Saturday, September 17, 2011

Timing

Now before anyone gets excited about ICM holding a signed contract, and that having something to do with the Markman hearing (too late); lets go back to July 2011 and the FEW conference.  ICM announced that they had 4 signed contracts to use their AOS. SEE HERE  Well, now it looks like we found out that the four units are going to Valero. 

This is a deal that has been going on for some time and is now being announced by the buyer.  In my opinion it has nothing to do with the Markman Hearing since it was signed back in July.  The Markman took place in August.  Something that took place in August cannot have caused something that took place in July.  Now that the buyer announced and has given tacit permission to disclose, expect ICM to put out a third PR on this single event next week.

If you read the information on the AOS it is not a base extraction system in the normal sense.  It is a system that appears to use a chemical additive to break down the emulsion and get a higher yield on the fringe.  This is normally after a base extraction system has already had a shot at it.  SEE HERE This appears an attempt to not compete directly with the GreenShift COES, and is certainly an attempt to NOT infringe the GreenShift patents.  This is obvious in the ICM PRs where they state:

"Further, ICM continues to believe that under a proper interpretation of the patents' claims, the Tricanter® Oil Separation System does not infringe GreenShift's patents." Burris also reiterated that "ICM's new Advanced Oil System™ design and method clearly fall outside all patent claims of GreenShift Corporation's patents under any construction."

So it seems to the SkunK that this AOS system is an obvious attempt to skittle around the pioneering GreenShift patents.  No, I do not share ICM's opinion.  Yes, I do want to understand their position so that I can anticipate their future strategy.


Skunk

26 comments:

Anonymous said...

It appears to me ICM's AOS still violates GERS patents. They applied for a patent on AOS, so we will see if it is granted with GERS patents having priority. Either way, it may be another day in court unless GERS may bring Valero into the existing suit as one of the "30 DOES".

nobody123789 said...

Skunk, I read your position as stating that the ICM AOS system does not conflict with or infringe on GERS patents. Therefore, until we know more it is reasonable to assume at this time that the Valero signing is NOT good for GERS. Anything else, from what we know now appears to be fantasy. Let's stop fantasizing, pontificating and start digging for more facts. I will agree that the timing of the R/S is curious. KK must have known of the ICM (or some other firm) inroads with Valero and the negative perception that it would create. His folks must have been trying to bring Valero into the fold and determined that they had not and that Valero was going another direction. Not only do we have no good news on the horizon of the R/S we apparently have bad news. And now comes the R/S? Come on KK, you need to come up with something to keep the PPS from plummeting post R/S. But how can we pin our hopes on timing so bad that it is of itself non sequitur? Another way of asking this question is how can we have much faith that KK will do something in the interest of the common shareholder when he has failed to do so over the years? I know that none of the newbies want to hear about ancient history as you call it. But soon you newbies will be oldbies and you will be trying to explain why the stockholder equity just never seems to take precedence. And for you folks that are now saber rattling with the chant sue Valero!; on average each intellectual property law suit cost the plaintiff $3 - $5 million dollars up front. Where do you think those dollars are going to come from? One possibility is the gap between the O/S count of 14 million shares and the A/S of 20 billion shares. Bottom line: at this time this is not good for the common shareholders no matter how much rose we put on our glasses.

Anonymous said...

Remember Microsoft?

Anonymous said...

Oh My! Is another GERS patent coming?

Anonymous said...

skunk the way i see it ICM can us Valeros money to pay GERS the money they owe for violating GERS patents. and ICM has not been awarded the AOS patentb yet.

Anonymous said...

all i care about is price...it will plummet post r/s.....so sad

Anonymous said...

is the aos machine better result than the method 1 from gers?...is method 2 from gers better than aos...does aos have better methods to be released?

Anonymous said...

Oh My! Is another GERS patent coming? And what about the method II patent?

Anonymous said...

slash,
you are an expert and certified oil man...what do you think about the valero/ icm connection?

Anonymous said...

bottom line , we now know why the price is in the gutter...a technology leap frog has occured to gers by icm

Anonymous said...

"technology leap frog has occured to gers by icm"

hahahhahaaaa

No,what your post really means is Dave from ICM is now hang'n on the skunk blog. Hi dave. Give investors here some credit for intelligence.

ICM signed 4 plants for a knock off additive extraction unit back in july. Those units are a dime a dozen. patent pending really means no patent yet. I could patent pend a beer bottle opener, does not mean I will get a patent.

Greenshift has the encompasing patent issued. this is an attempt to get some crumbs on the fringe.

Anonymous said...

ICM PR shows that they are obviously wary of litigation against them. Otherwise, their PR of signing Valero does not need to mention GERS and its patents. I take this as a sign that ICM is not confident in their position in the litigation with GERS. Thanks, Skunk for all your researches.
GO GERS!

Anonymous said...

Where does it say Valero isn't signing on with Gers?

Anonymous said...

I think skunk was hinting at that. the icm deal was a fringe add on deal, and they might have already got a deal with gers for the actual coes.

if you look at this aos it is just a skid mounted deal to try and get some oil from the foam.

the question you should ask is why not a tricanter and the aos?? Maybe they already are getting a greenshift coes and throwing a bone to icm in the form of the aos add on.

kk is saving for the r/s?

jmho

Ethanol producer #9 said...

Nobody, reread the Valero PR very sloooooowly. Wording is important. While you're at it, reread what Mr. Skunk said, instead of putting words in his mouth and posting false statements on the other website.

Anonymous said...

Valero and ICM have crossed paths in the past - something with the Verisun bankruptcy. ICM really doesn't think that they are infringing. Now that Valero officially announced their deal with ICM, GERS can now counter with the injunction and most likely the r/s. The injunction is the reason GERS has not used cash to pay debt. IMOO

Anonymous said...

Our patent pending system does not separate oil directly from the concentrated thin stillage. ICM's system implements special processing to release oil from an emulsion concentrate, which results in a higher recovery of corn oil from the ethanol process."

ICM does not do stillage

Skribe said...

So AOS is not a COES, whose COES will they use?

Anonymous said...

Look at ICM's brochure for the AOS. It starts with the Tri-canter process(their first gen oil recovery)to get the oily emulsion from evaporated thin stillage(syrup) to be further processed by AOS. The AOS may not infringe current patents, but getting the material for it does IMO.

Skribe said...

So what do they mean by stand alone solution?

Available as a stand-alone Solution, and also compatible with ICM
Tricanter® Oil Separation System
ICM’s two-skid AOSTM can be sold as a stand-alone unit to plants without oil extraction technology, or we
can integrate our solution with existing ICM oil separation technology, reducing your capital cost for oil
separation.
http://www.icminc.com/pdf/ADVANCED_OIL_SYSTEM_lores.pdf

Is it similar to Ashland?

I'm still a bit confused but hope the best for GERS!

Skribe said...

AOS comes after centrifuges.

nobody123789 said...

Ethanol#9,

Looks like you are one of the few people that think the Valero signing is good for GERS. How many rose petals did you need to cover the entire area of your glasses? Please describe how this outcome is better for GERS than Valero signing with GERS? Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Scribe,
Yes! AOS only has material to process via a centrifuge pre-process in front of it.
ICM is playing semantics with how it is presented to the market.
All COES, including GERS is stand alone from the ethanol process.

Skribe said...

Thank's Anonymous.

Anonymous said...

Dang! thats BS nobody you owe Skunk an appology!

nobody123789 said...

Anony,

Thank you your accolade of b.s. (brave scurrility) it is most appreciated. You are one of the few that recognizes that only a single person, and one alone, stated without qualification that there would be a 1000:1 R/S weeks before it was announced, that the BID would collapse to zero after the R/S and that IF GERS did not sign Valero the market cap of GERS would plummit to less than a half a million dollars post R/S. When the later occurs I am sure that you will be here to identify who that person was -- the brave scurrility one. I look foward to reading your missive at that time.

 
Free Blog CounterTamron