Ethanol Producer Magazine
EPA made an important change to the corn oil extraction technology requirement in its December rule revisions, removing earlier language that limited extraction to thin stillage and DGS. EPA decided that “a more straightforward approach to specifying the required application of corn oil extraction in the regulations would be to identify the amount of oil that must be extracted.” This approach allows producers to apply corn oil extraction “as they see fit, providing only that the requisite quantity of oil is extracted.” Although it provides more flexibility to the producer using this technology to generate RINs, there is some question regarding its feasibility.
EPA made an important change to the corn oil extraction technology requirement in its December rule revisions, removing earlier language that limited extraction to thin stillage and DGS. EPA decided that “a more straightforward approach to specifying the required application of corn oil extraction in the regulations would be to identify the amount of oil that must be extracted.” This approach allows producers to apply corn oil extraction “as they see fit, providing only that the requisite quantity of oil is extracted.” Although it provides more flexibility to the producer using this technology to generate RINs, there is some question regarding its feasibility.
Although corn oil extraction is perhaps the most attractive of the five technologies because of its relatively low cost, the 1.33 pounds-per-bushel minimum is not achievable at this time. In fact, the corn oil extraction requirement joins membrane separation and raw starch hydrolysis as technically unfeasible stand-alone options, leaving only CHP and fractionation as alternatives. Concerns exist, however, regarding the economic feasibility of CHP with one commenter informing EPA that the cost necessary to meet the CHP advanced technology standard would make it “commercially unviable.” In response, EPA noted that it did not consider cost in its considerations of applicable advanced technologies. Without considering cost or commercial availability (EPA focused on technology requirements that would be in place by 2022), dry mill facilities have few realistic compliance options. Fortunately, EPA recently confirmed that it would allow a plant to use fractionation and extraction together to meet the 1.33 pounds-per-bushel threshold to meet the advanced technology requirement.
Posts
7 comments:
I think that I am an educated person, yet I have no idea what this means for GERS. A little help here?
From AnimalMother on I-Hub. Now this is good PR --
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/7821006/gpre_nasdaq_posts_91_yy_eps_growth.html
Good PR, yes... but what interests me is the articles reference to "Texas Clean Fuels." Doesn't their product sound an awful lot like Greenshift's Algae Bioreactor? Is Greenshift’s technology just not mature enough? Or is Texas Clean Fuel’s product just better? Anybody have any idea?
They're focused on one thing right now, COES. When they pay off debt and are profitable, the other technologies will be back on the front burner. This has been their strategy for some time now. And I admit, I wouldn't be around if it wasn't. I'm involved in the biofuels industry. Greenshift tried, several years ago, to get the industry to process corn oil into biodiesel. Nobody listened and the industry fell apart. Now that the credit is back, what feedstock is the industry after? Corn oil.
Trading on Scottrade:
Hope this info helps the traders!
Dear xxxxx:
I am responding to your inquiry about trading GERS.
This is a stock you would be able to buy here at Scottrade. There are currently no restrictions on it besides we cannot accept it via a transfer into our company.
You would just need to make sure to place it as a Limit order since it doesn't trade on an exchange and is also below $1. For more information about penny stocks, you can click here.
Please let us know if we may be of further assistance, and we are grateful for your business.
Does any one have a rational explanation for the continuous dumping of large blocks of shares at the BID that has occurred since KK made his pledge of minimal dilution in the share holder letter?
Poeple who are more knowledgeable state that KK cannot be buying back these shares for the purpose of future cancellation. If that is correct then I would like to know what the positive slant on this fire sale of shares can be.
Post a Comment