"The true names and capacities of the Defendants DOES 1-30 inclusive are unknown to GS CleanTech, who therefore sues them by such fictitious names. GS CleanTech will seek leave to amend this Complaint to allege their true names and capacities when they have been ascertained."
"Upon information and belief, the main purpose of the indemnification agreements provided by ICM under the control of and at the direction of Vander Griend, is to overcome the deterrent effect that the patent laws would have on the Defendants."
"By virtue of the actions taken by Vander Griend, who is in control of ICM and its operations, Vander Griend has actively aided and abetted ICM in actively inducing its customers to infringe one or more claims of the ‘858 and ‘516 patents."
"The inventors of the novel process, David Cantrell and David Winsness, completed feasibility testing with an early-stage corn oil extraction prototype in 2004 and demonstrated, for the first time, that efficient extraction of the corn oil trapped in the dry milling byproducts was economically feasible."
"In the GEA Complaint in the GEA/Ace Ethanol Suit, GEA admits that its customers directly infringe the claims of the ‘858 and ‘516 patents. (Exh. D, ¶ 14) GEA further admits that, at a minimum, it indirectly infringes the ‘858 and ‘516 patents. Id. In fact, GEA seems to boast about this infringement by admitting that, as of the date the original GEA Complaint was filed, it “sold twenty-nine centrifuges designed for corn oil recovery to twenty different ethanol plants across the country” which has resulted in “over $15 million in total sales for GEA.” Id. ¶ 37. GEA further seems to boast that it “is negotiating the sale of more than twenty additional machines” at the time of the filing of the original GEA Complaint."
Ace Ethanol further admits that it directly infringes the claims of the ‘858 patent. Id., ¶¶ 5, 38.
ICM further admits that it “sell[s] and/or use[s] equipment to practice corn oil recovery methods that are in part the subject of the claims of the ‘858 Patent.” Id., ¶8.
SEE ALL HERE
SkunK
This is the third of the 11 amended complaints. What you see above are just what caught my eye the first time through the 15 pages.
I am no lawyer. Yet in my opinion, the KEY date and wording of:
". . . completed feasibility testing with an early-stage corn oil extraction prototype in 2004."
may prove central to overcoming the defendant's last hurrah!
PS (If the feasibility testing was not done until sometime in 2004, then the testing was not done until less than a year before the provisional patent application in August of 2004.)
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
The Andersons Buy Amaizing
"With much of the same technology in all four plants, we expect to bring additional efficiencies to drive down our cost per gallon, and maximize returns to shareholders as we have successfully demonstrated during the past five years."
SEE HERE
Will having a GreenShift COES customer (The Andersons, Inc) buy out a defendant (Amaizing Energy), stir up the mix a bit? Oh I think so. For the better.
SkunK
SEE HERE
Will having a GreenShift COES customer (The Andersons, Inc) buy out a defendant (Amaizing Energy), stir up the mix a bit? Oh I think so. For the better.
SkunK
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Amended Complaint: Injunctions are Baaaack!
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
WHEREFORE, GS CleanTech respectfully asks this Court to enter judgment against each Defendant and against their respective subsidiaries, successors, parents, affiliates, officers, directors, agents, servants and employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, granting the following relief:
A. The entry of judgment in favor of GS CleanTech and against each Defendant;
B. A preliminary injunction prohibiting further infringement of the ‘858 and/or ‘516 patents;
C. A permanent injunction prohibiting further infringement of the ‘858 and/or ‘516 patents;
D. An award of damages adequate to compensate GS CleanTech for the infringement that has occurred, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the inventions of the ‘858 and/or ‘516 patents as provided in 35 U.S.C. § 284, together with prejudgment interest from the date the infringement began;
E. An award to GS CleanTech of all remedies available under 35 U.S.C. § 284;
F. An award to GS CleanTech of all remedies available under 35 U.S.C. § 285;
G. An award to GS CleanTech of all remedies available under 35 U.S.C. § 154(d); and
H. Such other relief to which GS CleanTech is entitled under law, and any other and further relief that this Court or a jury may deem just and proper.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b), GS CleanTech demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
SEE HERE
another one for Lincolnway and Amaizing Energy here
[11 total amended complaints]
SkunK
WHEREFORE, GS CleanTech respectfully asks this Court to enter judgment against each Defendant and against their respective subsidiaries, successors, parents, affiliates, officers, directors, agents, servants and employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, granting the following relief:
A. The entry of judgment in favor of GS CleanTech and against each Defendant;
B. A preliminary injunction prohibiting further infringement of the ‘858 and/or ‘516 patents;
C. A permanent injunction prohibiting further infringement of the ‘858 and/or ‘516 patents;
D. An award of damages adequate to compensate GS CleanTech for the infringement that has occurred, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the inventions of the ‘858 and/or ‘516 patents as provided in 35 U.S.C. § 284, together with prejudgment interest from the date the infringement began;
E. An award to GS CleanTech of all remedies available under 35 U.S.C. § 284;
F. An award to GS CleanTech of all remedies available under 35 U.S.C. § 285;
G. An award to GS CleanTech of all remedies available under 35 U.S.C. § 154(d); and
H. Such other relief to which GS CleanTech is entitled under law, and any other and further relief that this Court or a jury may deem just and proper.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b), GS CleanTech demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
SEE HERE
another one for Lincolnway and Amaizing Energy here
[11 total amended complaints]
SkunK
Sunday, February 26, 2012
National Ethanol Conference PIX
The pictures are out for the National Ethanol Conference. Judging by SkunK-Satellite imagery and technical analysis of this name tag, I believe this is the CEO of ICM HERE and also right HERE If you are a supporting sponsor, expect some coverage. Yes Virginia - sponsorship does facilitate coverage. Also HERE.
SkunK
PS. I think I have a Bert Farrish sighting right HERE.
WHO is this in the lower left hand side doing a deal? We finally might? have another picture of the GreenShift CEO - Kevin Kreisler? And who are the other gentlemen? Is that Whit Davis? No drinks - all business. It looks like they are making arangements for a duel - with their serious seconds at their side. lol (Don't get too excited - I said this was just sport!) Ideas?
At the top - right third of this picture I believe that is Dave Winsness looking towards the camera with Bert Farrish to our right. The same fellow with a tote bag from the other Bert Farrish picture seems to still be with Bert. (If you right click on the picture you can change the size for a close up) Here is another much the same
If you go to "original size" (just off center - in the upper right quadrant) you can see a good shot of Bert looking at the camera and Dave Winsness on his phone HERE
I just hope everyone was sitting at the right table during the event. (Looooong, (fabled but true) GreenShifter Joke)
I will try to look through all the photos (like every year) for anything GreenShift. It is a habit forming sport. If you find anything GreenShift - or otherwise interesting - let me know! Any help is appreciated.
PS. I think I have a Bert Farrish sighting right HERE.
WHO is this in the lower left hand side doing a deal? We finally might? have another picture of the GreenShift CEO - Kevin Kreisler? And who are the other gentlemen? Is that Whit Davis? No drinks - all business. It looks like they are making arangements for a duel - with their serious seconds at their side. lol (Don't get too excited - I said this was just sport!) Ideas?
At the top - right third of this picture I believe that is Dave Winsness looking towards the camera with Bert Farrish to our right. The same fellow with a tote bag from the other Bert Farrish picture seems to still be with Bert. (If you right click on the picture you can change the size for a close up) Here is another much the same
If you go to "original size" (just off center - in the upper right quadrant) you can see a good shot of Bert looking at the camera and Dave Winsness on his phone HERE
Friday, February 24, 2012
MAX Stipulation
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED. subject to the Order of this Court, that
1. The Plaintiffs shall have 3 weeks from the entry of this Order to either file an amended complaint or file papers in opposition to the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
2. If the Plaintiffs file an amended complaint, (a) the outstanding Motion to Dismiss will be automatically denied as moot, (b) Defendants will have 3 weeks from the date of the filing of the amended complaint to move against the amended complaint, (c) Plaintiffs will have 3 weeks to file papers in opposition to the motion, (d) any reply papers by the Defendants will be due in 2 weeks after the filing of the Plaintiffs' opposing papers; and (e) any grant of the Motion to Dismiss will be with prejudice.
3. If the Plaintiffs do not file an amended complaint. and instead file papers in opposition \0 the Motion to Dismiss. the Defendants will have 2 weeks in which to file any reply papers. Any grant of the motion to dismiss will be with prejudice.
SEE REST HERE
NOTE: Notice this was signed 31 January and posted (top of page) on Pacer on 22 Feb 2012. I take it the three weeks are already up. We will see if the plaintifs filed anything soon enough . . .
SkunK
GreenShift is of course one of the defendants in this echo of the oil seed crushing plant deal in Montana. If I can SkunK it down a bit the best I can tell the judge is saying to the plaintiffs you have three weeks to "file or get off the pot." [Sorry Ladies, as a rule I do my best to avoid the vulgar, but in cases like this it just fits sooo well.] The judge states twice that any motion to dismiss will be "with prejudice". That is a head bump of a hint in GreenShift's favor. In my opinion - if they do not file within three weeks - these accusations can be considered baseless and GreenShift can stop paying lawyers to defend against baseless accusations. "With prejudice" means they cannot refile the complaint.
"The inverse phrase is dismissal with prejudice, in which the plaintiff is barred from filing another case on the same claim. Dismissal with prejudice is a final judgment and the case becomes res judicata on the claims that were or could have been brought in it; dismissal without prejudice is not." HERE
ps My previous post rant is not exactly in response to anyone's particular post but an attempt to explain what I am trying to do and what I am not trying to do. Confusion develops every once in a while when I do not occasionally explain my purpose. My hobby is to provide informaion. I sometimes provide my opinion. Sometimes I just put out the information. Your job should be to evaluate it. No apologies are desired or required. I just need to explian myself once in a while.
1. The Plaintiffs shall have 3 weeks from the entry of this Order to either file an amended complaint or file papers in opposition to the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.
2. If the Plaintiffs file an amended complaint, (a) the outstanding Motion to Dismiss will be automatically denied as moot, (b) Defendants will have 3 weeks from the date of the filing of the amended complaint to move against the amended complaint, (c) Plaintiffs will have 3 weeks to file papers in opposition to the motion, (d) any reply papers by the Defendants will be due in 2 weeks after the filing of the Plaintiffs' opposing papers; and (e) any grant of the Motion to Dismiss will be with prejudice.
3. If the Plaintiffs do not file an amended complaint. and instead file papers in opposition \0 the Motion to Dismiss. the Defendants will have 2 weeks in which to file any reply papers. Any grant of the motion to dismiss will be with prejudice.
SEE REST HERE
NOTE: Notice this was signed 31 January and posted (top of page) on Pacer on 22 Feb 2012. I take it the three weeks are already up. We will see if the plaintifs filed anything soon enough . . .
SkunK
GreenShift is of course one of the defendants in this echo of the oil seed crushing plant deal in Montana. If I can SkunK it down a bit the best I can tell the judge is saying to the plaintiffs you have three weeks to "file or get off the pot." [Sorry Ladies, as a rule I do my best to avoid the vulgar, but in cases like this it just fits sooo well.] The judge states twice that any motion to dismiss will be "with prejudice". That is a head bump of a hint in GreenShift's favor. In my opinion - if they do not file within three weeks - these accusations can be considered baseless and GreenShift can stop paying lawyers to defend against baseless accusations. "With prejudice" means they cannot refile the complaint.
"The inverse phrase is dismissal with prejudice, in which the plaintiff is barred from filing another case on the same claim. Dismissal with prejudice is a final judgment and the case becomes res judicata on the claims that were or could have been brought in it; dismissal without prejudice is not." HERE
ps My previous post rant is not exactly in response to anyone's particular post but an attempt to explain what I am trying to do and what I am not trying to do. Confusion develops every once in a while when I do not occasionally explain my purpose. My hobby is to provide informaion. I sometimes provide my opinion. Sometimes I just put out the information. Your job should be to evaluate it. No apologies are desired or required. I just need to explian myself once in a while.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Just Released GERS Profile (With Detailed Explanation)
Some of this looks computer generated and dated, but the byline is tomorrow. I'll leave you to measure its weight.
See Here
SkunK
PS - the following is not for the public. Just knowledgeable GreenShifters :~)
If it is GreeenShift and it is current I am posting it. Sometimes the news about GERS is important because it is about GERS. Sometimes the news about GERS is important because it is "computer generated and dated". In either case it is about GERS and is being presented to the public and if you are interested in GERS you need to be aware of it. If you are reading this blog I figure you have a basic knowledge of this company. You might have even picked up the recent MacInvestor may be tied to the same PR-Inside.com that is promoting this "computer generated and dated" report. Interesting they would first predict great things - short term movement on the pps and then push a report for sale a couple days later. This may reveal the business model/income stream for the PR company. Why it is important?
1. Public reads it.
2. Greenshift fit MacInvestor's matrix for promotion
But this has nothing to do with GreenShift right?
Of course I do not think GreenShift initiated or has anything to do with this PR. In fact the original link to the MacInvestor PR has already been broken.
****************
Every once in a while I have to explain the Free Enterprise system to those in the center of it - Stock Holders . . .lol
Every time I give a link to a PR does not mean I personally guarantee everything or anything in it. I consider it is blog-worthy because the public is reading it; it may affect the price and I give you some credit for understanding that. Sometimes I throw out a bone like "computer generated and dated " so I do not have to waste an hour explaining why I posted it. lol. PRs are a for profit enterprise. Somebody has to pay for it. Whoever pays for it has their interests served. So they will pay for more of it. This system is not bad, it is just how things have worked in every functional society since time began. Someone provides a good or service in exchange for receiving a good or service. Money just facilitates making change and keeping score.
If you are reading a subscription newsletter (then you paid for it). If you are reading a PR, then the company featured in it paid for it. In rare cases, (like this) it appears to be it is a chance to generate interest and then sell you a report.
Even if it is in a trade magazines you have to understand the advertisers paid for it. Want to know why the patent litigation is not being covered step by step by the Ethanol/BioDiesel trade magazines? The readers in the industry are clamoring for news! The people who buy full page ads are not doing so good so the coverage is minimal. Advertisers affect coverage. Imagine that. Remember that the next time NBC news does not cover GE's failure to pay any federal taxes. :~)
I realize that everytime I post a PR some will be shocked to find out that someone paid for it. Who paid for it, is of course important and one can normally determine that in the fine print. That it was paid for should not surprise anyone.
Yes, I will continue to post everything current I can find on GreenShift.
No, I will not spend an hour each time explaining why I am posting current information on GreenShift. I have too much respect for my readers, and not enough time in the day for that.
I think I average about one good explanation (rant) every six months . . . so I should be good for a while . . . :~)
See Here
SkunK
PS - the following is not for the public. Just knowledgeable GreenShifters :~)
If it is GreeenShift and it is current I am posting it. Sometimes the news about GERS is important because it is about GERS. Sometimes the news about GERS is important because it is "computer generated and dated". In either case it is about GERS and is being presented to the public and if you are interested in GERS you need to be aware of it. If you are reading this blog I figure you have a basic knowledge of this company. You might have even picked up the recent MacInvestor may be tied to the same PR-Inside.com that is promoting this "computer generated and dated" report. Interesting they would first predict great things - short term movement on the pps and then push a report for sale a couple days later. This may reveal the business model/income stream for the PR company. Why it is important?
1. Public reads it.
2. Greenshift fit MacInvestor's matrix for promotion
But this has nothing to do with GreenShift right?
Of course I do not think GreenShift initiated or has anything to do with this PR. In fact the original link to the MacInvestor PR has already been broken.
****************
Every once in a while I have to explain the Free Enterprise system to those in the center of it - Stock Holders . . .lol
Every time I give a link to a PR does not mean I personally guarantee everything or anything in it. I consider it is blog-worthy because the public is reading it; it may affect the price and I give you some credit for understanding that. Sometimes I throw out a bone like "computer generated and dated " so I do not have to waste an hour explaining why I posted it. lol. PRs are a for profit enterprise. Somebody has to pay for it. Whoever pays for it has their interests served. So they will pay for more of it. This system is not bad, it is just how things have worked in every functional society since time began. Someone provides a good or service in exchange for receiving a good or service. Money just facilitates making change and keeping score.
If you are reading a subscription newsletter (then you paid for it). If you are reading a PR, then the company featured in it paid for it. In rare cases, (like this) it appears to be it is a chance to generate interest and then sell you a report.
Even if it is in a trade magazines you have to understand the advertisers paid for it. Want to know why the patent litigation is not being covered step by step by the Ethanol/BioDiesel trade magazines? The readers in the industry are clamoring for news! The people who buy full page ads are not doing so good so the coverage is minimal. Advertisers affect coverage. Imagine that. Remember that the next time NBC news does not cover GE's failure to pay any federal taxes. :~)
I realize that everytime I post a PR some will be shocked to find out that someone paid for it. Who paid for it, is of course important and one can normally determine that in the fine print. That it was paid for should not surprise anyone.
Yes, I will continue to post everything current I can find on GreenShift.
No, I will not spend an hour each time explaining why I am posting current information on GreenShift. I have too much respect for my readers, and not enough time in the day for that.
I think I average about one good explanation (rant) every six months . . . so I should be good for a while . . . :~)
Great Success!
Unit Holder Letter by Advanced BioEnergy, LLC
"As part of our continued effort to increase the profitability of our assets, we installed corn oil extraction at our Fairmont location which began production in August 2011. This project has been a great success and exceeded our expectations with a quick payback in the first six months of operations."
"Our second installation of corn oil extraction is also well underway at our plant in Aberdeen, South Dakota, with an expected completion date of early April 2012, which will allow us to gain more value from the co-products we produce."
SEE HERE
SkunK
"As part of our continued effort to increase the profitability of our assets, we installed corn oil extraction at our Fairmont location which began production in August 2011. This project has been a great success and exceeded our expectations with a quick payback in the first six months of operations."
"Our second installation of corn oil extraction is also well underway at our plant in Aberdeen, South Dakota, with an expected completion date of early April 2012, which will allow us to gain more value from the co-products we produce."
SEE HERE
SkunK
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Fermenting Ideas for the Future - from the Past
"During cellulose degradation by the fungus Trichoderma reesei, PLUSWave increases the production of fermentable sugars by 40 percent. In the next step, it increases the ability of the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae to ferment sugars to ethanol by 20 percent. In all, the company estimates it could reduce cellulose conversion costs to 1.2 cents per liter. Once the company has a handle on that, there are plans to research a consolidated cellulosic production process that would combine the hydrolysis and fermentation into one step, which would further decrease costs."
Article Here
SkunK
PS "The hydrolysis and fermentation into one step?" They have been doing that with SAKE in Japan for at least the last 13 centuries.
Article Here
SkunK
PS "The hydrolysis and fermentation into one step?" They have been doing that with SAKE in Japan for at least the last 13 centuries.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
MACinvestorAwareness
$tock alert for today: ** GreenShift Corporation (GERS) expecting BIG gains tomorrow and through the week. Potentially 75% +! GERS.ob closed at $0.11 per share on Friday. GERS is incredibly undervalued!
SEE REST OF ARTICLE HERE
SkunK
Is this a signal the Shareholder letter will be released during this short trading week? If it is to come this week I would expect it today. More information on this PR service here. Tomorrow is the start of the National Ethanol Conference. Another reason news might be released today.
SEE REST OF ARTICLE HERE
SkunK
Is this a signal the Shareholder letter will be released during this short trading week? If it is to come this week I would expect it today. More information on this PR service here. Tomorrow is the start of the National Ethanol Conference. Another reason news might be released today.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
GPRE 10-K
Corn Oil Production Segment
"We initiated corn oil production in the fourth quarter of 2010 with the acquisition of our Lakota and Riga ethanol plants and installation and deployment of corn oil extraction technology at our Obion and Ord ethanol plants. In 2011, we deployed corn oil extraction technology at our other ethanol plants. We currently have the capacity to produce approximately 130.0 million pounds of corn oil annually. During the year ended December 31, 2011, we sold 96.3 million pounds of corn oil compared to 5.0 million pounds in 2010." p. 41
***************
"A sensitivity analysis has been prepared to estimate our corn oil production segment exposure to corn oil price risk. Market risk related to these factors is estimated as the potential change in net income resulting from hypothetical 10% changes in prices of our expected corn oil output for a one-year period from December 31, 2011. This analysis includes the impact of risk management activities that result from our use of fixed-price sale contracts. Market risk at December 31, 2011, based on the estimated net income effect resulting from a hypothetical 10% change in such prices, was approximately $0.4 million." p. 50
****************
"The Company produces corn oil at all nine of its ethanol plants within the corn oil production segment, which have the capacity to produce approximately 130 million pounds annually. The Company operates its corn oil extraction systems through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Green Plains Commodities LLC. The corn oil systems are designed to extract non-edible corn oil from the whole silage process immediately prior to production of distillers grains. Industrial uses for corn oil include feedstock for biodiesel, livestock feed additives, rubber substitutes, rust preventatives, inks, textiles, soaps and insecticides." p. F-7
SkunK Note Above: For a segment of readers it may be enlightening to realize GPRE also has segmented its COES business using a non public, wholly-owned subsidiary - in this case Green Plains Commodities LLC. This helps focus internal responsibility and accountability in the segment - even though, (like GreenShift/CleanTech) the public books are published as a single entity. This is a common business practice.
*****************
"(4) Soybean oil options are used to hedge corn oil." F-21
*****************
See GPRE 10K Here
****************
Lots of Information about corn oil in this 10-K. Feel free to do a "edit", "find on this page" search of corn oil to see each reference. I selected just a few that were new or interesting to me.
SkunK
"We initiated corn oil production in the fourth quarter of 2010 with the acquisition of our Lakota and Riga ethanol plants and installation and deployment of corn oil extraction technology at our Obion and Ord ethanol plants. In 2011, we deployed corn oil extraction technology at our other ethanol plants. We currently have the capacity to produce approximately 130.0 million pounds of corn oil annually. During the year ended December 31, 2011, we sold 96.3 million pounds of corn oil compared to 5.0 million pounds in 2010." p. 41
***************
"A sensitivity analysis has been prepared to estimate our corn oil production segment exposure to corn oil price risk. Market risk related to these factors is estimated as the potential change in net income resulting from hypothetical 10% changes in prices of our expected corn oil output for a one-year period from December 31, 2011. This analysis includes the impact of risk management activities that result from our use of fixed-price sale contracts. Market risk at December 31, 2011, based on the estimated net income effect resulting from a hypothetical 10% change in such prices, was approximately $0.4 million." p. 50
****************
"The Company produces corn oil at all nine of its ethanol plants within the corn oil production segment, which have the capacity to produce approximately 130 million pounds annually. The Company operates its corn oil extraction systems through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Green Plains Commodities LLC. The corn oil systems are designed to extract non-edible corn oil from the whole silage process immediately prior to production of distillers grains. Industrial uses for corn oil include feedstock for biodiesel, livestock feed additives, rubber substitutes, rust preventatives, inks, textiles, soaps and insecticides." p. F-7
SkunK Note Above: For a segment of readers it may be enlightening to realize GPRE also has segmented its COES business using a non public, wholly-owned subsidiary - in this case Green Plains Commodities LLC. This helps focus internal responsibility and accountability in the segment - even though, (like GreenShift/CleanTech) the public books are published as a single entity. This is a common business practice.
*****************
"(4) Soybean oil options are used to hedge corn oil." F-21
*****************
See GPRE 10K Here
****************
Lots of Information about corn oil in this 10-K. Feel free to do a "edit", "find on this page" search of corn oil to see each reference. I selected just a few that were new or interesting to me.
SkunK
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Independent Patent Litigation Coverage
Thanks to vineyardstock on I-Hub for finding this article below:
Indianapolis, IN -
Senior Judge Larry J. McKinney of the Southern District of Indiana has allowed an additional patent to be added to a complex patent infringement suit over Ethanol byproducts. The plaintiff in this case, GS CleanTech Corporation of New York, New York had requested to amend its complaint to add infringement claim regarding patent no. 8,008,516, which has been
issued by the US Patent Office, to the lawsuit.
The REST OF THE ARTICLE HERE
It appears that at the bottom of the article is also quite a few articles that I also missed.
SkunK
Indianapolis, IN -
Senior Judge Larry J. McKinney of the Southern District of Indiana has allowed an additional patent to be added to a complex patent infringement suit over Ethanol byproducts. The plaintiff in this case, GS CleanTech Corporation of New York, New York had requested to amend its complaint to add infringement claim regarding patent no. 8,008,516, which has been
issued by the US Patent Office, to the lawsuit.The REST OF THE ARTICLE HERE
It appears that at the bottom of the article is also quite a few articles that I also missed.
SkunK
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Lincolnway's View of Litigation
Here is the view of the COES litigation as presented to Lincolway stakeholders by Lincolnway Energy in their just released 10Q:
"A Complaint for Patent Infringement was filed against Lincolnway Energy and certain other parties on May 3, 2010 by GS CleanTech Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of GreenShift Corporation. The Complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, Western Division, as Case No. 5:10-cv-04036. The Complaint alleges, in general, that the corn oil extraction equipment and related processes used by Lincolnway Energy and the other parties infringes upon one or more of the claims under certain patents held by GS CleanTech Corporation. The Complaint seeks injunctive relief, an award of damages with interest, and any other remedies available under certain patent statutes or otherwise under law. The Complaint claims damages of at least a reasonable royalty rate and lost profits. The Complaint also alleges that the alleged infringing conduct by Lincolnway Energy is willful, resulting in the right to recover treble damages and attorney fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §284. The case was transferred on August 6, 2010 to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana pursuant to Multi-District Litigation proceedings, as Case No. 1:10-ml-02181. The initial claims construction hearing has been held, and the United States District Court has construed the disputed terms. Various discovery activities, motions and other procedural actions have also been made or taken. Lincolnway Energy is, however, unable to determine as of the date of this quarterly report if the Complaint will have a material adverse effect on Lincolnway Energy." p. 21
View HERE
SkunK
Not an exact science, but I put in bold the area of change since their 10K - not quite 3 months ago.
"A Complaint for Patent Infringement was filed against Lincolnway Energy and certain other parties on May 3, 2010 by GS CleanTech Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of GreenShift Corporation. The Complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, Western Division, as Case No. 5:10-cv-04036. The Complaint alleges, in general, that the corn oil extraction equipment and related processes used by Lincolnway Energy and the other parties infringes upon one or more of the claims under certain patents held by GS CleanTech Corporation. The Complaint seeks injunctive relief, an award of damages with interest, and any other remedies available under certain patent statutes or otherwise under law. The Complaint claims damages of at least a reasonable royalty rate and lost profits. The Complaint also alleges that the alleged infringing conduct by Lincolnway Energy is willful, resulting in the right to recover treble damages and attorney fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §284. The case was transferred on August 6, 2010 to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana pursuant to Multi-District Litigation proceedings, as Case No. 1:10-ml-02181. The initial claims construction hearing has been held, and the United States District Court has construed the disputed terms. Various discovery activities, motions and other procedural actions have also been made or taken. Lincolnway Energy is, however, unable to determine as of the date of this quarterly report if the Complaint will have a material adverse effect on Lincolnway Energy." p. 21
View HERE
SkunK
Not an exact science, but I put in bold the area of change since their 10K - not quite 3 months ago.
ADVANCED BIOENERGY 10-Q
The credit agreement was amended in December 2011 to allow the Company to install corn oil extraction technology in its Aberdeen facility. p.13
Corn oil is produced by processing evaporated thin stillage through a disk stack style centrifuge. Corn oil has a lower density than water or solids that make up the syrup. The centrifuges separate the relatively light oil from the heavier components of the syrup, eliminating the need for significant retention time. De-oiled syrup is returned to the process for blending into wet, modified, or dry distillers grains. The corn oil is then pumped into storage tanks before being loaded onto trucks for sale. p.22
We are also adding additional fermentation capacity at our Fairmont facility, and corn oil extraction technology at our Aberdeen facility. p.22
Pounds of Corn Oil Produced: 4,840,000 @ .36/pound for the three months ended December 31, 2011. p.23
Approximately 90 ethanol plants in the United States currently have oil extraction capabilities, with more being added. p.27
SEE HERE
SkunK
Of course, Advanced BioEnergy COES is featured in the GreenShift video HERE. The video recently went over 2K views!
PS from the Debt Agreement
COES Project Completion Date Certain” means September 30, 2012 p.4
Homework: You can read ahead below:
REDTRAIL Energy 10Q
Lincolnway Energy 10Q
Corn oil is produced by processing evaporated thin stillage through a disk stack style centrifuge. Corn oil has a lower density than water or solids that make up the syrup. The centrifuges separate the relatively light oil from the heavier components of the syrup, eliminating the need for significant retention time. De-oiled syrup is returned to the process for blending into wet, modified, or dry distillers grains. The corn oil is then pumped into storage tanks before being loaded onto trucks for sale. p.22
We are also adding additional fermentation capacity at our Fairmont facility, and corn oil extraction technology at our Aberdeen facility. p.22
Pounds of Corn Oil Produced: 4,840,000 @ .36/pound for the three months ended December 31, 2011. p.23
Approximately 90 ethanol plants in the United States currently have oil extraction capabilities, with more being added. p.27
SEE HERE
SkunK
Of course, Advanced BioEnergy COES is featured in the GreenShift video HERE. The video recently went over 2K views!
PS from the Debt Agreement
COES Project Completion Date Certain” means September 30, 2012 p.4
Homework: You can read ahead below:
REDTRAIL Energy 10Q
Lincolnway Energy 10Q
Poet and Valero Update
Poet Ethanol uses a low-energy BPX fermentation process, called cold-cook, that eliminates heat from fermentation. The corn oil is captured on the back end of the process after BPX and marketed under the name Voilà . The technology has been installed in six Poet plants, with more on the way this year. The combined production of the six plants will total 12 million gallons of corn oil per year for use as a biodiesel feedstock by the end of 2011.
Valero Energy completed modifications on its first plant for corn oil extraction in November, and is capturing 1½ lb. to 2 lb. of oil per bushel of corn. The Fort Dodge, Iowa, facility is the first of four plants that will be modified with ICM Technologies’ Advanced Oil System to capture corn oil. In this process, the oil is separated after the slurry is cooked, before fermentation and distillery.
The cost to update each of Valero’s plants is about $4 million, says Bill Day, communications representative for the company.
The decision on whether to convert more of Valero’s 10 ethanol plants will be made early this year, he says.
SEE all HERE
SkunK
OPINION - If you cannot handle it do not read it - lol
The claim of "2#" of corn oil/ bushel is rather unique, since if I was paying attention in COES school a bushel of corn only contains 2# of oil to start with. 100% extraction . . . . . hmmmm, I wonder if someone got something incorrect here. Buzz Aldrin may have planted the American Flag on the moon, but the SkunK plants the BS Flag right here. [All you college boys know that BS stands for "Bachelor of Science" - right?] I am not saying they are wrong - but all of a sudden I am from Missouri - show me!
If they were getting 100% extraction I wonder if the decision to implement in all the plants would still be in question?
Valero Energy completed modifications on its first plant for corn oil extraction in November, and is capturing 1½ lb. to 2 lb. of oil per bushel of corn. The Fort Dodge, Iowa, facility is the first of four plants that will be modified with ICM Technologies’ Advanced Oil System to capture corn oil. In this process, the oil is separated after the slurry is cooked, before fermentation and distillery.
The cost to update each of Valero’s plants is about $4 million, says Bill Day, communications representative for the company.
The decision on whether to convert more of Valero’s 10 ethanol plants will be made early this year, he says.
SEE all HERE
SkunK
OPINION - If you cannot handle it do not read it - lol
The claim of "2#" of corn oil/ bushel is rather unique, since if I was paying attention in COES school a bushel of corn only contains 2# of oil to start with. 100% extraction . . . . . hmmmm, I wonder if someone got something incorrect here. Buzz Aldrin may have planted the American Flag on the moon, but the SkunK plants the BS Flag right here. [All you college boys know that BS stands for "Bachelor of Science" - right?] I am not saying they are wrong - but all of a sudden I am from Missouri - show me!
If they were getting 100% extraction I wonder if the decision to implement in all the plants would still be in question?
Wisdom
One of the things I like about this GreenShift hobby of mine is I cross paths with some great people. I got a personal email tonight from a fellow investor. With his permission I pass on this portion with its "kernel of wisdom" - found along life's sometimes rough road.
**********************
Dear SkunK,
I hope all is well with you and Mrs. SkunK. It's been a while since I have written - as you may recall from my last correspondence I was getting involved in some litigation of an unfortunate nature. This lawsuit has halted my ability to add to my holdings in Greenshift but now that it is basically over I hope to add more. Going through the lawsuit I bumped into a kernel of wisdom that I thought you might enjoy.
During the trial the judge made a comment which I thought was absolutely brilliant. After a passionate plea from my attorney the judge responded with, “I cannot make people be reasonable, I can only make them wish that they had been.” One rarely encounters such wisdom face to face. I hope the infringers come to their senses soon and settle, I believe they will regret not doing so.
Thanks again for all you do.
M-
*************************
SkunK
**********************
Dear SkunK,
I hope all is well with you and Mrs. SkunK. It's been a while since I have written - as you may recall from my last correspondence I was getting involved in some litigation of an unfortunate nature. This lawsuit has halted my ability to add to my holdings in Greenshift but now that it is basically over I hope to add more. Going through the lawsuit I bumped into a kernel of wisdom that I thought you might enjoy.
During the trial the judge made a comment which I thought was absolutely brilliant. After a passionate plea from my attorney the judge responded with, “I cannot make people be reasonable, I can only make them wish that they had been.” One rarely encounters such wisdom face to face. I hope the infringers come to their senses soon and settle, I believe they will regret not doing so.
Thanks again for all you do.
M-
*************************
SkunK
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Ethanol producers deal with low demand
“It’s safe to say that majority of producers are in the red,” said Rick Brehm, president of Lincolnway Energy in Nevada.
The losses came quickly for ethanol, which as recently as November enjoyed profit margins averaging 71 cents per gallon, highest in five years, according to Iowa State University reserach.
SEE all HERE
SkunK
The losses came quickly for ethanol, which as recently as November enjoyed profit margins averaging 71 cents per gallon, highest in five years, according to Iowa State University reserach.
SEE all HERE
SkunK
GPRE Conference Call
Only takes 72 hours to slow and Ethanol plant by 30%. Two of their plants are now running at 70% production. They run analysis daily on each plant to determine if to pull back or expand.
SEE HERE
Hear Here
SkunK
184.6 Million gallons Ethanol in 3Q/32.7 million pounds of corn oil
181.0 Million gallons Ethanol in 4Q/31.9 million pounds of corn oil
GPRE had a 12 day shutdown in one of the biggest Ethanol plants in 4Q.
Reduction of 2% in Ethanol Production between 3rd and 4th quarters
Reduction in 2.5% in Corn oil Production between 3rd and 4th quarters
SEE HERE
Hear Here
SkunK
184.6 Million gallons Ethanol in 3Q/32.7 million pounds of corn oil
181.0 Million gallons Ethanol in 4Q/31.9 million pounds of corn oil
GPRE had a 12 day shutdown in one of the biggest Ethanol plants in 4Q.
Reduction of 2% in Ethanol Production between 3rd and 4th quarters
Reduction in 2.5% in Corn oil Production between 3rd and 4th quarters
Friday, February 10, 2012
Indemnification
It has been awhile since I talked about this concept. Allow me to try a mind experiment and SkunK it down a bit.
Say you ran across a home insurance policy that cost half of what you are paying now. Sound like a deal? For round numbers, say the liquid assets of the insurance company were a million dollars. Your house was insured for 500K. Still sounds like a deal - right? What if you had 10 neighbors on the same block who also had their house insured for 500K with the same company? If one house burns down the company can cover - no problem. If two houses burn down, the company can still cover.
What I forgot to tell you, the houses are really condominiums and the Insurance company has their $1M office in the center condo. They all share external walls. In fact, it is hard to come up with a scenario where only a single condo or two burns. If one burns they will all burn. Does that really sound like a "good deal" now?
If there is no fire - no problem. However you paid the premiums to protect you from a fire. You have to ask yourself - if there is a fire - how will the insurance company apply their liquid $1M in claim assets:
a. to rebuild their $1M office?
b. divide it among the 11 claims so each gets less than 100K?
c. on lawyer fees to delay having to pay out at all?
Notice none of the answers say pay all their claims in a timely matter. Because this insurance company cannot. The math does even come close to adding up.
************************
By the end of last year GreenShift passed into profitability. They did not have to make a big announcement. The only ones reading the GreenShift filings closer than GreenShift investors are the defendants in the litigation. I am sure the defendants would be rather reading ICM's filings but they cannot - since ICM is a private company. At the last 10KGreenShift had about 14 full time employees. In hard times it is all about overhead and the lack thereof. Compare a profitable small company having 14 employees and a leased office in Alpharetta, Geogia to ICM's overhead. Has anyone built an ethanol plant lately? If this becomes a war of attrition GreenShift can attrite all day long.
*************************
Smarter people than me can do the real math but lets just get a feel for it. Cardinal had $2,508,570 in corn oil revenues in the last quarter. Cardinal announced the price of corn oil recently dropped to 32 cents a pound. On an annual rate, using a 20% royalty that is just over $2M. At treble damages that is $6M . The patent application goes back to 2004, but say the average COE system did not get up and running until February of 2008. For just 4 years the total is $24M to indemnify one customer. Without adding in the rest of the customers, personal liabilities, the liabilities of he who indemnifies and all sorts of other costs the loser might have to pay and one can see that the numbers may quickly move into the "Carl Sagan" levels.
Maybe I am wrong but the cheap condo insurance may not be quite the bargain - if the only time you need it, there is not enough to go around.
SkunK
Say you ran across a home insurance policy that cost half of what you are paying now. Sound like a deal? For round numbers, say the liquid assets of the insurance company were a million dollars. Your house was insured for 500K. Still sounds like a deal - right? What if you had 10 neighbors on the same block who also had their house insured for 500K with the same company? If one house burns down the company can cover - no problem. If two houses burn down, the company can still cover.
What I forgot to tell you, the houses are really condominiums and the Insurance company has their $1M office in the center condo. They all share external walls. In fact, it is hard to come up with a scenario where only a single condo or two burns. If one burns they will all burn. Does that really sound like a "good deal" now?
If there is no fire - no problem. However you paid the premiums to protect you from a fire. You have to ask yourself - if there is a fire - how will the insurance company apply their liquid $1M in claim assets:
a. to rebuild their $1M office?
b. divide it among the 11 claims so each gets less than 100K?
c. on lawyer fees to delay having to pay out at all?
Notice none of the answers say pay all their claims in a timely matter. Because this insurance company cannot. The math does even come close to adding up.
************************
By the end of last year GreenShift passed into profitability. They did not have to make a big announcement. The only ones reading the GreenShift filings closer than GreenShift investors are the defendants in the litigation. I am sure the defendants would be rather reading ICM's filings but they cannot - since ICM is a private company. At the last 10KGreenShift had about 14 full time employees. In hard times it is all about overhead and the lack thereof. Compare a profitable small company having 14 employees and a leased office in Alpharetta, Geogia to ICM's overhead. Has anyone built an ethanol plant lately? If this becomes a war of attrition GreenShift can attrite all day long.
*************************
Smarter people than me can do the real math but lets just get a feel for it. Cardinal had $2,508,570 in corn oil revenues in the last quarter. Cardinal announced the price of corn oil recently dropped to 32 cents a pound. On an annual rate, using a 20% royalty that is just over $2M. At treble damages that is $6M . The patent application goes back to 2004, but say the average COE system did not get up and running until February of 2008. For just 4 years the total is $24M to indemnify one customer. Without adding in the rest of the customers, personal liabilities, the liabilities of he who indemnifies and all sorts of other costs the loser might have to pay and one can see that the numbers may quickly move into the "Carl Sagan" levels.
Maybe I am wrong but the cheap condo insurance may not be quite the bargain - if the only time you need it, there is not enough to go around.
SkunK
Some Mo' Nice Wins
"Accordingly, the Court must DENY ICM’s Motion to Dismiss Mr. Vander Griend as a party-defendant."
"Accordingly, as to the ‘517 Patent, ICM has not carried its burden of showing that under all the circumstances there is a substantial controversy and the Court DENIES ICM’s Motion to Amend as to the ‘517 Patent."
"However, to the extent that ICM moves to amend its Complaint to include the ‘516 Patent, the Court GRANTS the Motion."
"For the foregoing reasons the Court DENIES ICM’s Motion [master dkt. no. 163] to the extent that it seeks to dismiss David J. Vander Griend as a party and to the extent that it seeks to Amend ICM’s declaratory judgment complaint to include the ‘517 Patent. The Court GRANTS ICM’s Motion [master dkt. no. 163] to the extent that it seeks to Amend ICM’s declaratory judgment complaint to include the ‘516 Patent."
SEE HERE
SkunK
Declaratory-Judgment Actions in Patent Litigation is half way down after going to this link.
Cardinal 10Q is out!
Cardinal is one of the original defendants in the COES litigation. We have followed their corn oil extraction progress in numerous blogs since 2008. After [I think I can fairly say] "struggles" with extraction, in the past year they have been using a chemical additive to boost production. They have now reached 1/2# of corn oil per bushel of corn. However, they recently have had production isssues and fell below that 1/2 pound mark. In January of 2012 they paid off their 2008 COEs loan. ******************
The Company's plant has an approximate annual [Ethanol] production capacity of 100 million gallons
p. 8
Corn Oil
Our corn oil sales increased in the three month period ended December 31, 2011 as compared to the same period in 2010 as a result of increased production in the three month period ended December 31, 2011. Management continues to refine the operation of our corn oil extraction equipment. In March and April 2011, we began testing a chemical additive to assist in the extraction process and improve oil production. In our third fiscal quarter of 2011, we achieved in excess of one-half pound of corn oil per bushel of corn ground. This represents a significant increase in production over prior years. Recent production issues have resulted in a lowered yields. However, management expects yields to continue to average one-half pound of corn oil per bushel of corn ground once production issues are resolved.
The average price per pound of corn oil increased for the quarter ended December 31, 2011 as compared to the same quarter in 2010. However, we experienced a significant decline in corn oil prices to approximately $0.32 per pound by the end of the quarter. Management expects corn oil prices will remain relatively steady in the near term but could continue to decrease due to the elimination of the biodiesel tax credit or if there is an oversupply of biodiesel. P.22
See here
SkunK
The Company's plant has an approximate annual [Ethanol] production capacity of 100 million gallons
p. 8
Corn Oil
Our corn oil sales increased in the three month period ended December 31, 2011 as compared to the same period in 2010 as a result of increased production in the three month period ended December 31, 2011. Management continues to refine the operation of our corn oil extraction equipment. In March and April 2011, we began testing a chemical additive to assist in the extraction process and improve oil production. In our third fiscal quarter of 2011, we achieved in excess of one-half pound of corn oil per bushel of corn ground. This represents a significant increase in production over prior years. Recent production issues have resulted in a lowered yields. However, management expects yields to continue to average one-half pound of corn oil per bushel of corn ground once production issues are resolved.
The average price per pound of corn oil increased for the quarter ended December 31, 2011 as compared to the same quarter in 2010. However, we experienced a significant decline in corn oil prices to approximately $0.32 per pound by the end of the quarter. Management expects corn oil prices will remain relatively steady in the near term but could continue to decrease due to the elimination of the biodiesel tax credit or if there is an oversupply of biodiesel. P.22
See here
SkunK
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Gas consumption lowest since 1999
"U.S. drivers used 2.8 percent less motor gasoline last year and consumed the smallest amount since 1999, the U.S. Department of Energy said Wednesday. Officials credited the decrease to more fuel-efficient cars and an aging population taking few trips."
“We’re a captive of the gasoline market,” said Rick Brehm, president of Lincolnway Energy in Nevada.
“If overall gasoline demand is down, which it is, we’ll sell less ethanol.”
SEE HERE
SkunK Comment
As ethanol production peaks or even slides back due to the lack of gasoline demand, the amount of corn oil available for extraction does the same. Luckily, I have read nothing yet to suggest that there is a glut of corn oil. If the demand for corn oil remains strong, while the ethanol demand weakens, ethanol producers will be pushed to extract additional oil per bushel of corn to maintain profitability.
SkunK
PS Lincolnway Energy is in Nevada, Iowa and they are one of the original defendants in the GERS COES Litigation.
“We’re a captive of the gasoline market,” said Rick Brehm, president of Lincolnway Energy in Nevada.
“If overall gasoline demand is down, which it is, we’ll sell less ethanol.”
SEE HERE
SkunK Comment
As ethanol production peaks or even slides back due to the lack of gasoline demand, the amount of corn oil available for extraction does the same. Luckily, I have read nothing yet to suggest that there is a glut of corn oil. If the demand for corn oil remains strong, while the ethanol demand weakens, ethanol producers will be pushed to extract additional oil per bushel of corn to maintain profitability.
SkunK
PS Lincolnway Energy is in Nevada, Iowa and they are one of the original defendants in the GERS COES Litigation.
GPRE 4Q Results
The corn oil production and agribusiness segments generated $9.0 million and $7.8 million of operating income in the quarter, respectively. P.1
During 2011, Green Plains completed the installation of corn oil extraction equipment at its ethanol plants. The Company expects to produce approximately 130 million pounds of corn oil annually from its nine plants. P.1
Corn Oil Production Segment Green Plains initiated corn oil production in the fourth quarter of 2010. By September 30, 2011, corn oil extraction equipment was deployed at all nine of the Company’s ethanol plants. During the fourth quarter of 2011, the Company produced 31.9 million pounds of corn oil generating operating income of $9.0 million, compared to 5.0 million pounds and $0.9 million, respectively, for the fourth quarter of 2010. For the full year of 2011, the Company produced 96.3 million pounds of corn oil compared to 5.0 million pounds in 2010 period. P.5
Press Release HERE
SkunK
Looks like "mitoo" on I-Hub was the first to beat "meto" this one. HERE
GPRE is GreenShift's biggest known customer. Looks like corn oil production just held steady from the 3Q. Of course, Corn Oil Production is directly linked to ethanol production. I think they may have limited ethanol production in the 4Q although I cannot find a direct comparison of 3Q-4Q Ethanol Production yet. This quote hints at that:
“Since late in the year spot ethanol margins have compressed. We are maintaining our disciplined approach to managing commodity risks and are continually assessing production levels to optimize our operating performance".
Quote from the 3Q report here:
". . .the company produced 32.7 million pounds of corn oil and generated operating income of $9.6 million,"
During 2011, Green Plains completed the installation of corn oil extraction equipment at its ethanol plants. The Company expects to produce approximately 130 million pounds of corn oil annually from its nine plants. P.1
Corn Oil Production Segment Green Plains initiated corn oil production in the fourth quarter of 2010. By September 30, 2011, corn oil extraction equipment was deployed at all nine of the Company’s ethanol plants. During the fourth quarter of 2011, the Company produced 31.9 million pounds of corn oil generating operating income of $9.0 million, compared to 5.0 million pounds and $0.9 million, respectively, for the fourth quarter of 2010. For the full year of 2011, the Company produced 96.3 million pounds of corn oil compared to 5.0 million pounds in 2010 period. P.5
Press Release HERE
SkunK
Looks like "mitoo" on I-Hub was the first to beat "meto" this one. HERE
GPRE is GreenShift's biggest known customer. Looks like corn oil production just held steady from the 3Q. Of course, Corn Oil Production is directly linked to ethanol production. I think they may have limited ethanol production in the 4Q although I cannot find a direct comparison of 3Q-4Q Ethanol Production yet. This quote hints at that:
“Since late in the year spot ethanol margins have compressed. We are maintaining our disciplined approach to managing commodity risks and are continually assessing production levels to optimize our operating performance".
Quote from the 3Q report here:
". . .the company produced 32.7 million pounds of corn oil and generated operating income of $9.6 million,"
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
SIRE 10-K
No astrix's "***" , secret codes or euphemisms here. In SOUTHWEST IOWA RENEWABLE ENERGY (SIRE) Annual Report - just out - they talk frankly about their corn oil extraction process.
"During Fiscal 2011 we installed an ICM corn oil extraction system and began selling corn oil. This system separates corn oil from the post-fermentation syrup stream as it leaves the evaporators of the ethanol plant. The corn oil is then routed to storage tanks, and the remaining concentrated syrup is routed to the plant’s syrup tank. Corn oil can be marketed as either a feed additive or a biodiesel feedstock. We sold 5,858 tons of corn oil in Fiscal 2011, representing approximately 2% of our revenue." page 3 10-k
Why did they make this decision? I always hear that question. So today I nimbly suggest a "possible" answer to the highly refined reader. (Or should I say I allow SIRE to suggest the reason?) You decide.
First, with a little digging one finds ICM is an owner of SIRE:
"As of September 30, 2011, we had (i) 8,805 Series A Units issued and outstanding held by 811 persons, (ii) 3,334 Series B Units issued and outstanding held by Bunge, and (iii) 1,000 Series C Units issued and outstanding held by ICM." page 25
ICM is also a large creditor to SIRE:
"On June 17, 2010, ICM, Inc. (“ICM”) issued the a term note to the Company (the “ICM Term Note”) in the amount of $9,970,000, which is convertible at the option of ICM into Series C Units at a conversion price of $3,000 per unit. As of September 30, 2011 and 2010, there was $10,903,000 and $10,061,000 outstanding under the ICM Term Note, respectively, and approximately $146,500 and $139,000 of accrued interest due (including accrued expense, related party) to ICM, respectively." page 48
ICM also has a Director on the Board
"Additionally, ICM, as the sole Series C Unit owner, is afforded the right to elect one Series C Director to the Board so long as ICM remains a Series C Member." page 53
"Gregory P. Krissek, a Director, is Director of Government Affairs, ICM, Inc., an international agribusiness technology company." page 1
ICM has got other "by name" deals before
Additionally, to induce ICM to agree to the ICM Term Note, the Company entered into an equity agreement with ICM (the “ICM Equity Agreement”) on June 17, 2010, whereby ICM (i) retains preemptive rights to purchase new securities in the Company, and (ii) receives 24% of the proceeds received by the Company from the issuance of equity or debt securities.
ICM Tricanter Agreement
"In the Tricanter Agreement, ICM agreed to indemnify and hold us harmless from all claims arising out of the infringement of adversely owned patents, copyrights or any other intellectual property rights in connection with our purchase and/or use of the Tricanter Equipment. As of June 30, 2011, we have paid $2,592,500 to ICM for the Tricanter Agreement." page 65
On page 65 their is a summary of SIRE's relationship with ICM.
Now that you know about the relationship, lets listen to what SIRE says about their operation on page 17:
"Our directors have other business and management responsibilities that may cause conflicts of interest in their services to the Company.
Since we are managed both by our officers and to some extent by the Board, the devotion of the directors’ time to the project is critical. However, the directors have other management responsibilities and business interests apart from our project. Most particularly, our directors who were nominated by Bunge and ICM have duties and responsibilities to those companies which may conflict with our interests. As a result, our directors may experience conflicts of interest in allocating their time and services between us and their other business responsibilities. No formal procedures have been established to address or resolve these conflicts of interest"
"We may have conflicting financial interests with Bunge and ICM that could cause them to put their financial interests ahead of ours."
"ICM and Bunge advise our directors and have been, and are expected to be, involved in substantially all material aspects of our financing and operations. We have entered into a number of material commercial arrangements with Bunge, as described elsewhere in this report. Consequently, the terms and conditions of our agreements with ICM and Bunge have not been negotiated at arm’s length. Therefore, these arrangements may not be as favorable to us as could have been if obtained from unaffiliated third parties. Most of the cost of our project has been paid to ICM for the design and construction of the Facility. In addition, because of the extensive roles that ICM and Bunge had, it may be difficult or impossible for us to enforce claims that we may have against ICM or Bunge. Such conflicts of interest may reduce our profitability and the value of the Units and could result in reduced distributions to investors.
ICM, Bunge and Holdings and their respective affiliates may also have conflicts of interest because ICM, Bunge and Holdings and their respective employees or agents are involved as owners, creditors and in other capacities."
*****************************
SkunK
PS Also note the international flair to the selling of DDGs. As we talked about before DDGs are now an international feedstock - not limited to the local market.
"We sell our dried distiller’s grains with soluble in the continental United States, Mexico and the Pacific Rim."
***********
NOTE: As always, I sometimes add an underline in quotes whenever I feel the urge.
"During Fiscal 2011 we installed an ICM corn oil extraction system and began selling corn oil. This system separates corn oil from the post-fermentation syrup stream as it leaves the evaporators of the ethanol plant. The corn oil is then routed to storage tanks, and the remaining concentrated syrup is routed to the plant’s syrup tank. Corn oil can be marketed as either a feed additive or a biodiesel feedstock. We sold 5,858 tons of corn oil in Fiscal 2011, representing approximately 2% of our revenue." page 3 10-k
Why did they make this decision? I always hear that question. So today I nimbly suggest a "possible" answer to the highly refined reader. (Or should I say I allow SIRE to suggest the reason?) You decide.
First, with a little digging one finds ICM is an owner of SIRE:
"As of September 30, 2011, we had (i) 8,805 Series A Units issued and outstanding held by 811 persons, (ii) 3,334 Series B Units issued and outstanding held by Bunge, and (iii) 1,000 Series C Units issued and outstanding held by ICM." page 25
ICM is also a large creditor to SIRE:
"On June 17, 2010, ICM, Inc. (“ICM”) issued the a term note to the Company (the “ICM Term Note”) in the amount of $9,970,000, which is convertible at the option of ICM into Series C Units at a conversion price of $3,000 per unit. As of September 30, 2011 and 2010, there was $10,903,000 and $10,061,000 outstanding under the ICM Term Note, respectively, and approximately $146,500 and $139,000 of accrued interest due (including accrued expense, related party) to ICM, respectively." page 48
ICM also has a Director on the Board
"Additionally, ICM, as the sole Series C Unit owner, is afforded the right to elect one Series C Director to the Board so long as ICM remains a Series C Member." page 53
"Gregory P. Krissek, a Director, is Director of Government Affairs, ICM, Inc., an international agribusiness technology company." page 1
ICM has got other "by name" deals before
Additionally, to induce ICM to agree to the ICM Term Note, the Company entered into an equity agreement with ICM (the “ICM Equity Agreement”) on June 17, 2010, whereby ICM (i) retains preemptive rights to purchase new securities in the Company, and (ii) receives 24% of the proceeds received by the Company from the issuance of equity or debt securities.
ICM Tricanter Agreement
"In the Tricanter Agreement, ICM agreed to indemnify and hold us harmless from all claims arising out of the infringement of adversely owned patents, copyrights or any other intellectual property rights in connection with our purchase and/or use of the Tricanter Equipment. As of June 30, 2011, we have paid $2,592,500 to ICM for the Tricanter Agreement." page 65
On page 65 their is a summary of SIRE's relationship with ICM.
Now that you know about the relationship, lets listen to what SIRE says about their operation on page 17:
"Our directors have other business and management responsibilities that may cause conflicts of interest in their services to the Company.
Since we are managed both by our officers and to some extent by the Board, the devotion of the directors’ time to the project is critical. However, the directors have other management responsibilities and business interests apart from our project. Most particularly, our directors who were nominated by Bunge and ICM have duties and responsibilities to those companies which may conflict with our interests. As a result, our directors may experience conflicts of interest in allocating their time and services between us and their other business responsibilities. No formal procedures have been established to address or resolve these conflicts of interest"
"We may have conflicting financial interests with Bunge and ICM that could cause them to put their financial interests ahead of ours."
"ICM and Bunge advise our directors and have been, and are expected to be, involved in substantially all material aspects of our financing and operations. We have entered into a number of material commercial arrangements with Bunge, as described elsewhere in this report. Consequently, the terms and conditions of our agreements with ICM and Bunge have not been negotiated at arm’s length. Therefore, these arrangements may not be as favorable to us as could have been if obtained from unaffiliated third parties. Most of the cost of our project has been paid to ICM for the design and construction of the Facility. In addition, because of the extensive roles that ICM and Bunge had, it may be difficult or impossible for us to enforce claims that we may have against ICM or Bunge. Such conflicts of interest may reduce our profitability and the value of the Units and could result in reduced distributions to investors.
ICM, Bunge and Holdings and their respective affiliates may also have conflicts of interest because ICM, Bunge and Holdings and their respective employees or agents are involved as owners, creditors and in other capacities."
*****************************
SkunK
PS Also note the international flair to the selling of DDGs. As we talked about before DDGs are now an international feedstock - not limited to the local market.
"We sell our dried distiller’s grains with soluble in the continental United States, Mexico and the Pacific Rim."
***********
NOTE: As always, I sometimes add an underline in quotes whenever I feel the urge.
Nice Win
The Court GRANTS GreenShift/CleanTech's motion to add the '516 Patent to it's complaint. This makes it harder for the defendants to claim they are extracting oil outside the limits of just the '858 Patent. Here are some SkunK select quotes below as the judge responds to Iroquois, Adkins, ICM:
"CleanTech seeks to add the ‘516 Patent to its Complaint, which is a continuation patent of the patent in suit, U.S. Patent 7,601,858 (“the ‘858 Patent”) and is directed to the same technology."
"The Court has reviewed the briefing on this matter and for the following reasons GRANTS CleanTech’s motion."
"In the instant case, there has been no undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motive. The ‘516 Patent issued on August 30, 2011. CleanTech filed its Motion to Amend on September 2, 2011. Further, the proposed amendment serves the goal of furthering the efficient adjudication of this case because the ‘516 and ‘858 Patents are directed to similar technology and involve similar claim terms."
'Finally, without citation, Iroquois states that CleanTech has not made any showing that its supplemental pleading comports with the “new patent reform act which became law on September 16, 2011.” It is not sufficient for Iroquois to baldly state that CleanTech’s proposed amendment does not comport with the law.'
"Adkins’s Response to CleanTech’s motion to amend is not the proper forum to litigate its contract dispute."
"As an initial matter, the Court notes that Mr. Vander Griend is currently a party to this action. Accordingly, CleanTech’s motion to amend is not seeking to add him as a party. Additionally, CleanTech is not required to assert any particular patent, and its choice to assert one patent does not preclude its decision not to assert another."
see all HERE
SkunK
"CleanTech seeks to add the ‘516 Patent to its Complaint, which is a continuation patent of the patent in suit, U.S. Patent 7,601,858 (“the ‘858 Patent”) and is directed to the same technology."
"The Court has reviewed the briefing on this matter and for the following reasons GRANTS CleanTech’s motion."
"In the instant case, there has been no undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motive. The ‘516 Patent issued on August 30, 2011. CleanTech filed its Motion to Amend on September 2, 2011. Further, the proposed amendment serves the goal of furthering the efficient adjudication of this case because the ‘516 and ‘858 Patents are directed to similar technology and involve similar claim terms."
'Finally, without citation, Iroquois states that CleanTech has not made any showing that its supplemental pleading comports with the “new patent reform act which became law on September 16, 2011.” It is not sufficient for Iroquois to baldly state that CleanTech’s proposed amendment does not comport with the law.'
"Adkins’s Response to CleanTech’s motion to amend is not the proper forum to litigate its contract dispute."
"As an initial matter, the Court notes that Mr. Vander Griend is currently a party to this action. Accordingly, CleanTech’s motion to amend is not seeking to add him as a party. Additionally, CleanTech is not required to assert any particular patent, and its choice to assert one patent does not preclude its decision not to assert another."
see all HERE
SkunK
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Flash Desiccation - Mechanical Hydrodynamic Cavitation II
I just reported on this patent Application on Saturday HERE. The Notice of Allowance was granted and mailed today - 7 February! I expect it to issue well within 60 days.
See Here
and Here
SkunK
Here it is - only 30 minutes into the 7th and I can already read on the internet what was dropped into a dark mailbox outside the Patent Office - only a few minutes ago. And it wasn't even addressed to me!
See Here
and Here
SkunK
Here it is - only 30 minutes into the 7th and I can already read on the internet what was dropped into a dark mailbox outside the Patent Office - only a few minutes ago. And it wasn't even addressed to me!
Monday, February 6, 2012
Shareholder Letter
Getting that tingly feeling. Is the GreenShift Shareholder Letter about to come out? Or is it a winter rash? We will soon see.
SkunK
SkunK
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Happy Super Bowl!
All I will say is I have always tried to be a Giant Patriot. Good Luck to both teams and their fans. Whether you are an NFL fan or not, I hope everyone enjoys this Great American Spectacle and Holiday.
SkunK
SkunK
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Flash Desiccation - Mechanical Hydrodynamic Cavitation
I have already reported on the Notice of Allowance granted to the 5th GreenShift COES Patent Application. I expect that patent to issue at any time.
I have been following a patent application named "Methods for Enhanced Processing of Biomass Using Flash Desiccation and/or Mechanical Hydrodynamic Cavitation."
Last week it was in a status called Ex parte Quayle - This happens when "a patent application is in condition for allowance, prosecution on the merits is closed. The "Notice of Allowance Data Verication" just completed on Thursday - so I expect a Notice of Allowance at any time - and the patent to be issued within 60 days. This patent is different in that it is not a corn oil extraction patent.
Here are some tidbits. This application moved quickly, being published 9 September 2010. Kevin Kreisler is named as the first inventor. David Winsness the second.
Hydrodynamic cavitation describes the process of vaporisation, bubble generation and bubble implosion which occurs in a flowing liquid as a result of a decrease and subsequent increase in pressure. Hydrodynamic cavitation can improve industrial processes. For instance, cavitated corn slurry show higher yields in ethanol production compared to uncavitated corn slurry in dry milling facilities.
From the application
SkunK
(*Elegance is simplicity, function and beauty wrapped together like a Nathan Hot Dog or a fine piece of jewelry.)
I have been following a patent application named "Methods for Enhanced Processing of Biomass Using Flash Desiccation and/or Mechanical Hydrodynamic Cavitation."
Last week it was in a status called Ex parte Quayle - This happens when "a patent application is in condition for allowance, prosecution on the merits is closed. The "Notice of Allowance Data Verication" just completed on Thursday - so I expect a Notice of Allowance at any time - and the patent to be issued within 60 days. This patent is different in that it is not a corn oil extraction patent. Let me try to SkunK it down to a sentence. Make Biomass really small, really wet - the yeast will feast: More Ethanol Baby!*
Desiccation is the state of extreme dryness, or the process of extreme drying. The SkunK says Flash Desiccation is processing through GreenShift's patented Tornado Generator™ . Drys AND makes it small - in the micron size.
Hydrodynamic cavitation describes the process of vaporisation, bubble generation and bubble implosion which occurs in a flowing liquid as a result of a decrease and subsequent increase in pressure. Hydrodynamic cavitation can improve industrial processes. For instance, cavitated corn slurry show higher yields in ethanol production compared to uncavitated corn slurry in dry milling facilities.
From the application
Disclosed herein are processes for conditioning of cellulosic and other forms of biomass for more efficient production of biofuel, feed, and other value-added products. The technology is designed to dramatically improve the energy balance and yield from biomass such as corn (and any derivative thereof), cellulose and other forms of biomass including, without limitation, grains, seeds, grasses, wood, algae, agricultural wastes, food wastes, forestry products, and waste products such as paper, trash and/or sewage sludge. As such, the biomass can be in the form of whole grains, grain derivatives such as starch and fiber, and cellulosic products such as corn cobs, corn stover, corn bran, distiller's dried grain with solubles ("DDGS"), switch grass, agricultural crop residue, yard waste, food wastes, forestry products, waste products such as paper, trash and/or sewage sludge. The conditioning generally includes flash dessication ("FD") and/or mechanical hydrodynamic cavitation ("MHC") the biomass at one or more of the processing steps that commonly occur during use of the biomass, e.g., during the production of ethanol from the biomass.
[0016] In FD, the biomass is subjected to compressed gas and/or super heated steam in a series of one or more enclosed cyclonic systems with no internal moving parts. The extreme thermal and/or pressure gradients have been found to almost instantly desiccate, shear, and atomize the biomass into fine particles. This process has been shown in prior experimentation with grain based and cellulosic biomass to produce particle sizes in the low micron levels with negligible impact on nutrient quality. The FD process has been shown in some cases to have altered the molecular structures of targeted grains and biomass. The output is a prepared powder having a substantially smaller particle size as compared to conventionally milled products. Importantly, the FD process renders the starch, hemicellulosic and lignocellulosic constituents of corn, corn cobs and stover far more available than any known conventional commercially available process. An exemplary flash dessication apparatus suitable for use in the present invention is shown and described in U.S. Pat. No. 6,971,594 B1 to Polifka, incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
SkunK
(*Elegance is simplicity, function and beauty wrapped together like a Nathan Hot Dog or a fine piece of jewelry.)
Red Trail Energy LLC
Red Trail goes to Solution Recovery Services
In October 2011, the Company entered into an agreement [with Solution Recovery Services, LLC] to purchase a corn oil extraction system with plans for the system to be installed and operational during the 2012 fiscal year. The total cost of this system is expected to be approximately $2.4 million dollars. 10K P.26
SkunK
Note the agreement uses the lingo Corn Oil "Separation" vice "Extraction".
In October 2011, the Company entered into an agreement [with Solution Recovery Services, LLC] to purchase a corn oil extraction system with plans for the system to be installed and operational during the 2012 fiscal year. The total cost of this system is expected to be approximately $2.4 million dollars. 10K P.26
SkunK
Note the agreement uses the lingo Corn Oil "Separation" vice "Extraction".
Friday, February 3, 2012
Thanks to GreenShift Employees!
Here are some names on the public site Linkedin, all listed as team GreenShift. Each has an interesting and impressive background. Thanks for all your hard work!
Biodiesel Project Manager at Greenshift
October 2011 – Present (5 months)
Past Maintenance Supervisor Poet Biorefinery April 2006 – October 2011 (5 years 7 months)
Patrick Bush VP Biodiesel at GreenShift Corporation
Dave Gillespie Project Manager at Greenshift
Steve Beebe VP of IT at GreenShift Corporation
John Horstman Senior Engineer at GreenShift Corp.
SkunK
(Click on their name for more information)
(Click on their name for more information)
Fuel Ethanol Workshop
Minneapolis
WEDNESDAY, June 29
1:30 pm - 3:00 pm Concurrent Tracks
HERE Track 3: Coproducts/Product Diversification (3/4 down the page)
Corn Oil Extraction: How, How Much? Why and When?
Upwards of 100 U.S. corn ethanol producers are currently faced with the dilemma of whether to extract corn oil, how much to extract, when to make the investment, and which technology to select. Corn oil extraction is arguably one of the fastest routes to untapped ethanol plant revenue. But do the latest revenue and extraction yield claims hold up under producer scrutiny? Discerning industry professionals will find out as four top-tier competitors in this space talk tech, money, and hard data.
•Moderator: McCord Pankonen, Global Biorefining Marketing Manager, Ashland Inc./Ashland Hercules Water Technologies
•David Winsness, Chief Technology Officer, GreenShift Corp.
Corn Oil Extraction – Tastes Best When Needed Most
•Joseph Riley, General Manager, FEC Solutions
Corn Oil in 2011 and its Impact on DDGS
•Jason Van't Hul, Industry Technical Consultant, Nalco
Corn Oil Extraction Optimization
•Brock Beach, Capital Sales Manager, Oil Separation Solutions, ICM Inc
Decoupling Oil Separation From Plant Operations
**************************
**************************
3:30 pm - 5:00 pm Concurrent Tracks
Track 3: Coproducts/Product Diversification
Positioning for Corn Oil-to-Biodiesel Plays
The U.S. EPA expects corn oil to make up one-third of all the feedstocks used for biodiesel and renewable diesel in America by 2022. As more producers eye extraction opportunities, it’s important to develop a core knowledge of the coproduct’s principal end-use market. Find out what leading ethanol and biodiesel producers already know about this business—including feedstock spec and delivery expectations—and discover what it takes to become a trusted corn oil supplier.
•Moderator: Ron Kotrba, Editor, Biodiesel Magazine
•Dave Elsenbast, Vice President, Supply Chain Management, Renewable Energy Group
Inedible Corn Oil to Biodiesel: Improving Ethanol Crush Margins
•Jake Ferris, Professor Emeritus, Agricultural, Food, & Resource Economics, Michigan State University
Potential for Corn Oil from Distillers Dried Grain and Solubles as a Feedstock for Biodiesel
•Ernie DeMartino, Senior Process Engineer, Biodiesel Experts International LLC
Enzymatic Approach to Turn Corn Oil into Biodiesel
•Kevin Kreisler, Chairman & CEO, GreenShift Corporation
One Kernel: Two Fuels
SkunK
PS Although I see nothing yet, GreenShift typically displays here. It seems they normally let the floor plan fill out and develop a bit before they grab a spot. Location, Location . . .
WEDNESDAY, June 29
1:30 pm - 3:00 pm Concurrent Tracks
HERE Track 3: Coproducts/Product Diversification (3/4 down the page)
Corn Oil Extraction: How, How Much? Why and When?
Upwards of 100 U.S. corn ethanol producers are currently faced with the dilemma of whether to extract corn oil, how much to extract, when to make the investment, and which technology to select. Corn oil extraction is arguably one of the fastest routes to untapped ethanol plant revenue. But do the latest revenue and extraction yield claims hold up under producer scrutiny? Discerning industry professionals will find out as four top-tier competitors in this space talk tech, money, and hard data.
•Moderator: McCord Pankonen, Global Biorefining Marketing Manager, Ashland Inc./Ashland Hercules Water Technologies
•David Winsness, Chief Technology Officer, GreenShift Corp.
Corn Oil Extraction – Tastes Best When Needed Most
•Joseph Riley, General Manager, FEC Solutions
Corn Oil in 2011 and its Impact on DDGS
•Jason Van't Hul, Industry Technical Consultant, Nalco
Corn Oil Extraction Optimization
•Brock Beach, Capital Sales Manager, Oil Separation Solutions, ICM Inc
Decoupling Oil Separation From Plant Operations
**************************
**************************
3:30 pm - 5:00 pm Concurrent Tracks
Track 3: Coproducts/Product Diversification
Positioning for Corn Oil-to-Biodiesel Plays
The U.S. EPA expects corn oil to make up one-third of all the feedstocks used for biodiesel and renewable diesel in America by 2022. As more producers eye extraction opportunities, it’s important to develop a core knowledge of the coproduct’s principal end-use market. Find out what leading ethanol and biodiesel producers already know about this business—including feedstock spec and delivery expectations—and discover what it takes to become a trusted corn oil supplier.
•Moderator: Ron Kotrba, Editor, Biodiesel Magazine
•Dave Elsenbast, Vice President, Supply Chain Management, Renewable Energy Group
Inedible Corn Oil to Biodiesel: Improving Ethanol Crush Margins
•Jake Ferris, Professor Emeritus, Agricultural, Food, & Resource Economics, Michigan State University
Potential for Corn Oil from Distillers Dried Grain and Solubles as a Feedstock for Biodiesel
•Ernie DeMartino, Senior Process Engineer, Biodiesel Experts International LLC
Enzymatic Approach to Turn Corn Oil into Biodiesel
•Kevin Kreisler, Chairman & CEO, GreenShift Corporation
One Kernel: Two Fuels
SkunK
PS Although I see nothing yet, GreenShift typically displays here. It seems they normally let the floor plan fill out and develop a bit before they grab a spot. Location, Location . . .
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Midwest Support Staff
It took awhile to connect the dots, but I found what I was looking for in last year's shareholder letter. Bert Farrish, with a Mid-West location? - Might be part of the Midwest Technical Service support staff described in last year's shareholder letter:
Shareholder Letter
NEW YORK, N.Y., February 7, 2011
Goals Moving Forward
"We will stay lean but we plan to hire additional technical services support staff in the Mid-West to ensure that our clients receive rapid support as our business continues to grow."
*******************
GreenShift has a very competent and experienced administrative staff that seems very much in compliance with all of their reporting requirements. If anyone is worried about SEC officer reporting requirements - remember an officer is not (necessarily) determined by title - but whether they perform "significant" "policy making functions". The President of GreenShift (issuer) "Ed Carroll" is an "Officer". The President of a Division within GreenShift "Bert Farrish" (certainly is a gentleman) but is not (necessarily) an "Officer" for SEC reporting requirements.
(Note: Title is not determinative for purposes of determining “officer” status. See Rule 16a-1(f) for the definition of “officer”)
********************
It really is worth rereading last year's shareholder's letter as we wait for this year's. Let me just share this:
"Further, achieving our sales target for 2011 would be a major accomplishment for GreenShift and its shareholders for many reasons, not the least of which is that doubling penetration would allow us to pay off all remaining debt out of cash flow."
*******************
SkunK
PS. Occasionally I find sentiment that GreenShift has not reflected on and learned from setbacks along the way. Read what they said in last year's shareholder letter about getting their PhD in the Business School of Hardus KnocKsus - then decide for yourself:
"Being a first mover with new technology in the renewable fuels industry has been challenging to be sure, and, in hindsight, we made our fair share of mistakes along the way. We invested too aggressively in the development and commercialization of corn oil refining technologies when biodiesel producers were unwilling to commit capital to retooling their plants to refine corn oil and none of the leading biodiesel technology providers were willing to provide a process guaranty. And, we relied too heavily on our financing model and financing commitments given the commodity, policy, legal and other risks, exposing us to the loss of all of our financing and working capital when the market crashed. In the end, we simply borrowed too much as we pushed through and overcame each of the barriers to commercializing our extraction technologies."
pss
In the 10K the Alpharetta lease is a three year term that terminated on February 2011, at which time the lease was extended by another year. That means the lease is up! The monthly lease payment is $1,600. Will the whole GreenShift HQ move to the Mid-West??? My guess is no, but commercial leases can be a real deal in these parts. If you are ever in the Mid-West and make your way north of Hooterville, I'll be the guy walking on the side of the road. One of the few men secure enough to be out walking his wife's miniature lap dog. ;~)
Shareholder Letter
NEW YORK, N.Y., February 7, 2011
Goals Moving Forward
"We will stay lean but we plan to hire additional technical services support staff in the Mid-West to ensure that our clients receive rapid support as our business continues to grow."
*******************
GreenShift has a very competent and experienced administrative staff that seems very much in compliance with all of their reporting requirements. If anyone is worried about SEC officer reporting requirements - remember an officer is not (necessarily) determined by title - but whether they perform "significant" "policy making functions". The President of GreenShift (issuer) "Ed Carroll" is an "Officer". The President of a Division within GreenShift "Bert Farrish" (certainly is a gentleman) but is not (necessarily) an "Officer" for SEC reporting requirements.
(Note: Title is not determinative for purposes of determining “officer” status. See Rule 16a-1(f) for the definition of “officer”)
********************
It really is worth rereading last year's shareholder's letter as we wait for this year's. Let me just share this:
"Further, achieving our sales target for 2011 would be a major accomplishment for GreenShift and its shareholders for many reasons, not the least of which is that doubling penetration would allow us to pay off all remaining debt out of cash flow."
*******************
SkunK
PS. Occasionally I find sentiment that GreenShift has not reflected on and learned from setbacks along the way. Read what they said in last year's shareholder letter about getting their PhD in the Business School of Hardus KnocKsus - then decide for yourself:
"Being a first mover with new technology in the renewable fuels industry has been challenging to be sure, and, in hindsight, we made our fair share of mistakes along the way. We invested too aggressively in the development and commercialization of corn oil refining technologies when biodiesel producers were unwilling to commit capital to retooling their plants to refine corn oil and none of the leading biodiesel technology providers were willing to provide a process guaranty. And, we relied too heavily on our financing model and financing commitments given the commodity, policy, legal and other risks, exposing us to the loss of all of our financing and working capital when the market crashed. In the end, we simply borrowed too much as we pushed through and overcame each of the barriers to commercializing our extraction technologies."
pss
In the 10K the Alpharetta lease is a three year term that terminated on February 2011, at which time the lease was extended by another year. That means the lease is up! The monthly lease payment is $1,600. Will the whole GreenShift HQ move to the Mid-West??? My guess is no, but commercial leases can be a real deal in these parts. If you are ever in the Mid-West and make your way north of Hooterville, I'll be the guy walking on the side of the road. One of the few men secure enough to be out walking his wife's miniature lap dog. ;~)
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Strategy, Stratagem
CleanTech’s Amended Complaint in the SDNY action alleged that “ICM has sold products to Lifeline Foods and one or more of the Defendants DOES 1-30 inclusive that contributory infringe one or more of the claims of the ‘858 patent. ICM has also actively induced Lifeline Foods and one or more of the Defendants DOES 1-30 inclusive to infringe one or more of the claims of the ‘858 patent.” HERE p.56
I believe Lifeline Foods was dropped from the litigation by GreenShift some time ago, although I am still trying to find that reference. Will post it here when I do.
SkunK leaves the facts behind . . . and talks very, very quietly to himself . . .
Lifeline foods was built by ICM and they own 49% of the company. Any CEO of Lifeline Foods would be aware of the corporate culture at ICM concerning patents. Since Lifeline was a defendant in the COES litigation at one time, a former CEO would be very aware of ICM's (and ICM's founder's) attitude towards the possible infringement of the GreenShift's COE's patents. Bert Farrish's resume is obviously impressive and can stand on its own. He will be a tremendous asset to GreenShift. However, his ability to provide insight to the GreenShift legal team and maybe even testimony when this gets to trial cannot be overlooked. Personal liability and treble damages both involve "intent" - if I remember correctly. Who better to provide the "intent" of ICM and its founder and some of the defendants - than a former member of their inner circle?
SkunK
I believe Lifeline Foods was dropped from the litigation by GreenShift some time ago, although I am still trying to find that reference. Will post it here when I do.
SkunK leaves the facts behind . . . and talks very, very quietly to himself . . .
Lifeline foods was built by ICM and they own 49% of the company. Any CEO of Lifeline Foods would be aware of the corporate culture at ICM concerning patents. Since Lifeline was a defendant in the COES litigation at one time, a former CEO would be very aware of ICM's (and ICM's founder's) attitude towards the possible infringement of the GreenShift's COE's patents. Bert Farrish's resume is obviously impressive and can stand on its own. He will be a tremendous asset to GreenShift. However, his ability to provide insight to the GreenShift legal team and maybe even testimony when this gets to trial cannot be overlooked. Personal liability and treble damages both involve "intent" - if I remember correctly. Who better to provide the "intent" of ICM and its founder and some of the defendants - than a former member of their inner circle?
SkunK
Stay Denied
CleanTech’s Motion to Stay All Proceedings in this Litigation with Respect to David Cantrell [dkt. no. 217] is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED on this 31st day of January, 2012. SEE Here.
Welcome Bert Farrish!
Bert Farrish
President, Feed and Industrial Products Division
Greenshift, Inc
October 2011 – Present
Director
October 2007 – Present (4 years 5 months)
Community Ag Lending Bank
Privately Held; 51-200 employees; Food Production industry: 49 percent ownership from ICM, Inc; and 51 percent ownership from AgraMarke Quality Grains.
October 2009 – April 2011 (1 year 7 months) President and Chief Executive Officer and Founding Partner
Everton Energy Biofuels Holdings & Everton Energy, LLC August 2006 – October 2009 (3 years 3 months)
Deputy Administrator for Commodity Operations
Farm Service Agency Government Administration industry June 2002 – August 2006 (4 years 3 months) Grade ES-4. This Deputy Administrator is responsible for developing policies, regulations and disposition strategies for the dairy price support program; administration of the cotton Step II program; administration of the bio-diesel and ethanol bio-energy program; the storage, handling and disposition of CCC owned commodities; and, management of the export and domestic food assistance programs.
Captain, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers
January 1973 – January 1981 (8 years 1 month)
Likes reading, golf, flyfishing
Most info is from Linkedin but LOTS of information and pictures available on the net.
Bert Farrish's Summary
Bert Farrish has nearly 30 years experience in all phases of the commercial grain industry. His focus was primarily on the export of grains and grain products to Asia. In 2002 he left his position as President of Columbia Grain, Inc.to accept a position as a Bush appointee at USDA as Deputy Administrator of Commodity Operations with the Farm Service Agency. In this position he had responsiblity for the CCC Bioenergy Program, The Dairy Program, Loan Deficiency Payments, partial resposibility for Crop Loan Rates, administration of the US Warehouse Act and partial responsbility for foreign and domestic food aid programs. Food Aid included working with USAID, the World Food Programme and the Child Nutrition Programs. All of these are of critical importance to US farm producers and the food aid community.
In August 2006 Bert left USDA to found a bioenergy company, Everton Enery, with two partners in Wichita, Kansas. Within one year he had arranged a legal, investment banking team, senior management team and a permitted site in Kansas. Unfortunately the financial crises starting in 2007 prevented a completion of project financing. Bert continues to advise Everton Energy, LLC.
In September 2009, Bert accepted the CEO position with LifeLine Foods, LLC in St. Joseph, MO. LifeLine is a corn dry-milling company and an ethanol producer. LifeLine supplies corn dry-milled products to the food and beverage industries and for industrial use. The corn starch that is not used in food products is converted to fuel grade ethanol and coproduct for the animal feed industry.
Specialties
Corporate and association management
Investment banking
Goverment Service
Personnel management
Project development
Ethanol Industry
Very impressive resume and biography. He is now listed as attending the National Ethanol Conference February 22 - 24, 2012 as a GreenShifter! See it HERE. Welcome aboard Bert!
SkunK
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
