Corn oil extraction initiative has been a "significant positive event" for GPRE. [2:30-2:40]
Seeing an increase in net of 8-9 cents/pound for DDGs to around 35cents/pound net for Corn Oil.
". . . surpassing our expectations. . . "
They previously expected with an $18M investment they would get an $18M annual return. Now looking at an annual return of $25-$30M on corn oil! They expect to see 100m to 125 million ponds of corn oil production from their 9 ethanol plants. ". . .very excited about that as well . . ."
Hear HERE
Most of corn oil information: [16:14 to 17:25]
SkunK
New to GERS? Here is GPRE release (republished by GERS) and Here is the GPRE release (published by GPRE) - note 4th paragraph.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Any one hear the cash register at GERS central ringing? Nothing gets clients like the increased potential for more money.
Skunk,
That is a link to GERS.
Cha-Ching!!!!!I hear it!
Thanks Skunk - Great news.
I'm just waiting for GPRE to announce they're using an emulsion breaker additive and that expected oil extraction will be north of 1/4 billion pounds.
Skunk, slash, etc. i have a question for you. if GPRE extract about 100m pounds of corn oil..that equates to about 12million gallons, yes? 12 millions gallons x $3.6/gallon is much higher than 25 million annual return.
12million x $3.60 = 43 million
is my calc wrong?
is 3.6 dollars a gallon a good estimate?
maybe its prorated for 2011 since not all plants were up and running with COES in jan?
Thanks if you can help.
Just a guess, but:
43M - 18M(investment) = 25M return
Is my math correct?
125 million pounds at 9 plants with capcaity of 730 million gallons, gives oil recovery of about 0.45#/bu, about half what GERS says it should yield. So, will numbers actually be double?
Also, when considering return on investment, reduce income by 15 or 20% depnding on royalty agreement with GERS and also reduce income by cost of additives.
My analysis suggests that even the 125 million pounds per year figure is still a significant underestimate.
That will be revised higher, again, in my opinion.
Post a Comment