On Mar 4, 3:01*pm, wrote:
In 2005 I had hoped to sell $6.25 billion worth of oil I planned to
make in the future to fund the development of a 200,000 barrel per day
production plant that used the Bergius Process to make oil from US
coal and hydrogen made from water with very low cost solar panels I
had developed. *After fulfilling the contracts I would have been left
with an $85 billion asset and a supply chain to build more hydrogen
producing solar panels at very low cost, and more coal to liquid
Bergius reactors - gaining $85 billion each time one was finished.

There were some shenannigans in New York with some of the banks
involved and when that didn't work, the rules were changed about
testing procedures. *As it currently stands, there is no approved test
for coal derived liquids that any futures market will accept. *ASTM
hopes to have one in 2016, but that's just for Fischer-Tropsch.
Bergius isn't even considered.

In any case, until then, none of the coal-to-liquid deals like I
described can go forward. * They will.

Now, had I completed the deal in 2005 I would be producing 200,000
barrels per day today, and be worth $85 billion. *I would also be
churning out one of these systems every month. *The world presently
uses enough oil today to need 395 of these systems. *So, it would take
30 years to make a big dent - against growing demand. * Oh yeah, and
oil would be trading in the $30 per barrel range.

This last piece was the killer. *Because economically recoverable oil
is based on what it costs to extract versus what it brings in the
market. *So, if oil is trading at $140 per barrel, there is more you
can get since you are willing to spend more. *If oil is $30 per
barrel, oil wells will be shut down, and the economically recoverable
reserves of the oil companies is far smaller at $30 selling price than
at $120 selling price. *So, their market capitalization, which is
based on their economically recoverable reserves, is a quadratic
function of oil price. *That's why they like to see gradual oil price
rises over time - not a reversal of that trend - which a new non-oil
source brings.

There is also the issue of very low cost hydrogen made from water and
sunlight.

That makes things worse if you're an oil company with depleting
reserves.

Why post all of this in a thread about heavy lift launchers? *lol.

Because of what I had planned to do with my SECOND $85 billion.

The first $85 billion went to pay for the over-sized supply chain I
was planning. *It also went to acquire strategic assets, like coal
companies and rail roads - stuff like that.

The second $85 billion went to pay for GROWTH - and to stay ahead of
the competition.

This meant that I would use the second $85 billion to acquire LMT and
BA - restructure the two companies into three or four smaller
companies, and sell controlling interest in three of those companies
and keep the fourth. *These companies would be to aircraft
manufacturers, one weapons manufacturer and a spaceship manufacturer.
Since the spaceship component was a drain on the companies before
acquisition, the pieces without that drain would be worth about $8
billion to $12 billion more structured this way. *This money would pay
for the transaction, and get a small return on the $85 billion you
started with.

With this money - which is more money than these companies have
received from NASA over the past 20 years -- would be used to build a
rather large heavy lift launcher built around some existing engine and
airframe technologies - to place 632 metric tons into LEO at an
incredibly low cost per flight - with highly reusable launcher
technology.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/31261680/Etdhlrlv-Addendum

What would I do with this launcher?

Launch solar power satellites that beamed IR laser energy to the
terrestrial solar units that made hydrogen for the coal to liquid
processes described above.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35439593/S...-Satellite-GEO

Why would I do that?

Because doing that would increase the amount of hydrogen produced by
these systems SEVEN (7) times! *So, I need only 57 instead of 395
units to meet today's energy needs - which means I get things done in
5 years instead of 35 years.

Like I said, to remain competitive in the energy business and keep the
oil companies that produce conventional oil out of the market I have
come to dominate with my technology.

This is an exciting development! * It is something that still can
happen, once we sort through the saleability of coal derived
liquids.

Even more exciting is what this means to space travel enthusiasts. *A
fleet of highly reusable heavy lift launchers putting 632 tons into
LEO every week - with one unallocated launch every month - which can
be donated to the national or global space effort if not needed for
the commercial program - along with a sizeable charitable contribution
to develop payloads for it (which would be larger than the total of
all space budgets world wide) - would be a very positive development
indeed.

Of course this heavy lift launcher would also put up other commercial
systems. *For example, a global wireless internet would be deployed in
very short order. *Money from that asset would largely be the source
of donated dollars. *The donations also are done partly in self-
interest. *I have an $80 billion + asset that makes spacecraft and
rockets. *It benefits me to have as many people as possible thinking
about uses for that asset and how to make it more valuable to the
human community.

Had the oil been floated in 2005 without mishap - we would be buying
up LMT/BA today. *Oil would be trading at $30 per barrel range. *And
likely the huge transfer of wealth out of the US banking system would
not have occurred, or been only a minor blip as wealth shifted from
the Middle East who is unhappy about US policies to the US.

By 2015 we would be back on the Moon and on our way to Mars. *We would
be experimenting with solar power satellites beaming energy from the
vicinity of Sol. *By 2020 we would have an outpost near Sedna and be
experimenting with sending useful energy across the solar system. *At
the same time we would be using the gravity lens of the Sun as a
telescope objective and have detailed information of our cosmos on a
scale unimagined today. *By 2025 we would be sending probes to nearby
stars even as we began shipping more material from the asteroids than
is mined on Earth today. *By 2030 we would have remotely operated
robots operating throughout the galaxy - through a negative time delay
signal shunted through Sgr A* - as MEMS based spacecraft - powered by
laser beams from space - filled every garage on the planet - giving
first ballistic transport to everyone on Earth - and later allowing
people to live on orbit in their own space homes - and commute to
Earth. *By 2040 with sufficient energy collected from the Sun, many of
those space homes would travel first acorss the solar system, and
later as technology developed, from star to star. *By the 100th
anniversary of Sputnik, we would have the first cities around other
star systems.

You lack focus, not to mention team members. Even the likes of
Bigelow Aerospace has more focus and his own team of expertise besides
himself.

When is Mokenergy going to deliver its first tonne of hydrogen for
$100?

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”