Friday, July 8, 2011

SkunK Vents

If I were to have access to Texas sweet crude oil and started to refine it on my own, I suspect I would have many problems. Even though the refinement of crude oil is well documented and the results predictable, and even if I were trained in say - Ethanol Production - I would not only need the proper equipment, but the knowledge of one trained and experienced in that art.   So . . .

No one would dream of refining ethanol - even with all the best equipment - with an entire crew of novices. The cost of building experience would be just too high. 

Yet I have seen many posts (and filings) over the years that basically state corn oil extraction is simple, obvious and unpatentable. I believe it was Westfalia that compared it in one of their early filings to spinning cream off of milk - and by golly one doesn't need a patent for that!

Now it seems that all [or nearly all] of those who first argued against the patentability of corn oil extraction are pursuing their own patents.

My question to the industry is:  "Those companies who said corn oil extraction was unpatentable when the pioneering patents were awarded - were they wrong then?"  Or are they wrong to pursue peripheral patents now?  Do they plan on enforcing any patents rights that might be awarded to them?  Or are they just tinkering?

If it is so simple to extract corn oil for biodiesel, then why are there reports of those who use copies of others operating manuals and those who have reportedly attempted to reverse design other's equipment, still having so much trouble? Are efforts to extract corn oil being done with the best proven equipment and with the help of those who invented the art? Or is it being done with the same trial and error I would expect if I started to refine my own crude oil [or corn oil] in my garage?

I suspect if one still experiences high yield losses that make corn oil unprofitable as a biodiesel feed stock, then one is lacking either the best equipment or the best experienced - or both.

SkunK
 
PS.  Do not get me wrong.  I am NOT bad mouthing tinkering in one's garage!  I do it all the time and it is great fun.  I recently put an eight foot oak bar in my garage office that can manually dispense various forms of low grade Ethyl Alcohol for human consumption.  Much to my surprise and the delight of my guests - it occasionally expands the tinkering thought process.  However, I do not encourage tinkering at work - especially if one works at an ethanol chemical refinery.  Merely tinkering with corn oil extraction can be an expensive process - one in which the stakeholders of the ethanol plant should not have to finance - regardless of how fun the on-the-clock tinker-ers find it. 

9 comments:

The Galatian Free Press said...

Do you get the blender's credit for your mixed drinks?!

Anonymous said...

Arrogance!!!!!!!! And farmer John mentality.

Anonymous said...

If you bought a new 747 aircraft, would you hire an untrained crew to fly you in it on a test and fix basis?

Anonymous said...

Does anyone know why GERS is not DTC eligible?

Chopin said...

Skunk, I response to your rant. The reason no one in the industry thought the Greenshift process was patentable is because they sought to patent the use of centrifuge to separate oil and water. What was the centrifuge invented for over 100 years ago? To use something for its intended purpose is not an invention and is not novel. It would be akin to patenting driving a car, what was the car invented for?
Now those in the industry that are actually "tinkering" to improve the process may have developed something novel. Time will tell, but improving an existing process is patentable if it in fact is an improvement.

Anonymous said...

From your (incorrect but interesting :~))point of view, how do you jigger in the fact that numerous patent officials with decades of experience with many hundreds of patents (Deborah Carr has over a thousand herself)under their collective belts, decided to a award GreenShift numerous patents to (as you say) separate oil and water?

Do you see the weakness in your argument? If what you are saying is true, then we have to accept as fact that the US patent office is run by disinterested school children.

I propose that most reasonable people cannot make that leap.

Anonymous said...

Some pretend as though GreenShift awarded itself a patent. This was a multi-year, very dificult process.

As those who are coming to the party late are finding out.

Anonymous said...

If it was just so simple as separating oil from water, why did ICM buy two COES prototypes from Winsness/GreenShift in 2005? Was that the first time ICM had heard of a center-fudge?

Why did ICM sign non-disclosure statements?

Why did ICM then shortly thereafter start to sell knock offs?

So many facets of this story and they are all in the public record if you do the homework.

Skunk had the links to this and more in the patent timeline on the right of the blog.

Greenshift Investor

Anonymous said...

Some plants have used 2x4s to skim oil off stilage settling tanks. I think that is partly the tinkering Skuunk was talking about. You pay a tech to do that making $20 an hour, to "save" money. The plant is happy cause they maintain control and no capital outlay and it is "fun". The stakeholders should be outraged they are missing out on real production of a key corn oil asset. I thing the local coops are more ap to "experiment" and reinvent the wheel everyday. Professionally run companies like GPRE understand capital investment and demand a return on it.

 
Free Blog CounterTamron