Elon Musk’s $41B Twitter bid—filed April 14 as a $54.20/share premium—exposes tensions between free speech and woke censorship, with investors like Saudi prince Talal prioritizing control over profit despite Twitter’s stock halving in a year. Meanwhile, Roger Gordon’s ammonia-powered vehicle tech, costing under $1K to convert, offers 75% cheaper fuel than gasoline but faces WEF-backed silence amid push for hydrogen, raising fossil fuel dependency suspicions. Justin Trudeau’s gas-guzzling SUVs clash with climate pledges, while RCMP’s $12K/night luxury hotel stays during the Ottawa protests—including a point-blank shooting of reporter Alexa Lavois—underscore state hypocrisy and weaponized misinformation against dissent. [Automatically generated summary]
I do a bit of a deep dive into the offer by Elon Musk to buy Twitter for $41 billion.
And already there's the first big investor, a Saudi prince, who says, no.
Not that Saudi princes don't like getting rich, but I think they value censorship more than they value money.
I'll take you through him.
But before I do, let me invite you to become a subscriber to Rebel News Plus.
That's the video version of this podcast.
Just go to RebelNewsPlus.com.
Click subscribe.
It's eight bucks a month.
You get the video version of my show plus weekly shows from Sheila Gunrid, David Menzies, Andrew Chapatos, and Nat and Cat.
I think it's a great deal.
It's half the price of Netflix.
And it's content you won't find anywhere else.
So please go to RebelNewsPlus.com.
Okay, here's today's podcast.
Tonight, Elon Musk offers to buy Twitter for $41 billion in cash.
Is that enough to make the company give up its woke censorship?
It's April 14th.
This is the Esper Advance Show.
Why should others go to jail when you're the biggest carbon consumer I know?
There's 8,500 customers here, and you don't give them an answer.
The only thing I have to say is government.
But why?
is because it's my bloody right to do so.
Look at this letter.
This is a great letter.
It's a letter sent from Elon Musk, the world's richest man, the CEO of Tesla and SpaceX and other ventures.
It's a letter from him to the chairman of the board of Twitter, the social media company.
This was filed with the SEC, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.
I'll read it in full.
It's just so great.
By the way, Elon Musk himself tweeted it out this morning on Twitter, of course.
He just said, I made an offer.
And then he linked to the page.
Here's the SEC disclosure page that Musk tweeted.
I'm going to skip over the first part, which is just sort of boilerplate language.
Here's the fun part.
A copy of a letter, a text, and notes from a phone call from Musk to, I assume, the chairman of the board.
It's pretty short, so I'm going to read it all to you.
Brett Taylor, chairman of the board.
I invested in Twitter as I believe in its potential to be the platform for free speech around the globe.
And I believe free speech is a societal imperative for a functioning democracy.
However, since making my investment, I now realize the company will neither thrive nor serve this societal imperative in its current form.
Twitter needs to be transformed as a private company.
As a result, I'm offering to buy 100% of Twitter for $54.20 per share in cash, a 54% premium over the day before I began investing in Twitter, and a 38% premium over the day before my investment was publicly announced.
My offer is my best and final offer.
And if it is not accepted, I would need to reconsider my position as a shareholder.
Twitter has extraordinary potential.
I will unlock it.
Signed, Elon Musk.
That's a heck of a letter.
First of all, he's going to make them all rich, all the other shareholders.
Twitter's stock price has been languishing for more than a year.
I mean, just check out this graph.
It's fallen in half over the past year.
It wasn't until Elon Musk bought his stake a few weeks back that it started to perk up again.
As you can see, he's offering the other shareholders a big premium for them to get out of the way.
And if they don't, he says he'll sell his stake that he has.
What do you think dumping $3 billion worth of Twitter stock on the open market would do to the price?
He's basically saying, take my $41 billion for this company that wasn't even worth $30 billion last month, or don't, and I'll sell, and that'll surely strip $10 billion from your value right now.
Elon Musk obviously cares about making money.
You don't accidentally end up as the world's richest man if you're indifferent to money, but he claims that I think there is some basis to believe him that he truly cares about free speech too.
I think he does.
He's offering the current shareholders a high financial rate of return, and not that they'd care too much if they sold their stock, but if they ever did believe in freedom of speech, maybe they'd feel like the company was in safe hands and that they had some sort of moral rate of return too.
So how can you say no to that offer?
There's no lineup of people willing to buy Twitter at such a premium price.
Not in the one big bite like this, and not even in a million little bites.
That's what the stock market says, at least.
If the company says no to Elon Musk, I don't think it would be for financial reasons.
I think it would be for the other part.
Not only do they not actually believe in free speech, as he says, but they believe in the opposite.
They would give up billions of dollars in profit in return for their continued ability to censor everyone on Twitter.
I think he's putting them to the test.
How could you reject a 54% premium on a product that is in slow decline?
Answer, if your investment is actually to mind control the national and international political discussion.
That's why.
If the censorship is actually the purpose and the point of Twitter, that's why you wouldn't do it.
And I think it just might be the point.
You know, Jack Dorsey, the founder of Twitter, occasionally claimed to value free speech.
And he has some regrets.
He says that he has limited freedom.
He says the days of Usenet, IRC, the web, even email, pretty good privacy was amazing.
Centralizing discovery and identity into corporations really damaged the internet.
I realize I'm partially to blame and I regret it.
I bet Jack Dorsey supports Elon Musk's move.
You know, just a weird little vignette.
This morning I tweeted out Elon Musk's letter to the board, this SEC thing I'm showing you now.
And who liked my tweet other than Tim Dorsey, Jack Dorsey's dad?
I had no idea he was reading my tweets.
Why would the founder's dad be liking Elon Musk's offer if he didn't support it?
Maybe Musk is getting the old band back together again, free speech-wise.
I'll keep reading Elon Musk's letter because I really like this next part.
So apparently, this is a text message and notes for a phone call.
Let me read.
Script sent by a text.
As I indicated this weekend, I believe that the company should be private to go through the changes that need to be made.
After the past several days of thinking this over, I have decided I want to acquire the company and take it private.
I'm going to send you an offer letter tonight.
It will be public in the morning.
Are you available to chat?
And then something says voice scripts.
So I'm guessing these were points he spoke from.
He said, best and final, I am not playing the back and forth game.
I have moved straight to the end.
It's a high price and your shareholders will love it.
If the deal doesn't work, given that I don't have confidence in management, nor do I believe I can drive the necessary change in the public market, I would need to reconsider my position as a shareholder.
This is not a threat.
It's simply not a good investment without the changes that need to be made.
And those changes won't happen without taking the company private.
My advisors and my team are available after you get the letter to answer any questions.
There will be more detail in our public filings.
After you receive the letter and review the public filings, your team can call my family office with any questions.
Now, the most powerful part of that is obviously this line: I don't have confidence in management.
Of course, he doesn't.
Now, from a financial point of view, I mean, the company has lost half its value in the past year.
But I think the free speech part is actually the deal breaker.
The new CEO of Twitter, Parag Agarwal is his name.
He's been putting on a brave face about Elon Musk the past few weeks, but I don't buy it.
Here's what he said the other day: I'm excited to share that we're appointing Elon Musk to our board, exclamation point.
Though, through conversations with Elon in recent weeks, it became clear to us that he would bring great value to our board.
Yeah, sure.
He's both a passionate believer and intense critic of the service, which is exactly what we need on Twitter and in the boardroom to make us stronger in the long term.
Welcome, Elon!
Exclamation point.
Yeah, it felt pretty forced, didn't it?
That was just a few days ago.
It obviously didn't go that well.
I mentioned this the other day, but last November, I actually looked more closely into Parag Agarwal's comments about free speech.
Here's the short version: he doesn't really care about free speech.
Here's the longer version.
I'm just going to show you what I said back in November of last year.
Here's what I said back then: You're caught in a bit of a hard place, as somebody in the audience is also pointing out, that you're trying to combat misinformation.
You also want to protect free speech as a core value, and also in the U.S. as the First Amendment.
How do you balance those two?
And here's what he said: he said, our role is not to be bound by the First Amendment, but our role is to serve a healthy public conversation, and our moves are reflective of things as we believe lead to a healthier public conversation.
Okay, so he gets to judge whether a conversation is healthy.
He's the judge, right?
The kind of things that we do about this is focus less on thinking about free speech, but thinking about how the times have changed.
Focusing less on free speech is in they're thinking too much about freedom right now.
He seriously said that.
One of the changes today that we see in is speech is easy on the internet.
Most people can speak, where our role is particularly emphasized: who can be heard.
The scarce commodity today is attention.
There's a lot of content out there, a lot of tweets out there.
Not all of it gets attention.
Some subset of it gets attention.
And so increasingly, our role is moving towards how we recommend content.
And that sort of is a struggle that we're working through in terms of how we make sure these recommendation systems that we're building, how we direct people's attention, is leading to a healthy public conversation that is most participatory.
So he's saying right there, something about freedom.
His role is to boost his friends and suppress his foes to make sure the right people are participating in the conversation.
That's exactly what he means.
That's shadow banning his opponents.
That's making his friends go viral.
Sometimes it's brutal to watch, like how they banned New York Post and the Hunter Biden laptop.
Most of it, though, is quite subtle.
Like what shows up in your Twitter feed and what doesn't.
Like what is hidden, what you think you've published to the world, but literally no one else saw it but you.
I think that's the battle here.
There really can't be a debate about the financial value of the company.
It ain't worth $41 billion.
Hasn't been in a year.
Elon Musk wants to buy it for free speech reasons.
That's exactly the opposite of what the company is about today.
Look at this tweet from Zero Hedge, a slightly dissident financial and political website.
They say, well, this is awkward.
Twitter board hired Goldman to advise it that the Elon Musk $54.20 offer is too low.
Only problem, Goldman has accelerating with a $30 price target.
Oops.
Yeah, Goldman Sachs will say anything you pay them to say, but when it comes to their own money, they think Twitter is a loser.
It's barely worth half of what Elon Musk does.
I'm excited.
Look, I'm excited that the one free speech oligarch is richer and smarter and faster and funnier than the censorship oligarchs, even though they outnumber him by far.
I see that the Saudi prince Talal says he doesn't want to take Elon Musk's offer.
He's one of the owners.
Well, gee whiz, a Saudi prince who's not for free speech.
I'm shocked.
I don't know if this deal is going to proceed.
I'm not sure.
I just don't know enough about oligarchs.
I think many people need Twitter to be a censorship machine.
Now, $41 billion is a lot of dough, but there are companies with more money.
I just checked, for example, the market capitalization for Pfizer is $300 billion.
Pfizer needs Twitter to be a censorship machine.
They need Twitter to muzzle any skeptics of their vaccines.
The Democrats need it for the same reason.
Trans-gender activists need it.
Global warming extremists need it.
I say again: the value of Twitter to the establishment is not that it's a free speech platform.
It's the opposite.
It's that it pretends to be a free speech platform, but it will censor you if you're not left-wing.
So they get to operate it, silencing their enemies and boosting their friends.
Elon Musk says he would end that.
I think they're going to try and stop him.
I'm reminded of this picture of the Obama White House staff when they were about to be moved out and replaced by Trump staff.
Look at how sullen.
Look at those faces.
Now they're back, of course, with Joe Biden.
That's Jen Sackey right there in the middle.
Those sullen faces.
That's what the Twitter staff looks like right now.
There are, these are the kinds of people who need Twitter to be a censorship machine.
That's why they joined it.
So who's going to win this big battle?
I don't know.
I don't know.
I'm excited about it.
Aren't you?
Stay with us.
Someone's room.
Stop it.
Oh, my God.
What the hell is that?
Ottawa Protest Arson Suspect00:11:45
They just trampled this lady.
They just trampled that lady.
They just fully trampled that lady.
They just fully trampled that lady.
He's still 80.
80 got fully trampled in a horse.
What are you doing?
What the fuck is going on?
That shocking scene was not in Vladimir Putin's Moscow.
That was not in Nicholas Maduro's Caracas.
That was in Canada as riot police rode a horse over peaceful trucker protesters, peaceful protesters.
It was a military style scene.
It was very un-Canadian.
Trudeau put the country under a form of martial law.
As you know, our dear reporter, Alexa Lavois, was actually shot at point-blank range by a cop.
Remember this?
Turn your back!
They look like they're in the balls!
They're not going to deny me the right to look at a man.
Watch out!
What are you doing?
atrocious And I want to let you know, in the case of Alexa, and by the way, I don't think I reported to you yet.
We have sued the Ottawa police and the RCMP.
It was an RCMP officer who shot her.
He was under the command of the Ottawa police, and we're suing both of them on her behalf.
I want to let you know that that weapon is not meant to be shot at people.
It's like a tear gas canister, and it is not properly used by shooting a person, let alone at point-blank range.
And there is no excuse of an officer panicking in a moment.
Like I say, peaceful protests, and Alexa was standing there, both hands on her camera, filming.
For the cop to shoot her at point-blank range isn't just some mistake.
I put it to you, it's a crime.
I put it to you, it's a crime.
Well, so many of the things we've learned about these peaceful protests have vindicated the protesters and proven that the mainstream media and the politicians were the lawyers, the disseminators of fake news.
So many atrocious things that we have to unpack still from that time.
That horse I showed you that was stomping on people.
I want to show you chit chat from the RCMP horse team.
They usually just do the ceremonial rides.
But as you remember, we did this story a month and a half ago.
They were staying at the luxury Chateau Laurie, and a bunch of these cops were on a WhatsApp chat group.
You know what WhatsApp is.
It's like a messaging group.
And they were laughing and cheering and saying this is exactly what they wanted to do more.
Remember these WhatsApp images that were leaked?
Someone, a good cop in that chat group, was so appalled that they leaked these internal communications.
Not a single officer has been suspended.
Well, now, Cosmo Jerja, a reporter at our friend's place, the True North News, has an access information document showing just how luxuriously those cops were staying at the fanciest hotel in Ottawa, the Chateau Laurier.
Cosmo Jurgi joins us now via Skype Cosmo.
Great scoop.
I don't begrudge police staying in a comfortable hotel.
I think these police that were just there for shock and on political intimidation, so I don't want to give them one ounce more credit than they deserve.
They were brutal bullies.
They shot our friend Alexa.
They stomped on people with a horse.
They followed outrageous orders that if we saw it being done in an authoritarian regime, we'd call out.
But really, staying at a five-star luxury Fairmont Inn, the kind of place where you're spending 500 bucks a night if you're a mere moral stay.
What were the cops doing stationed at the five-star luxury hotel?
You're exactly right, Ezra.
This is the Fairmont Chateau Laurier.
And if you've ever been there, it's the height of luxury of hotel stays in Ottawa.
Why didn't they stay at a best western or alternatively somewhere else?
In reality, they weren't actually even sleeping there.
They used the Fairmont as a buffet.
So they were paying up to $12,000 a night just for dinner, not to mention breakfast and lunch buffets.
So it's quite interesting the choice that they used.
And if you remember from reports, the Fairmont actually served as the sort of base of operations for the police response to the convoy.
This is where they began to quarter off downtown Ottawa, moving and inching outwards from the Fairmont, pushing and quarreling protesters until they could eventually arrest them.
All right, so you're correcting me.
The cops weren't staying there.
They were just using it as a base, and they were eating their five-figure grills for the buffet.
So they weren't sleeping there, but they basically turned it into a command post.
Is that what you're saying?
Exactly.
It's a quarter million dollars just for buffet event services.
So I'm assuming they had caterers come in with all the necessary plates, dining instruments, the food, three times a day so that these RCMP officers could live large while they were cracking skulls the rest of the time.
So they didn't stay there, as he said.
That means that likely the bill of the RCMP's presence in Ottawa is much larger than just a quarter million dollars.
I would estimate it's probably well into the millions just to keep the officers there overnight.
Well, it sounds like that was just the bill for the meals for some of them.
And by the way, I happen to know it was much more than just the RCMP.
I personally encountered police from a variety of police forces.
The Toronto Police Force was out in numbers there in Ottawa.
Durham Regional Police, I'm trying to think of the others I personally met.
So they were police from all across Ontario.
Plus, I know that they were police from across the country.
Some of these mounted police, ceremonial horse brigade, came in from as far away as BC.
So this was a multi-multi-million dollar shock and awe effort for a completely peaceful protest.
There was not a single firearm seized, despite the lying front page story in the Toronto Star, to the contrary.
There was not a single act of violence perpetrated or threatened by the truckers.
Again, this is all according to the Ottawa police, despite the lies in the media.
And one of the most atrocious lies, completely bought and repeated by the legacy media and magnified by liberals, including Trudeau himself, was that there was some act of arson committed by a trucker.
It was suspect from the word go.
Tell us a little bit about that.
I think we covered that with Rupa Subramania the other day, but I know you've got some thoughts on that.
It was a hoax, wasn't it?
There was an arson charge.
It absolutely had nothing to do with the truckers, but literally every important official in Ottawa said it did.
Yes, absolutely.
The government, including the liberals, NDP, the mayor of Ottawa, jumped the gun with the arson and used this event.
It was a suspected, no suspects had been caught or identified yet to accuse the peaceful demonstrators of attempting to burn people alive in a residential building.
I mean, the event itself is truly horrific.
Thankfully, it was avoided.
But the fact that the government knowingly relied on an unverified, with no suspects report to spread lies purposefully about this convoy.
And it just points to the fact of how all of these claims that went into justifying Justin Trudeau's use of the Emergencies Act are crumbling, including the arson, the presence of weapons, not to mention the claims about foreign funding.
It's all falling apart and it's on the record.
I put out a video on Twitter of every single time liberal NDP, Liberal and NDP MPs made the claim that this arson was somehow linked to the protest.
It was Jagmeet Singh who was the first to do this, and he said it was an example of all of the violent acts that are being perpetrated in Ottawa.
So it's astounding.
And we've seen this become a pattern with the liberal government, especially because if you recall back in 2018, Trudeau did the same thing.
He jumped the gun with the hijab hoax story to gain political points.
And when the Asian community at the time, because the claim was by a Muslim, young Muslim girl that some Asian man had come up to her to cut up her hijab, the Asian community in Toronto began to demand an apology, and Trudeau just went silent.
It's the same thing now.
Politicians are refusing to apologize for spreading a hoax.
And these are the people who like to lecture us about disinformation and misinformation.
So it's pure hypocrisy.
Here, here's a clip of that video montage.
Take a look.
Violence is commonplace.
We saw an example of this violence, an attempted arson downtown of an apartment building where people started a fire.
When they exited, they tainted the door.
An attempted arson, all of which medicine was caught up in the room.
An illegal occupation.
Hey, welcome back.
Look, I know that Twitter is not real life.
Of course not.
I mean, Twitter doesn't make food for your table, doesn't pump oil that's turning to gas for your car.
Twitter doesn't build homes or get you housing.
Twitter isn't real.
It's a place.
It's an apartment building.
It's a digital public square, but actually a public square is one of the most illegal acts such as arson.
And if you control the public square, you pick out people you don't like, like and silence others who have ideas you don't have an attempted arson of a residential building in the occupation area.
Owning that public square square really impacts everyone and everything else because you can't discuss.
You silenced your condition to say what the establishment says.
So that little piece of digital real estate is actually a source of $21 billion.
Ammonia Fuel Conversion00:09:11
Not so much as a bad thing.
It certainly does not include arson from pushing into a residential apartment building and $21 billion to censor the series for conspiracy to murder attempted arson of a residential building.
That's our show for today.
We have a very special show tomorrow, a feature-length interview with the most dangerous Rebel alumni, Allen McKinnis.
That'll be tomorrow.
I'll be back on Monday, so we'll have a special show tomorrow, and then we'll repair with our regular program, and then we'll repair with our regular program, and then we'll repair with our regular program, and then we'll repair with our regular program, so that if a fire started, people would be burned alive.
Thanks to you at home.
Good night.
Keep fighting for freedom.
Happy Easter.
Happy Passover.
Have a great weekend.
David Menzies for Rebel News here in Halton Hills, Ontario.
And you know what, folks?
In the greater Toronto area today, gas is about a buck $79 a liter as it inches ever upward to that $2 a liter barrier.
But when it comes to my guest, Roger Gordon, he really doesn't care about the price of the pump because his Ford F-350, it doesn't run on gasoline or diesel.
It runs on ammonia, and that means Roger is paying about 25 cents a liter.
Wow.
Let's delve into what Roger is doing right now with his truck to get these incredible fuel savings.
Roger, as I said, this is your Ford F350.
It's a 2001 model.
And unlike other Ford pickup trucks that would run on gasoline or diesel, yours runs on ammonia.
Tell us what gave you the inspiration to go the ammonia route.
We were creating ammonia and using it for the pharmaceutical business.
And in 2010, we applied for a patent for a machine.
In the following years, we've tried to find somebody to partner up with us that's bigger than us.
A billionaire from Canada came.
He was going to partner up with us.
He tries to contact Trudeau.
Trudeau won't reply to him.
Before Trudeau became prime minister, he sent emails to us praising Green NH3.
After he became prime minister, he wouldn't praise us anymore.
He wouldn't reply to us.
One of the reasons we're paying such a high price at the pump are taxes and especially the new carbon taxes.
The Justin Trudeau Liberals are all about the war on climate change, you know, reducing our carbon footprints.
As you told me off camera, what's coming out of your tailpipe with ammonia is zero pollution.
Is that correct?
Yes.
All this comes from using ammonia.
The tailpipe is nitrogen and water.
So you would think that the Trudeau Liberals, if they're looking at alternative fuel sources, they would maybe be pro-ammonia.
I think it doesn't suit their bosses.
We've all heard about the World Economic Forum.
And let's talk about people that have way more money than me.
This billionaire, he says, well, he says, Roger, what if I get in and start building machines with you and we spend a couple of $100 million or whatever?
We find out that Trudeau and his call him his Kissinger crew, they want to be, they don't want it to be anymore.
He said, they can pull your insurance, they can pull your bank account.
So he says, why would I want to get in bed with you?
Maybe Trudeau will find a way to stop my billions of dollars from happening.
And if I were to buy a vehicle today and hire someone to convert it over to ammonia.
What are we talking about in terms of the price of the conversion and what I would have to invest in in terms of the ammonia making device?
Convert the vehicle is very simple.
It's very similar to a propane conversion.
I'm going to say less than $1,000 would convert a vehicle.
And you showed the machine you didn't want it filmed because you're still in the process of getting a patent for it.
So I can understand that.
But I would imagine, regardless of what the cost is, how many thousands it would be for that machine, prorated over the life of the vehicle, what you're going to recover in terms of fuel savings will more than make up for that investment.
It's 25 cents a liter, so however many liters you're using, the ammonia will cost you.
The ammonia doesn't take you quite as far on a liter as a liter of gasoline, but the price at 25 cents, instead of spending 200 or 300 a week for fuel, you're spending probably one-eighth of that.
What does ammonia do for, say, the horsepower and torque values of your vehicle?
Ammonia is around 85% of what gasoline is per liter.
If you're going up a hill and you switch back and forth from ammonia to gasoline, you don't feel any difference.
And of course, anyone going the ammonia route, you're not looking for a performance vehicle.
You're looking to get a great savings on your fuel costs.
By the way, ammonia holds the world speed record as we stand today.
It's not lazy or by any means.
Roger, I think the big picture question is this.
If I had the wherewithal to convert my vehicle to ammonia, when will there be a day when I can go to a Petrol Canada, a Shell, an Esso, and fill up with ammonia as opposed to gasoline or diesel?
Okay, so we contacted Trudeau, Freeland, McKenna, Baines, Mark Carney.
And we noticed on this list of all the people we contacted, the ones that belong to WEF wouldn't come back to us.
Yet if we contact somebody that has no power, they're right there ready.
They want to talk to us.
But somebody with the power, they don't want to talk to us.
So I guess, is it a matter of the large fuel companies, the extraction companies are committed to, you know, fossil fuels.
And for whatever reason, they don't see this as a money-making alternative.
Our theory, I've got consultants, they say, are you so stupid, Roger?
Do you not realize what's going on here?
These WEF people need to keep the oil flowing in order to keep the money rolling in, in order to keep their projects going.
I know some of the major automakers, Hyundai and Toyota, they're investing hundreds of millions into researching hydrogen as a fuel alternative.
I never see ammonia mentioned.
Do you think these automakers are going down the right route in terms of looking at the future in decades ahead where passenger vehicles can run on hydrogen as opposed to ammonia?
Hydrogen is way too dangerous.
If somebody's talking about hydrogen, run away.
Honda knows about ammonia, yet they think that they maybe will have to pay somebody to be in the ammonia business.
And they say, oh, well, let's, oh, hydrogen.
We can go to hydrogen without paying for somebody.
Why not pay a few bucks and be in this in a safe fuel rather than a dangerous fuel?
You know, it's just amazing because we see the Justin True Liberals talk a good game about carbon reduction and getting rid of your carbon footprint and alternative fuels.
Yet whenever he shows up with his entourage of seven SUVs, they're typically gas-burning, Chevy Suburban VH vehicles.
So kind of, as they say out west, all talk, no cattle.
If he would convert those over, at least he would be doing something.
All the big jet manufacturers, Rolls-Royce, General Electric, Pratt ⁇ Whitney, they've all tested ammonia.
It's zero carbon.
It works perfect in a jet engine.
So why are we still using gas?
Well, Roger, you're making a compelling case.
I guess why don't we take a spin, see how this puppy runs?
But to me, this seems to be functioning just as a truck should be functioning.
It's a bit noisy just because of the muffler, but that's the same in gas or diesel.
It doesn't matter.
I can switch back over to gas.
Oh, so it's that quick, eh?
So in case you were to run out of ammonia and you had to get I see.
Okay, yeah.
Well, Roger, I want to thank you for that ride in the truck.
I can tell you, I couldn't tell the difference between Ford pickup trucks I've been in my life that are powered by gas or diesel versus ammonia.
It seemed seamless to me.
Yeah.
Yeah, I've tested it numerous ways.
I've come up that hill with, I put a big load on a trailer like seven, eight ton on the trailer, come up, I switch it back and forth from gas to ammonia.
You can't tell the difference.
It's instantaneous.
And as you mentioned, the truck to me, it's not just vehicles, but we're talking farm equipment.
We're talking trains maybe.
You mentioned planes earlier on.
The ammonia solution can be there for all kinds of transportation aids.
Roger, thank you so much for your time.
Thank you for showing us the truck.
And you know, folks, I'm going to tell you, 25 cents a liter, as Bob Barker used to say, the price is right, but the only other way you're going to get that kind of price at the pump, well, you're going to have to get a DeLorn with the flux capacitor option and go back in time some 45 years.
In the meantime, it looks like ammonia is the solution for a very low cost per liter of fuel.
We'll just have to see in the years ahead if this solution does gain traction.