Saturday, February 15, 2014

Who is the COEs Provider?

". . . plans to buy a $2 million corn oil extraction unit. . . "

". . . he expects corn oil production to generate additional revenue of between $4 million and $6 million a year at the plant."

See Here
SkunK

Bonus:  Low Corn prices, High Industry Profits.  SEE HERE
at

10 comments:

  1. AnonymousFebruary 15, 2014 at 3:10 PM

    ICM is the provider! If you doubt that ask Jim Stark of GPRE why (as a loyal and the most significant Greenshift licensee) they are paying ICM COE royalties. Then you will know why.

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousFebruary 15, 2014 at 8:08 PM

    You have been warned. The answer to this question is the key to EVERYTHING!

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnonymousFebruary 16, 2014 at 7:10 AM

    Jim Stark, Vice President - Investor and Media Relations
    Green Plains Renewable Energy, Inc.
    (402) 884-8700
    jim.stark@gpreinc.com

    ReplyDelete
  4. AnonymousFebruary 16, 2014 at 10:12 AM

    You wrote to us the following comment:

    Will you please clarify the relationship with GS Cleantech? I'm wondering if there's still a relationship here with GS Cleantech's patents. Did Green Plains switch technology at some or all of the plants? Are you still using GS cleantech's technology in the ICM plants?

    Our response:

    We have not switched technologies.

    Licensing patents is not the same as licensing technology. The license agreements for utilizing the patents are still in place with GS CleanTech.


    Let me know if there is anything else I can provide.


    Jim Stark

    VP, Investor and Media Relations

    Green Plains Renewable Energy

    450 Regency Parkway, Suite 400

    Omaha, NE 68114

    jim.stark@gpreinc.com

    ReplyDelete
  5. AnonymousFebruary 16, 2014 at 10:49 AM

    The connection between a patent and a license is an often confused area of law that can lead to lawsuits by stock holders or others with standing against both licensee and patent holder if infringement is not upheld.

    ReplyDelete
  6. AnonymousFebruary 16, 2014 at 10:50 AM

    What he say? They paying royalties to both GERS and ICM?

    ReplyDelete
  7. AnonymousFebruary 16, 2014 at 11:27 AM

    " .... The ICM system is offered on a non-royalty bearing basis"

    ReplyDelete
  8. AnonymousFebruary 16, 2014 at 11:38 AM

    ICM previously argued that GreenShift's inventions were unpatentable and failed. That argument was raised by ICM before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office granted GreenShift's first two patents.

    ReplyDelete
  9. AnonymousFebruary 16, 2014 at 11:39 AM

    The company also warns that it has a right to royalties for the corn oil extracted with GreenShift technology as far back as 2006, when the company got its first patent.

    ReplyDelete
  10. billvFebruary 17, 2014 at 11:31 AM

    Greenshift did at one point have an indirect relationship with Noble Americas. http://www.ethanolproducer.com/articles/2313/former-brewery-being-converted-to-produce-fuel-ethanol/

    They were both involved with one of GERS first potential customers.

    ReplyDelete