA's mission to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research. Working in partnership with government, industry and academia, the center serves to maintain the U.S. economy's global leadership while benefiting the lives of people around the world.

About Seambiotic 'USA'

Seambiotic USA is a fully owned subsidiary of Seambiotic Ltd., located in Ashkelon, Israel.

Quote:Seambiotic was founded in 2003 to grow and process marine microalgae for the nutraceutical and biofuel industries. Seambiotic's research efforts include a pilot study at an Israeli Electric Corporation power station near the city Ashkelon, Israel, where various species of marine microalgae have been successfully cultivated using the power station's CO2 emissions released directly from their smokestacks; the microalgae are in turn used as feedstock for biofuel. Seambiotic technology reduces the cost of microalgae production significantly while lowering global warming by reducing industrial CO2 emissions. The company is currently in transition from the pilot plant stage to large scale industrial algae cultivation and production.

Quote:Sakhatech Information Systems Pvt. Ltd.
504,507 & 508, 5th Floor, Barton Center,
#84, M.G. Road, Bangalore – 560 001,
Karnataka, India.

Mission Achieves First Commercial Scale Jatropha Crush
Jun 24, 2010 11:53 ET

Landed Biodiesel Cost per Barrel at Approximately US$64 or US$1.53 per Gallon, Equivalent at the Port of HOUSTON, USA

NEW YORK, NY--(Marketwire - June 24, 2010) - Mission NewEnergy Ltd. (ASX: MBT), a vertically integrated biodiesel refiner, and one of the world's largest Jatropha plantation companies, is pleased to announce that it has aggregated, crushed and shipped commercial quantities of Jatropha oil from its extensive network across India to its biodiesel refinery in Malaysia.

From its Jatropha farming operation, Mission has aggregated approximately 1,500 tonnes of seed, which the Company believes to be the single largest ever compilation of Jatropha seeds.

Based on Mission's long-term contract farming rates, oil yields using solvent extraction processes and after byproduct realization, Mission's cost base for Jatropha-based biodiesel, landed in Houston USA, is approximately US$64 per barrel (US$1.53 per gallon). This cost basis represents a 34% discount to the current price of Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (refined diesel fuel), which trades at a premium to unrefined crude oil. Importantly, this cost basis does not include the proposed Biodiesel Blender Credit in the United States, which would further lower the effective cost to approximately US$23 per barrel (US$0.54 per gallon).

Mission NewEnergy (ASX: MBT) is a vertically integrated biodiesel firm based in Australia, with operations in India and Malaysia. It owns and operates a 100,000 tpa (approximately 30 million gallons per annum) biodiesel plant in Malaysia, and is currently commissioning a 250,000 tpa (approximately 75 million gpa) biodiesel plant with KNM Process Systems SdnBhd as a turnkey contractor adjacent to the 100,000 tpa plant.

Mission NewEnergy Limited is a company:

* listed on the ASX with its operations in Malaysia and India;
* that owns and operates a 100,000 tpa (approx. 30 million gallons p.a.) biodiesel plant at Kuantan in Malaysia producing biodiesel that exceeds international specifications (EN14214 & ASTM 6751-D);
* that is the only non-German biodiesel producer to be certified by AGQM, the German Biodiesel production process certification body;
* that is currently finalising handover of a 250,000 tpa (approx. 75 million gallons p.a.) biodiesel plant with KNM Process Systems SdnBhd as a turnkey contractor using Axens' 2nd generation, heterogeneous catalyst, trans-esterification technology and adjacent to the 100,000 tpa plant;
* that will initially use Crude Palm Oil (CPO) as the feedstock for its biodiesel plants in Malaysia;
* that is rapidly developing its upstream feedstock business in India, which is focusing on a drought-resistant perennial plant (Jatropha Curcas) that grows in marginal/poor soil. Jatropha is easy to establish, grows quickly, produces seeds for over 40 years and importantly is inedible;
* that will ultimately replace CPO with Jatropha Oil as its feedstock for its biodiesel plants;
* that owns and operates two wind energy turbines of 1.65 MW each in India which sell electricity to a Western Indian utility under a 13 year power purchase agreement; and
* that owns two patent-pending, lab and pilot-tested technologies for production of ethanol from a wide variety of agricultural waste material at a cost substantially lower than reported by competing enzyme based cellulosic ethanol technologies.

For more information and a copy of this announcement, please visit: or contact:

Investor Relations:

Todd M. Pitcher
Managing Partner, Aspire Clean Tech Communications
HC International, Inc.
+ 1 760 798 4938


James Garton
Head Corporate Finance, M&A
Mission NewEnergy Limited
+ 61 8 9443 9512

Obviously they're pushing for a carbon cap... and you won't hear this from Lord Christopher 'controlled but convincing opposition' Monckton.

Quote:What a Carbon Cap Could Mean for Biodiesel

The U.S. is playing catch-up to the rest of the world in terms of controlling carbon emissions. With the infant science of indirect land use change looming over all renewable fuels production, what will a carbon cap-and-trade system mean for the biodiesel industry?
By Sharon Bell

In April, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency took the first step in regulating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by formally acknowledging that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are a danger to “public health and welfare.” CO2 will now be tracked and monitored by the Clean Air Act. Increasing energy security and decreasing emissions that lead to climate change are the main motivators for escalating interest in regulation of GHG emissions. CO2 emitted from burning fossil fuels has been singled out as one of the top GHG contributors to global warming.

Capping allowable CO2 emissions appears inevitable. The initial industries affected include suppliers of fossil fuels, manufacturers of vehicles and engines, and facilities that release 25,000 metric tons or more per year of GHG emissions. Enforcing the cap on emissions will most likely be done through cap-and-trade—a system of quotas, allowances and credits. If an organization reduces emissions by more than its quota, it ends up with tradable credits. If the opposite is true, then the organization must buy credits. The CO2 cap decreases over time and credits become more expensive, so organizations have an incentive for reducing CO2 emissions.

Josh Margolis, who oversees environmental and renewable energy markets for CantorCO2e (Carbon Exchange), compares CO2 cap-and-trade to acid rain legislation in the mid 1990s. “Successful reduction of sulfur dioxide (SO2) through acid rain legislation offers us lessons that we can use when designing a CO2 cap-and-trade,” he says. “The SO2 legislation granted allowances and then gradually reduced them over time. Instead of just taxing the polluters on emissions, the program incentivized (he means subsidized) utilities to turn their waste streams into profit streams, thus solving the problems sooner. And it made over-compliance a prerequisite for trading. The only sources that can sell allowances are those whose actual emissions are below the quantity of allowances that they hold.”

The Acid Rain Program was a 1990 amendment to the Clean Air Act that went into effect in 1995. Congress is now amending the Clean Air Act to reduce CO2 emissions. The amendment requires EPA to establish an emissions baseline for all fuel, and then set emission caps and determine reduction requirements. A bill drafted by Chairman Henry Waxman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and Chairman Edward Markey of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee, was introduced this spring. In the transportation section of the bill, the EPA is tasked with determining the lifecycle GHG emissions of all transportation fuels, as well as determining the fuel emission baseline, then applying the baseline to refineries, blenders and other fuel providers. Once the baseline has been set, the annual average lifecycle GHG emissions must be reduced by a certain percentage below the fuel emission baseline. The regulation permits transportation fuel providers to generate credits by achieving greater reductions. In the proposed legislation, transportation fuel providers could generate, bank and trade credits. Credits can then be traded on carbon exchanges similar to the way stocks are traded.

Europe has done something similar by launching a European Union-wide carbon cap in 2005. The carbon cap sets a quota of carbon emissions permits called EU allowances (EUAs) for factories and power plants. This EUAs system is currently unregulated, but some political leaders and environmental trade analysts are calling for regulation. And the U.S. is paying close attention.

On lifecycle GHG emissions, the Waxman/Markey bill sets the standard emissions of biofuels at a level no higher than the fuel emission baseline. Determination of baseline GHG emissions estimates are left to the EPA administrator. So far, this has been a challenge for the biodiesel industry because EPA is incorporating indirect land use in the calculation.

Indirect land use can constitute anything from deforestation for growing soybeans and palm in Brazil and Indonesia, to a farmer’s decision to grow fuel crops instead of food crops.

Including indirect land use in the calculation has increased the lifecycle GHG contribution for biodiesel. (but marine use is fine)

In May, the EPA announced implementation of approved changes to the federal Renewable Fuel Standard known as RFS2. Delays in enforcing RFS2 as passed in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 were due in part to the complexity of measuring lifecycle GHG emissions. Enactment of the RFS2 proposal would mark the first time that lifecycle analysis of GHG emissions will be used to determine impacts over 30-year and 100-year time periods. Legislation of lifecycle CO2 would be great news for the biodiesel industry if legislators agreed with the U.S. DOE and USDA’s assessment of biodiesel lifecycle CO2 emissions.

According to the 1998 biodiesel lifecycle study, jointly sponsored by DOE and USDA, 100 percent soybean oil biodiesel reduces lifecycle CO2 emissions by 78 percent, and B20 by 15.66 percent compared to petroleum diesel**. As anyone producing or burning biodiesel knows, fuel burned in an engine emits CO2 at the tailpipe. Biodiesel and petroleum diesel produce comparable carbon emissions. (They don't talk about that much do they?) The difference lies in the big picture—total CO2 output over the lifecycle of the fuel. The DOE/USDA lifecycle study looked at the whole picture from “cradle to grave,” beginning with extraction of raw materials through to end-use applications. A major benefit of soy-based biodiesel is the fact that soybeans absorb CO2 from the atmosphere in the growing process. They literally use solar energy and turn CO2 into stored energy. This effectively recycles CO2 in the atmosphere because the same CO2 released from biodiesel combustion is taken up in the next soybean crop. Crude oil releases CO2 when pulled from its containment under ground. The DOE/USDA study concluded that replacing petroleum diesel with biodiesel “is an extremely effective strategy for reducing CO2 emissions.”

If only everyone would agree on this assessment, biodiesel would far exceed the renewable fuel qualifications under the RFS2. Instead, indirect land use in other countries could affect the lifecycle score for biodiesel. The U.S. biodiesel industry did see some light when EPA stated that the lifecycle analysis may not solely determine eligibility of a renewable fuel under the RFS2. The EPA indicated the displacement of petroleum by biofuels over time can overcome some land use diversions from food or forests to fuel. Even so, most U.S. biodiesel producers and farmers are using sustainable feedstocks and practices, so the industry is looking for a fair assessment from the EPA.

Margolis, who has advised the California Energy Commission on GHG mitigation strategies, stresses the importance of EPA applying equal amounts of scrutiny to all renewable fuel sources. “There’s no ‘easy button’ for lifecycle analysis,” he says. “If nuances are missed, viable solutions could be left out of the mix.”

The EPA is surely paying attention to California where the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) was adopted April 2009. California plans to reduce GHG emissions by 10 percent by 2020 or about 15 million metric tons a year*** (CO2 equivalent ???). The LCFS is designed to reduce California’s dependence on petroleum, which sounds good for biodiesel, but the LCFS also takes into account land use changes overseas. Biodiesel made from waste oil, animal tallow or sustainable feedstocks should have no problem meeting the reduction standards set forth by the LCFS.

In addition to reducing CO2, the current form of the Waxman/Markey bill requires reduction of black carbon, or particulate matter (heard of scrubbers?). The bill also proposes to reduce “unnecessary fossil fuel burning that produces black carbon where feasible alternatives exist.” The biodiesel industry knows that particulate matter reduction is one major benefit of burning a biodiesel blend.

Overall, the activity surrounding CO2 reduction could benefit the biodiesel industry. Legislation reducing use of fossil fuel in transportation could open new markets for biodiesel.

But recent figures on biodiesel production show a marked decrease—down to 2006 levels by March, which indicates the industry needs help. Enforcing the RFS2 may help the biodiesel industry pick up the pace as fuel producers start to fulfill their 2009 obligations to include 500 million gallons of biomass-based diesel in the mix of transportation fuel sold in the U.S. As long as the biodiesel industry continues to make gains in sustainable feedstocks, biodiesel (.. or maybe turn the Gulf of Mexico into a giant Algae farm) will be viable as one of the solutions for the nation’s goals of reducing GHGs and increasing energy security.

Sharon Bell is a public relations professional representing clients in the biodiesel industry. Reach her at or (972) 352-8698.

** Well here is where Monsanto fits in -- FDA rules GMO Soybeans are no longer fit for human consumption they can make them into biofuels and take up all the land mass and since soy is no longer going to be available then they have the energy market cornered. They also have a nice patent going for them.

*** The IPCC says humans produce 28GT of CO2 is released every year by Humans ~5 GT of that are from breathing. So that leaves 17GT or 17,000

15 million metric tons a year = 10% reduction of California transport fuel, which still emits CO2.

1,000,000,000 tons = 1 GT
15,000,000 tons = 0.015 GT

So switching to biofuel 100% in California will save 0.15 GT of a 0.24 GT total for all transport. Whopping 38% of total State emissions @0.4 GT. Prorate CA Population of 37M.

the U.S. economy used 99.75 quads/year in 2005

1 QUAD = 10^15 Btu
in 2008 The US consumed 0.84 quads and used .55 quads to produce it*.

* Losses and coproducts from the production of ethanol. Does not include natural gas, electricity, and other non-biomass energy used in the production of ethanol and biofuels (um OK..)
Entire Report:

Various programs have also been expanded or added that will impact conservation efforts. Authority has been expanded under the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) for the Farmable Wetlands Program land eligibility which now includes certain: (1) Wetlands; (2) Constructed wetlands designed to provide nitrogen removal and other wetland functions; (3) Land that was devoted to commercial pond-raised aquaculture; and (4) Land that is subject to
the natural overflow of a prairie wetland.

I had more on this but I have since forgotten my train of thought on this and my notes are spread out everywhere.
There are no others, there is only us.
11-02-2010, 02:11 PM,
RE: Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Dead Zone: The Algae Biofuels and Carbon Exchange Agenda
Significant Related post (thanks hilly7):

National Ocean Council: MAJOR UN Agenda 21 Initiative

Funding law and land appropriation for military, social (international benefit), and economic (crony corporations) is the just of it. The NOC is bound to the law to create a clean energy economy, monitor human activity and protect the environment. Contrary to the title it extends to regulate the land as well via anything that effects ocean ecology and/or climate change.

The Gulf Gusher was used as the fulcrum to enact this legislation. There is a huge network of private and globalist interests that need to have access to large areas of water like the Great Lakes, Chesapeake Bay and The Gulf of Mexico to house their subsidized biofarms which would also garner swaths of carbon credit currency for these corporations to boot.

The USGS is involved too and they are right on board with NASA and their initiative to create algal biofuels. They already have the subsidy being a public agency and they have a market too in the US Air Force (see above for the contract already awarded).

More on NASA's OMEGA Algae Bags ...

Quote:Once the capital costs drop and dewatering technology improves, some say the aviation industry and the military could become viable markets for algae-based fuel. Tom Byrne, a Minnesota-based renewable energy consultant and member of the Algal Biomass Organization, predicts it will take five to 10 years before the industry makes a real difference. “Which is faster than you can drill off the coast,” he said. NASA is also already into the algae biofuel business. They are testing a technology of producing biofuels by growing algae in plastic bags fi lled with sewage floating in the ocean. The OMEGA (offshore membrane enclosures for growing algae) bags are semipermeable membranes that NASA developed to recycle astronauts’ wastewater on long space missions. In this case, the membranes let freshwater exit but prevent saltwater from moving in. Then the algae in the bag feast on nutrients in the sewage. The plants clean up the water and produce lipids — fat-soluble molecules — that will be used later as fuel. Just as in algae biofuel production on land, the floating OMEGA bags use water, solar energy and carbon dioxide — which in this case is absorbed through the plastic membrane — to produce sugar that algae metabolize into lipids.

Jonathan Trent, the lead researcher on the project at NASA’s Ames Research Center in California, said “Algae are the best source of biofuels on the planet that we know about.” Trent envisions the OMEGAs producing enough fuel to fill U.S. aviation needs — 21 billion gallons a year. Doing so would require about 10 acres of ocean, he said.

Meanwhile, researchers studying the green algae, Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, have discovered a new way to increase its natural production of hydrogen that could be used as a renewable fuel. The algae, which is commonly found in soils, naturally produces small amounts of hydrogen when it is deprived of oxygen. But the amount of hydrogen produced is typically small. However, a new study, published in the Journal of Biological Chemistry, reports that by genetically blocking certain metabolic processes in a mutant strain of the algae, production yield could be increased significantly. “These are really exciting times in the field,” said Matthew Posewitz, a researcher at the Colorado School of Mines and the Colorado Center for Biorefining and Biofuels, in a statement.

More on genetically modified algae ..

Quote:Exploring Algae as Fuel
July, 28 / 2010

SAN DIEGO — In a laboratory where almost all the test tubes look green, the tools of modern biotechnology are being applied to lowly pond scum.

Foreign genes are being spliced into algae and native genes are being tweaked.

Different strains of algae are pitted against one another in survival-of-the-fittest contests in an effort to accelerate the evolution of fast-growing, hardy strains.

The goal is nothing less than to create superalgae, highly efficient at converting sunlight and carbon dioxide into lipids and oils that can be sent to a refinery and made into diesel or jet fuel.

“We’ve probably engineered over 4,000 strains,” said Mike Mendez, a co-founder and vice president for technology at Sapphire Energy, the owner of the laboratory. “My whole goal here at Sapphire is to domesticate algae, to make it a crop.”

Dozens of companies, as well as many academic laboratories, are pursuing the same goal — to produce algae as a source of, literally, green energy. And many of them are using genetic engineering or other biological techniques, like chemically induced mutations, to improve how algae functions.

“There are probably well over 100 academic efforts to use genetic engineering to optimize biofuel production from algae,” said Matthew C. Posewitz, an assistant professor of chemistry at the Colorado School of Mines, who has written a review of the field. “There’s just intense interest globally.”

Algae are attracting attention because the strains can potentially produce 10 or more times more fuel per acre than the corn used to make ethanol or the soybeans used to make biodiesel. Moreover, algae might be grown on arid land and brackish water, so that fuel production would not compete with food production. And algae are voracious consumers of carbon dioxide, potentially helping to keep some of this greenhouse gas from contributing to global warming.

But efforts to genetically engineer algae, which usually means to splice in genes from other organisms, worry some experts because algae play a vital role in the environment. The single-celled photosynthetic organisms produce much of the oxygen on earth and are the base of the marine food chain.

“We are not saying don’t do this,” said Gerald H. Groenewold, director of the University of North Dakota’s Energy and Environmental Research Center, who is trying to organize a study of the risks. “We say do this with the knowledge of the implications and how to safeguard what you are doing.”

At a meeting this month of President Obama’s new bioethics commission, Allison A. Snow, an ecologist at Ohio State University, testified that a “worst-case hypothetical scenario” would be that algae engineered to be extremely hardy might escape into the environment, displace other species and cause algal overgrowths that deprive waters of oxygen, killing fish.

A week earlier, at an industry-sponsored bioenergy conference, David Haberman, an engineer who has worked on an algae project, gave a talk warning of risks. Many scientists, particularly those in the algae business, say the fears are overblown. Just as food crops cannot thrive without a farmer to nourish them and fend off pests, algae modified to be energy crops would be uncompetitive against wild algae if they were to escape, and even inside their own ponds.

“Everything we do to engineer an organism makes it weaker,” said Stephen Mayfield, a professor of biology at the University of California, San Diego, and a co-founder of Sapphire. “This idea that we can make Frankenfood or Frankenalgae is just absurd.”

Dr. Mayfield and other scientists say there have been no known environmental problems in the 35 years that scientists have been genetically engineering bacteria, although some organisms have undoubtedly escaped from laboratories.

Even Margaret Mellon of the Union of Concerned Scientists, who has been critical of biotech crops, said that if genetically engineered algae were to escape, “I would not lose sleep over it at all.”

Still, some algae researchers worry they will be engulfed by the same backlash aimed at biotech foods and say care must be exercised. “About 40 percent of the oxygen that you and I are breathing right now comes from the algae in the oceans,” the genetic scientist J. Craig Venter said at a Congressional hearing in May. “We don’t want to mess up that process.”

Dr. Venter’s company, Synthetic Genomics, is getting $300 million from Exxon Mobil to create fuel-producing algae, in part by using synthetic genes. When the two companies cut the ribbon on a new greenhouse here earlier this month, Dr. Venter assured local dignitaries in attendance that no algae would escape. “Nothing will go into the drains, Mr. Mayor,” Dr. Venter said, only half-jokingly. “San Diego is safe.”

In the long run, Dr. Venter said, the algae should be given “suicide genes” that would kill them if they escaped the lab or fuel production facility. Some companies are sticking with searching for and breeding natural strains. “Re-engineering algae seems driven more by patent law and investor desire for protection than any real requirement,” said Stan Barnes, chief executive of Bioalgene, which is one of those companies. But Dr. Venter and Mr. Mendez argue that there are huge obstacles to making algae competitive as an energy source and that every tool will be needed to optimize the strains.

Sapphire Energy seems one of the best-positioned companies to do that. The company, which is three years old, has raised $100 million from prominent investors, including Bill Gates. Sapphire is also getting $100 million in federal financing to build a demonstration project containing 300 acres of open ponds in the New Mexico desert.

The company has inserted a gene into algae that allows the organisms to make a hydrocarbon they would not naturally produce, one that would help make fuel. “You don’t want to take what algae gives you,” said Mr. Mendez, who previously worked for medical biotechnology companies. “You want to make the best product.”

The company is also developing algae that can thrive in extremely salty and exceedingly alkaline water.

It has even developed what might be called Roundup Ready algae. Like the widely grown Roundup Ready soybeans, these algae are resistant to the herbicide Roundup. That would allow the herbicide to be sprayed on a pond to kill invading wild algae while leaving the fuel-producing strain unhurt.

Not all these traits are being developed by genetic engineering, because in many cases scientists do not know what genes to use. Instead, the company screens thousands of strains each day, looking for organisms with the right properties. Those desirable traits can be further enhanced by breeding or accelerated evolution.

In one room at Sapphire’s lab, parallel tubes contain algae with identical traits growing under identical conditions. But each strain is slightly different, and only the fastest growing one — determined by which tube turns the darkest green — will be chosen for further development.

“If you can’t outcompete your wild cousin, it doesn’t make it out of this room,” said Mr. Mendez. Algae can reproduce rapidly, doubling in as little as a few hours. And they can be carried long distances by the wind. “They have the potential to blow all over the world,” said Richard Sayre of the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center in St. Louis.

Dr. Sayre, who is also chief technology officer of Phycal, an algae company, is using genetic engineering to develop algae that capture less light. Right now, he explained, algae capture more light than they need and waste a lot of it as heat. If each organism captured less, then a given amount of light could be shared by more organisms, increasing biomass production.

Instead of using open ponds, some companies are using bioreactors, which typically contain the algae in tubes. Some experts say, however, that these would not totally prevent escapes. “The idea that you can contain these things and have a large-scale system is not credible,” said John R. Benemann, an industry consultant in Walnut Creek, Calif. He said, however, that he saw absolutely no risk from genetically engineered algae.

Sapphire says it is not growing any genetically engineered algae in open ponds yet. When it is ready, it says, it will comply with all regulations.

Genetically engineered algae, whether in open ponds or enclosed bioreactors, are likely to be regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency, which now regulates genetically engineered microbes under the Toxic Substances Control Act.

Still, there has been at least one case in which genetically modified algae seem to have fallen between the regulatory cracks. When Mera Pharmaceuticals, which is based in Hawaii, wanted to test the feasibility of producing human pharmaceuticals in genetically engineered algae in 2005, none of the three federal agencies that regulate the various areas of biotechnology — E.P.A., the Food and Drug Administration and the Agriculture Department — claimed jurisdiction.

Steven G. Chalk, acting deputy assistant secretary for renewable energy at the Energy Department, said any federally financed project, like Sapphire’s New Mexico demonstration, would have to undergo an environmental assessment. But risks would be assessed case by case, he said, not for all conceivable genetically modified algae.

Source: New York Times

Nothing to worry about? Just the sheer (genetically engineered) reproduction of algae could displace other species and deplete oxygen.

Sapphire Energy was a main sponsor of the 4th Annual Algae Biomass Summit in Phoenix, AZ in September. Where a pitch by the military (Navy’s Task Force Energy, Admiral Cullom) to develop more secure sources of energy.

The main US players are emerging among them is the following corporations with their executives listed:

* Jason Pyle, Sapphire Energy
* Harrison Dillon, Solazyme
* Craig Smith, Algenol Biofuels
* Doug Henston, Solix Biofuels
There are no others, there is only us.
11-09-2010, 11:13 PM,
RE: Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Dead Zone: The Algae Biofuels and Carbon Exchange Agenda
This is a heavily promoted solution to the Gulf of Mexico cleanup.

Quote:An Oil-Eating Microbe That's Been Around Since 1989 Could Single-Handedly Clean Up BP's Entire Oil Spill
Vince Veneziani | Jun. 3, 2010, 8:41 AM

This video (via Reddit) has us scratching our heads and wondering why BP hasn't employed this proven tactic with its current oil spill disaster. The video, which really begins at the 2:00 minute mark, showcases a 1989 video from the Texas Land Office and Texas Water Commission.

In short, it turns out there's a natural oil-eating microbe that can be reproduced by scientists. It feeds on crude oil and when it runs out of oil to eat, it simply dies and is safely consumed by marine life. There are two shots of scientists testing the microbe in both controlled and real-world environments.

So we ask BP: Why the heck aren't you using this to clean up the oil in the Gulf of Mexico?

Great idea right? Wrong.

Selected Quotes:
Quote:what they don't tell you are the nutrients needed to get exponential growth so the oil is broken down. It actually creates hypoxic to anaoxic (low to no oxygen) conditions in the water. You will create the dead sea.

There is a lot of damage being done yes, but the problem with the microbes is that it robs the water of oxygen, so nothing can survive. The oil is at the surface, but when the microbes die, they sink. Some get eaten by fish, but the rest decompose and the process is what takes the oxygen out of the water. You have this O2 free liquid that has to mix with oxidated ocean before it is inhabitable again. For an oil spill that size it would take at least a century for the oxygenated water to saturate the area enough for it to be inhabitable again. It's a brilliant short term solution, but for this much oil to be cleared, the damage far outways the benefits. The oil affects the surface, the microbes would affect the water entirely.

Don't do it BP!

You know some fisherman group is gonna sue you over these microbes killing some species of fish that they would have caught and sold for millions.

There would be so many of those microbes because there is so much food, that when they die the bacteria that will decompose them would greatly decrease the dissolved oxygen level in the water making the water inhospitable and deadly for most marine wildlife

Nice to see them getting the kiddies involved at school.

Quote:How to Clean Up an Oil Spill for a School Project
By Tina Vazquez, eHow Contributor
updated: July 24, 2010

Oil spills are toxic events that cause far reaching environmental damage that effects people and animals as well as plants, land, and even air quality. There are a number of ways students can learn about the effects of oil spills as well as learn how to respond in the event of a spill. Long term or multi-year projects can help young people understand the long-term effects of harming the environment. The results can be used to start discussions in classes ranging from environmental science to biology to ethics.

Biodegradable Methods of Oil Spill Cleanup

#1 Prepare a number of petri dishes, or have each student prepare his own, with a drop of oil in each. Make as many as you like but preferably at least five. You can also make preparations with combinations of oil and water, oil and dirt and so on. One will be your "control" and should not be exposed to algae. This dish will give you a comparison.

#2 Acquire a variety of algae. Pick some that are known to eat oil, some that do not and some that have an unknown effect on oil. Have the students research algae and choose which ones to introduce to the preparations on their own.

#3 Write a hypothesis about the effects of each algae on its respective dish.

#4 Introduce each algae into a dish and leave it to work.

#5 Record the effect of the algae on the oil and oil combinations and measures the effects. Look for size of oil remaining, changes in algae temperature, color and size and any other aspects that are of interest.

#6 Compare the different algae to see which ones work best. You can start a second project using this information to discover which algae combinations work the fastest, have the best results or cause the least damage to the environment (visible in the oil/water and oil/earth preparations).

#7 Perform a derivative study by feeding the algae to fish like carp and measuring the results such as which algae were preferred and whether the fish suffered any health effects from eating it**.

#8 Discuss possible uses for oil eating algae with you students. For older groups you might use the information to discuss the politics of oil spills such as who gains or loses money from a spill, for example the makers of oil dispersing chemical that are toxic but frequently used exclusively even when alternative methods have not be tried. You can even discuss the ethics of oil consumption and have students suggest alternative energy sources and the pros and cons of oil use.

REF: Oil Eating Microbes A Possible Solution

** How long term is the project? Does it test oxygen levels? Are these results scalable to account for depth and area that is larger than a petri dish? How about GM Algae? Don't fish eat plankton?

Another grant for Dow and Algenol Biofuels with research from subsidized partners Georgia Tech and NREL to create a subsidized product that garners stock profit and carbon credits to trade.

Quote:Algae Will Eat CO2, Produce Ethanol at Pilot Plant in Texas
July 1, 2009

Algenol Biofuels and Dow Chemical Company are planning to build a pilot plant in Texas to produce ethanol from algae using a unique new process.

The New York Times Green, Inc. blog reported on Monday that Algenol Biofuels and Dow Chemical Company are planning to build a pilot plant to produce low-cost, non-feedstock ethanol from algae on the site of a Dow plant in Freeport, Texas.

The plant already produces carbon dioxide (CO2), a key ingredient in the photosynthesis-based production of ethanol, as a by-product of several other processes. According to its website, Algenol’s technology produces low-cost, industrial-scale, ethanol using algae, CO2, and seawater. But, unlike other operations in this fledgling industry, Algenol’s process does not require harvesting the algae, instead extracting ethanol as it’s produced. An article in the Baltimore Sun reported that the 100,000-gallon-a year “biorefinery” will be constructed to test the economic feasibility of Algenol’s process, which extracts ethanol from cyanobacteria, commonly known as blue-green algae. Algenol said it had applied for a $25 million federal economic-stimulus grant to help finance the project, and the privately held company plans to invest another $25 million in the project, which it expects will create or save more than 300 jobs. Dow, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), the Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech) and Membrane Technology & Research, Inc. are contributing expertise and technology to the project.

Algenol’s process does not require food-type feedstocks like corn or sugarcane, so there is no need to use arable land that could be devoted to growing food. The other exciting thing about the process is that it uses CO2, a by-product of many industrial processes. According to the Times article, the specially-developed algae would grow “in seawater mixed with carbon dioxide, and would give off ethanol and oxygen.”

In traditional algae-to-ethanol operations, the algae are the feedstock—they are first harvested and then pressed to extract their oil, which can be further processed into ethanol. But Algenol has come up with a whole new approach whereby the algae are not harvested, but instead milked like cows for the ethanol they produce as they grow.

According to an article in Earth Magazine, Algenol’s major innovation is its harvesting method. Ethanol is highly evaporative (inclined to escape into the air). So instead of killing the algae by pressing them to extract their oil, Algenol leaves the algae in their glass photo-bioreactors, and instead collects the ethanol that has already evaporated into the tubes. Paul Woods, the chief executive of Algenol, said “Since we’re not harvesting them, we don’t touch them. That’s the massive advantage of our process.”

Algenol’s website forecasts an initial ethanol production rate of 6,000 gallons per acre per year, more than 100,000 gallons per year total for the 24-acre Texas pilot plant. The prototype production strains are expected to improve to 10,000 gallons/acre/year by the end of 2009. By comparison, corn produces around 400 gallons/acre/year of ethanol.

If it works at the right levels, Algenol hopes the process could be married to major CO2-producing operations like coal-burning power plants, producing ethanol while eating up CO2 and getting better coal combustion from the added oxygen produced by the algae.

With its potential to produce biofuel from a highly renewable resource, its consumption of greenhouse gas CO2, and its non-impact on farmland and food crops, algae-based ethanol production has the potential to solve several pressing problems. Once it has been tested for large-scale production and distribution and its retail price drops close to that of gasoline, algae-based biofuel may be what powers America’s 21st century green economy.

Side note: plastic parts will be used in most of the next-gen "green" vehicles. There will still be a demand for oil based products in "developed" countries. India, China and 180 other countries are exempt from the proposed Copenhagen treaties but they are free to sell off credits they generate.

FYI: Pinned as of today
There are no others, there is only us.
11-23-2010, 08:37 AM,
RE: Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Dead Zone: The Algae Biofuels and Carbon Exchange Agenda
Going a bit off topic here but still on point with biofuels.. albeit of the more traditional acreage sucking brand. This PR could be to support off-shore algae as biofuel playing one off of the other and eventually getting both via tiptoe encroachment but this case is anything but tiptoeing.

Quote:Poverty And Hunger | Large Land Deals A Threat To Farmers: U.N.

UNITED NATIONS, Nov. 12 (UPI) -- Large-scale acquisitions of agricultural land and expansion of biofuel feedstock crops are driving farmers deeper into poverty and hunger, U.N. studies showed.

Findings on land purchases in poor countries by foreign investor nations and organizations is brewing an explosive cocktail that would spell trouble both in terms of social balance and food supply, U.N. Special Rapporteur on Food Olivier de Schutter said.

U.N. studies show that new pressures being built on farmland by investor interest in large tracts and conversion of food crops into feedstock production can impact on food available to at least 500 million farmers, many of them in Latin America.

Added to those problems were environmental degradation and urbanization, De Schutter said.

"The plots cultivated by smallholders are shrinking year after year," he said in a report presented to the U.N. General Assembly. Farmers are encouraged to sell their lands to investors or feedstock producers then find themselves having to produce food on less-fertile soil or on land with inadequate irrigation.

He said the developments posed a direct challenge to the right of rural populations to grow their own food.

U.N. estimates show up to 30 million hectares of farmland are being lost due to the combined effects of large land sales, conversion to non-food crops, encroachment by urbanization and soil degradation.

Large-scale land acquisitions worldwide reached 45 million hectares in 2009, U.N. estimates showed. More than one-third of the newly acquired large-scale land holdings are likely to be converted to producing feedstock for biofuels.

China, South Korea and Arab states have been the largest buyers but investment firms in the Americas have also bought into farmlands in the Western Hemisphere.

Land purchases caught momentum after the sharp prices rises in food and commodities from 2008 onward.

Analysts said the large-scale land purchases represented an emerging threat both for the countries targeted for investment and for the investors who poured money into what they believed to be lucrative deals.

Many investors have poured money into land deals hoping they will enjoy the same rights as landowners in modernized industrial countries. In fact, many deals have been found to be based on questionable legal frameworks and suspect documentation.

Investors are also exposed to the risk that the national governments of countries targeted for large-scale land acquisitions may change legal frameworks, with unpredictable results for the new owners.

The threat posed to buyers of large tracts of land, however, is distant while tens of thousands of farmers face immediate problems of poverty and hunger, analysts said.

Seems the GMO crowd have their digs set on modifying both algae and cellulose ethanol producing land crops such as soy and corn. All this will marketing it as nutritional (which it may very well be but GMOs have a poor track record and are unpredictable) to gain support.

Quote:Gene Find Could Lead To Healthier Food And Better Biofuel

Decreasing phenylalanine could lead to a reduction in lignin, which would improve digestibility of cellulosic materials for ethanol production. Increasing phenylalanine could boost the nutritional value of some foods.

by Staff Writers
West Lafayette IN (SPX) Nov 23, 2010
Purdue University scientists have found the last undiscovered gene responsible for the production of the amino acid phenylalanine, a discovery that could lead to processes to control the amino acid to boost plants' nutritional values and produce better biofuel feedstocks.

Natalia Dudareva, a distinguished professor of horticulture, and Hiroshi Maeda, a postdoctoral researcher in Dudareva's laboratory, determined that the gene is one of 10 responsible for phenylalanine production in plants. Understanding how the amino acid is produced could provide a strategy to increase or reduce that production.

Phenylalanine is important for plant protein synthesis and for the production of flower scent, anti-oxidants and lignin, a principal plant cell wall component that helps plants stand upright and acts as a barrier in the production of cellulosic ethanol. It is one of the few essential amino acids that humans and animals cannot synthesize, so it must come from plants.

"In plant tissues where we want to lower lignin content, we may be able to block these pathways," Maeda said. "In cases where you want to increase the amount of phenylalanine, we could do that as well."

Decreasing phenylalanine could lead to a reduction in lignin, which would improve digestibility of cellulosic materials for ethanol production. Increasing phenylalanine could boost the nutritional value of some foods.

Dudareva and Maeda used a co-expression analysis to find the prephenate aminotransferase gene. They monitored the expression activity of nine genes in the research plant Arabidopsis that were known to be involved in phenylalanine production and looked for other genes that became active at the same time.

"This gene had almost identical gene expression patterns as the known phenylalanine-related genes," Maeda said.

The comparable gene in petunias also was identified. Dudareva and Maeda confirmed that its expression patterns matched other genes involved in the formation of phenylalanine and volatile scent compounds in the flower.

To test the find, Dudareva and Maeda used the E. coli bacteria. They overexpressed the protein encoded by newly discovered gene and detected the expected enzyme activity. They also decreased the gene's expression in petunia flowers and witnessed a reduction in phenylalanine production.

"We provided both biochemical and genetic evidence that the gene is indeed involved in phenylalanine biosynthesis," Dudareva said. "It completes the pathway."

Dudareva said she would use the discovery to increase the scent of flowers in order to study the interaction of insects with flowers.

Dudareva and Maeda's findings were published in the early online version of the journal Nature Chemical Biology. The National Science Foundation funded the research.

.. and on the E15 law that recently passed. Let's see if it gets some legs in court.

Quote:Diverse Coalition Files Lawsuit To Overturn EPA's 'E15' Decision

by Staff Writers
Washington DC (SPX) Nov 22, 2010

A diverse coalition of farm and food trade associations have filed a suit in federal court to overturn the Environmental Protection Agency's recent decision to allow gasoline containing 15 percent ethanol ("E15") to be sold for cars manufactured in the 2007 model year or later.

Farm and food petitioners in the suit, which was filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, include the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the American Meat Institute, the National Council of Chain Restaurants, the National Meat Association, the National Turkey Federation, the National Chicken Council, the National Pork Producers Council, the Snack Food Association and the American Frozen Food Institute.

The Coalition objects to the EPA's decision on the grounds that granting a "partial waiver" of the Clean Air Act allowing E15 to be used only in cars built after model year 2006 is not within the agency's legal authority.

The petitioners argue that under the Clean Air Act the EPA administrator may only grant a waiver for a new fuel additive if it "will not cause or contribute to a failure of any emission control device or system."

The Coalition said: "In approving E15, which is compatible only with certain, later-model automobile and other types of engines, the EPA has clearly exceeded its authority under the Clean Air Act.

The EPA has unlawfully interpreted the statute to achieve a particular outcome. The agency has a legal obligation to adhere to the letter and spirit of the Clean Air Act and, in this case, has failed to do so. We are confident that the Court will agree and require the EPA to reverse course
More quotes from the coalition and the full article here:
There are no others, there is only us.
03-16-2011, 02:30 PM, (This post was last modified: 03-16-2011, 02:37 PM by Beostein.)
RE: Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Dead Zone: The Algae Biofuels and Carbon Exchange Agenda
First of all FastTadPole when I'd told you previously that I had read some of your posts, it was this one in particular that I was literally blown away by. If I had less self control, tufts of hair would be missing from my head because of how frustrating and scary a situation this really is. I just checked out Sapphire Energy's website. They are happily announcing a multi-year collaboration.... with Monsanto. I'm not sure what the implications are (besides the certain bad outcome of evil working together with evil LOL)
What's your take?

Also found this while poking around (I'm very new to researching). The House Committee on Energy and Commerce attempted to enact this bill seen here a bit after the Gulf crisis happened. It died (imagine that Dodgy)

They have presented the exact same bill again this year.

Notice it hasn't made it any farther than the last time? Think it ever will? Spoke with my father about it and he reminded me that he's seen bills attempted for a decade before going through, but in this case I doubt it ever will. Hope something in this post was useful, I'll surely read more when I have time!

" If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary-wise; what it is it wouldn't be, and what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?"
03-23-2011, 01:29 PM,
RE: Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Dead Zone: The Algae Biofuels and Carbon Exchange Agenda

Quote:Boeing Launches Partnership to Develop Biomass Fuel Standards
By Jonathan Bardelline
Published March 22, 2011

Boeing and a Swiss university launched a group today that will work to lower certification costs related to sustainable biofuels and bring together different sustainability requirements.

The Sustainable Biomass Consortium plans to collaborate with groups that are implementing voluntary standards or regulatory requirements for biomass used to make jet fuel and energy.

The consortium was created by Boeing and the Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne (EPFL), a Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. It's working closely with the Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels, which was created by the EPFL and just recently began its own certification system for biofuels.

The roundtable's sustainability standard is being used by the consortium to set regional benchmarks based on aviation industry biofuel projects.

A number of aviation companies have tested biofuels, such as Virgin Airlines with algae-based fuel, Air New Zealand with jatropha-based fuels (see also post #16 and #37 and #39), and Continental Airlines and Japan Airlines, which both used mixtures of different biofuels.

With different companies [see past posts in this thread for a roster of the players] taking up initiatives all over the world, the aviation industry [spurning along with the major investment by the US military] has a vested interest in working with other groups to make standards and regulations follow the same principles.

Research by the consortium will begin in April, 10 projects are already in the works, and over the next two years the group plans to be working in Africa, Australasia, China, the European Union, Latin America and North America. [Not to mention the growers in India backed by chinese financing and subsidized by US tax dollars?]

The consortium defines sustainable biofuels as coming from biomass that provides life cycle carbon emission reductions, do not displace food crops, don't compete for fresh water and don't cause habitat loss or unintended land use changes.[like using the Gulf of Meixco?]

Jatropha (along with corn used as biofuel) is already threatening the food sourcing in Asia.

Wondering what this EPFL is? Check it out...

Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels

This agency hasn't seen any MSM OR so called alt-media ink/bytes either..

Sustainable Biomass Consortium - Asia

Boeing and EPFL Join Forces to Lower Sustainability Certification..

All the following articles are dated March 22nd, 2011. Welcome to phase one of the public subsidy for foreign/multinational private energy companies and their finance institutions. Can you hear the high 5's?

Creation of Sustainable Biomass Consortium Announced

WWF - Groundbreaking biofuels body starts work

Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels Launches Third-Party Sustainable Biofuels Certification System

Think the Japan disaster (and hyped coverage) helped push this agenda/policy/financing along?

FYI: Here's the previous outline for standards..

Quote:Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels Releases Sustainability Standards

7 May 2010: The Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels (RSB) has released its complete set of biofuels sustainability standards. The numerous standards compiled in this database range from a technical draft for EU market access to standards approved for pilot testing on: chains of custody; certification and accreditation bodies; and application of rules to specific conditions.

The RSB standards represent a third-party certification system for biofuels encompassing environmental, social and economic principles and criteria. The RSB is in a pilot testing phase and no sustainability certificates are currently being awarded. The RSB is coordinated by the Energy Center at the Federal Polytechnic School of Lausanne and brings together a broad spectrum of local, national and international stakeholders concerned with ensuring the sustainability of biofuels production and processing, including the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), and the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB). [RSB Standards Database]
There are no others, there is only us.
06-24-2011, 09:42 AM,
Information  RE: Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Dead Zone: The Algae Biofuels and Carbon Exchange Agenda
The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) is an emergency fuel store of oil maintained by the United States Department of Energy. The moratorium is still on for offshore drilling and in the massive stores in Alaska (environmental protectionism) but tapping into emergency supplies is a go. Not just a little either as the US will bring 1/2 of 60 million barrels out of global reserves as per international recommendations.

Seems that forces are in place to run the US dry to make other fuels economically competitive, push for more green energy, garner support for carbon taxes with high gas price outrage and even handicap the US military machine that is spread thin globally; opening the door for other nations to claim those occupied positions now held by US forces.

Bleeding us dry of oil.

Quote:Offshore Drilling Moratorium Still In Effect As White House Announces Plan To Tap Oil Reserve
By Neela Banerjee, Washington Bureau
June 23, 2011, 1:21 p.m.

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration announced Thursday that it planned to release 30 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, as part of a coordinated international effort to drive down high crude prices and revive the flagging economic recovery in the world's most industrialized countries.


The oil will be released over the next 30 days, according to Energy Secretary Steven Chu, constituting half the 60 million barrels that the nations in the International Energy Agency plan to bring to market.

"We are taking this action in response to the ongoing loss of crude oil due to supply disruptions in Libya and other countries and their impact on the global economic recovery," Chu said. "As we move forward, we will continue to monitor the situation and stand ready to take additional steps if necessary."


Fighting in Libya has caused a loss of about 1.5 million barrels of oil per day from global markets, according to the Energy Department. Despite the absence of Libyan oil, there is no shortage of oil in the world. But nervousness about unrest spreading to other Arab oil producers, speculative investment in the oil markets and the revival of the Chinese and Indian economies have pushed crude prices to painful levels.
Full Story:,0,4015840.story
There are no others, there is only us.
08-08-2011, 01:03 PM,
RE: Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill Dead Zone: The Algae Biofuels and Carbon Exchange Agenda
Quote:The Renewable Fuel Standard

The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program provides a subsidy within the energy sector. The RFS mandates that a minimum volume of transportation fuel sold in the United States come from renewable sources.8 This legal requirement is implemented through regulations issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).9 Specifically, the law establishes three categories of renewable fuels (cellulosic biofuel, biomass-based diesel and advanced biofuel) with minimum annual volume requirements for each category ramping up to an overall requirement that at least 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel be blended into gasoline and diesel fuel by 2022.10 In addition, each category of fuel must meet certain greenhouse gas emission standards.11 The stated goals of the program include reducing reliance on oil and encouraging the development of domestic renewable fuels that may decrease greenhouse gas emissions.

To the extent the RFS mandate results in greater demand for renewable fuels (predominantly ethanol) and biofuel feedstocks (predominantly corn, soybeans and switchgrass), the RFS regulations provide a subsidy to renewable fuel producers and farmers who grow the feedstocks. Quantifying the value of these subsidies is difficult to do with accuracy given the uncertainty of fuel prices, production technology and crop yields over the next decade. Nonetheless, a 2010 EPA analysis estimates that the RFS program will boost farm income alone by approximately $13 billion through 2022 (in 2007 dollars).12

#8 "Renewable Fuel Program." U.S. Code 42, Section 7545(o). 2007 ed., pg. 1864-1867, as amended by Section 1501 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Subtitle A of Title II of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.
#9 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). "Fuels and Fuel Additives: Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS)." Last Updated: July 07, 2010.
#10 The volumetric requirements were increased to these levels by paragraph 202(a)(2) of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.
#11 Section 202c of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 amended the greenhouse gas requirements such that the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency may change the requirements under certain circumstances.
#12 EPA. "Renewable Fuel Standard Program (RFS2) Regulatory Impact Analysis." EPA-420-R-10-006. February 2010. Table 5.5-1, p. 967.
There are no others, there is only us.

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
Tongue Agenda 21 is a Right-Wing Conspiracy Theory CharliePrime 2 1,741 04-22-2014, 02:45 PM
Last Post: CharliePrime
  Mexico demands information on US spying operations mexika 0 938 07-12-2013, 09:49 AM
Last Post: mexika
  Snowden may be dead or captured datars 0 977 07-10-2013, 07:32 PM
Last Post: datars
  TV AD promoting UN Agenda 21 Frank2 2 1,654 11-14-2012, 06:30 PM
Last Post: April
  Clint Richardson Schools BBC on Tea Parties, Rothschild Agenda, Deanna Spingola etc Negentropic 1 1,928 08-16-2012, 11:21 AM
Last Post: Negentropic
  The United States Is Already Dead, and Just Doesn’t Know It Solve et Coagula 2 1,440 02-20-2012, 09:17 PM
Last Post: Sovereignman
  Dead people on the voter list in NH *video* Sovereignman 0 914 01-12-2012, 08:55 PM
Last Post: Sovereignman
Photo Al-Qaeda leader Bin Laden 'dead' SiLVa 87 30,412 09-23-2011, 05:14 PM
Last Post: TheQleaner
  The United States Is Already Dead, and Just Doesn’t Know It Solve et Coagula 0 949 06-20-2011, 01:33 PM
Last Post: Solve et Coagula
  Iran: A Bridge too Far? The weapon that could defeat the US in the Gulf Solve et Coagula 7 4,672 06-20-2011, 01:16 PM
Last Post: FastTadpole

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)