Here is basic infomation on the Ethanol Plants (with a picture) and their Ethanol capacity. I also provided a SkunK estimate on the number of Method I COES to be deployed at each.
1. Bluffton, IN 110mmgy -2
2. Central City, NE Capacity: 100mmgy -2
3. Rives, TN Capacity: 110mmgy -2
4. Ord, NE Capacity: Ord-50mmgy - 1
5. Shenandoah, IA Capacity: 55mmgy - 1
6. Superior, IA Capacity: 55mmgy - 1
Total Capacity - 480mmgy.
Total SkunK estimated Method 1 COES deployed = 9
***************
Previous COES under new Licensed Contract and estimated Method I COES just this year:
Global Ethanol Lakota, IA 100mmgy - 2
Marquis Energy Hennepin, Il 100mmgy - 2
United Ethanol Milton WI 50mmgy -1
****************
This is a name plate capacity of about 730mmgy of Ethanol production under contract just this year. It looks like GreenShift is now within a stone's throw of their BILLION gallon goal for this year. As important (or more so) follow on to this - is this means that when these all come on line by the end of the first quarter 2011 they will be on the cusp of profitability. This is a huge step - nearly doubling our contracts in one fell swoop! I suspect that the momentum this develops will only make future contracts that much easier to land. I think we are by no means done for the year - this is the start of the begining . . .
SkunK
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
19 comments:
I don't think Green Plains is using GS technology (in any form).
I know it will be hard for some to understand. In their world this cannot be happening. They are in denial. Keep rereading the press release from Green Plains. Do you think they are paying for a GreenShift license to use ICM technology? They have a long legit relationship with ICM, so they will use ICM to build. The whole point is their is no ICM technology. It was all reverse from the two COES ICM bought from GreenShift in 2004-2005. COES technology IS GreenShift technology. You can repackage coke-a-cola in a different bottle but it is still coke.
I mean really, when you have to twist things that hard in your mind to fit the facts, doesn't it occur to you that maybe, just maybe, it is what it is?
GreenShift is obviously holding this news and other stuff for 2 Aug.
Good Luck,
Big Easy
"Do you think they are paying for a GreenShift license to use ICM technology?"
YES
Do you really think that ICM, a company that is being sued by GS in multiple cases, would be willing to build a GS model unit?
ICM technology is different from GS technology, starting with significantly different centrifuges. There is a reason no one is buying GS COES. They are only paying GS royalty because either they don't want to get sued or GS sued them and they settled. As to the patent issues--there are too many yet unknown details in this case--the courts will sort them out.
Go to paragraph 7 in this sworn statement and you will learn all you need to know about the history of COEs Technology.
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B_ch8gAs4lCcMGIxNTIzMjYtODlkYi00ZTBjLTlhMmItZTk3ODM1MmQwNjUz&hl=en&pli=1
None of this is denied by ICM. In fact they admit it in an article at the time.
http://www.ethanolproducer.com/article.jsp?article_id=221
Know the facts here. GERS is a winner.
go to the patents on the Patent office web site.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=winsness&FIELD1=&co1=AND&TERM2=&FIELD2=&d=PTXT
Then do a "edit" "search page" for "decanter". That is the type of centrifuge ICM claims makes them "different". It is included as a covered method all over the APPROVED patents.
This is a red herring thought up by the ICM legal team to give them some cover with potential customers - to those who only look an inch deep.
No ICM tricanter customers since the patents were issued. ICM is trying to sell the ones they have in a blow out sale on their web site.
GERS is now had 14 new COES licensed with 4 customers since the begining of the year.
Sorry I think Big Easy has a point.
It is what it is. This is exactly what it appears to be.
GreenShift victory.
Do you really think that ICM, a company that is being sued by GS in multiple cases, would be willing to build a GS model unit?
Yes. Very few construction jobs available in the ethanol industry. ICM is looking desperately for work.
Do you think they could afford to turn down the offer? They obviously could not. They jumped at it. I don't blame them, things are tough out there.
Big Easy
Stringing together bits of information from google does not a case make. The courts will have to sort this out. No one is denying how the patents read--the issue is their validity--as in they should have never been issued.
ICM is a private company--they don't have to tell you whether they have sold anything or not. And why would they? GS would sue that plant.
"GERS is now had 14 new COES licensed with 4 customers since the begining of the year." I'm not following your numbers here.
"GERS is now had 14 new COES licensed with 4 customers since the begining of the year." I'm not following your numbers here.
Read the Skunky blog above. Apparently each Coes system handles about 50million gallons
If this was a GS model it would have been mentioned in the press release.
Okay I see where you are getting the number 14 now. They may be licensed units, but I don't think any of them are GS models.
So the worst senario the bashers can come up with is people are gonna pay greenshift 20% off the top to put in ICM COES units??
I don't think that is true, but what the hell are we arguing about? Sounds pretty good to me. Lets do the whole industry like that!
If this was a GS model it would have been mentioned in the press release.
With your logic:
If this was a ICM model it would have been mentioned "Tricanter" in the press release.
ICM is just the "plumber" GreenShift is the architect.
I hope Vander Griend wears a belt on the job! Uuuhhh!
"With your logic:
If this was a ICM model it would have been mentioned "Tricanter" in the press release."
ICM is a private company that doesn't typically release customer information. Greenshift is a public company that depends on publicity to increase (or at least try to increase) their value. Since this press release came from Green Plains, I'm sure that it is worded to their benefit.
In the end, like the earlier poster commented, both companies (at least for the time being) are getting paid. So, in this case, things are a win for both companies.
One thing is certain - if by some chance it is actually ICM technology (based on Greenshift's patents)that is being installed, Green Plains obviously has no confidence in ICM's chances of winning the litigation. By licensing with Greenshift they are basically saying - sure, we'll buy it from you and let you install it, but we agree - the technology is GREENSHIFT'S and they are entitled to receive compensation!!! Even in this situation - Greenshift is still the BIG WINNER!!!
I found this wording in EPM's article to be interesting.
"Due to an ongoing lawsuit between ICM and GS CleanTech Corp., a subsidiary of GreenShift Corp., GPRE has also entered into a license agreement with GS CleanTech to utilize its patents and pending patents, Stark said."
"ICM Inc. will install the corn oil extraction technology at five of the company’s six plants, all originally built by that company. The sixth plant, located in Superior, Iowa, is a Delta-T plant and GPRE is currently working to get that under contract as well."
This explains why they went with ICM for five of the plants. ICM had build them. If they were using ICM COES technolgy (as if there was such a thing), they would have used them for all six. Instead they are looking for somebody else to do the work for the sixth one. Maybe Fagen? This is a definate bow at the waist to the strenght of the GreenShift Patents.
Is Poet next??? Or ADM?? or Pacific Ethanol??
Do you have an opinion on this Skunk? Maybe you can ferret out who the technology provider is...
This is obviously GS technology.
Post a Comment