Conference call about Discovery on the 1st of March. This is the one from the "Moving Defendants" wanting to know exactly how to engineer around (the "but for" market?) . . . or how they are specifically infringing the patents. Both sides could follow up until the 5th. Now we await a ruling. See Here
This shows GreenShift's argument HERE
Here is Defendant's Legal Sources HERE
Defendants Exhibit A
SkunK
As a bonus I have a common example of a lawyer leaving a firm in an active case. They send in an administrative note to the court that someone is leaving or coming in. Defendants have had a few, but not seemingly excessive over time, so I do not bother you with them. Here is a recent example.
NOW here is an update of ICM's COES patent application. First is a telly conference. Then on the 4rd page ICM revokes their Law Firm's power of Attorney on 14 Feb. SEE HERE. Also note on page two that on the ICM end of the phone was Barbara Clark on the telly 16 Feb. As you see here Barbara Clark is a branch manager for the law firm that had its power of attorney revolked two days earlier on the 14th of Feb. ?????????? Let me think on this . . . .
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Friday, March 2, 2012
ICM's Amended Complaint
SkunK's attempt to condense ICM's Key Points - Using mostly ICM's language in the motion.
Count 1
1. Defendant GreenShift knowingly misrepresented itself as the owner of the ‘859 and ‘231 patent applications.
2. . . . substantial amendments made to the claims of the ‘859 and ‘231 patent applications since the publication date of the ‘859 and ‘231 patent applications.
Count II
3. None of the independent claims of the ’858 patent identify a quantity of oil; a rate at which oil must be obtained; identify a commercial standard for performing the method; nor a standard for determining that the concentrated thin stillage stream leaving [the] centrifuge is substantially free of oil.
4. Prior to July 31, 2003, David Cantrell was in possession of test results that established that oil could be easily separated from concentrated thin stillage by mechanical processing.The withholding of [this] information was with the intention of deceiving the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office about a written offer by David Cantrell to Agri-Energy, to sell an oil recovery system for recovering oil from concentrated thin stillage via mechanical separation more than one year prior to the August 17, 2004 filing date of U.S. Provisional Application Serial No. 60/602,050.
See ICM Filing Here
SkunK's answer to ICM's four points:
1. GreenShift owns 100% of Clean Tech and Clean Tech owns the patents. Does that mean GreenShift owns the patents? I don't know what the law says but I can apply common sense. We recently learned GPRE has an internal 100% owned company Green Plains Commodities LLC that runs their COE portion of their business. Does GPRE own its COE Systems? Or does Green Plains Commodities LLC? If no one paid ICM when they installed the GPRE COES, who would ICM have sued? Not much of a rusty nail to hang your jeans on.
2. Define "substantial"?
3. Again, define "substantial". GreenShift gets accused here of having received issued patents that are difficult to engineer around. I thought that was the point? I am sure ICM would have appreciated if GreenShift had limited their invention to COES painted green. Then ICM could have painted theirs red. GreenShift has patented a process and is not going to limit the process in any way to make engineering around it simple.
4. No mention of the experimentation exception. If one could receive patents off simple bench results - then I expect we would have numerous patents for perpetual motion machines. GreenShift went to experiment, refine and prove its invention in the field and patent law has a well known exception to the one year rule for this.
SkunK
Well of course its just my opinion. I would appreciate yours in the comment's section. Thanks
Count 1
1. Defendant GreenShift knowingly misrepresented itself as the owner of the ‘859 and ‘231 patent applications.
2. . . . substantial amendments made to the claims of the ‘859 and ‘231 patent applications since the publication date of the ‘859 and ‘231 patent applications.
Count II
3. None of the independent claims of the ’858 patent identify a quantity of oil; a rate at which oil must be obtained; identify a commercial standard for performing the method; nor a standard for determining that the concentrated thin stillage stream leaving [the] centrifuge is substantially free of oil.
4. Prior to July 31, 2003, David Cantrell was in possession of test results that established that oil could be easily separated from concentrated thin stillage by mechanical processing.The withholding of [this] information was with the intention of deceiving the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office about a written offer by David Cantrell to Agri-Energy, to sell an oil recovery system for recovering oil from concentrated thin stillage via mechanical separation more than one year prior to the August 17, 2004 filing date of U.S. Provisional Application Serial No. 60/602,050.
See ICM Filing Here
SkunK's answer to ICM's four points:
1. GreenShift owns 100% of Clean Tech and Clean Tech owns the patents. Does that mean GreenShift owns the patents? I don't know what the law says but I can apply common sense. We recently learned GPRE has an internal 100% owned company Green Plains Commodities LLC that runs their COE portion of their business. Does GPRE own its COE Systems? Or does Green Plains Commodities LLC? If no one paid ICM when they installed the GPRE COES, who would ICM have sued? Not much of a rusty nail to hang your jeans on.
2. Define "substantial"?
3. Again, define "substantial". GreenShift gets accused here of having received issued patents that are difficult to engineer around. I thought that was the point? I am sure ICM would have appreciated if GreenShift had limited their invention to COES painted green. Then ICM could have painted theirs red. GreenShift has patented a process and is not going to limit the process in any way to make engineering around it simple.
4. No mention of the experimentation exception. If one could receive patents off simple bench results - then I expect we would have numerous patents for perpetual motion machines. GreenShift went to experiment, refine and prove its invention in the field and patent law has a well known exception to the one year rule for this.
SkunK
Well of course its just my opinion. I would appreciate yours in the comment's section. Thanks
Big River
COUNT I
(Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,008,516)
32. GS CleanTech repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-31, above, as though fully set forth herein.
33. Big River infringes and will continue to infringe one or more of the claims of the ‘858 patent by, among other activities, practicing the claimed methods and/or processes.
34. Big River’s infringement has injured GS CleanTech, and GS CleanTech is entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate it for such infringement.
35. Big River’s infringement has been willful, deliberate, and objectively reckless.
36. Big River’s infringing activities have injured and will continue to injure GS CleanTech, unless and until this Court enters an injunction prohibiting further infringement and, specifically, enjoining further manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offer for sale of products or practice of any methods and/or processes that come within the scope of the claims of the ‘858 patent.
See Here
SkunK
This is the 4th of the 11 amended complaints.
(Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,008,516)
32. GS CleanTech repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-31, above, as though fully set forth herein.
33. Big River infringes and will continue to infringe one or more of the claims of the ‘858 patent by, among other activities, practicing the claimed methods and/or processes.
34. Big River’s infringement has injured GS CleanTech, and GS CleanTech is entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate it for such infringement.
35. Big River’s infringement has been willful, deliberate, and objectively reckless.
36. Big River’s infringing activities have injured and will continue to injure GS CleanTech, unless and until this Court enters an injunction prohibiting further infringement and, specifically, enjoining further manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offer for sale of products or practice of any methods and/or processes that come within the scope of the claims of the ‘858 patent.
See Here
SkunK
This is the 4th of the 11 amended complaints.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
GPRE Buys Own Stock
GPRE buys back 3.7M shares of its own stock
See Here
Detailed Filing with corn oil mentioned HERE
You can file, search for "corn oil".
Lots of hits, although I did not see anything radical.
SkunK
See Here
Detailed Filing with corn oil mentioned HERE
You can file, search for "corn oil".
Lots of hits, although I did not see anything radical.
SkunK
Motions and Submission
Defendants Bushmills Ethanol Company, Inc., Chippewa Valley Ethanol Company LLLP, Heartland Corn Products, and United Wisconsin Grain Producers, LLC (collectively “Moving Defendants”) hereby request a telephonic discovery conference with the Magistrate. Moving Defendants wish to obtain resolution of the following issues:
SEE HERE
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
Exhibit D
Exhibit E
*************
What I get out of these Emails above is the defendants want to force the inventors to cite exact numbers so then they can immediately move to adjust their process outside at least one of those numbers. To "Engineer around a patent" I believe it is called.
**************
MOTION BY DAVID J. VANDER GRIEND TO STAY SERVICE OF PLAINTIFF GS CLEANTECH CORPORATION’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
Mr. Vander Griend further moves the Court to stay service of a summons and Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint pending the Court’s decision on Mr. Vander Griend’s motion for reconsideration.
SEE HERE
****************************
Submission
SEE HERE
****************************
SkunK
PS "Moving Defendants"??? What?
Notice the service portion of the summons is not filled out - like previous ones have been.
SEE HERE
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
Exhibit D
Exhibit E
*************
What I get out of these Emails above is the defendants want to force the inventors to cite exact numbers so then they can immediately move to adjust their process outside at least one of those numbers. To "Engineer around a patent" I believe it is called.
**************
MOTION BY DAVID J. VANDER GRIEND TO STAY SERVICE OF PLAINTIFF GS CLEANTECH CORPORATION’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
Mr. Vander Griend further moves the Court to stay service of a summons and Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint pending the Court’s decision on Mr. Vander Griend’s motion for reconsideration.
SEE HERE
****************************
Submission
SEE HERE
****************************
SkunK
PS "Moving Defendants"??? What?
Notice the service portion of the summons is not filled out - like previous ones have been.
Sunoco Update!
"Moreover, Sunoco added a corn oil extraction system which successfully started-up in December."
SEE HERE
SkunK
Sunoco June PR HERE
Thanks to Wayback on I-Hub for the find!
SEE HERE
SkunK
Sunoco June PR HERE
Thanks to Wayback on I-Hub for the find!
Adrian Final Echo?
This may be the final news coming from the litigation surrounding the BioDiesel plant in Adrian Michigan. It looks like GreenShift will NOT be the one stuck paying all the bills. Along with every other BioDiesel plant at the time - NextDiesel went through real tough times. In their case, they actually went out of business.
For GreenShift Investors this is good news and allows us to move forward with one less worry on the worry list.
SEE HERE
SkunK
For GreenShift Investors this is good news and allows us to move forward with one less worry on the worry list.
SEE HERE
SkunK
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
GEA, ICM, ACE and DOES 1-30
"The true names and capacities of the Defendants DOES 1-30 inclusive are unknown to GS CleanTech, who therefore sues them by such fictitious names. GS CleanTech will seek leave to amend this Complaint to allege their true names and capacities when they have been ascertained."
"Upon information and belief, the main purpose of the indemnification agreements provided by ICM under the control of and at the direction of Vander Griend, is to overcome the deterrent effect that the patent laws would have on the Defendants."
"By virtue of the actions taken by Vander Griend, who is in control of ICM and its operations, Vander Griend has actively aided and abetted ICM in actively inducing its customers to infringe one or more claims of the ‘858 and ‘516 patents."
"The inventors of the novel process, David Cantrell and David Winsness, completed feasibility testing with an early-stage corn oil extraction prototype in 2004 and demonstrated, for the first time, that efficient extraction of the corn oil trapped in the dry milling byproducts was economically feasible."
"In the GEA Complaint in the GEA/Ace Ethanol Suit, GEA admits that its customers directly infringe the claims of the ‘858 and ‘516 patents. (Exh. D, ¶ 14) GEA further admits that, at a minimum, it indirectly infringes the ‘858 and ‘516 patents. Id. In fact, GEA seems to boast about this infringement by admitting that, as of the date the original GEA Complaint was filed, it “sold twenty-nine centrifuges designed for corn oil recovery to twenty different ethanol plants across the country” which has resulted in “over $15 million in total sales for GEA.” Id. ¶ 37. GEA further seems to boast that it “is negotiating the sale of more than twenty additional machines” at the time of the filing of the original GEA Complaint."
Ace Ethanol further admits that it directly infringes the claims of the ‘858 patent. Id., ¶¶ 5, 38.
ICM further admits that it “sell[s] and/or use[s] equipment to practice corn oil recovery methods that are in part the subject of the claims of the ‘858 Patent.” Id., ¶8.
SEE ALL HERE
SkunK
This is the third of the 11 amended complaints. What you see above are just what caught my eye the first time through the 15 pages.
I am no lawyer. Yet in my opinion, the KEY date and wording of:
". . . completed feasibility testing with an early-stage corn oil extraction prototype in 2004."
may prove central to overcoming the defendant's last hurrah!
PS (If the feasibility testing was not done until sometime in 2004, then the testing was not done until less than a year before the provisional patent application in August of 2004.)
"Upon information and belief, the main purpose of the indemnification agreements provided by ICM under the control of and at the direction of Vander Griend, is to overcome the deterrent effect that the patent laws would have on the Defendants."
"By virtue of the actions taken by Vander Griend, who is in control of ICM and its operations, Vander Griend has actively aided and abetted ICM in actively inducing its customers to infringe one or more claims of the ‘858 and ‘516 patents."
"The inventors of the novel process, David Cantrell and David Winsness, completed feasibility testing with an early-stage corn oil extraction prototype in 2004 and demonstrated, for the first time, that efficient extraction of the corn oil trapped in the dry milling byproducts was economically feasible."
"In the GEA Complaint in the GEA/Ace Ethanol Suit, GEA admits that its customers directly infringe the claims of the ‘858 and ‘516 patents. (Exh. D, ¶ 14) GEA further admits that, at a minimum, it indirectly infringes the ‘858 and ‘516 patents. Id. In fact, GEA seems to boast about this infringement by admitting that, as of the date the original GEA Complaint was filed, it “sold twenty-nine centrifuges designed for corn oil recovery to twenty different ethanol plants across the country” which has resulted in “over $15 million in total sales for GEA.” Id. ¶ 37. GEA further seems to boast that it “is negotiating the sale of more than twenty additional machines” at the time of the filing of the original GEA Complaint."
Ace Ethanol further admits that it directly infringes the claims of the ‘858 patent. Id., ¶¶ 5, 38.
ICM further admits that it “sell[s] and/or use[s] equipment to practice corn oil recovery methods that are in part the subject of the claims of the ‘858 Patent.” Id., ¶8.
SEE ALL HERE
SkunK
This is the third of the 11 amended complaints. What you see above are just what caught my eye the first time through the 15 pages.
I am no lawyer. Yet in my opinion, the KEY date and wording of:
". . . completed feasibility testing with an early-stage corn oil extraction prototype in 2004."
may prove central to overcoming the defendant's last hurrah!
PS (If the feasibility testing was not done until sometime in 2004, then the testing was not done until less than a year before the provisional patent application in August of 2004.)
The Andersons Buy Amaizing
"With much of the same technology in all four plants, we expect to bring additional efficiencies to drive down our cost per gallon, and maximize returns to shareholders as we have successfully demonstrated during the past five years."
SEE HERE
Will having a GreenShift COES customer (The Andersons, Inc) buy out a defendant (Amaizing Energy), stir up the mix a bit? Oh I think so. For the better.
SkunK
SEE HERE
Will having a GreenShift COES customer (The Andersons, Inc) buy out a defendant (Amaizing Energy), stir up the mix a bit? Oh I think so. For the better.
SkunK
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Amended Complaint: Injunctions are Baaaack!
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
WHEREFORE, GS CleanTech respectfully asks this Court to enter judgment against each Defendant and against their respective subsidiaries, successors, parents, affiliates, officers, directors, agents, servants and employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, granting the following relief:
A. The entry of judgment in favor of GS CleanTech and against each Defendant;
B. A preliminary injunction prohibiting further infringement of the ‘858 and/or ‘516 patents;
C. A permanent injunction prohibiting further infringement of the ‘858 and/or ‘516 patents;
D. An award of damages adequate to compensate GS CleanTech for the infringement that has occurred, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the inventions of the ‘858 and/or ‘516 patents as provided in 35 U.S.C. § 284, together with prejudgment interest from the date the infringement began;
E. An award to GS CleanTech of all remedies available under 35 U.S.C. § 284;
F. An award to GS CleanTech of all remedies available under 35 U.S.C. § 285;
G. An award to GS CleanTech of all remedies available under 35 U.S.C. § 154(d); and
H. Such other relief to which GS CleanTech is entitled under law, and any other and further relief that this Court or a jury may deem just and proper.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b), GS CleanTech demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
SEE HERE
another one for Lincolnway and Amaizing Energy here
[11 total amended complaints]
SkunK
WHEREFORE, GS CleanTech respectfully asks this Court to enter judgment against each Defendant and against their respective subsidiaries, successors, parents, affiliates, officers, directors, agents, servants and employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, granting the following relief:
A. The entry of judgment in favor of GS CleanTech and against each Defendant;
B. A preliminary injunction prohibiting further infringement of the ‘858 and/or ‘516 patents;
C. A permanent injunction prohibiting further infringement of the ‘858 and/or ‘516 patents;
D. An award of damages adequate to compensate GS CleanTech for the infringement that has occurred, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the inventions of the ‘858 and/or ‘516 patents as provided in 35 U.S.C. § 284, together with prejudgment interest from the date the infringement began;
E. An award to GS CleanTech of all remedies available under 35 U.S.C. § 284;
F. An award to GS CleanTech of all remedies available under 35 U.S.C. § 285;
G. An award to GS CleanTech of all remedies available under 35 U.S.C. § 154(d); and
H. Such other relief to which GS CleanTech is entitled under law, and any other and further relief that this Court or a jury may deem just and proper.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b), GS CleanTech demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
SEE HERE
another one for Lincolnway and Amaizing Energy here
[11 total amended complaints]
SkunK
Sunday, February 26, 2012
National Ethanol Conference PIX
The pictures are out for the National Ethanol Conference. Judging by SkunK-Satellite imagery and technical analysis of this name tag, I believe this is the CEO of ICM HERE and also right HERE If you are a supporting sponsor, expect some coverage. Yes Virginia - sponsorship does facilitate coverage. Also HERE.
SkunK
PS. I think I have a Bert Farrish sighting right HERE.
WHO is this in the lower left hand side doing a deal? We finally might? have another picture of the GreenShift CEO - Kevin Kreisler? And who are the other gentlemen? Is that Whit Davis? No drinks - all business. It looks like they are making arangements for a duel - with their serious seconds at their side. lol (Don't get too excited - I said this was just sport!) Ideas?
At the top - right third of this picture I believe that is Dave Winsness looking towards the camera with Bert Farrish to our right. The same fellow with a tote bag from the other Bert Farrish picture seems to still be with Bert. (If you right click on the picture you can change the size for a close up) Here is another much the same
If you go to "original size" (just off center - in the upper right quadrant) you can see a good shot of Bert looking at the camera and Dave Winsness on his phone HERE
I just hope everyone was sitting at the right table during the event. (Looooong, (fabled but true) GreenShifter Joke)
I will try to look through all the photos (like every year) for anything GreenShift. It is a habit forming sport. If you find anything GreenShift - or otherwise interesting - let me know! Any help is appreciated.
PS. I think I have a Bert Farrish sighting right HERE.
WHO is this in the lower left hand side doing a deal? We finally might? have another picture of the GreenShift CEO - Kevin Kreisler? And who are the other gentlemen? Is that Whit Davis? No drinks - all business. It looks like they are making arangements for a duel - with their serious seconds at their side. lol (Don't get too excited - I said this was just sport!) Ideas?
At the top - right third of this picture I believe that is Dave Winsness looking towards the camera with Bert Farrish to our right. The same fellow with a tote bag from the other Bert Farrish picture seems to still be with Bert. (If you right click on the picture you can change the size for a close up) Here is another much the same
If you go to "original size" (just off center - in the upper right quadrant) you can see a good shot of Bert looking at the camera and Dave Winsness on his phone HERE
Friday, February 24, 2012
MAX Stipulation
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED. subject to the Order of this Court, that
1. The Plaintiffs shall have 3 weeks from the entry of this Order to either file an amended complaint or file papers in opposition to the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
2. If the Plaintiffs file an amended complaint, (a) the outstanding Motion to Dismiss will be automatically denied as moot, (b) Defendants will have 3 weeks from the date of the filing of the amended complaint to move against the amended complaint, (c) Plaintiffs will have 3 weeks to file papers in opposition to the motion, (d) any reply papers by the Defendants will be due in 2 weeks after the filing of the Plaintiffs' opposing papers; and (e) any grant of the Motion to Dismiss will be with prejudice.
3. If the Plaintiffs do not file an amended complaint. and instead file papers in opposition \0 the Motion to Dismiss. the Defendants will have 2 weeks in which to file any reply papers. Any grant of the motion to dismiss will be with prejudice.
SEE REST HERE
NOTE: Notice this was signed 31 January and posted (top of page) on Pacer on 22 Feb 2012. I take it the three weeks are already up. We will see if the plaintifs filed anything soon enough . . .
SkunK
GreenShift is of course one of the defendants in this echo of the oil seed crushing plant deal in Montana. If I can SkunK it down a bit the best I can tell the judge is saying to the plaintiffs you have three weeks to "file or get off the pot." [Sorry Ladies, as a rule I do my best to avoid the vulgar, but in cases like this it just fits sooo well.] The judge states twice that any motion to dismiss will be "with prejudice". That is a head bump of a hint in GreenShift's favor. In my opinion - if they do not file within three weeks - these accusations can be considered baseless and GreenShift can stop paying lawyers to defend against baseless accusations. "With prejudice" means they cannot refile the complaint.
"The inverse phrase is dismissal with prejudice, in which the plaintiff is barred from filing another case on the same claim. Dismissal with prejudice is a final judgment and the case becomes res judicata on the claims that were or could have been brought in it; dismissal without prejudice is not." HERE
ps My previous post rant is not exactly in response to anyone's particular post but an attempt to explain what I am trying to do and what I am not trying to do. Confusion develops every once in a while when I do not occasionally explain my purpose. My hobby is to provide informaion. I sometimes provide my opinion. Sometimes I just put out the information. Your job should be to evaluate it. No apologies are desired or required. I just need to explian myself once in a while.
1. The Plaintiffs shall have 3 weeks from the entry of this Order to either file an amended complaint or file papers in opposition to the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
2. If the Plaintiffs file an amended complaint, (a) the outstanding Motion to Dismiss will be automatically denied as moot, (b) Defendants will have 3 weeks from the date of the filing of the amended complaint to move against the amended complaint, (c) Plaintiffs will have 3 weeks to file papers in opposition to the motion, (d) any reply papers by the Defendants will be due in 2 weeks after the filing of the Plaintiffs' opposing papers; and (e) any grant of the Motion to Dismiss will be with prejudice.
3. If the Plaintiffs do not file an amended complaint. and instead file papers in opposition \0 the Motion to Dismiss. the Defendants will have 2 weeks in which to file any reply papers. Any grant of the motion to dismiss will be with prejudice.
SEE REST HERE
NOTE: Notice this was signed 31 January and posted (top of page) on Pacer on 22 Feb 2012. I take it the three weeks are already up. We will see if the plaintifs filed anything soon enough . . .
SkunK
GreenShift is of course one of the defendants in this echo of the oil seed crushing plant deal in Montana. If I can SkunK it down a bit the best I can tell the judge is saying to the plaintiffs you have three weeks to "file or get off the pot." [Sorry Ladies, as a rule I do my best to avoid the vulgar, but in cases like this it just fits sooo well.] The judge states twice that any motion to dismiss will be "with prejudice". That is a head bump of a hint in GreenShift's favor. In my opinion - if they do not file within three weeks - these accusations can be considered baseless and GreenShift can stop paying lawyers to defend against baseless accusations. "With prejudice" means they cannot refile the complaint.
"The inverse phrase is dismissal with prejudice, in which the plaintiff is barred from filing another case on the same claim. Dismissal with prejudice is a final judgment and the case becomes res judicata on the claims that were or could have been brought in it; dismissal without prejudice is not." HERE
ps My previous post rant is not exactly in response to anyone's particular post but an attempt to explain what I am trying to do and what I am not trying to do. Confusion develops every once in a while when I do not occasionally explain my purpose. My hobby is to provide informaion. I sometimes provide my opinion. Sometimes I just put out the information. Your job should be to evaluate it. No apologies are desired or required. I just need to explian myself once in a while.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Just Released GERS Profile (With Detailed Explanation)
Some of this looks computer generated and dated, but the byline is tomorrow. I'll leave you to measure its weight.
See Here
SkunK
PS - the following is not for the public. Just knowledgeable GreenShifters :~)
If it is GreeenShift and it is current I am posting it. Sometimes the news about GERS is important because it is about GERS. Sometimes the news about GERS is important because it is "computer generated and dated". In either case it is about GERS and is being presented to the public and if you are interested in GERS you need to be aware of it. If you are reading this blog I figure you have a basic knowledge of this company. You might have even picked up the recent MacInvestor may be tied to the same PR-Inside.com that is promoting this "computer generated and dated" report. Interesting they would first predict great things - short term movement on the pps and then push a report for sale a couple days later. This may reveal the business model/income stream for the PR company. Why it is important?
1. Public reads it.
2. Greenshift fit MacInvestor's matrix for promotion
But this has nothing to do with GreenShift right?
Of course I do not think GreenShift initiated or has anything to do with this PR. In fact the original link to the MacInvestor PR has already been broken.
****************
Every once in a while I have to explain the Free Enterprise system to those in the center of it - Stock Holders . . .lol
Every time I give a link to a PR does not mean I personally guarantee everything or anything in it. I consider it is blog-worthy because the public is reading it; it may affect the price and I give you some credit for understanding that. Sometimes I throw out a bone like "computer generated and dated " so I do not have to waste an hour explaining why I posted it. lol. PRs are a for profit enterprise. Somebody has to pay for it. Whoever pays for it has their interests served. So they will pay for more of it. This system is not bad, it is just how things have worked in every functional society since time began. Someone provides a good or service in exchange for receiving a good or service. Money just facilitates making change and keeping score.
If you are reading a subscription newsletter (then you paid for it). If you are reading a PR, then the company featured in it paid for it. In rare cases, (like this) it appears to be it is a chance to generate interest and then sell you a report.
Even if it is in a trade magazines you have to understand the advertisers paid for it. Want to know why the patent litigation is not being covered step by step by the Ethanol/BioDiesel trade magazines? The readers in the industry are clamoring for news! The people who buy full page ads are not doing so good so the coverage is minimal. Advertisers affect coverage. Imagine that. Remember that the next time NBC news does not cover GE's failure to pay any federal taxes. :~)
I realize that everytime I post a PR some will be shocked to find out that someone paid for it. Who paid for it, is of course important and one can normally determine that in the fine print. That it was paid for should not surprise anyone.
Yes, I will continue to post everything current I can find on GreenShift.
No, I will not spend an hour each time explaining why I am posting current information on GreenShift. I have too much respect for my readers, and not enough time in the day for that.
I think I average about one good explanation (rant) every six months . . . so I should be good for a while . . . :~)
See Here
SkunK
PS - the following is not for the public. Just knowledgeable GreenShifters :~)
If it is GreeenShift and it is current I am posting it. Sometimes the news about GERS is important because it is about GERS. Sometimes the news about GERS is important because it is "computer generated and dated". In either case it is about GERS and is being presented to the public and if you are interested in GERS you need to be aware of it. If you are reading this blog I figure you have a basic knowledge of this company. You might have even picked up the recent MacInvestor may be tied to the same PR-Inside.com that is promoting this "computer generated and dated" report. Interesting they would first predict great things - short term movement on the pps and then push a report for sale a couple days later. This may reveal the business model/income stream for the PR company. Why it is important?
1. Public reads it.
2. Greenshift fit MacInvestor's matrix for promotion
But this has nothing to do with GreenShift right?
Of course I do not think GreenShift initiated or has anything to do with this PR. In fact the original link to the MacInvestor PR has already been broken.
****************
Every once in a while I have to explain the Free Enterprise system to those in the center of it - Stock Holders . . .lol
Every time I give a link to a PR does not mean I personally guarantee everything or anything in it. I consider it is blog-worthy because the public is reading it; it may affect the price and I give you some credit for understanding that. Sometimes I throw out a bone like "computer generated and dated " so I do not have to waste an hour explaining why I posted it. lol. PRs are a for profit enterprise. Somebody has to pay for it. Whoever pays for it has their interests served. So they will pay for more of it. This system is not bad, it is just how things have worked in every functional society since time began. Someone provides a good or service in exchange for receiving a good or service. Money just facilitates making change and keeping score.
If you are reading a subscription newsletter (then you paid for it). If you are reading a PR, then the company featured in it paid for it. In rare cases, (like this) it appears to be it is a chance to generate interest and then sell you a report.
Even if it is in a trade magazines you have to understand the advertisers paid for it. Want to know why the patent litigation is not being covered step by step by the Ethanol/BioDiesel trade magazines? The readers in the industry are clamoring for news! The people who buy full page ads are not doing so good so the coverage is minimal. Advertisers affect coverage. Imagine that. Remember that the next time NBC news does not cover GE's failure to pay any federal taxes. :~)
I realize that everytime I post a PR some will be shocked to find out that someone paid for it. Who paid for it, is of course important and one can normally determine that in the fine print. That it was paid for should not surprise anyone.
Yes, I will continue to post everything current I can find on GreenShift.
No, I will not spend an hour each time explaining why I am posting current information on GreenShift. I have too much respect for my readers, and not enough time in the day for that.
I think I average about one good explanation (rant) every six months . . . so I should be good for a while . . . :~)
Great Success!
Unit Holder Letter by Advanced BioEnergy, LLC
"As part of our continued effort to increase the profitability of our assets, we installed corn oil extraction at our Fairmont location which began production in August 2011. This project has been a great success and exceeded our expectations with a quick payback in the first six months of operations."
"Our second installation of corn oil extraction is also well underway at our plant in Aberdeen, South Dakota, with an expected completion date of early April 2012, which will allow us to gain more value from the co-products we produce."
SEE HERE
SkunK
"As part of our continued effort to increase the profitability of our assets, we installed corn oil extraction at our Fairmont location which began production in August 2011. This project has been a great success and exceeded our expectations with a quick payback in the first six months of operations."
"Our second installation of corn oil extraction is also well underway at our plant in Aberdeen, South Dakota, with an expected completion date of early April 2012, which will allow us to gain more value from the co-products we produce."
SEE HERE
SkunK
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Fermenting Ideas for the Future - from the Past
"During cellulose degradation by the fungus Trichoderma reesei, PLUSWave increases the production of fermentable sugars by 40 percent. In the next step, it increases the ability of the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae to ferment sugars to ethanol by 20 percent. In all, the company estimates it could reduce cellulose conversion costs to 1.2 cents per liter. Once the company has a handle on that, there are plans to research a consolidated cellulosic production process that would combine the hydrolysis and fermentation into one step, which would further decrease costs."
Article Here
SkunK
PS "The hydrolysis and fermentation into one step?" They have been doing that with SAKE in Japan for at least the last 13 centuries.
Article Here
SkunK
PS "The hydrolysis and fermentation into one step?" They have been doing that with SAKE in Japan for at least the last 13 centuries.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
MACinvestorAwareness
$tock alert for today: ** GreenShift Corporation (GERS) expecting BIG gains tomorrow and through the week. Potentially 75% +! GERS.ob closed at $0.11 per share on Friday. GERS is incredibly undervalued!
SEE REST OF ARTICLE HERE
SkunK
Is this a signal the Shareholder letter will be released during this short trading week? If it is to come this week I would expect it today. More information on this PR service here. Tomorrow is the start of the National Ethanol Conference. Another reason news might be released today.
SEE REST OF ARTICLE HERE
SkunK
Is this a signal the Shareholder letter will be released during this short trading week? If it is to come this week I would expect it today. More information on this PR service here. Tomorrow is the start of the National Ethanol Conference. Another reason news might be released today.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
GPRE 10-K
Corn Oil Production Segment
"We initiated corn oil production in the fourth quarter of 2010 with the acquisition of our Lakota and Riga ethanol plants and installation and deployment of corn oil extraction technology at our Obion and Ord ethanol plants. In 2011, we deployed corn oil extraction technology at our other ethanol plants. We currently have the capacity to produce approximately 130.0 million pounds of corn oil annually. During the year ended December 31, 2011, we sold 96.3 million pounds of corn oil compared to 5.0 million pounds in 2010." p. 41
***************
"A sensitivity analysis has been prepared to estimate our corn oil production segment exposure to corn oil price risk. Market risk related to these factors is estimated as the potential change in net income resulting from hypothetical 10% changes in prices of our expected corn oil output for a one-year period from December 31, 2011. This analysis includes the impact of risk management activities that result from our use of fixed-price sale contracts. Market risk at December 31, 2011, based on the estimated net income effect resulting from a hypothetical 10% change in such prices, was approximately $0.4 million." p. 50
****************
"The Company produces corn oil at all nine of its ethanol plants within the corn oil production segment, which have the capacity to produce approximately 130 million pounds annually. The Company operates its corn oil extraction systems through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Green Plains Commodities LLC. The corn oil systems are designed to extract non-edible corn oil from the whole silage process immediately prior to production of distillers grains. Industrial uses for corn oil include feedstock for biodiesel, livestock feed additives, rubber substitutes, rust preventatives, inks, textiles, soaps and insecticides." p. F-7
SkunK Note Above: For a segment of readers it may be enlightening to realize GPRE also has segmented its COES business using a non public, wholly-owned subsidiary - in this case Green Plains Commodities LLC. This helps focus internal responsibility and accountability in the segment - even though, (like GreenShift/CleanTech) the public books are published as a single entity. This is a common business practice.
*****************
"(4) Soybean oil options are used to hedge corn oil." F-21
*****************
See GPRE 10K Here
****************
Lots of Information about corn oil in this 10-K. Feel free to do a "edit", "find on this page" search of corn oil to see each reference. I selected just a few that were new or interesting to me.
SkunK
"We initiated corn oil production in the fourth quarter of 2010 with the acquisition of our Lakota and Riga ethanol plants and installation and deployment of corn oil extraction technology at our Obion and Ord ethanol plants. In 2011, we deployed corn oil extraction technology at our other ethanol plants. We currently have the capacity to produce approximately 130.0 million pounds of corn oil annually. During the year ended December 31, 2011, we sold 96.3 million pounds of corn oil compared to 5.0 million pounds in 2010." p. 41
***************
"A sensitivity analysis has been prepared to estimate our corn oil production segment exposure to corn oil price risk. Market risk related to these factors is estimated as the potential change in net income resulting from hypothetical 10% changes in prices of our expected corn oil output for a one-year period from December 31, 2011. This analysis includes the impact of risk management activities that result from our use of fixed-price sale contracts. Market risk at December 31, 2011, based on the estimated net income effect resulting from a hypothetical 10% change in such prices, was approximately $0.4 million." p. 50
****************
"The Company produces corn oil at all nine of its ethanol plants within the corn oil production segment, which have the capacity to produce approximately 130 million pounds annually. The Company operates its corn oil extraction systems through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Green Plains Commodities LLC. The corn oil systems are designed to extract non-edible corn oil from the whole silage process immediately prior to production of distillers grains. Industrial uses for corn oil include feedstock for biodiesel, livestock feed additives, rubber substitutes, rust preventatives, inks, textiles, soaps and insecticides." p. F-7
SkunK Note Above: For a segment of readers it may be enlightening to realize GPRE also has segmented its COES business using a non public, wholly-owned subsidiary - in this case Green Plains Commodities LLC. This helps focus internal responsibility and accountability in the segment - even though, (like GreenShift/CleanTech) the public books are published as a single entity. This is a common business practice.
*****************
"(4) Soybean oil options are used to hedge corn oil." F-21
*****************
See GPRE 10K Here
****************
Lots of Information about corn oil in this 10-K. Feel free to do a "edit", "find on this page" search of corn oil to see each reference. I selected just a few that were new or interesting to me.
SkunK
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
