a Blue chip investor and micro cap trader.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Closed Regular Session at the high of the day,
UP 100% again: let's go CLEAN OUR PAINT BRUSHES.
Next week there needs to be some Revelations.
http://www.ecoloclean.com/ProductsServices.aspx
7 come 11
Mumm's the word here....
hell, I think that I will subscribe to I-Hub private messaging tonight. Now THAT is bullish for me. Feeling flush and optimistic about ECCI for the first time in awhile. ROFLMAO
ECCI is riding growing volume: contract?
Up 100% to .0006 today alone. Up 600% in last week.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=35592353
ECCI up 100% to .0006 today on volume because:
What's up with it?:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=35592353
Up 600% lately?
ECCI is up 600% lately on larger volume because:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=35592353
Up 100% to .0006 today alone.
e-mail:"they are busy working towards a contract"
Yep, Dale, that's what we are talking about..thanks for the possible "confirmation" from IR.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=35589436
Posted by: Crusader Date: Friday, February 13, 2009 11:29:27 AM
In reply to: co pilot who wrote msg# 7172 Post # of 7181 [Send a link via email]
My previous post today implied a CONTRACT with Fountain Quail/Aqua Pure or with their contractor, Devon Energy:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=35588209
My post of 2/11/09 implied a CONTRACT either with a new major oil company or with Aviation Exteriors Inc. I picked the new major oil company in my 2/11/09 post:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=35544363
These are all possible contracts revealed by ECCI in previous Press Releases.(If you read closely and do some simple Google research.)
Out of those "three" possible contracts, I hope for one of the first two: Fountain Quail/DEVON or a major new oil company. But I would be happy with any contract and any identifiable income. Once there is income, there could be profits. Once there are profits, there could be CPA's to publish financial papers. With some reliable transparency, there could be Pinksheet blessings (no "Stop Sign") or OTCBB listing. The future could be bright. (It couldn't get much darker now.) So, up, up and away!
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=35589875
Posted by: mustangsny Date: Friday, February 13, 2009 11:38:28 AM
In reply to: Crusader who wrote msg# 7177 Post # of 7181
I think you are right on one of the three you mentioned. Lets hope it's two out of the three. Just got back to my office in Rio and it is looking good. It would be a vote of confidence it this stock shot up just under .001. Then I would be more of a believer with news next week sending this thing to .005.
Not out of the realm of possibilities. the higher it goes more buyers will be attracted to this stock. Over a penny I think we would see some more players jump on board. People want to see some meaningful moves for them to buy to instill
confidence. They would rather pay a higher price knowing that this company is the real thing.
My previous post today implied a CONTRACT with Fountain Quail/Aqua Pure or with their contractor, Devon Energy:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=35588209
My post of 2/11/09 implied a CONTRACT either with a new major oil company or with Aviation Exteriors Inc. I picked the new major oil company in my 2/11/09 post:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=35544363
These are all possible contracts revealed by ECCI in previous Press Releases.
Out of those "three" possible contracts, I hope for one of the first two: Fountain Quail/DEVON or a major new oil company. But I would be happy with any contract and any identifiable income. Once there is income, there could be profits. Once there are profits, there could be CPA's to publish financial papers. With some reliable transparency, there could be Pinksheet blessings (no "Stop Sign") or OTCBB listing. The future could be bright. (It couldn't get much darker now.) So, up, up and away!
Which reminds me, where is Mr. Boomtown? I hope that MRI didn't upset him. We hit .0006 just now and he is no where to be seen on the board. Best of health to you, Boomtown!
Connecting the dots on ECCI and Fountain Quail:
(Previously posted business news article excerpts below)
"...Natural gas operators are examining water recycling as a method to curtail their water usage and demand, but current technology still renders the process less economical than the alternative of simply disposing of the post-drilling, contaminated fluid.
About 3.75 million gallons of water are used for each natural gas well, and what fluid doesn’t remain – or disappear – underground is recaptured either as flow-back water or produced water, both of which are chloride contaminated and need to be managed.
Traditionally, both fluids are inspected in saltwater disposal wells that send the fluids into underground rock formations, where they remain. There are more than 50,000 disposal wells across Texas that serve the more than 216,000 gas wells in the state, according to the Railroad Commission of Texas, which regulates the industry’s subsurface water use.
The saltwater disposal wells are controversial, however, because detractors argue the highly corrosive water could escape and pollute city-used water tables. In October 2007, the Fort Worth City Council enacted a moratorium on these wells, due to expire April 30. However, the city council is expected to extend the measure. Transporting the fluids to these wells is also expensive, representing one of the major costs gas operators incur during the process.
Washing the water
Oklahoma-based Devon Energy Corp. has used a Canadian water treatment technology since 2005 to reclaim and recycle some of the flow-back water and some of the produced water. Devon’s nine mobile heated distillation units, or NOMADs, reclaim and recycle about 24 percent of the 3.5 million gallons of water used during the fracing processes.
The NOMAD systems are designed and built by Aqua-Pure Ventures Inc., based in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, and operated by Granbury-based Fountain Quail Water Management, a subsidiary of Aqua-Pure. In short, the NOMADs use an evaporator and a compressor to treat waters up to saturation, or about 40,000 total dissolved solids, recycling about 80 percent of the inlet water.
“What we’re doing is boiling off the steam, and as the steam evaporates it’s ‘pured,’” said Pat Horner, an engineering team leader at Fountain Quail. “It leaves behind all the contaminants in a concentrate, so we can take that steam and just condense that into pure, distilled water, and take the concentrate away.”
“There are technologies handling the flow-back water, and handling it very well,” Waits said. “The flow-back water has very low T.D.S. and is pretty good shape coming in, and that’s not to talk critically of other technology. Where we come in is the produced water. It has as much as three to four times the T.D.S. of the flow-back water and No. 1: most processes can’t even deal with it, and No. 2: they can’t concentrate it enough.
At the behest of Devon, however, Fountain Quail has been modifying the NOMADs to enable the machines to reach for higher T.D.S. levels.- (Crusader question-ECCI modified NOMADS??? Compare to recent ECCI PR-see below)
Investing in the technologies today is a hope that in the future the costs will decrease and the efficiency will increase, said Grable, but he added if the operators view the technology as “grossly uneconomic,” they’re unlikely to buy into it..." (end excerpt)
COMPARE SOME OF THE HIGHLIGHTED PLAYERS ABOVE WITH THE RECENT ECCI PR BELOW:
Ecoloclean Announces Positive Success at Barnett Shale
* PR Wednesday December 3, 2008, 11:14 am EST
FORT WORTH, Texas--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Ecoloclean Industries, Inc. (Pink Sheets:ECCI - News) today announced recent success of testing results from operations at the Barnett Shale strata.
Full scale operating tests were undertaken at the West Crossroads location of Fountain Quail Water Management. The testing provided positive results and analytical data that the E-C WaterPure™ electrocoagulation process is an effective alternative to chemical based pretreatment processes currently in use in operations at the Barnett Shale strata.
Under the direction Jerry Inman, Vice President of Research and Development and John Adams, Vice President of Operations at Ecoloclean Industries, Inc., the E-C WaterPure™ unit operated for ten days treating flowback water on location. The E-C WaterPure™ unit provided conclusive proven positive results to be effective at reducing suspended solids.
Direct analytical comparisons clearly showed the E-C WaterPure™ unit provided greater effectiveness in removing ten of the twelve contaminants tested. In addition, the E-C WaterPure™ unit is both well suited and fully-developed to provide for implementation in mobile applications.(Crusader question: which 10? If the back flow water is going to an injection well, it does not matter much. If the back flow water is going to be used to frac more wells, then it goes through a NOMAD and all solids are removed by distillation and the NOMAD works cheaper, faster and more effectively!!!NEWS!!?)
Royis Ward, President of Ecoloclean Industries, Inc., stated, “With these solid results under our belt we are moving forward with marketing efforts with other contacts in the oil and gas fields to pre-treat flowback and produced water.”
You may be right about Monday,
ECCI management might do a PR on a market holiday because they are out of touch with shareholders and the market place. *sigh*....
Tuesday, not Monday when markets are closed.
http://www.nyse.com/about/newsevents/1176373643795.html
.0005 now...mustang and copilot buying.
4,649,999 sharesat close?
http://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=trades&cb=1234501798&symbol=NO%5EECCI
When will we know?
What is going on here?
So many questions, and so little time left to find out.
A month ago, I threatened to sell by tomorrow. But the last week has kept me fascinated and more hopeful. I'm going to hold long until Memorial Day or until my target prices are hit. The game, my friends, is all about Multiples, Greed & Fear...!
Electrocoagulation - Overview of the Technology
Coagulation is a critical physio-chemical operation used in water treatment. This is a process used to cause the destabilization and subsequent aggregation of smaller particles into larger complexes. Water contaminants such as ions (heavy metals) and colloids (organic and inorganic) are primarily held in solution by electrical charges. Colloidal systems could be destabilized by the addition of ions of the charge opposite to that of the colloid. The destabilized colloids can then aggregate and subsequently be separated from the wastewater.
Coagulation can be achieved by both the chemical or electrical means. Chemical coagulation has been used for decades to destabilize suspensions and to effect precipitation of soluble species and other pollutants from aqueous streams. Alum, lime and polymers are some of the chemical coagulants used. These processes, however, tend to generate large volumes of sludge with high bound water content which can be difficult to separate and dewater. The processes also tend to increase the total dissolved solids content of the effluent, making it unacceptable for reuse within industrial applications. Other aspects of chemical coagulation are also becoming increasingly less acceptable. The disposal cost of the large volumes of sludge (generally of fairly high hazardous waste category), the cost of the chemicals required to achieve coagulation and the environmental issues associated with the process are critical problems in many industries.
Electrocoagulation, the passing of the electrical current through water, has proven very effective in the removal of contaminants from water. Although the electrocoagulation mechanism resembles the chemical coagulation - the cationic species being responsible for the neutralization of surface charges - in many ways it is very different. Electrocoagulation is a process of destabilizing suspended, emulsified or dissolved contaminants in an aqueous medium by introducing electrical current into the medium. The electrical current provides the electromotive force causing the chemical reactions.
Several distinct electrochemical processes occur during the electrocoagulation process independently.
Processes occurring:
Seeding resulting from the anode reduction of metal ions that become new centers for larger, stable, insoluble complexes.
Emulsion breaking resulting from oxygen and hydrogen ions reacting with emulsified substances and forming water insoluble material.
Halogen completing - as the metal ions bind themselves to halogens resulting in formation of large insoluble complexes and isolating pesticides, herbicides, chlorinated PCBs, etc..
Bleaching by oxygen species produced in the reaction chamber and providing oxidisation of chemical substances and also reducing bio-hazards through oxidisation of bacteria, viruses, etc..
Electron flooding of the water affects the polarity of water, allowing colloidal materials to precipitate.
The electrons create osmotic pressure rupturing cell walls of bacteria, cysts, and viruses. Oxidation and reduction reactions are forced to their natural end point. Electrocoagulation can speed up the natural processes occurring in wet chemistry Electrocoagulation induced pH typically shifts towards neutral. The principal cathodic reaction is the reduction of hydrogen ions to hydrogen gas (2H+ + 2e- = H2). The principal anodic reaction is the release of metal ions into solution (eg. 3Al = Al3+ + 3e-). The anodes are sacrificed during the process.
The wastewater passes through a chamber with the cathodes and anodes. The electrical current is introduced via parallel plates constructed of metals selected to optimise the removal process. The two most common plate materials are iron and aluminium. In accordance with the Faraday's Law, the metal electrodes are sacrificed and slowly dissolve into the liquid medium. The metal ions tend to form metal oxides that electromechanically attract the destabilized contaminants. After the treated wastewater leaves the electrocoagulation chamber, the destabilized colloids are allowed to flocculate and then separated in an integrated system. The sludge can be further de-watered using a filter press, settling pond, or other de-watering techniques.
System Capabilities:
Removes heavy metals;
Removes suspended and colloidal solids;
Destabilizes oil and other emulsions;
Removes fats, oils and grease;
Removes complex organics; and Destroys and reduces bacteria, viruses and cysts.
Benefits:
Treats multiple contaminants;
Sludge minimization;
Capital cost significantly less than conservative technologies;
Operating cost significantly less than conservative technologies;
Low power requirements;
Low maintenance;
Minimal operator attention;
Consistent and reliable results.
The next press release involves one of these:
(And it will be the first real press release of ECCI to EVER make a difference to current or to potential shareholders,IMHO.)
FROM PRESS RELEASE: Thursday December 18, 2008, 11:11 am EST....
#1: "...In addition to the work in central TX, Ecoloclean has been involved in providing initial testing of produced water for a major oil company seeking to utilize electro-coagulation for the removal of contaminants that foul thermal systems. While final results are not back from the independent labs early testing indicated reductions of TDS (total dissolved solids) in excess of sixty percent. Jerry Inman, VP of R&D, has been working on this project since June and bench tests were run with the help of Lee Barnes..."
OR:
#2: "...Jerry Inman has also been instrumental in developing additional opportunities for Ecoloclean, including a full-scale trial of the ECCI Waterpure™ system with Aviation Exteriors, Inc. (AvEx) of Lake Charles and New Iberia, LA. These tests run in late October will allow AvEx to recycle the water that until now has had to be trucked to a disposal site. Ecoloclean is preparing proposals for providing compete service that will free AvEx from the capital equipment and maintenance costs."
Only a contract will put this stock above on cent price per share. And the news is on the way! I pick #1, above, but beggars can't be choosers. OCICBW
http://www.geoexpro.com/sfiles/5/02/9/file/brightfuture36_46.pdf
http://oceaneering.net/images/Annual%20Reports/2001.pdf
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ftproot/service/emeu9202.pdf
GREAT New Video for potential new investors:
The Aqua-Pure speaker on this video is ECCI's competition (soon to be partner?)on the Barnett. But ECCI can reportedly recycle water MANY times more efficiently (faster/higher volumes) and at a SIGNIFICANTLY lower cost than Aqua-Pure's distillation technology- or in combination, make the Aqua-Pure NOMADS work much more effectively with 90% of the chloride bound heavy metals removed before distillation (partnership):
See link below:
http://www.mefeedia.com/entry/water-technology-the-barnett-shale/9969341/
Fear and Greed- If one doesn't get you,
the other one will. 21,000,000 shares- what a shame, unless...fear prevails. Then you will be proud, loveismyreligion.
July 15, 2008 TRRC (Texas Railroad Commission)granted DEVON authorization for another pilot project to treat and re-use fracture flow-back fluids and produced water from Barnett Shale. See next to last paragraph below for verification. I wonder who all will be working that new pilot project?
WATER USE IN THE BARNETT SHALE
Updated - 7/30/08
Hydraulic Fracturing
The Newark East, Barnett Shale, Field is one of the most active drilling targets in the past decade. The initial development of the field was centered in southeast Wise County. Activity has expanded to the north in Montague County, to the east in Denton County and to the south in Tarrant County and now is present in 16 counties in North Texas.
The success of the Barnett Shale is in large part a result of the use of stimulation technology. While the volume of gas–in-place is large in the Barnett Shale (estimated to be over 27 trillion cubic feet), recovery of the gas is difficult because of the low permeability of the shale. The Barnett Shale must be stimulated – treated to increase permeability – in order for the field to be economic.
In order to be able to produce gas at volumes that are economical, reservoirs with low permeability must be treated. One method of treatment to increase permeability is fracture treatment or “fracing,” which increases the available surface area by creating fractures that are “propped up” or held open by the propping agents in the frac fluid.
Hydraulic fracturing is used in the Barnett Shale. Hydraulic fracturing consists of pumping into the formation very large volumes of fresh water that generally has been treated with a friction reducer, biocides, scale inhibitor, and surfactants, and contains sand as the propping agent. The water treating fluid maximizes the horizontal length of the fracture while minimizing the vertical fracture height. The fractures, which are held open by the sand, result in increased surface area, which further results in increases in the desorption of the gas from the shale and increases in the mobility of the gas. The result is more efficient recovery of a larger volume of the gas-in-place.
In 1997, the first slick water frac (or light sand frac) was performed and found to be very successful in stimulating the Barnett Shale. Slick water fracing of a vertical well completion can use over 1.2 million gallons (28,000 barrels) of water, while the fracturing of a horizontal well completion can use over 3.5 million gallons (over 83,000 barrels) of water. In addition, the wells may be re-fractured multiple times after producing for several years.
Water Use Estimates
Increasing water use due to growing population, drought, and Barnett Shale development has heightened concerns about water availability in North-Central Texas. In January of 2007, the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) published a study of a 19-county area in North Texas that includes the Barnett Shale development area. This report, “Northern Trinity/Woodbine Aquifer Groundwater Availability Model, Assessment of Groundwater Use in the Northern Trinity Aquifer Due to Urban Growth and Barnett Shale Development,” includes estimates of water used in Barnett Shale development. This report can be found at http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/home/index.asp.
The TWDB report states that approximately 89% of the total water supply for the region for all purposes (municipal, agricultural, electric power generation, industrial, and mining) is provided by surface water sources, while groundwater is used for the remainder of the total demand (about 140,000 acre-feet per year1). The amount of water from all sources that is used for Barnett Shale development has been a relatively small (less than 1 percent), although growing, percentage of the total water use from all sources and for all purposes in the counties with Barnett Shale development.
The TWDB report estimates that, out of the total water used in 2005 for Barnett Shale development, approximately 60 percent was groundwater from the Trinity and Woodbine Aquifers. The report further estimates that groundwater used for Barnett Shale development accounted for approximately 3 percent of all groundwater used in the entire study area in 2005. However, the ratio of groundwater to surface water used in specific areas varies greatly. For example, groundwater provides as much as 85 percent of the total water supply for Cooke County. In general, groundwater provides for a greater percent of total supply in rural counties and a smaller proportion of total use in more urban counties. Therefore, increased groundwater use for any purpose will have a greater impact on rural areas in the study area.
The TWDB report makes predictions of future water needs for all purposes, including Barnett Shale development. The low estimate for Barnett Shale development predicts a decrease of about 2,000 acre-feet by the year 2025 and the high estimate predicts an increase from an estimated 7,200 acre-feet in 2005 to about 10,000 to 25,000 acre-feet per year by 2025, which corresponds to a estimated potential increase in groundwater used from 3% in 2005 to 7 to 13 percent in 2025. As with the development of any estimate of future conditions, the TWDB and its contractors used educated assumptions to develop reasonable low and high estimates in light of the unpredictability of the natural gas market, which would drive future drilling activity in the area.
Recycling
Recognizing the concerns with water use in the area, over the past few years several companies have applied for, and the Commission has approved, pilot projects in the Barnett Shale to reduce the amount of fresh water used in Barnett Shale development activities.
* Fountain Quail Water Management of Jacksboro uses a recycling process that allows reuse of approximately 80% of the returned fracture fluid used in the Barnett Shale play. This recycling process involves on-site distilling units that apply heat to separate brine from water used to fracture gas formations. When water injected to fracture formations returns to the surface, it becomes unusable due to its high salt content. Under this project, instead of hauling unusable return fracture fluid to a disposal well, the fracture flow-back fluid is stored in tanks on location and piped into treatment equipment. Natural gas produced on location is used to fire the distilling units that in turn boil the returned fracture fluid and produce fresh distilled water. The distilled water can then be used to fracture treat another Barnett Shale well. On October 30, 2006, the Commissioners authorized Fountain Quail on a permanent basis to treat fracture flow-back fluid. As of April 26, 2008, Fountain Quail has processed over 5.7 million barrels of returned fracture fluid to recover over 4.5 million barrels of reusable water.
* DTE Gas Resources, Inc. was granted authority on April 18, 2006 to conduct a pilot project. They are authorized to perform a pilot project to store, handle, treat and re‑use frac flow‑back water at two Barnett Shale gas well drill sites in Tarrant and/or Jack Counties. The frac flowback water must be treated with onsite separation and filtration. On November 13, 2007, DTE Gas Resources has reported that they ceased the pilot project to store, handle, treat and re-use flow-back water from Barnett Shale gas wells. DTE reported that the project was found non-viable economically.
* Devon Energy Production Company, LP was granted authorization effective January 15, 2007, to perform a pilot project to store, handle, treat and reuse fracture flow back fluid from five to ten Barnett Shale gas well drill sites. The fracture flow back water must be treated with on site separation and filtration. On October 22, 2007, Devon reported that the EMS Water Treatment System pilot project has ended. Devon has indicated that fracture flow-back fluid was brought into the system for treatment; however, no recycled water was used to frac. On July 15, 2008, Commissioners approved of Devon's request for authorization for another pilot project to treat and re-use fracture flow-back fluids and produced water from Barnett Shale.(Emphasis added)
* Burlington Resources and Stroud Energy were authorized in 2003 and 2005, respectively, that they may reuse flowback water from fracs in the Barnett shale without a permit for use in future fracs or drilling new wells.
http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/divisions/og/wateruse_barnettshale.html
IT SOUNDS LIKE ECCI'S TECHNOLOGY WILL WORK TO REMOVE CHLORIDES bonded with 10 out of 12 substances per December 2008 ECCI Pres Release.- THE PRINCIPLE POLLUTANTs IN BARNETT SHALE "FRAC WATER".
FORT WORTH, Texas--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Ecoloclean Industries, Inc. (Pink Sheets:ECCI - News) today announced recent success of testing results from operations at the Barnett Shale strata.
Full scale operating tests were undertaken at the West Crossroads location of Fountain Quail Water Management. The testing provided positive results and analytical data that the E-C WaterPure™ electrocoagulation process is an effective alternative to chemical based pretreatment processes currently in use in operations at the Barnett Shale strata.
Under the direction Jerry Inman, Vice President of Research and Development and John Adams, Vice President of Operations at Ecoloclean Industries, Inc., the E-C WaterPure™ unit operated for ten days treating flowback water on location. The E-C WaterPure™ unit provided conclusive proven positive results to be effective at reducing suspended solids.
Direct analytical comparisons clearly showed the E-C WaterPure™ unit provided greater effectiveness in removing ten of the twelve contaminants tested. In addition, the E-C WaterPure™ unit is both well suited and fully-developed to provide for implementation in mobile applications.
Royis Ward, President of Ecoloclean Industries, Inc., stated, “With these solid results under our belt we are moving forward with marketing efforts with other contacts in the oil and gas fields to pre-treat flowback and produced water.”
Chlorides:
"A chemical compound containing chlorine. Most chlorides are salts that are formed either by direct union of chlorine with a metal or by reaction of hydrochloric acid (a water solution of hydrogen chloride) with a metal, a metal oxide, or an inorganic base. Chloride salts include sodium chloride (common salt), potassium chloride, calcium chloride, and ammonium chloride. Most chloride salts are readily soluble in water, but mercurous chloride (calomel) and silver chloride are insoluble, and lead chloride is only slightly soluble. Some chlorides, e.g., antimony chloride and bismuth chloride, decompose in water, forming oxychlorides. Many metal chlorides can be melted without decomposition; two exceptions are the chlorides of gold and platinum. Most metal chlorides conduct electricity when fused or dissolved in water and can be decomposed by electrolysis to chlorine gas and the metal. Chlorine forms compounds with the other halogens and with oxygen; when chlorine is the more electronegative element in the compound, the compound is called a chloride. Thus, compounds with bromine and iodine are bromine chloride, BrCl, and iodine chloride, ICI, but compounds with oxygen or fluorine (which are more electronegative than chlorine) are oxides (e.g., chlorine dioxide, ClO2) or fluorides (e.g., chlorine fluoride, ClF) respectively. Many organic compounds contain chlorine, as is indicated by common names such as carbon tetrachloride, methylene chloride, and methyl chloride. However, in the nomenclature system for organic chemistry adopted by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC), the presence in a compound of chlorine bonded to a carbon atom is indicated by the prefix or infix chloro; thus, carbon tetrachloride is tetrachloromethane, methylene chloride is dichloromethane, and methyl chloride is chloromethane.
Chloride is a salt compound resulting from the combination of the gas chlorine and a metal. Some common chlorides include sodium chloride (NaCl) and magnesium chloride (MgCl2). Chlorine alone as Cl2 is highly toxic, and it is often used as a disinfectant. In combination with a metal such as sodium it becomes essential for life. Small amounts of chlorides are required for normal cell functions in plant and animal life.
Environmental Impact:
Chlorides may get into surface water from several sources including:
* rocks containing chlorides,
* agricultural runoff,
* wastewater from industries,
* oil well wastes, and
* effluent wastewater from wastewater treatment plants.
Chlorides can corrode metals and affect the taste of food products. Therefore, water that is used in industry or processed for any use has a recommended maximum chloride level. Chlorides can contaminate freshwater streams and lakes. Fish and aquatic communities cannot survive in high levels of chlorides."
*****************************************************************
IT SOUNDS LIKE ECCI'S TECHNOLOGY WILL WORK TO REMOVE CHLORIDES bonded with 10 out of 12 substances per December 2008 ECCI Pres Release.- THE PRINCIPLE POLLUTANTs IN BARNETT SHALE "FRAC WATER".
FORT WORTH, Texas--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Ecoloclean Industries, Inc. (Pink Sheets:ECCI - News) today announced recent success of testing results from operations at the Barnett Shale strata.
Full scale operating tests were undertaken at the West Crossroads location of Fountain Quail Water Management. The testing provided positive results and analytical data that the E-C WaterPure™ electrocoagulation process is an effective alternative to chemical based pretreatment processes currently in use in operations at the Barnett Shale strata.
Under the direction Jerry Inman, Vice President of Research and Development and John Adams, Vice President of Operations at Ecoloclean Industries, Inc., the E-C WaterPure™ unit operated for ten days treating flowback water on location. The E-C WaterPure™ unit provided conclusive proven positive results to be effective at reducing suspended solids.
Direct analytical comparisons clearly showed the E-C WaterPure™ unit provided greater effectiveness in removing ten of the twelve contaminants tested. In addition, the E-C WaterPure™ unit is both well suited and fully-developed to provide for implementation in mobile applications.
Royis Ward, President of Ecoloclean Industries, Inc., stated, “With these solid results under our belt we are moving forward with marketing efforts with other contacts in the oil and gas fields to pre-treat flowback and produced water.”
My DD on ECCI and Fountain Quail:
Water recycling debate has many sides
BY JOHN-LAURENT TRONCHE
March 24, 2008
Texas News Article
Natural gas operators are examining water recycling as a method to curtail their water usage and demand, but current technology still renders the process less economical than the alternative of simply disposing of the post-drilling, contaminated fluid.
Spurred by residents’ concerns about pollution and water usages, and the industry’s desire to keep costs down, some area operators are pursuing new technologies with the hopes of recycling the water, which could eventually eliminate the need for disposal wells and expensive transportation while ensuring the operators a good standing in the community.
About 3.75 million gallons of water are used for each natural gas well, and what fluid doesn’t remain – or disappear – underground is recaptured either as flow-back water or produced water, both of which are chloride contaminated and need to be managed.
Traditionally, both fluids are inspected in saltwater disposal wells that send the fluids into underground rock formations, where they remain. There are more than 50,000 disposal wells across Texas that serve the more than 216,000 gas wells in the state, according to the Railroad Commission of Texas, which regulates the industry’s subsurface water use.
The saltwater disposal wells are controversial, however, because detractors argue the highly corrosive water could escape and pollute city-used water tables. In October 2007, the Fort Worth City Council enacted a moratorium on these wells, due to expire April 30. However, the city council is expected to extend the measure. Transporting the fluids to these wells is also expensive, representing one of the major costs gas operators incur during the process.
Washing the water
Oklahoma-based Devon Energy Corp. has used a Canadian water treatment technology since 2005 to reclaim and recycle some of the flow-back water and some of the produced water. Devon’s nine mobile heated distillation units, or NOMADs, reclaim and recycle about 24 percent of the 3.5 million gallons of water used during the fracing processes.
The NOMAD systems are designed and built by Aqua-Pure Ventures Inc., based in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, and operated by Granbury-based Fountain Quail Water Management, a subsidiary of Aqua-Pure. In short, the NOMADs use an evaporator and a compressor to treat waters up to saturation, or about 40,000 total dissolved solids, recycling about 80 percent of the inlet water.
“What we’re doing is boiling off the steam, and as the steam evaporates it’s ‘pured,’” said Pat Horner, an engineering team leader at Fountain Quail. “It leaves behind all the contaminants in a concentrate, so we can take that steam and just condense that into pure, distilled water, and take the concentrate away.”
Fountain Quail soon could find competition in another water treatment technology company looking to break into the lucrative Barnett Shale market, Utah-based 212 Resources.
Some Barnett Shale operators have toured 212 Resources’ Wyoming facilities, and the company hopes to sign contracts soon, said Robert Waits, 212 Resources’ executive vice president for business and government affairs, who declined to name the operators.
There are similarities in the Fountain Quail and 212 Resources platforms – both can be powered by on-site natural gas, both use evaporation and distillation technologies – but the latter currently uses a different method of heat transfer, allowing the machines to handle higher Total Dissolved Solids or T.D.S. content, which includes chlorides, and produce a higher concentration of salt brine, Waits said.
“There are technologies handling the flow-back water, and handling it very well,” Waits said. “The flow-back water has very low T.D.S. and is pretty good shape coming in, and that’s not to talk critically of other technology. Where we come in is the produced water. It has as much as three to four times the T.D.S. of the flow-back water and No. 1: most processes can’t even deal with it, and No. 2: they can’t concentrate it enough.
“Each technology has its best use, and we focus on these high T.D.S. waters that have the hydrocarbons in them, and we’re able to take it as high as it is, 110,000 parts per million, and concentrate it to 260,000.”
At the behest of Devon, however, Fountain Quail has been modifying the NOMADs for the past six months to enable the machines to reach for higher T.D.S. levels.- (Crusader question-ECCI modified NOMADS??? Compare to recent ECCI PR-see below)
Another difference between the two technologies is the idea behind their existence. For example, 212 Resources’ PODs act as a miniature recycling facility, while Fountain Quail’s NOMAD system serves as a transportable and modular technology with a 20 foot by 60 foot footprint.
“It doesn’t make sense to build a permanent recycling facility because you’re going to have to move it in six months to a year,” said Horner, adding a central recycling facility to serve all wells wouldn’t remove the problem of transportation costs.
The PODs are a 40 foot by 60 foot, enclosed machine that represent a different theory behind how operators might recycle water.
“They’re transportable, but they’re not mobile,” Waits said. “They’re not intended to move more than once or twice a year, but we anticipate building fixed, central plants, but not necessarily in the Barnett Shale … The economies of scale has to do with how one gathers and redistributes the water, whether by trucks or by pipeline.”
The final difference between the two machines is their applicability in an urban gas drilling environment. Devon Energy has no plans to use the NOMAD systems in a neighborhood environment, due to the technology’s necessary and large, water-holding tank, piping and tubing to connect the two, and transport trucks to move the water to and from the site.
The POD systems could be used in an urban environment, however, even though the machines require the same tank, tubes and trucks, said Waits, adding the technology’s enclosed construction makes noise more bearable and manageable.
What it all costs
Fountain Quail and 212 Resources declined to disclose the machines’ daily operating costs, but according to Devon’s Jay Ewing, completion/construction supervisor, the Fountain Quail system costs about $3.35 per barrel, about 68 percent more than the $2 cost if post-fracing water is simply disposed of.
Waits said he could not provide a cost per barrel, and declined to name the Wyoming operator set to use the POD machine.
However the costs end up, persuading the industry to take a chance on these firms’ products is going to be a balancing act between environmental stewardship and bottom-line economics, said Robert Grable, a partner at Fort Worth-based Kelly Hart & Hallman.
“I think there is going to have to be a general understanding of the technology and how far it can go,” said Grable, “and an appreciation that the current technology is not static if the operator is willing to invest in something that won’t handle all of his water right now.”
Investing in the technologies today is a hope that in the future the costs will decrease and the efficiency will increase, said Grable, but he added if the operators view the technology as “grossly uneconomic,” they’re unlikely to buy into it.
In addition to cost, drillers must contend with the public’s perception of the industry.
Natural gas drillers have a responsibility to practice environmental stewardship and the community needs to get active to work with the industry, said James Samudio, a Fort Worth environmentalist and water conservation supporter.
“I was against urban drilling since the get-go,” Samudio said, “but now that they’re here, we need to be proactive and get behind the companies who can save our water.”
The industry recognizes that fact, too, Grable said.
“I think operators have a self interest in reducing potential conflicts with landowners in the broader community, and many – if not most – have a sense of public responsibility.”
Waits agrees.
“I see it as beyond [public relations], although there’s certainly a PR aspect to it,” Waits said, “but I think there really is a conscientious effort to try to conserve resources or to steward resources. And it takes some companies longer than others to get there, but we’ve found intense interest.
“I’ve not yet met a producer that says I don’t care,” he said.
http://www.fwbusinesspress.com/display.php?id=7232
COMPARE SOME OF THE HIGHLIGHTED PLAYERS ABOVE WITH THE RECENT ECCI PR BELOW:
Ecoloclean Announces Positive Success at Barnett Shale
* Wednesday December 3, 2008, 11:14 am EST
FORT WORTH, Texas--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Ecoloclean Industries, Inc. (Pink Sheets:ECCI - News) today announced recent success of testing results from operations at the Barnett Shale strata.
Full scale operating tests were undertaken at the West Crossroads location of Fountain Quail Water Management. The testing provided positive results and analytical data that the E-C WaterPure™ electrocoagulation process is an effective alternative to chemical based pretreatment processes currently in use in operations at the Barnett Shale strata.
Under the direction Jerry Inman, Vice President of Research and Development and John Adams, Vice President of Operations at Ecoloclean Industries, Inc., the E-C WaterPure™ unit operated for ten days treating flowback water on location. The E-C WaterPure™ unit provided conclusive proven positive results to be effective at reducing suspended solids.
Direct analytical comparisons clearly showed the E-C WaterPure™ unit provided greater effectiveness in removing ten of the twelve contaminants tested. In addition, the E-C WaterPure™ unit is both well suited and fully-developed to provide for implementation in mobile applications.
Royis Ward, President of Ecoloclean Industries, Inc., stated, “With these solid results under our belt we are moving forward with marketing efforts with other contacts in the oil and gas fields to pre-treat flowback and produced water.”
MOMO's ECCI Chart:
http://stockcharts.com/c-sc/sc?s=ECCI&p=D&yr=0&mn=6&dy=0&i=p37019568186&a=134106949&r=287%22%3E
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=33995878
Water recycling debate has many sides
BY JOHN-LAURENT TRONCHE
March 24, 2008
Natural gas operators are examining water recycling as a method to curtail their water usage and demand, but current technology still renders the process less economical than the alternative of simply disposing of the post-drilling, contaminated fluid.
Spurred by residents’ concerns about pollution and water usages, and the industry’s desire to keep costs down, some area operators are pursuing new technologies with the hopes of recycling the water, which could eventually eliminate the need for disposal wells and expensive transportation while ensuring the operators a good standing in the community.
About 3.75 million gallons of water are used for each natural gas well, and what fluid doesn’t remain – or disappear – underground is recaptured either as flow-back water or produced water, both of which are chloride contaminated and need to be managed.
Traditionally, both fluids are inspected in saltwater disposal wells that send the fluids into underground rock formations, where they remain. There are more than 50,000 disposal wells across Texas that serve the more than 216,000 gas wells in the state, according to the Railroad Commission of Texas, which regulates the industry’s subsurface water use.
The saltwater disposal wells are controversial, however, because detractors argue the highly corrosive water could escape and pollute city-used water tables. In October 2007, the Fort Worth City Council enacted a moratorium on these wells, due to expire April 30. However, the city council is expected to extend the measure. Transporting the fluids to these wells is also expensive, representing one of the major costs gas operators incur during the process.
Washing the water
Oklahoma-based Devon Energy Corp. has used a Canadian water treatment technology since 2005 to reclaim and recycle some of the flow-back water and some of the produced water. Devon’s nine mobile heated distillation units, or NOMADs, reclaim and recycle about 24 percent of the 3.5 million gallons of water used during the fracing processes.
The NOMAD systems are designed and built by Aqua-Pure Ventures Inc., based in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, and operated by Granbury-based Fountain Quail Water Management, a subsidiary of Aqua-Pure. In short, the NOMADs use an evaporator and a compressor to treat waters up to saturation, or about 40,000 total dissolved solids, recycling about 80 percent of the inlet water.
“What we’re doing is boiling off the steam, and as the steam evaporates it’s ‘pured,’” said Pat Horner, an engineering team leader at Fountain Quail. “It leaves behind all the contaminants in a concentrate, so we can take that steam and just condense that into pure, distilled water, and take the concentrate away.”
Fountain Quail soon could find competition in another water treatment technology company looking to break into the lucrative Barnett Shale market, Utah-based 212 Resources.
Some Barnett Shale operators have toured 212 Resources’ Wyoming facilities, and the company hopes to sign contracts soon, said Robert Waits, 212 Resources’ executive vice president for business and government affairs, who declined to name the operators.
There are similarities in the Fountain Quail and 212 Resources platforms – both can be powered by on-site natural gas, both use evaporation and distillation technologies – but the latter currently uses a different method of heat transfer, allowing the machines to handle higher Total Dissolved Solids or T.D.S. content, which includes chlorides, and produce a higher concentration of salt brine, Waits said.
“There are technologies handling the flow-back water, and handling it very well,” Waits said. “The flow-back water has very low T.D.S. and is pretty good shape coming in, and that’s not to talk critically of other technology. Where we come in is the produced water. It has as much as three to four times the T.D.S. of the flow-back water and No. 1: most processes can’t even deal with it, and No. 2: they can’t concentrate it enough.
“Each technology has its best use, and we focus on these high T.D.S. waters that have the hydrocarbons in them, and we’re able to take it as high as it is, 110,000 parts per million, and concentrate it to 260,000.”
At the behest of Devon, however, Fountain Quail has been modifying the NOMADs for the past six months to enable the machines to reach for higher T.D.S. levels.- (Crusader question-ECCI??? Compare to recent PR-see below)
Another difference between the two technologies is the idea behind their existence. For example, 212 Resources’ PODs act as a miniature recycling facility, while Fountain Quail’s NOMAD system serves as a transportable and modular technology with a 20 foot by 60 foot footprint.
“It doesn’t make sense to build a permanent recycling facility because you’re going to have to move it in six months to a year,” said Horner, adding a central recycling facility to serve all wells wouldn’t remove the problem of transportation costs.
The PODs are a 40 foot by 60 foot, enclosed machine that represent a different theory behind how operators might recycle water.
“They’re transportable, but they’re not mobile,” Waits said. “They’re not intended to move more than once or twice a year, but we anticipate building fixed, central plants, but not necessarily in the Barnett Shale … The economies of scale has to do with how one gathers and redistributes the water, whether by trucks or by pipeline.”
The final difference between the two machines is their applicability in an urban gas drilling environment. Devon Energy has no plans to use the NOMAD systems in a neighborhood environment, due to the technology’s necessary and large, water-holding tank, piping and tubing to connect the two, and transport trucks to move the water to and from the site.
The POD systems could be used in an urban environment, however, even though the machines require the same tank, tubes and trucks, said Waits, adding the technology’s enclosed construction makes noise more bearable and manageable.
What it all costs
Fountain Quail and 212 Resources declined to disclose the machines’ daily operating costs, but according to Devon’s Jay Ewing, completion/construction supervisor, the Fountain Quail system costs about $3.35 per barrel, about 68 percent more than the $2 cost if post-fracing water is simply disposed of.
Waits said he could not provide a cost per barrel, and declined to name the Wyoming operator set to use the POD machine.
However the costs end up, persuading the industry to take a chance on these firms’ products is going to be a balancing act between environmental stewardship and bottom-line economics, said Robert Grable, a partner at Fort Worth-based Kelly Hart & Hallman.
“I think there is going to have to be a general understanding of the technology and how far it can go,” said Grable, “and an appreciation that the current technology is not static if the operator is willing to invest in something that won’t handle all of his water right now.”
Investing in the technologies today is a hope that in the future the costs will decrease and the efficiency will increase, said Grable, but he added if the operators view the technology as “grossly uneconomic,” they’re unlikely to buy into it.
In addition to cost, drillers must contend with the public’s perception of the industry.
Natural gas drillers have a responsibility to practice environmental stewardship and the community needs to get active to work with the industry, said James Samudio, a Fort Worth environmentalist and water conservation supporter.
“I was against urban drilling since the get-go,” Samudio said, “but now that they’re here, we need to be proactive and get behind the companies who can save our water.”
The industry recognizes that fact, too, Grable said.
“I think operators have a self interest in reducing potential conflicts with landowners in the broader community, and many – if not most – have a sense of public responsibility.”
Waits agrees.
“I see it as beyond [public relations], although there’s certainly a PR aspect to it,” Waits said, “but I think there really is a conscientious effort to try to conserve resources or to steward resources. And it takes some companies longer than others to get there, but we’ve found intense interest.
“I’ve not yet met a producer that says I don’t care,” he said.
http://www.fwbusinesspress.com/display.php?id=7232
COMPARE SOME OF THE HIGHLIGHTED PLAYERS ABOVE WITH THE RECENT ECCI PR BELOW:
Ecoloclean Announces Positive Success at Barnett Shale
* Wednesday December 3, 2008, 11:14 am EST
* Yahoo! Buzz
* Print
FORT WORTH, Texas--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Ecoloclean Industries, Inc. (Pink Sheets:ECCI - News) today announced recent success of testing results from operations at the Barnett Shale strata.
Full scale operating tests were undertaken at the West Crossroads location of Fountain Quail Water Management. The testing provided positive results and analytical data that the E-C WaterPure™ electrocoagulation process is an effective alternative to chemical based pretreatment processes currently in use in operations at the Barnett Shale strata.
Under the direction Jerry Inman, Vice President of Research and Development and John Adams, Vice President of Operations at Ecoloclean Industries, Inc., the E-C WaterPure™ unit operated for ten days treating flowback water on location. The E-C WaterPure™ unit provided conclusive proven positive results to be effective at reducing suspended solids.
Direct analytical comparisons clearly showed the E-C WaterPure™ unit provided greater effectiveness in removing ten of the twelve contaminants tested. In addition, the E-C WaterPure™ unit is both well suited and fully-developed to provide for implementation in mobile applications.
Royis Ward, President of Ecoloclean Industries, Inc., stated, “With these solid results under our belt we are moving forward with marketing efforts with other contacts in the oil and gas fields to pre-treat flowback and produced water.”
Contact Tronche at jtronche@bizpress.net
TIME FOR SOME MORE DD HERE
ARE THERE ANY INSIDERS READING THIS?
yes.....................................................................
.................................................................................................
maybe 2 zeros.
We need some Mojo
working around here on price and volume.
bozazu- your question was not clear,
what website link were you talking about in your first post?
ECCI's corporate website, if that was the focus of your question, is being reconstructed as promised by IR last year as part of the 2009 roll-out of its news business plan later this year and may feature its new customer base. FWIW
1012: It is not acting like a dead pinkie,
is it? Maybe it is a Phoenix. I will research the shadows.
Price is perking,
anyone know what is going on down in Lima?
Up 100% today- not bad
volume was light to modest.
We missed this one, kids!
That may prove to be good or bad:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/board.aspx?board_id=8781
Short squeeze?
This is the sort of thing I'm looking for with ECCI, especially on no news. Spike on great volume for the given stock:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=KRBF.OB
mkinhaw- what bit it?
Last real news was:
19-Sep-2008
Quarterly Report
Item 2. MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OR PLAN OF OPERATION
THE FOLLOWING DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS PROVIDES INFORMATION WHICH OUR MANAGEMENT BELIEVES IS RELEVANT TO AN ASSESSMENT AND UNDERSTANDING OF OUR RESULTS OF OPERATIONS AND FINANCIAL CONDITION. THIS DISCUSSION SHOULD BE READ TOGETHER WITH OUR CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THE NOTES TO OUR CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS WHICH ARE INCLUDED IN THIS REPORT, AND WITH OUR ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-KSB FILED ON MARCH 31, 2008 AS AMENDED BY FORM 10-KSB/A FILED ON APRIL 30, 2008.
As used in this report, the terms "we," "us," and "our," mean Kreido Biofuels, Inc. and our subsidiaries, unless otherwise indicated.
We took our current form on January 12, 2007, when our wholly-owned subsidiary, Kreido Acquisition Corp., or Acquisition Sub, and Kreido Laboratories, or Kreido Labs, executed a Merger Agreement and Plan of Reorganization, or the Merger Agreement. On January 12, 2007, Acquisition Sub merged with and into Kreido Labs, with Kreido Labs remaining as the surviving corporation and as our wholly-owned subsidiary, or the Merger. Also contemporaneously with the closing of the Merger, we split-off another wholly-owned subsidiary, Gemwood Leaseco, Inc., a Nevada corporation, through the sale of all of the outstanding capital stock of Gemwood Leaseco, Inc., or the Split-Off. As a consequence of the sale of Gemwood Leaseco, Inc., we discontinued all of our business operations which we conducted prior to the closing of the Merger, and spun off all material liabilities existing prior to that date in any way related to our pre-closing business operations. Our primary operations are now those operated by Kreido Labs.
The Merger was treated as a recapitalization of our company for accounting purposes. Our historical financial statements before the Merger were replaced with the historical financial statements of Kreido Labs in all filings with the SEC subsequent to January 12, 2007.
Kreido Labs is a corporation founded to develop proprietary technology for building micro-composite materials for electronic applications. In 1995, Kreido Labs began to develop the technology used in the design and assembly of our STT� Reactor. Kreido Labs thereafter sought to develop the technology to improve the speed, completeness and efficiency of certain chemical reactions, including esterifications and transesterifications, in the pharmaceutical and chemical industries. We designed and developed the STT� Reactor which incorporates our proprietary and patented "spinning tube-in-tube" design configuration to improve the speed and yield of chemical reactions. One of the Environmental Protection Agency's largest laboratories has been using our STT�Reactor-based technology since 2004 to develop and evaluate new chemical processes and develop and optimize protocols for use of the STT� Reactor by public and private entities. Beginning in the last quarter of 2005, Kreido Labs began to evaluate the advantages of the STT� Reactor specifically for the production of biodiesel. In the first quarter of 2006, Kreido Labs elected to focus almost exclusively on the biodiesel industry and began to prepare and execute our current business plan. On January 12, 2007, as a result of the Merger, Kreido Labs became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Kreido Biofuels, Inc.
Table of Contents
Plan of Operations
On June 20, 2008, we announced that we were suspending our plan to commercialize our proprietary equipment system for biodiesel production on an industrial scale and to become one of the leading providers of biodiesel in the United States and elsewhere. We expected to execute our business plan by generating revenues from multiple sources: 1) by building and operating our own STT�biodiesel Production Units; 2) licensing our STT� Reactor-based technology to others which may require one of our production units to be in operation, and 3) in the longer term, by providing technology and investing in businesses that will develop or use our STT� Reactor-based technology for production of biofuels and other products. We are now pursuing a limited action plan to realize the value of our assets and our STT� technology.
Since June 20, 2008, we have wound down our plant development activities, and begun monetizing and physically consolidating selected assets. We have focused our attention on identifying, and engaging in discussions with, other companies that have the capacity to acquire some or all of our assets and continue our business while also addressing supplier-creditor matters. We have reduced our operating costs through curtailing our manufacturing operations, site development and other operating activities as well as reducing our staff from 19 to 7 executive and key technical and accounting personnel who we believe are instrumental in pursuing the Company's limited action plan and marketing its technology. The Company has incurred, and will continue to incur, costs associated with carrying out its limited action plan. The amount of these costs, which are being expensed as incurred, are expected to have a significant adverse affect on the results of operations and on the Company's cash position. Additionally, there can be no assurances that any of the interested parties will ultimately purchase any or all of the assets or intellectual property of the Company or that all supplier-creditor matters will be addressed and settled. The goal of this limited action plan is to effect an orderly disposition of our tangible and intangible assets, satisfy the Company's liabilities, and ultimately share the remaining assets, if any, among our shareholders. Our ability to successfully carry out the limited action plan and accomplish this goal will be affected by the business conditions in the alternative fuels industry, general economic conditions, and other matters, many of which are beyond our control. Taking into account these factors and various disposition assumptions, some of which may not materialize, we have made impairment adjustments of approximately $13.4 million to the value of our assets at June 30, 2008. Our ability to effectively complete our limited action plan is inherently uncertain. In addition, unanticipated and uncertain events and circumstances occurring subsequent to the date of this Quarterly Report may affect the actual value of our assets, the related impairment adjustments and the results of our plan both favorably or unfavorably.
Consolidated Results of Operations for the six months ended June 30, 2008 and 2007
Operating Expenses
Operating expenses of $17.9 million for the six months ended June 30, 2008 increased by $15.7 million compared to $2.2 million for the same period in 2007. Research and development expense for the six months ended June 30, 2008 were $809,000 compared to $298,000 for the same period in 2007, an increase of $511,000. Research and development expenses increased for the first half of 2008 compared to the same period in 2007 due to the hiring of a chief technology officer and a scientist in the second quarter of 2007 whose costs were not reflected in the earlier months of 2007 and also to the patent valuation write down of $639,000 in 2008. We expect research and development expenses to be at a minimum in the future. General and administrative costs increased to $3.7 million for the six months ended June 30, 2008 from $1.9 million for the same period in 2007. The increase was related primarily to the rental of tanks from Vopak and the write off of capitalized site specific costs related to the proposed full scale plant site, the costs associated with being a public company, an increase in stock compensation expense from the issuance and repricing of stock options to employees and an increase in payroll related costs from the hiring of additional personnel. Also during 2008, we expensed $13.4 million of costs attributed to plant assets and costs associated with building extra reactors and acquiring spare parts as an impairment reserve. We expect general and administrative costs to decrease compared to the first six months of the year as we complete the winding down of our operations and pursue our limited action plan to realize the value of our assets and business. Additionally, we will continue to incur costs associated with operating as a public reporting entity.
Table of Contents
Other Income (Expense)
Other income (expense) for the six months ended June 30, 2008 declined to $53,000 from $421,000 for the same period in 2007. Other income for the six months ended June 30, 2008 and 2007 consisted of interest income. The interest income decrease reflects the changes in the available cash balances. Net Loss
Net loss for the six months ended June 30, 2008 was $17,808,000, or about 908% increase compared to the net loss of $1,766,000 for the same six month period for 2007. There were no net sales or gross profit for the six months ended June 30, 2008 and 2007. We expect to incur net losses for the foreseeable future as we continue to pursue our limited action plan.
Consolidated Results of Operations for the three months ended June 30, 2008 and 2007
Operating Expenses
Operating expenses of $15.3 million for the three months ended June 30, 2008 increased by $13.8 million compared to $1.5 million for the same period in 2007. Research and development expense for the three months ended June 30, 2008 were $582,000 compared to $278,000 for the same period in 2007, an increase of $304,000. The increase in research and development expenses was due primarily to the patent valuation write down of $398,000 in the second quarter of 2008. General and administrative costs increased to $2.1 million for the three months ended June 30, 2008 from $1.2 million for the same period in 2007. The increase was related primarily to the write off of $891,000 of capitalized site specific costs related to the proposed full scale plant site. Development of the full scale plant site was suspended on June 20, 2008. Also during 2008, we expensed $13.4 million of costs attributed to plant assets and costs associated with building extra reactors and acquiring spare parts as an impairment reserve. We expect general and administrative costs to decrease compared to the prior three months of 2008 as we complete the winding down of our operations and pursue our limited action plan to realize the value of our assets and business. Additionally, we will continue to incur costs associated with operating as a public reporting entity.
Other Income (Expense)
Other income (expense) for the three months ended June 30, 2008 declined to $12,000 from $229,000 for the same period in 2007. Other income for the three months ended June 30, 2008 and 2007 consisted of interest income. The interest income decrease reflects the changes in the available cash balances. Net Loss
Net loss for the three months ended June 30, 2008 was $15,303,000 compared to the net loss of $1,233,000 for the same three month period for 2007. There were no net sales or gross profit for the three months ended June 30, 2008 and 2007. We expect to incur net losses for the foreseeable future as we continue to pursue our limited action plan.
Liquidity and Capital Resources
A summary of our sources and use of cash for the six months ended June 30, 2008, is as follows:
� Source of cash consisted of interest income of $52,000.
� Uses of cash consisted of plant development costs including purchases of fixed assets and construction of plant components and reactors of $4.1 million, operating expenses of $2.1 million (net of non-cash expenses such as loss on impairment of property and equipment, stock compensation, and depreciation and amortization), repayment of capital leases of $19,000 and investments in patents of $68,000 for a total use of cash of approximately $6.3 million.
� The decrease in cash balance to $1.4 million results from net sources of $52,000 less uses of cash of $6.3 million plus an increase in the amounts due to vendors of $1.2 million which will be paid in future periods.
The details of the cash flow activities for the six months ended June 30, 2008 are discussed below.
Net cash used by operating activities for the six months ended June 30, 2008 was $941,000 as compared to net cash provided by operating activities of $680,000 for the same period in 2007. Net cash used by operations in 2008 is primarily related to operating costs and an increase in accounts payable which consisted of certain large payments due to vendors associated with the construction of our biodiesel production plant. In addition, we supplemented our net operating loss with a $13.4 million reserve for the possible impairment of our fixed assets. We also incurred an increase in stock compensation costs compared to the prior period.
Net cash used by investing activities for six months ended June 30, 2008 was approximately $4.1 million which was a decrease from $6.1 million used by investing activities for the same period in 2007. The cash used in 2008 and 2007 consisted primarily of the purchase and construction of equipment and facilities associated with our Wilmington Plant. Costs of the plant consist of: (1) site selection, leasing, permitting and other legal compliance; (2) architectural, design and engineering; (3) labor, overhead and materials to build in-house the STT� Reactors; (4) designing, engineering and manufacturing of the plant production unit which includes components such as centrifuges, tanks, control panels and other equipment being built by third parties for delivery to the plant site; and (5) the general contractor fees, engineering and construction of the buildings and physical improvements including tanks, piping, boilers and various lab and other equipment and machinery comprising the plant. In addition, approximately $2.3 million has been recorded as outstanding payables for services, equipment and construction work incurred through June 30, 2008 provided by sub-contractors and equipment vendors. We also invested $68,000 in patents for six months ended June 30, 2008.
Net cash used by financing activities for six months ended June 30, 2008 was $19,000 which is due to repayment of capital lease obligations. For the same period in 2007, $22.7 million was provided by financing activities consisting primarily of the private placement sale of our common stock netting proceeds to us of approximately $23 million. This was offset by the repayment of outstanding notes and the payment of capital leases of $151,000.
Table of Contents
In furtherance of our limited action plan, in July, 2008, we received $400,000 in full settlement of a claim we had against a former professional advisor, which settlement included a release of all of the Company's claims against the former professional advisor.
Summary of Significant Accounting Policies Basis of Presentation
The accompanying consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
Research and Development
Research and development costs related to the design, development, demonstration, and testing of reactor technology are charged to operations as incurred.
Cash and Cash Equivalents
We consider all highly liquid investments with a maturity date of three months or less when purchased to be cash equivalents. Use of Estimates
Preparation of consolidated financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the consolidated financial statements and reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting periods covered by the consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes. Actual results could differ from those estimates.
Depreciation and Amortization
The provision for depreciation of property and equipment is calculated when put into service on the straight-line method over the estimated useful lives of the related assets, generally ranging from five to seven years. Leasehold improvements are amortized over the shorter of the useful life of the related asset or the lease term.
Patents
Capitalized patent costs consist of direct costs associated with obtaining patents such as legal expenses and filing fees. Patent costs are amortized on a straight-line basis over 15 years, which is the expected life, beginning in the month that the patent is issued. Patent costs are capitalized beginning with the filing of the patent application. The patents are tested for impairment annually, or more frequently if events or conditions indicate the asset might be impaired and the carrying value may not be recoverable. These conditions may include an economic downturn, new and or competitive technology, new industry regulations and a change in our operations or business direction. The impairment tests include a comparison of estimated undiscounted cash flows associated with the asset's carrying amount. If the assessment determines that the fair value is less than the carrying amount of the patent, an impairment charge is recorded to reduce the amount of the patent.
Table of Contents
Impairment of Long-Lived Assets
We continually evaluate whether events and circumstances have occurred that indicate the remaining estimated useful life of long-lived assets may warrant revision or that the remaining balance of long-lived assets may not be recoverable in accordance with SFAS No. 144, Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets. When factors indicate that long-lived assets should be evaluated for possible impairment, we use an estimate of the related undiscounted future cash flows over the remaining life of the long-lived assets in measuring whether they are recoverable. If the estimated undiscounted future cash flows are less than the carrying amount of the asset, a loss is recorded as the excess of the asset's carrying amount over its fair value. Management has performed an assessment of the fixed assets of the Company which includes assessments of the future realizable value of the assets through discussion with potential buyers and our current manufactures and vendors though a formal appraisal was not obtained due to its cost. Based on this analysis, we have reserved a significant portion of the amount of our assets for future plants, spare parts and other fixed assets though there can be no assurance that additional reserves or write offs may be required nor that a reduction in the current reserve may be recorded when the actual realized value of the fixed assets are determined through sale or exchange. Stock-Based Compensation
Effective January 1, 2006, we adopted SFAS 123(R) "Share Based Payment" using the modified prospective approach and accordingly prior periods have not been restated to reflect the impact of SFAS 123(R). Under SFAS 123(R), stock-based awards granted prior to January 1, 2006 will be charged to expense over the remaining portion of their vesting period. These awards will be charged to expense under the straight-line method using the same fair value measurements which were used in calculating pro forma stock-based compensation expense under SFAS 123. For stock-based awards granted on or after January 1, 2006, we determined stock-based compensation based on the fair value method specified in SFAS 123(R), and we will amortize stock-based compensation expense on the straight-line basis over the requisite service period.
For periods prior to January 1, 2006, SFAS 123(R) requires forfeitures to be estimated at the time of grant and revised, if necessary, in subsequent periods if actual forfeitures differ from initial estimates. Fair Value of Financial Instruments
The carrying values reflected in the balance sheets for cash and cash equivalents, accounts receivable, accounts payable and accrued expenses approximate their fair values due to the short maturity of these instruments. The carrying value of convertible notes payable and capital leases approximates their fair value based upon current market borrowing rates with similar terms and maturities.
Comprehensive Loss
Except for net loss, we have no material components of comprehensive loss, and accordingly, the comprehensive loss is the same as the net loss for all periods presented.
Recent Accounting Pronouncements
In March 2008, the FASB issued SFAS No. 161, "Disclosures about Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities" ("SFAS No. 161"). SFAS 161 requires companies with derivative instruments to disclose information that should enable financial-statement users to understand how and why a company uses derivative instruments, how derivative instruments and related hedged items are accounted for under FASB Statement No. 133 "Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities" and how derivative instruments and related hedged items affect a company's financial position, financial performance and cash flows. SFAS 161 is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years and interim periods beginning after November 15, 2008. We will review the effect of the adoption of this statement, and if it applies, it is likely to have a material effect on our future financial position or results of operations.
Table of Contents
In December 2007, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued Statement No. 141 (revised 2007), "Business Combinations." The new standard requires the acquiring entity in a business combination to recognize all (and only) the assets acquired and liabilities assumed in the transaction; establishes the acquisition-date fair value as the measurement objective for all assets acquired and liabilities assumed; and requires the acquirer to disclose to investors and other users all of the information they need to evaluate and understand the nature and financial effect of the business combination. This Statement is effective for us starting January 1, 2009 and we currently believe it will have no financial impact on us.
In December, 2007, the FASB issued Statement No. 160, "Noncontrolling Interests in Consolidated Financial Statements-an amendment of ARB No. 51." This statement establishes accounting and reporting standards for the noncontrolling interest in a subsidiary and for the deconsolidation of a subsidiary. This statement is effective prospectively, except for certain retrospective disclosure requirements, for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2008. We currently believe this Statement will have no financial impact on us.
In February 2007, the Financial Accounting Board (FASB) issued SFAS No. 159, "The Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities" ("SFAS 159") which permits entities to choose to measure many financial instruments and certain other items at fair value that are not currently required to be measured at fair value. SFAS 159 is effective for us on January 1, 2008. We evaluated the impact of the adoption and determined that it does not have any impact on our current financial condition or results of operations.
In September 2006, the FASB issued SFAS No. 157, Fair Value Measurements ("SFAS 157"). SFAS 157 defines fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value and expands disclosure of fair value measurements. SFAS 157 applies under other accounting pronouncements that require or permit fair value measurements and, accordingly, does not require any new fair value measurements. SFAS 157 is effective for financial statements issued for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007. We evaluated the impact of the adoption and determined that it does not have any impact on our current financial condition or results of operations.
Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements
We do not have any off-balance sheet arrangements as defined in Item 303(c) of Regulation S-B, promulgated by the SEC.
And it hit hit .04 twice,
before closing at .017 for a seven bagger.
I'm going to look into more DD- ASAP!
Now today was special:
up seven bags on good volume.
What is going on here?
Any comments, folks?
.0001 Club is like the Hotel California:
you can check out, but you can never leave.
All my picks are .0001,
the problem is that they tend to stay there! LOL
This stock just keeps
keeping on
Price action looks good,
low crude prices does not look good for Pure Biofuels. But time is on its side, yes it is!
#################################################################
Oil palm plantations are expanding in South America: Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela and now Peru have joined the commercial thrust. The companies find profitable opportunities at the expense of the invaluable Amazon forest and of the lives of peasants who are displaced from their lands where they obtain their means of livelihood.
In the year 2000 the Ministry of Agriculture prepared the National Oil Palm Promotion Plan 2000-2010. With a market approach, the plan seeks to promote “clusters” in the departments of San Martin and Loreto until the consolidation of 50,000 hectares is achieved in the Amazon region which – according to draft Law 9271-- “has vast and rich lands where the palm oil industry can be developed.”
In this context, complaints have been made that 30,000 hectares of tropical forests located in the valleys of the Caynarachi and Shanusi subsidiary basins, located right in the Amazon plains and part of the cloud forest, in the district of Yurimaguas, Loreto region, will be allocated to the plantation and industrialization of oil palms by the Romero group, a powerful joint conglomerate involving Industrias del Espino S.A. (INDESA) and Palmas del Espino y Subsidiarias (PALMESA). Before the results of the project’s environmental impact assessment have been made public, it is reported that deforestation of 2,000 hectares in the Shanusi area has already started.
The State authorities (the National Environmental Council-Peru - CONAM and the National Natural Resource Institute - INRENA), have made no objections to this project not only degrading the habitat of thousands of forest species, but also carried out at the expense of the territorial rights of numerous peasant communities. In many cases the communities inhabiting the project’s area of influence since 1941 or 1961, have been unable to obtain ownership deeds for their communal lands because of the high costs involved in the process. Furthermore, obtaining deeds which takes from one to three years for a peasant or native community, has only take three months for the Romero Group and today the company has managed to obtain ownership of the peasant families’ lands.
Over 40 families living in lands that they have occupied for six years now feel that the bodies responsible for issuing the deeds have deceived them as at the beginning they promised to grant the deeds for their plots, but now tell them that as the lands are within the area requested by the Romero group company, it is no longer possible to continue with the formalities. The Upper Shanusi Agrarian Farmers Association “Centro San Isidro” reported that their members started legal formalities in 2005 and that the PETT (Proyecto Especial de Titulación de Tierras – Special Project for Land Title Deeds) measured up the plots, and therefore they are very surprised and upset by this decision.
The peasants of the area know that similar monoculture oil palm plantation projects in Colombia and Ecuador have led to the destruction of the environment, mainly as a consequence of the use of agrochemicals and of their impacts on water, soil, flora and fauna and have also displaced thousands of peasants. They say that social aspects do not look good either as the project will affect activities such as firewood gathering, hunting and fishing, among others.
For its part, the Board of Directors of the Agrarian Farmers Association “Centro San Isidro” – APACSI from the lower Shanusi – Yurimaguas, facing the invasion of oil palm plantations, has issued a declaration in which it makes a denunciation against the authorities for having keep silent over PETT’s refusal to grant land ownership deeds for the lands they have occupied and worked for more than six years at the same time caring for the primary forest in the San Isidro Lower Shanusi sector.
They also regret that a wide sector of the press “is not giving coverage to this problem which grows bigger every day and which will surely end in serious and nefarious consequences for our ecology, with deforestation of a vast territory… and with it the destruction of thousands of species of flora and fauna. All this for the miserable objective of planting oil palms for the profitable business of vegetable oil for the new ‘ecological engines’ that the Romero group is certainly considering selling in our country. It should be noted that this palm only grows where there is sun and water, that is to say that all the vegetation that does not serve their purpose will be destroyed and with it the beings that inhabit it. Furthermore, it is not true that this investment will bring development to the population in this area that has been obliged to sell their lands in order to implement this eco-suicidal project that is merely a temporary palliative to the hunger and misery of our long-suffering peoples.” (see the complete declaration in Spanish at: http://www.wrm.org.uy/paises/Peru/Declaracion_Yurimaguas.html).
Article based on information from: “Arbitrario posesionamiento del grupo económico Romero en tierras protegidas de selva virgen de Yurimaguas”, (The Romero economic group arbitrarily takes possession by of protected lands in the virgin forest of Yurimaguas) declaration made on 9 July 2006 by the Board of Directors - APACSI from the lower Shanusi; “Paralizan titulación de tierras de más de cuarenta comuneros del Alto Shanusi” (the granting of land ownership deeds of over forty community members from the Upper Shanusi has been paralized) Giovanni Acate, Radio Oriente, http://www.ideeleradio.org.pe/look/Ideeleradio/article.tpl?IdLanguage=13&IdPublication=7&
NrIssue=27&NrSection=50&NrArticle=8898
ECCI has short interest:
Did you ever wonder why some are so negative about a given stock, a sub-penny stock to boot??? ECCI has been driven down 900% in recent months. How? Why? Did this profit anyone?
Look down the alphabetical listing on the first link & find ECCI:
http://www.interactivebrokers.com/en/trading/ViewShortableStocks.php?cntry=usa&tag=United%20States&ib_entity=llc&ln=&b=DVR&e=EEB
Feel free to browse the list for yourselves:
http://www.interactivebrokers.com/en/trading/shortableStocks.php
http://www.interactivebrokers.com/en/trading/SearchShortableStocks.php?cntry=usa&tag=United%20St...
***No U.S. SEC law against shorting penny stocks!***
This is absloutely unbelievable, I never realized the day when I'd see a stock priced at .0001 on a publicly-allowed and perfectly legal short sale security list! But yes, it's true. If you want an example, go to the link I provided and look up ECCI.
Another thing, is who to believe on the message boards. A lot of people also have been talking recently about who will allow you to short penny stocks. Well now with it being on a public list, we have found the answer to that question. I was even one of those doubters. But now I've come into reality and I now realize the truth behind the madness. It's true. You can short penny stocks, and you don't need a lot of money to do it either! Absolutely stunning revelations! Even stocks that trade at .0001, holy-moly!
Announce a contract by Valentines Day,
or else I'm moving off this board and out of this stock. No wonder there are sellers at .0001- we are going nowhere fast.
SCAM Article:
"Many people have been susceptible to penny stocks scams. They hear about the next great hot penny stock in message boards, emails, faxes, and from other people who claim that such and such penny stock will go through the roof. So they listen and put some money in that penny stock. Then, lo and behold, they see their investment crash and they wonder what went wrong. Then they go on to blame other people, when in fact, they have nobody to blame but themselves. Here are three ways to protect yourself against penny stock scams.
1. Take information you see on message boards with a grain of salt.
Message boards are a double edged sword. On the one hand, they can be a great source of information. On the other hand, message boards are fertile ground for wolves to prey upon the beginners. These wolves are known as “pumpers”. They will throw important sounding terminology at you and come across as if to know for sure that this is the next penny stock to invest in. Sometimes these “pumpers” are none other then people paid by the hyped penny stock company to artificially inflate the price of stock via word of mouth. Use extreme discretion when deciding which information to utilize when making your final decision.
2. Disregard any mail, email, or fax that hypes a penny stock.
A penny stock promoted through unsolicited mail, email, fax might as well as label itself with big red letters spelling SCAM. Do you know any people that are all talk and no action? Penny stocks that promote themselves via spam are all talk and no action. The sole purpose of spending is to create artificial height to inflate the price of the penny stock. Then the people who promote the stock will sell their shares at a profit, thus driving the price of the stock downward leaving those who have invested recently with a negative loss. What makes the situation worse is that those same people who recently bought will hold in hopes of having the stock price rise up again, but 9.9 times out of 10, the stock price will continue to decline and they will incur a greater loss.
3. Do your own research and take personal responsibility.
If you happen to stumble across a penny stock that shows promise, don’t take it at face value. Do your own research on this penny stock. What kind of services or products to the offer? How’s their cash flow been over this past several years? Have they filed for bankruptcy recently? Take a look at their quarterly statements. In other words you and you alone must take full responsibility for any action that you take when it comes to putting money in penny stocks."
GM traders, nice to see the enthusiasm!
Reminds me of happier days on other boards.