I see some great dd out there and Slash has put together a compelling argument that REX American Resources and even Pacific Ethanol maybe GreenShift customers. Using the same jargon to describe their system - as present customers - may indeed lead us in the right direction. It certainly suggests a common source. Phrases like "state of the art" "2nd generation technology" "the best" and "without the use of chemical additives" all can be tied back to present GreenShift customers. I consider it compelling if potential customers start to use those same words to sell their COES equipment decision to their shareholders. It certainly puts them on the probable list. It may also reflect maturing marketing themes from GreenShift - as they move from just "patented" (a reason not to buy the other guys) to "state of the art" (a reason to install GreenShift).
We are now within 2-4 weeks of the annual report. I believe that many of our questions will be answered, however I think the days of GreenShift listing their customer base in their filings is over. Since GreenShift owned physical assets in the past at the plant that was almost required to be included in at least the annual. Now that GreenShift's market plan is royalty based I think we are more likely to get a total "gallons of ethanol production under contract" and the market share percentage that that represents. All the more reason to keep an updated customer list. (Mine needs a lot of work!) I hub has a list that may need some updating after the recent Slash dd. Since we are unlikely to get a simple list in the filings, might I suggest we decide on a simple format? Here is a rating system for discussion:
1. Confirmed
Announced by the customer or GreenShift that they are using GreenShift technology. Once a customer is confirmed, any additional plant they own with COE would be considered confirmed once it comes on line.
2. Probable
Majority of evidence points to GreenShift - For instance: No chemicals, patented, "state of the art" "royalty" etc.
3. Potential
Evidence they are using or investigating using corn oil extraction/separation. No substantial evidence they are using GreenShift or a competitor. Once a majority of evidence indicates they are using GreenShift - they move up to Probable. Once it is evident they are using a competitor - they move off the list. Maybe to a different
4. Potential litigant, or a
5. Litigant list
This would help us track the industry and although somewhat subjective - it would define our terms. We could then focus our efforts on the potential and probable list to move them up (or down) as warranted. We will soon have a reality check on our list when the Annual Report tells us the total numbers. Suggestions?
SkunK
My comment was sensored by Skunk?
ReplyDeleteMaybe i did not get the key words correct.
ReplyDeleteSecond generation refers to ICM's process with ethanol used as a surfactant rather than polymer chemicals. Some corn ethanol plants do not use polymers because there is a limit on how much corn oil they may extract due to requirements of fat content in DDGS. This is primarily a european standard. Also, back end requirements for corn oil extraction vary depending upon up stream processing techniques.
By the way Skunk, you beat me. I decided to buy in at 0.13 and am happy with that.
ReplyDeleteI think I found the place to deactivate those annoying "key words".
ReplyDeleteFrom now on we will try to operate on the honor system. You have to be human to post here; computer bots please talk quietly among yourselves.
--------
ReplyDeleteYes Virgina, ethanol is a chemical.
Here's a direct quote from ICM's website. The AOS requires a "Fully recoverable chemical additive".
I can't find a single ethanol producer saying they aren't using chemicals, other than Greenshift's customers. Please post a link if anybody finds one.
I can't find a single ethanol producer saying that ICM has the best corn oil system in the industry. Please post a link if anybody finds one.
What I did find was two more examples of producers saying "The best technology". BIOF in their conference call said "The systems are the best technolgy and costs."
(866) 281-6782. The access code for the replay is 167702.
“GreenShift is very pleased to be working with Sunoco; throughout the entire process Sunoco demanded THE VERY BEST, and we are pleased that we were able to deliver.
"We selected GreenShift to be our technology provider after extensive review,” added Gary Center, Fulton ethanol facility manager at Sunoco.
Another reason I don't believe REX installed the infringing AOS is this: Valero stated in Q311 they would have four plants testing the system by the end of Q112. Here we are at the end of Q1 and for some reason, only two plants have it installed. It took six months to install it in half as many plants as planned. REX's Q411 release from December stated they were looking at installing corn oil extraction. Three months later, it's installed. I would think Valeros project would have been completed first. Plus, who can consider a system that's still being tested as the best technology? The next generation system from ICM uses chemicals. The next generation system from Greenshift doesn't.
So I don't see a single example of any producer saying ICM's system is the best or they don't use chemicals. I've heard nothing but complaints about ICM's systems and that you got to pump them full of chemicals to get yields that are still lower than a non chemical using Alfa-Laval. It all points to Greenshift. It states right on ICM's website that their newest infringing system requires chemicals. The AOS requires a "Fully recoverable chemical additive".
Good Luck To All!$!$!$!$
Slash and Skunk,
ReplyDeleteI was looking on http://www.rexamerican.com/Corp/Page4.aspx and read through their slide show presentation for March 2012, and it states on slide 8, that all plants are highly efficient Fagen, Inc. and/or ICM, Inc.
I tried to open the slide presentation from the Rex American website. The power point would not load as it was defective, anyone else have this problem?
ReplyDeleteIf some one can get that power point presentation to load would they please copy and paste the relevant slide?
ReplyDeleteNobody12378,
ReplyDeleteThis is what the slide said:
Utilize state-of-the-art ethanol production technology
Dry mill corn-processing
All plants are highly efficient Fagen, Inc. and/or ICM, Inc.
Fagen is large, respected U.S. green energy design-builder
ICM engineers, builds, and supports renewable fuel bio-refineries
ICM process technology produces ~6.6 billion gallons of ethanol
Yeah using greenshift state of art infringed process
ReplyDeleteMost ethanol plants are. GPRE is ICM plants too. They're talking about the actual ethanol plant.
ReplyDeleteIt is very hard to get any real information on OUR company. We have to claw and dig it out of others. This allows the pontification and circumstantial "evidence" to create mountains of "information", and often this mountain is truly a mole hill. I believe that the the news black out is a construct of the attorneys litigating the infringement proceedings. I believe that KK has acceded to their demands without consideration of the impact on the common shareholders. For this news black out allows false hopes to arise, that when dashed as most will be, can have a pernicious effect of the desirability of owning stock in this company. I find that the recent posting of an IRS form on the web site and no new information or even a link to the 21st Century Business video as an affront to all shareholders; what was the purpose to throw salt in our wounds of neglect?
ReplyDeleteWell at least one prophet and their false hope can be put to rest. This took a lot of persistence and aggravation but we now have the following from ADM this morning:
Chris with investor relations of ADM stated " ... that ADM does not use Greenshift's COES technology. She said they are one of the first to employ COES, they have their own technology and are the major innovator in the COES field. She said they have been using COES longer than any other company."
Does KK intend to take on this giant? If so how many more years will we be in the dark? How much of the ramped-up revenue will be required and therefore not make it to our bottom line? How much will we really learn from the 10K if their goal is to minimize release of important data?
Nice try Brainiac
ReplyDelete"She said they have been using COES longer than any other company."
Sure they create corn oil - for your kitchen. Front end cooking oil. You being an expert of course know that. What did see say when you asked her how/if they extract on the back end? What did she say?
In order to remove any possible confusion the conservation was directed at Greenshift's COES processes. Her response was clear, and before responding she had apparently made internal inquires.
ReplyDelete"Nice try Brainiac"? Why is every piece of information that is viewed as negative treated as if it were treason? There is simply too much venom being spilled here by many Gerslanders, and I think that their support of GERS detracts other reasonable people from coming aboard. If these devote and therefore blind supporters think GERS is a good investment, what is the true state of GERS? That is what the venom does for you company.
REALLY sorry about the braniac thing, but every indication is thats what you were going for.
ReplyDelete"If so how many more years will we be in the dark?"
We are within a week or two of the annual report. GreenShift has always been compliant with SEC requirements of disclosure. Don't you think you exaggerated just a bit? How many more years? In the dark?
Hope the critique was not too venemous. Its not like I callled all Your dd a mole hill. Keep up the great work slash and skunk
So you are saying you were not sure if ADM does any back end extraction?
ReplyDelete