News: AlgaeTec showcase facility visit from The H, page-13

re: News: AlgaeTec showcase facility visit fr... Strider: What details shall I gather? What I want is an estimate of production cost. I can't get that, you can't get that, that's my point.

I don't see why the oil price speculation or climate issues (or discussion of any topic) need to get heated. Actually, funny you mention it, I was just looking at prehistoric climate change (global climate is an interest of mine), so I happen to have some information handy which I wasn't going to bother digging for last time, but I suppose it ties in with what you've just said about me digging up information for you...

This figure shows the climate (average global temperature) over the last 800,000 years (far, far in excess of human history, but still just a blink in the context of the planet's history). The pixel or two on the right is the period in which modern human activity might have been having an impact. When you look at it in that context you can see that we really don't seem to be doing all that much, and the current rate of temperature change is not at all unusual. Yes, we are in a warm period at present, but this was the case even before modern human activity, and even in the last million years (recent history) the temperature has been warmer than present multiple times. I was called crazy for saying such things in the AEB area recently. You can view the figure here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ca/EPICA_temperature_plot.svg/800px-EPICA_temperature_plot.svg.png

I just pulled the figure from Wikipedia, the data comes from European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica. Yes, there's a bit of calculation and extrapolation going on, but the overall picture is pretty accurate and you can find the same climatic pattern using several other methods. In scientific circles that data is not in dispute.

Now, if we want to look at carbon dioxide levels, the current levels are not unprecedented even in recent global history. Multiple things both biotic and abiotic can alter atmospheric CO2 levels. Yes, we are unnaturally increasing them at the moment, but we haven't done anything beyond the natural history. See here:

http://www.epa.gov/climatestudents/images/1-3-temp-CO2.gif

The above data is again only over the last half million years or so, and again you see that the current global temperature has been exceeded multiple times. If you were to look back further, over the last few hundred million years rather than just the last few hundred thousand you'd see many many many more peaks above current levels both in temperature and CO2. You'll also see that the change since the industrial revolution is very small.

The above information isn't from some biased economist or heretic scientist, it is from the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

If you actually research climate properly you see that virtually all of what you hear about climate change is based on politics and money rather than fact. It's very interesting to note that while this information is available, it is fairly difficult to find, while all the alarmist stuff which doesn't make any solid sense is everywhere.

As you say, the military has incredible resources, so in anything other than the very short term, why would they bother buying algae oil from AEB rather than making it themselves? Do you really think some little small cap can compete with the military's ability to produce and utilise technology? What AEB has is technology, not a resource. Anyone else can come along and duplicate the technology anywhere in the world. I don't think it's realistic to say that a small cap company is going to maintain a monopoly on a technology which can't effectively be patented.

tretch: I suppose it does seem negative, but I don't think it's without reason, and with the SP falling to lows not seen since AEB floated the market agrees with me.

Yep, I love to window shop! I like your way of putting it :) Yes, I'm invested in several oil companies. Most of my wealth is in oil, mostly in the USA. I don't think that makes me biased at all, you have it the wrong way around. I'm invested in oil because I think some of the companies I hold are good investments. It would be a case of the tail wagging the dog if I was to buy a company and THEN become biased towards it. I'm always happy to accept I'm wrong then buy or sell accordingly. I'm not stubborn.

You say it's strange of me to be all 'doom and gloom' right before the CO2 results... have you checked the market lately? The CO2 results are expected to be good. I expect them to be good, the market already has it factored in, so who cares? Tell me, do you think the market is going to do anything noteworthy if the CO2 results are announced and are as good as expected? If something is expected it is already priced in. There's a very high chance of confirming what we think and nothing happening, and a small chance of a surprise which would hurt.

dolce: I'm not asking you to do any research for me :)