GETC - Geotec, Inc. -- Clean Coal Technology

[greatday8]

Coal Washing Results

The analysis of the coal tailings before being processed (the certificate dated January 27, 2006), showed that the coal not only had an inordinate amount of ash (17.6%), severely de-valuing the coal, the coal also had a low BTU, a value used to evaluate the heat produced by 1 U.S. pound of the material. The raw coal produced 11,419 BTU's per pound (in the 'as sampled', 'as received' state). A minimum of 12,000 BTU's is required for NYMEX traded coal, for example, with the maximum allowable ash value on NYMEX traded coal is (by weight) 13.5%.

The proximate analysis of the coal prior to washing 
__________________As Received____Dry 
% Moisture___________3.52 ________ ---
% Ash ______________17.60 _______18.24
% Volatile ___________29.48 _______30.56
% Fixed Carbon_______49.40_______ 51.20 
Calorific Value (BTU's)__11,419______ 11,836

The percentage of volatiles relates directly to the BTU value. The 'after processing' certificate dated January 15, 2006 show the marked decrease in the ash content of the material (7.33), a reduction of approximately 59% enhancing the value considerably. The rise in BTU's to 13,209 not only increasing the value as a NYMEX traded coal, but establishing a higher value in that it can be mixed or blended with a cheaper coal to meet the NYMEX standards.


The proximate analysis of the coal after washing 
____________________As Received____Dry 
% Moisture______________ 3.10 ______  ---
% Ash__________________ 7.33 ______ 7.56
% Volatile ______________ 33.23 _____ 33.26
% Fixed Carbon__________ 57.34 _____ 59.18
Calorific Value (BTU's)_____13,209_____13,632


These results were achieved by utilizing a single stage wash system in Bartow, Florida. A complete multi-stage system similar to previous wash plants built by Richcorp, Inc. for applying their enzyme technology is being assembled for maximizing these results for the process for application on the Geotec coal washing project in Pennsylvania.

http://www.richcorp.net/coal_results.htm

[greatday8]

I am rereading the 8K a little closer and a few things jumped out at me that I passed over before.

(a) Geotec bought 20 Million tons of "processed clean coal".

(b) Test results are from coal washed with Geotec's enzyme/protein technology validating the technology.

(c) Test results of coal wash with the enzyme/protein technology.

I read the 8K to say Geotec bought processed cleaned coal and it was washed with Geotec's technology, all 20 Million tons. Am I reading this correctly?

************************************************** ***************************************
ITEM 1.01 ENTRY INTO A MATERIAL DEFINITIVE AGREEMENT

(a) Coal Sales Agreement. On March 3, 2006, Geotec Thermal Generators, Inc. ("Geotec" or the "Company"), executed a purchase order agreement with Island Sales Limited ("Island Sales") (a copy of which is attached hereto) whereby the Company agreed to sell 500,000 tons of Pennsylvania processed clean coal to Island Sales between April and December, 2006, at the price of $47.10 per ton, subject to processing and delivery specifications. The coal is part of the 20,000,000 tons of Pennsylvania processed clean coal sold to Geotec by Ecotec Coal, LLC, a Florida limited liability company in December, 2005.

(b) Coal Processing Test Results. On January 27, 2006 the Company received coal washing test results from SGS Commercial Testing & Engineering Co. of Denver, Colorado, which provided independent verification and validation that chemical modification of the Pennsylvania coal utilizing the Company's proprietary recombinant protein/enzyme technology increased the commercial value of such coal. The test results from the chemically processed coal demonstrate that the processed coal qualifies as "Refined Coal" as such term is defined in Section 45 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.

(c) Technical Testing Data. The results showed a 15.6 % increase in Btu per lb to 13,209 Btu; a decrease in Ash of 58% to 7.33% and a 20.2% decrease in lb. S02/mm Btu.

************************************************** *************************

[greatday8]

Spending more time reading the Richcorp website.

Lets talk Green Gold:  http://www.richcorp.net/greengold.htm

The case is made that fertilizer from coal using Geotec/Richcorp technology is cheaper and much better than what is being used today.

I read it to say the preliminary planning, designing of the plant, who will do the training and who overseas the ongoing operations has been done. All that is needed is $10 million to build the plant.

Each plant will be able to produce 490,000 metric tons of fertilizer annually.

SO, how many tons of coal are needed to produce one metric ton of fertilizer?

***********************************************************************************************
"C. the Company intends to receive carbon credits for coal or asphaltite (in Argentina) that is produced into fertilizer. In addition, high sulfur coal that is of little value to most users may be used for this process. Carbon credits are currently priced at about $38 per ton of coal. Sulfur credits, which could apply to gasification or production of fertilizer from coal, are prices at near $900 per ton of sulfur. If a ton of coal has 5% sulfur, then one ton of coal would generate 1/20th the sulfur credit or approximately $45 per ton of coal, if gasified or produced into fertilizer."

Using the two statements I have in bold and lets use 20 tons of coal produced in to fertilizer to form a possible credits Geotec could sell for cash.

Carbon = 20 tons of coal times $38 per ton = $760

Sulfur = 20 tons of coal = $900

Can Geotec capture both credits for a total fo $1,660 which is $83 dollars per ton of coal?

******************************************************************

"The Company is reviewing a technology that has been favorably tested at two major United States Agricultural Universities. Fertilizer is currently being sold for $250-450 per ton."

Besides the credits Geotec will also sell the fertilizer for $250-450 per ton of fertilizer.

**********************************************************

[greatday8]

From the President's Letter to AACS shareholders:
http://www.aacssymbol.com/presidents_letter.asp
"The testing of the technology will take place at the Bartow, Florida home of American Commerce Solutions, Inc. and IMW. Materials have been delivered to the site, the laboratories are prepared to supervise and the machinery is being prepared for delivery at this writing. The testing is projected to be concluded by the end of next week, if Hurricane Wilma does not interfere. Success of the testing is anticipated, since similar tests have been successful in the past."

From "Coal Washing Results" page:
http://www.richcorp.net/coal_results.htm
"These results were achieved by utilizing a single stage wash system in Bartow, Florida. A complete multi-stage system similar to previous wash plants built by Richcorp, Inc. for applying their enzyme technology is being assembled for maximizing these results for the process for application on the Geotec coal washing project in Pennsylvania."

If Bartow, Florida does not connect a couple dots, I don't what does.

Well, that says the first multi-stage unit is being built or assembled at this time, probably ready to go into production in April. 500,000 tons of coal to be delivered as specified over nine months, starting April 2006. I think we need more than one unit for 500,000  tons or make that 20 Million tons!

This is getting exciting.

There is a lot of interesting information on the Richcorp website.

[greatday8]

500,000 Tons of coal to be shipped April '06 - December '06.

Geotec announced 20 Million tons.

I was searching for information to help form a visual of the magnitude of shipping 500,000 and 20 Million tons of coal.

What is ash?
Geotec tested their technology and the Ash went from 17.60% to 7.33%.  This was done with a single-stage system but Geotec is assembling a multi-stage system. A multi-stage system will decrease the Ash content more? The coal trains moving across the country may have 100 or more coal cars. Ash is dirt and clay. The coal Geotec tested went from 17.60% down to 7.33 % ash. On a hundred car coal train, that is 17 or 7 cars of dirt and clay. Expensive! Moving coal, why not spend a little more to remove more of the ash and save much more on the shipping?

Using the information from the train board to make assumptions:
500,000 tons of coal and an average of 120 tons per coal car equals 4,166 loaded cars. Using an average of 110 cars per train it would take 38 coal trains to move that coal. That is 4.22 coal trains per month.

Check out the train board:
http://www.trainboard.com/ultimatebb.php/ubb/get_topic/f/108/t/000005/p/1.html

A couple posts from the train board:
"for the tonnage per car, it would depend on the type of car.
Different coal cars would have different capacities, however, each one would be in the 100-150 ton per car range, based on the tonnage charts I've seen on our coal trains.
So, at 150 tons a car, a 113 car train would weigh in at close to 17,000 tons.
The lower the capacity of the car, the more cars to reach 17,000 tons.
When looking at a certain car, to see how much it can carry, look at the reporting marks.
LT WT is the 'Light Weight' of the car. Thats the cars weight empty.
CAPY is the 'Capacity' it is designed to carry.
LD LMT is the 'Load Limit' it can carry safely.
These numbers are in pounds.
Remembering 2000lbs is a ton, a car with a 100,000 lb CAPY would be able to carry 50tons, and so on."


"I love to rehash old topics, lol.
At the begin of this of this topic HemiAdda2d wanted to know about coal train tonnage. Out of the Powder River Basin (PRB) in Wyoming the mines can load each coal car to 143(x) tons (gross car weight). The (x) allows for a one ton overage or 144 tons per car, but most of the time call it 143 tons per car. (This is a track weight restriction). Lightweight cars (aluminum cars) have any empty weight of around 20 - 23 tons, steel cars have any empty weight of 40 - 43 tons. So you are talking around 120 tons of coal per car for aluminum cars and 100 tons of coal per steel car (more or less).
Okay a real life example, this morning I pulled a BNSF train out of Rawhide mine. 135 loads 3 locos, total weight about 19200 tons., was over 7300 feet long, with 12800 Hp. The sad thing is that this only gives you 0.7 Hp/Ton.
Coal train out of the PRB vary from about 85 cars up to 135 cars. Most trains are in the 110 to 135 car range."


Some pictures of Foundation Coal, Central Appalachia Operations:
http://www.foundationcoal.com/operations/cAppalachia.cfm

[greatday8]

8K 03/31-engaged Pender Newkirk & Company LLP, Certified Public Accountants

ITEM 4.01 CHANGES IN REGISTRANT'S CERTIFYING ACCOUNTANT.

Effective March 30, 2006, Geotec Thermal Generators, Inc. (the "Company") engaged Pender Newkirk & Company LLP, Certified Public Accountants, as its new principal independent accountant for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005. Pender Newkirk & Company LLP is succeeding Sherb & Co. LLP ("Sherb & Co.") who resigned by letter dated April 22, 2005. Sherb & Co. had been the independent registered public accounting firm for and audited the financial statements of the Company as of December 31, 2004 and for the two years then ended.

The reports of Sherb & Co. on the financial statements of the Company for the past two fiscal years contained no adverse opinion or disclaimer of opinion, and were not qualified or modified as to uncertainty, audit scope or accounting principles.

In connection with the audit for the two most recent fiscal years and in connection with Sherb & Co.'s review of the subsequent interim periods preceding their resignation, there were no disagreements between the Company and Sherb & Co. on any matter of accounting principles or practices, financial statement disclosure, or auditing scope or procedure, which, if not resolved to the satisfaction of Sherb & Co., would have caused Sherb & Co. to make reference thereto in their report on the Company's financial statements for these fiscal years. During the two most recent fiscal years and prior to the date hereof, the Company had no reportable events (as defined in Item 304(a)(1) of Regulation S-B).

The Company did not previously consult with Pender Newkirk & Company LLP regarding either (i) the application of accounting principles to a specified transaction, either completed or proposed; or (ii) the type of audit opinion that might be rendered on the Company's financial statements; or (iii) any matter that was either the subject matter of a disagreement (as defined in Item 304(a)(1)(iv)(A) of Regulation S-B) between the Company and Sherb & Co. Neither has the Company received any written or oral advice concluding there was an important factor to be considered by the Company in reaching a decision as to an accounting, auditing, or financial reporting issue.

Pender Newkirk & Company LLP has reviewed the disclosure in this report before it was filed with the Commission and has been provided an opportunity to furnish the Company with a letter addressed to the Commission containing any new information, clarification of the Company's expression of its views, or the respects in which it does not agree with the statements made by the Company in response to Item 304 of Regulation S-B. Pender Newkirk & Company LLP did not furnish a letter to the Commission.


SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.


GEOTEC THERMAL GENERATORS, INC.


By:/s/ Bradley T. Ray
Bradley T. Ray, Chief Executive Officer


DATED: March 30, 2006

[greatday8]

Coal - Synthetic Fuel Breakthrough

The end of oil? Breakthrough turns coal into clean diesel

The synthetic diesel "is much cleaner burning than conventional diesel, even cleaner burning than gasoline," said Rutgers University chemist Alan Goldman.

Goldman co-developed the process with Maurice Brookhart, a chemistry professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

HOUSTON. April 19, 2006. KAZINFORM - With the price of oil topping a wallet-busting U.S. $70 a barrel yesterday, the search for alternative fuels keeps heating up. Last week, scientists announced what may be a new end-run around the oil problem: producing diesel fuel from coal, natural gas, and organic material.

Reporting in the current issue of the Journal Science, researchers say they have developed a way to shuffle the carbon atoms derived from cheap fuel sources like coal to form more desirable combinations, such as ethane gas and diesel fuel.

In their study, scientists scrambled the makeup of hydrocarbons—organic compounds found in fossil fuels—using two chemical processes, one of which earned last year's Nobel Prize in chemistry; KAZINFORM quotes Sean Markey for National Geographic News.

The reaction produced ethane gas and diesel fuel.

The synthetic diesel "is much cleaner burning than conventional diesel, even cleaner burning than gasoline," said Rutgers University chemist Alan Goldman.

Goldman co-developed the process with Maurice Brookhart, a chemistry professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

"It's a very clever idea," Robert Bergman, a chemist at the University of California, Berkeley, told Science in an accompanying news report.

"I don't think this will be an industrial process tomorrow. But conceptually, it is important."

Nazi Germany

The technology might one day wring more diesel fuel and ethane gas from hydrocarbon byproducts produced by oil refineries.

But the new chemistry's greatest potential may be as a follow-up to an 80-year-old technology known as Fischer Trospch (FT) synthesis.

Developed by German scientists Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch in the 1920s, FT synthesis converts carbon from coal, natural gas, or wood into hydrocarbons, including propane-like gas and diesel fuel.

Nazi Germany used the technique during World War II to manufacture synthetic fuel from coal, churning out 124,000 barrels a day by 1944.

Today oil-poor South Africa uses FT synthesis to distill most of the nation's diesel from its extensive coal deposits.

One downside to the process, however, is the output of so-called mid-size hydrocarbons—molecules with 4 to 8 carbon atoms—which can't be used as fuel.

Hydrocarbons consist of hydrogen and carbon atoms. The number of carbon atoms (anywhere from 1 to, say, 99) determines whether a particular hydrocarbon is a gas, liquid, or solid and whether it's the proper weight to burn as fuel.

Goldman says his new method can convert the otherwise low-value byproducts of the FT process into high-value fuels.

He says, for example, that two mid-size hydrocarbons with six carbon atoms each could be broken up and reassembled into a two-carbon molecule (ethane gas) and a ten-carbon molecule (diesel fuel).

The chemist thinks the breakthrough could deliver U.S. energy independence.

"The United States, for example, has 40 times as much energy in coal than we do in oil, and we have even more than that in oil shale," Goldman said.

"So I think Fischer-Tropsch chemistry is really the key to energy independence for the U.S., China, [and] India."

Key to Energy Independence?

In the U.S. the governors of Pennsylvania and Montana, both coal-rich states, have touted FT technology as a future source of homegrown diesel fuel.

Last September, Pennsylvania governor Edward Rendell said his state's government would buy fuel from a planned FT plant in the state designed to convert waste coal from mining operations into low-sulfur diesel.

Montana governor Brian Schweitzer has expressed even more ambitious plans. He believes Montana's 120 billion tons (109 billion metric tons) of coal could supply the nation's gas, diesel, and jet fuel needs for the next 40 years.

Because FT plants are expensive to build and maintain (an entry-level plant falls in the range of 1.5 billion U.S. dollars), the higher cost of FT synthetic fuels have made them too pricey for U.S. markets in the past.

"When oil was $20 a barrel, it really wasn't considered economical," Goldman, the Rutgers University chemist, said.

But today's high oil prices are now tipping the scales in favor of alternative fuels.

"Our hope is that what we've discovered will lead to something a little bit more economical [and] efficient," Goldman said.

Environmental Impact

One thorny issue is the net environmental impact of coal-based synthetic fuels.

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, FT fuels are cleaner burning than petroleum-derived products, producing fewer particulates and less dangerous nitrogen oxide.

But as FT fuels burn, they also release carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

According to the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory, coal-based synthetic fuels may produce twice the greenhouse gas emissions of petroleum-based fuels.

Experts say one alternative may be the use of carbon collectors derived from animal waste, plants, and other organic material, which trap carbon from the atmosphere.

[greatday8]

Coal Synfuel Tax - Worth $26 a Ton - Progress Energy

Synfuel Winning Favors and Scrutiny

To be sure, there are worthy projects. "Syngas" -- the gasifying of coal -- to generate electricity is getting increasing attention. Coal waste, meantime, can be transformed from an ecological nightmare to a low-cost way to produce electricity. Along those lines, Progress Energy vehemently defends its synfuel services, noting that it takes an otherwise environmental hazard -- coal waste -- and makes it usable.

April 19, 2006

Despite being in the heat of lobbying scandals, a few lawmakers in Congress are still doling out billions in tax breaks to the well-connected. The focus is now on synthetic fuels that are coal based. They receive billions in federal tax credits each year, which critics claim amount to insignificant chemical alternations just to get the tax benefits.

A recent expose in Time magazine points out that buried deep inside the pending 324-page budget is one provision that might otherwise go unnoticed. Specifically, it points to an obscure passage that would allow "synfuel" makers the right to base their tax credits as if the price of a barrel of oil were at 2004 levels. While that sounds sort of bland -- it's meant to be just that -- the reality is that it will put billions into the pockets of a very few.

"Last November the (synfuel) lobby scored a remarkable coup," says Time, in a piece dated March 6. "Buried deep in a bill called the Tax Relief Act of 2005, passed by the Senate on Nov. 18, was Section 559, titled Modification of Credit for Producing Fuel from a Nonconventional Source."

It's all worth $9 billion, says Time -- federal taxes saved between 2003 and 2005. The controversial tax credit is worth $1 billion to $3 billion annually and is allowed under "Section 29" of the tax code. That break is set to expire for all facilities in 2007.

In 1980, U.S. lawmakers envisioned the synthetic fuel tax credit as helping the country ease its dependence on foreign energy sources. Certainly, many companies have tried to create new fuel sources from coal. But, others have merely sprayed already marketable coal with pine tars and diesel fuels just so that they could argue it has been chemically altered. While there was no discernable difference in the coal, the tax credits had at certain points actually exceeded the cost of a ton of coal. In 2002, the Charleston (WV) Gazette reports that coal synfuel tax credits were worth $26 a ton, which was higher than the price of a ton of coal in the state.

The pending tax provision is now awaiting reconciliation by a House and Senate conference committee. Here's how it would affect the synfuel industry: Under the law as written, if oil prices stay below $50 a barrel, synfuel companies can take the full tax credit for every ton of synthetic coal they produce. Oil prices, of course, have risen to at least $60 a barrel and that means some of those credits can't be taken.

When the law was written, the rationale was that if oil prices rose, the market would then have the incentive to develop alternatives to crude. If the new provision sails through Congress, the synfuel makers could assume oil is well below today's price and at a level that they could qualify for the full tax deduction.

"The program remains controversial, in part because of the significant investment in plants and associated tax benefits by the owners," says Standard & Poor's credit analyst Jodi Hecht, in a previous report.

IRS Attention

In essence, the synfuel tax credits could reduce a corporation's effective tax bracket. Since 1995, the IRS has suspended the issuance of private letter rulings for synfuel plants at least four times. Companies that own, operate and benefit from tax credits are still at risk for audits of past tax years, Hecht adds. Furthermore, the potential liability grows over time as the production and current tax credits are used. Most of the nation's 56 synfuel plants are located east of the Mississippi River, with many of those in West Virginia and Kentucky.

The Time story reports that the synthetic fuel industry has formed a group called the Council for Energy Independence, which has spent $2 million lobbying Congress to preserve the tax credit. The price tag is apparently a good deal: It was able to revoke efforts by the IRS to recalculate just how the credits are calculated and helped kill bills in Congress that would wipe out the benefit.

The IRS, for its part, "continues to recognize that many taxpayers and their investors have relied on its long-standing ruling practice to make investments. Therefore, the [IRS] will continue to issue rulings on significant chemical change but only under" closer scrutiny. The agency acknowledged certain processes do not produce the "level of chemical change" and that those methods would get reviewed.

Lots of utilities are in the synfuel business: Cinergy Corp., Constellation Energy, Duquesne Light, DTE Energy, Dominion Resources, PacifiCorp, PPL Corp., SCANA Corp., Southern Co., Sempra Energy, TECO, Vectren Corp. and WPS Resources.

Progress Energy is also a synfuel maker. In filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, it said that its losses tied to the fuel source between 2002 and 2004 were $400 million. But, it was able to take about $850 in tax credits. Basically, taxpayers subsidized a company profit in this endeavor of $450 million.

In its latest annual report, Utah-based Headwaters that makes synfuel-related products says, "Headwaters does not believe that production of synthetic fuel will be profitable absent the tax credits." TECO adds that the pending legislation to allow companies to peg their tax breaks to the price of oil in cheaper days is "very fair legislation."

To be sure, there are worthy projects. "Syngas" -- the gasifying of coal -- to generate electricity is getting increasing attention. Coal waste, meantime, can be transformed from an ecological nightmare to a low-cost way to produce electricity. Along those lines, Progress Energy vehemently defends its synfuel services, noting that it takes an otherwise environmental hazard -- coal waste -- and makes it usable.

Synfuel was a well-intentioned federal undertaking. And, in some cases, it remains a viable program. In others, however, it has been abused. The goal now before lawmakers is to narrow the scope of the law so as to weed out the legitimate projects from those that are merely shams.

[greatday8]

Project Gob Pile from Pennsylvania

This is a must read for the informed fossil fuel groupie!!!!!
The report is in a Microsoft Word Document.

[bProject Gob Pile
Final Project Report
November 30, 2001

Western Pennsylvania Coalition for Abandoned Mine Reclamation[/b

http://www.amrclearinghouse.org/Sub/GOBpiles/ProjectGobPile/Project%20Gob%20Pile.doc

[greatday8]

8K of 05/09 - cancel the 57,200,000 shares

ITEM 8.01 OTHER EVENTS.

On May 2, 2006, a court order (the "Order") affecting Geotec Thermal Generators, Inc. ("Geotec" or the "Company") was rendered in the marital dissolution matter styled: Susan Norris v. O'Brian P. Norris, No. 05-4981 FMCE 3890 (Cty. Ct. Broward Cty.) (hereinafter referred to as the "Norris Litigation"). In the Norris Litigation, Geotec sought to vacate portions of a divorce decree (the "Divorce Decree") that resulted in the issuance of 57,200,000 shares of Geotec common stock to Susan Norris' designee, Equities First Holdings, LLC. Geotec contended that Susan Norris (or any other person or entity) has never tendered any money or services (i.e., consideration) for the shares of Geotec common stock that she sought to obtain as a "marital asset" in the Norris Litigation. In the May 2, 2006 Order, the court stated that the Divorce Decree "does not bind Geotec." Accordingly, the Company instructed its transfer agent to cancel the 57,200,000 shares of its common stock issued to Susan Norris' designee, Equities First Holdings, LLC and such shares have been cancelled.

[rv]

8K of 05/09 - cancel the 57,200,000 shares

ITEM 8.01 OTHER EVENTS.

On May 2, 2006, a court order (the "Order") affecting Geotec Thermal Generators, Inc. ("Geotec" or the "Company") was rendered in the marital dissolution matter styled: Susan Norris v. O'Brian P. Norris, No. 05-4981 FMCE 3890 (Cty. Ct. Broward Cty.) (hereinafter referred to as the "Norris Litigation"). In the Norris Litigation, Geotec sought to vacate portions of a divorce decree (the "Divorce Decree") that resulted in the issuance of 57,200,000 shares of Geotec common stock to Susan Norris' designee, Equities First Holdings, LLC. Geotec contended that Susan Norris (or any other person or entity) has never tendered any money or services (i.e., consideration) for the shares of Geotec common stock that she sought to obtain as a "marital asset" in the Norris Litigation. In the May 2, 2006 Order, the court stated that the Divorce Decree "does not bind Geotec." Accordingly, the Company instructed its transfer agent to cancel the 57,200,000 shares of its common stock issued to Susan Norris' designee, Equities First Holdings, LLC and such shares have been cancelled.

so, just curious, but if i owned any shares of this company, i have now lost them, due to the fact that a judge sided w/ the Susan Norris and all the shares of the company are now hers, or just the shares of Brian Norris?  just curious how this works...

[greatday8]

8K of 05/09 - cancel the 57,200,000 shares

ITEM 8.01 OTHER EVENTS.

On May 2, 2006, a court order (the "Order") affecting Geotec Thermal Generators, Inc. ("Geotec" or the "Company") was rendered in the marital dissolution matter styled: Susan Norris v. O'Brian P. Norris, No. 05-4981 FMCE 3890 (Cty. Ct. Broward Cty.) (hereinafter referred to as the "Norris Litigation"). In the Norris Litigation, Geotec sought to vacate portions of a divorce decree (the "Divorce Decree") that resulted in the issuance of 57,200,000 shares of Geotec common stock to Susan Norris' designee, Equities First Holdings, LLC. Geotec contended that Susan Norris (or any other person or entity) has never tendered any money or services (i.e., consideration) for the shares of Geotec common stock that she sought to obtain as a "marital asset" in the Norris Litigation. In the May 2, 2006 Order, the court stated that the Divorce Decree "does not bind Geotec." Accordingly, the Company instructed its transfer agent to cancel the 57,200,000 shares of its common stock issued to Susan Norris' designee, Equities First Holdings, LLC and such shares have been cancelled.

so, just curious, but if i owned any shares of this company, i have now lost them, due to the fact that a judge sided w/ the Susan Norris and all the shares of the company are now hers, or just the shares of Brian Norris?  just curious how this works...

RV, reread the 8K!

Geotec prevailed!
The 57.2 million shares were canceled!

If Susan and Equities First had prevailed, they probably would have tried to make them free trading and sold them into the market. Now it becomes moot, since the shares were canceled.

[greatday8]

Waste coal / discarded coal

I did a Google search on "Waste Coal" and found some interesting articles. I will post the links to a few.

These two are a 1st and 2nd article on building a power plant next to a 600 acre waste coal site with 38-40 million tons.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06123/686805-114.stm

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06127/687511-58.stm

Plans to build a $612 million plant 50 miles northeast of Harrisburg PA to turn waste coal into diesel fuel. This article says 285 million tons of waste coal on 8,500 acres northeast and southwest Pennsylvania.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_379376.html

[greatday8]

8K of 05/15/06 Amended and Restated Asset/Technology purchase agreements.

Item 1.01 Entry into a Material Definitive Agreement.

On May 12, 2006, Geotec Thermal Generators, Inc. ("Geotec" or the "Company") entered into an Amended and Restated Asset Purchase Agreement (the "Asset Agreement") with William D. Richardson, RichCorp, Inc. ("RichCorp"), RichCorp SRL ("Richcorp SRL"), an Argentine corporation and Rich Labs, Inc. ("Rich Labs") to obtain contractual rights and/or mineral rights held by RichCorp and/or Richcorp SRL regarding coal and coal by-products derived from several coal mines in Argentina and to facilitate acquisition of additional coal rights throughout South America and elsewhere in the world, (all of such rights and interests, including after acquired coal rights and interests are hereinafter referred to as the "Coal Interests") and, to obtain other assets from RichCorp and Rich Labs. The Asset Agreement follows completion of due diligence by the parties and their collective determination not to complete certain executory provisions of an agreement dated August 1, 2005.

In exchange for the Company's acquisition of the Coal Interests, the Company has tendered 10,000 shares of its convertible preferred stock (the "Preferred Shares") to RichCorp. The preferences relating to the Preferred Shares are summarized on each certificate representing such shares and entitle RichCorp to convert the Preferred Shares to 10.5 million (10,500,000) restricted shares of the Company's common stock (the "Minimum Shares") up to a maximum of 21 million (21,000,000) restricted shares of the Company's common stock (the "Maximum Shares") based upon certain EBITDA criteria. Conversion of the Preferred Shares may be deferred at the option of the RichCorp until August 1, 2007 or August 1, 2008. As of the execution of this Agreement, 3,500,000 restricted shares of the Geotec's common stock (⅓ of the Minimum Shares) shall be deemed "earned" and may be issued and delivered to RichCorp. The balance (7,000,000 shares of Geotec's common stock) of the Minimum Shares shall be deemed earned when EBITDA for RichCorp equals twenty million dollars ($20,000,000.00) per year. On a pro rata basis, shares of Geotec's common stock above the Minimum Shares and up to the Maximum Shares shall be deemed earned when EBITDA for RichCorp exceeds twenty million dollars ($20,000,000.00) per year. The Maximum Shares shall be deemed earned when EBITDA for RichCorp equals forty million dollars ($40,000,000.00) per year. The total number of shares of Geotec's common stock shall not exceed 21,000,000 under the conversion terms of this paragraph or the preferences of the convertible Preferred Shares.

Also, on May 12, 2006, the Company entered into an Amended and Restated Technology Purchase Agreement (the "Technology Agreement") with William D. Richardson and RichCorp to acquire RichCorp's technology for the treatment of hydrocarbons and that is suitable for washing and processing coal, among other things

(the "Enzyme Technology"). Specifically, the Company purchased all of the Enzyme Technology which consists of rights to the proprietary technology related to the production, sale, use and management of said technology to cleave and bind specific molecules in the following arenas of application which include crude oil, blended oil, coal, refined oil and its products and sub-products, removal of sulfur and metals from hydrocarbons base materials including coal, renewable energy applications, environmental remediation, environmental applications for abatement and reduction, and other materials (with the express exception of the agricultural applications, metals extraction applications, mineral extraction applications and medical applications). The Technology Agreement amends, restates and clarifies an earlier agreement between the parties dated November 1, 2005.

In exchange for the Company's acquisition of the Enzyme Technology, the Company has tendered to RichCorp as complete consideration for the Enzyme Technology purchase, a total of ten thousand (10,000) shares of the Company's convertible preferred stock (the "Preferred Shares") with stock conversion exchange dates of November 1, 2006, 2007 and 2008. The preferences relating to the Preferred Shares are summarized on each certificate representing such shares and entitle RichCorp to convert the Preferred Shares to 10.5 million (10,500,000) restricted shares of Geotec's common stock (the "Minimum Shares") up to a maximum of 21 million (21,000,000) restricted shares of Geotec's common stock (the "Maximum Shares") based upon certain EBITDA criteria. Conversion of the Preferred Shares may be deferred at the option of RichCorp until November 1, 2007 or November 1, 2008. As of the execution of this Agreement, 3,500,000 restricted shares of Geotec's common stock (⅓ of the Minimum Shares) shall be deemed "earned" and may be issued and delivered to RichCorp, as referenced above. The balance (7,000,000 shares of Geotec's common stock) of the Minimum Shares shall be deemed earned when EBITDA for RichCorp equals twenty million dollars ($20,000,000.00) per year. On a pro rata basis, shares of Geotec's common stock above the Minimum Shares and up to the Maximum Shares shall be deemed earned when EBITDA for RichCorp exceeds twenty million dollars ($20,000,000.00) per year. The Maximum Shares shall be deemed earned when EBITDA for RichCorp equals forty million dollars ($40,000,000.00) per year. The total number of shares of Geotec's common stock shall not exceed 21,000,000 under the conversion terms of this paragraph or the preferences of the Preferred Shares.

The parties to the Asset Agreement and the Technology Agreement have agreed that all of the Preferred Shares and restricted common stock of the Company earned and obtained upon conversion under the two agreements shall be subject to the same restrictive transfer terms and conditions of Geotec's share lock up agreement, which extends for 5 years, until April 30, 2010, as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission via the EDGAR system. The parties agreed that the share lock up agreement and provisions of the Asset Agreement and the Technology Agreement prohibit transfer of the Preferred Shares and the restricted common stock of the Company earned and obtained upon conversion for a period of five years until April 30, 2010.

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

GEOTEC THERMAL GENERATORS, INC.

By:/s/

Bradley T. Ray

Bradley T. Ray, Chief Executive Officer


DATED: May 15, 2006



Current Report · Form 8-K
Filing Table of Contents
Document/Exhibit Description Pages Size

1: 8-K Current Report HTML 16K
2: EX-10.1 Material Contract HTML 34K
3: EX-10.2 Material Contract HTML 35K

[greatday8]

Friday, July 07 GETC edged higher will all trades on the ASK except for one. Friday afternoon the Bid was changing to .066 and .067 without any trades. After day orders expired after market close, the Bid went to .06.

Strong buying at the open with the first trade for 50,000 shares.

Rec. Time Action Price Volume
3:47:52 PM Trade 0.07 11930
10:45:32 AM Trade 0.065 1800  (after this trade on ASK, the ask went to .07 and Bid .065)
10:28:58 AM Trade 0.06 6500  (trade on Bid)
9:43:02 AM Trade 0.065 10000
9:42:20 AM Trade 0.065 5000
9:37:42 AM Trade 0.06 5000
9:37:36 AM Trade 0.06 5000
9:37:28 AM Trade 0.06 50000