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.
USSE Biofuel Analysis
Summit Envvironmental Technologies Laboratory Report.
http://www.maximuscommunications.com/set_report.pdf
.
Alcorn State Summary Report
http://www.ussec.us/alcorn_state.pdf
.
Re: Stock Incentive Plan.
It does not appear that some one will answer this, so I will take a crack. If your question does not get answered, just ask again, being more specific.
A Stock Incentive Plan might be similar to Profit Sharing. The theory is that by making sure that the employee is a stockholder, the employee will work harder to make the company sucessful, thus increasing the value of his stock. Many companies do this.
The Plan by PLRO looks extremely good. First, it takes 34 million shares out of circulation. The Outstanding Share count is 75 million, after being reduced by Partnership Interests and Stock Incentive Plan, we are left with a Float of about 20 million shares. That is an extremely low Float and is excellent.
Typical BB stock Incentive Plans, just issue themselves million and millions of shares. That is not what is happening here. The Directors are each given 1,056,000 stock options. A Stock Option is a piece of paper, giving the holder the "Option" to convert the option to shares of stock. Upon conversion the option holder must pay the agreed upon Strike price. In this case it appears that the strike price is 100% of the fair price of the stock. This is very unusual, if nothing else they usually at least get a 20% discount.
I admit, all the details are not clear to me. As you saw, the Proxy is lengthy (256 pages) and complicated.
Anyway, the Insiders of PLRO will own a good size piece of their own stock, which is a very good thing.
.
Re: Share Count
Before November, PLRO was still a private company. In November 2006, PLRO did a Reverse Merger, taking over the shell from NorthTech. Each new company has their own Capital Structure, based on their needs. If the merger is approved by the March 1 Shareholder vote, PLRO will officially close the merger shortly after. Upon closing the new share count looks like:
Upon Closing:
Authorized = 400 million Shares
Outstanding = 75 million Shares
Approximate Float = 20 million Shares
This was given by PLRO Investor Relations, read post #7 here. Going a step further, the fully diluted share count is approximately 102 million. More details will be coming soon in new SEC Documents.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=16642345
.
Green Certificates
What Are Green Certificates (RECs)?
The electricity from all power plants, such as coal, nuclear, natural-gas fired, wind, or solar, and whether in a regulated or competitive market, is mixed together in the transmission and distribution lines that deliver electricity to homes and businesses. Meters measure how much electricity enters the grid from each power plant, as well as how much is used by each end-use customer.
The renewable electricity can be broken into two major parts:
1. the “energy”, or actual electrical megawatt-hours (MWh) or kilowatt-hours (kWh) delivered into the electrical grid and are common to any power plant, whether powered by a renewable fuel or not; and
2. the renewable “attributes”, or “green certificates”, or “RECs”, representing the positive environmental attributes associated with the MWh or kWh of renewable power delivered to the grid.
Other Names or Acronyms for Renewable Energy Certificates
Renewable energy certificates (RECs) are known by a number of other names or acronyms, including:
* Tradable Renewable Certificates (TRCs)
* Renewable Energy Credits
* Renewable Resource Credits (RRCs)
* Tradable Renewable Energy Credits / Certificates (T-RECs)
* Green Certificates (GCs)
* Green Tickets
* Green Tags
RECs Represent a Non-physical Product
Renewable certificates are non-physical products, representing the air, water, land, and other benefits or avoided impacts associated with renewable energy production. A renewable generator delivers megawatt-hours into the electrical grid, where the electrons from renewable plants are mixed with the electrons delivered by every other power plant, and flow where physics dictate. The renewable certificates correspond to the meter reads of the generating plant, usually measured in megawatt-hours (MWh). The certificates are then traded at a price representing the premium for the renewable energy production.
How RECs are Tracked
The use of RECs greatly simplifies the process of measuring renewable energy usage. Renewable energy tracking systems provide a means of collecting the meter readings from renewable plants, verifying the output, and issuing the RECs into a generator’s account (like a bank account). Each REC is typically assigned and identified by a unique serial number. This provides a means of accurately tracking the REC as it changes hands in REC markets, assuring that it has not been double-counted. The generator, or its agent, can then sell the RECs at a price representing the premium for the renewable energy production. The RECs are then transferred by the seller to the buyer’s REC account, allowing for accurate accounting of the RECs.
Some REC tracking systems offer bulletin boards where REC account holders can view who wants to buy and sell RECs. Bilateral trades are also common in the overall markets. Brokers are active in REC markets, providing extra liquidity for these markets.
Where RECs Are Used
REC tracking systems are currently operating in Wisconsin, New Jersey, New England, the mid-Atlantic states, and Texas. The Midwestern states plan to expand the Wisconsin system in 2007, and the Western States will be implementing a multi-state system in 2007. The Wisconsin Renewable Portfolio Standard allows for electric providers to meet their renewable energy obligations by purchasing Renewable Resource Credits (RRCs) from other electric providers that have delivered excess renewable energy to their customers. In Texas and New England, the renewable energy program associated with the electric industry restructuring is built around the use of renewable certificates.
How RECs are Used
In most cases where certificates are used, a load-serving entity (such as a utility company or electric service provider) purchases power from the general commodity market, and couples it with RECs, to present a renewable energy product for their customers. Retailers have also emerged that offer a REC-only product to their customers, providing an easy way for consumers to support renewable energy development through their dollars in cases where they cannot or do not want to choose an alternative provider for their commodity electricity.
How Do REC Markets Work?
There are two main categories of REC markets: compliance and voluntary.
Compliance markets are those where utility companies and/or electric suppliers must deliver a certain percentage of renewable power to their customers through a “renewable portfolio standard”, or RPS. In order to demonstrate compliance with the RPS, electric suppliers can either build their own renewable power plants, contract with independent renewable power facilities, or purchase RECs. Not all RPS programs allow RECs for demonstrating compliance, but the majority do, and others are moving in this direction. When RECs are used for compliance purposes, the electric supplier will “retire” RECs to meet the RPS obligation, thereby permanently taking them out of circulation.
Voluntary markets are those where consumers make a conscious decision to purchase renewable power. Retailers have emerged that offer REC products to their customers, providing an easy way for consumers to support renewable energy development through their dollars in cases where they cannot or do not want to choose an alternative provider for their commodity electricity. For example, if there is no RPS in a particular state, and the local utility does not offer a green power product, a consumer can continue to be a utility customer, but then purchase RECs from a separate company to “green” their own electricity usage. Through their purchase of renewable certificates, consumers send extra dollars directly to renewable generators, supporting their production of environmentally preferable power.
Advantages of RECs
There are many advantages that RECs provide to the renewable energy market:
* RECs can be traded across regional, national, and international boundaries without the complication or additional costs that result from trading energy across transmission control areas. This allows consumer to support whatever type of green generation they want, even if it is not local.
* Generators can avoid the expense and complication of “pancaked” transmission rates, which might occur when a generator sends its power from one area to another.
* Renewable generators can maximize their revenue by selling into the best markets for both energy and RECs.
* Intermittent generators, such as wind, solar, and run-of-river hydro, can receive full value for their RECs, without having to be concerned about time-of-delivery issues.
* Load serving entities that want to provide renewable power to their customers can easily meet their customer’s demand for renewable energy. They can purchase scheduled energy to meet hourly loads, then purchase the aggregate amount of RECs equal to their total MWh of load without having to match the RECs on an hourly basis.
* Clear price signals are sent to the market as to the value of renewable generation compared to conventional generation. Additional, price signals are sent comparing the value of different types of renewable generation.
* Market entry for new retail suppliers of renewable products is made simpler and less risky. Most cannot enter into long-term contracts with renewable generators for energy and RECs, but they can purchase RECs separately from their commodity energy needs to satisfy their customer requirements for renewable energy.
http://www.cleanpowermarkets.com/greencertificates.html
.
Stock Incentive Plan
I assume you are asking for thoughts on the proposed Stock Incentive Plan. That Incentive Plan section in the Proxy are pages 72-83. Here is a key summary paragraph:
page 72
"The Incentive Plan is an unfunded plan which provides for the granting of incentive stock options, nonstatutory stock options, stock appreciation rights and restricted shares (collectively, "Awards") to employees, directors and consultants of the Company or an affiliate. The Board believes that the Incentive Plan strengthens the Company's ability to attract, retain, and reward employees, directors and consultants by enabling such persons to acquire or increase a proprietary interest in the Company, strengthening the mutuality of interests between such persons and the Company's stockholders, and providing such persons with performance incentives to expend their maximum efforts in the creation of stockholder value. The Incentive Plan provides for a reserve of 34,166,667 shares that could be issued in connection with Awards granted under the Incentive Plan".
Excercise Pice of Options, Pg 73:
"The exercise price per share for Common Stock subject to an Option will be determined by the Plan Administrator at the date of grant; provided, that the exercise price for any Option shall not be less than 100% of the fair market value of the Common Stock at the date of grant"...............
.
New Corrosion Technology Takes Off
October 2005
http://www.techrobond.com/media/promedia_oct3_05.pdf
.
USSE - Disruptive Technology
USSE has a product and technology that is poised to disrupt the large status quo global Energy Markets. Boy are they worried.
Proof positive of the concern is the USSE Message Board. I have never seen a MB so infiltrated and infested with varying types of bashers. This Board is overcome with people posting nothing but negative, unsubstantiated, and unsupported garbage.
The new gimmick here is people puporting to be longs, yet continualy post their nagging hand-wringing question after question. 3/4 of the posts here say they are long, then proceed in the most sutble ways to bash USSE. Just little things to cause FUD, fear, uncertainty and doubt. Some of them post 30 or 40 times a day here, and say nothing of value. Their routine is "I am long, BUT why no news? how many BTU's? I am getting so nervous, something must be wrong here. We are going to the teens, I hope it goes up so i can salvage some of my money... BLAH BLAH BLAH.
Then the new twist lately is people coming on supporting PP and his ignorant posts. Oh people should be able to ask all the stupid questions that they want. We deserve answers. We gotta know and we gotta know now!!!
The quantity of these kind of posters here is simply astounding. There are some very big players that do not want USSE to succeed. They are pulling out all the stops. Unfortunately it appears to be working, here. This board lately is pretty much useless. Reading the board is a waste of time.
I just hope new investors that come here, do not listen to the garbage and do their own research. USSE should be judged on it's own merits (or lack of) and not on the ridiculous nonsense that is dominating this MB.
Who is motivating this unprecedented, staggering number of bashers? Makes you wonder. Unfortunately, this chaos appears to be one of the prices you pay, when you have such an innovative, Disruptive Technology.
.
More Current Auto Emissions Legislation
Maryland Legislators Hope To Raise Emissions Standards Starting In 2011. Republican Del. Anthony J. O'Donnell of Calvert is Most Worried About Cost to Business.
By JONATHAN N. CRAWFORD, Capital News Service
February 20, 2007
ANNAPOLIS - A proposed law requiring new cars to comply with stricter emissions standards starting in 2011 won overwhelming approval on Tuesday from Maryland's House of Delegates. The legislation now moves to the Senate, where it is expected to also find strong support.
The bill, known as the Clean Cars Act, would require auto manufacturers selling cars in Maryland to have new gas-saving technology and to offer a percentage of low emission cars for the purpose of reducing air pollution. It passed on the House floor 122 to 16 without a murmur of debate.
An exultant Delegate Maggie McIntosh, D-Baltimore, a fierce supporter of the bill, pumped her fists in celebration.
"This means a lot. ... Now we're saying to ourselves, 'We in Maryland, consumers who drive automobiles, want to make sure that our car dealers and manufacturers are sending cleaner cars into Maryland,'" said McIntosh, chairwoman of the Environmental Matters Committee and floor manager of the bill.
Similar legislation was killed two years ago in a Senate committee. But this year, Sen. Brian E. Frosh, D-Montgomery, co-sponsor of a Senate version, anticipates an "easy" passage of the bill in both chambers.
The House version of the bill is expected to be reviewed by the Senate later this week. The bill was initially part of Gov. Martin O'Malley's legislative package.
Opponents of the bill harbored concerns about the potential economic impact on car dealers under the new measure. One concern is that car dealers' sales to out-of-state customers would decline due to the projected $1000-price increase of cars that meet the California standard.
"If there is a detrimental [economic] impact it will be too late to do anything about it because we will have already implemented the program," said Del. Anthony J. O'Donnell, R-Calvert, an opponent of the bill.
O'Donnell said it would have been more prudent for the state to stick to the federal emissions regulations, in-lieu of adopting the California standards, because the economic costs to state businesses are known while the standards are also "stringent." However, the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) reported that the existing federal and state programs are insufficient since much of the state currently fails to meet federal air quality standards. The MDE also found that car emissions are a central problem since Marylanders drive more than 135 million miles each day, contributing up to 40 percent of the pollutants responsible for the state's air pollution problems.
http://somd.com/news/headlines/2007/5433.shtml
TechroBond increases Fuel Economy, reduces Tailpipe Emissions
.
Re: Nice USSE Write Up Comments
Here are the comments of person that visited Natchez twice:
Michael Kelling // Feb 21, 2007 at 3:26 pm
I’ve visited USSEC twice now, and both times it looked more like an entrance parade for the academy awards than a biofuel group announcing its discovery. There is a buzz and excitement there that just can’t be conveyed without visiting. I think it starts with all the jaws that drop from the power companies that visit when they bring their own validation teams. I’m not a scientist, but the clear impression I got was that this company has hit on a revolutionary process due to the enzyme process they use that will translate into the company producing one of the first truly green energy alternatives every created. Probably why their headquarters looks more like an inbound motorcade arena.
http://www.energyrefuge.com/blog/
.
CARB May Crack Down on Motor Oil Emissions
Regulatory agencies in the state of California have contracted a study to assess the amount of air pollution generated by motor oils through non-tailpipe emissions. The California Air Resources Board said it believes those emissions to be a major source of soot and that lubricant reformulation may be the solution.
(Article continues)
http://www.imakenews.com/lng/e_article000681120.cfm?x=b11,0,w
.
Grease Usage
No, I did not find any more recent test results. However, this is from page 6 of the Research Works Stock Report:
Greases - The first targeted opportunity for PRO in this sector is to commercialize greases with greatly reduced or no molybdenum disulfide content, because the price of molybdenum has escalated from $3 to as high as $40 recently. A recent report from UBS Investment Research predicts that molybednum disulfide prices will remain elevated and average $22.50 in 2007 due to strong demand. Molybdenum disulfide also exhibits poor performance under some heavy load conditions, according to PRO.
The first commercial use of TechroBond commenced in the fourth quarter of 2006 with the introduction of a lithium-thickened railroad curve grease containing the compound. A specialty lubricant manufacturer, the Whitmore Group is marketing the product under a licensing and distribution agreement. The grease was shown in field tests confirmed by a lubricant testing company, Falex Labs to offer a 19.45% improvement in wear protection for rails than competing formulations, as well as corrosion protection. The cost is substantially lower, primarily due to a reduction of moly content from 3% to 0.05%. Whitmore's largest customers are the BNSF and Union Pacific Railways, and management believes that it is likely to increase its use of the PRO product when their contract for molybdenum expires in 2007. Pro and Whitmore intend to continue to collaborate for the development of additional applications, including a lubricant for CV joints, which are present in all automobiles.
http://www.hubbertmarketdigest.com/report.htm
From PLRO Website:
PRO launched its first commercial products in 2006 in the Universal Grease market. TechroBond enhanced grease is now used commercially in the railroad industry, in railcurve applications. TechroBond is used as a substitute for Molybdenum Disulfide (MOLY) in grease, a very expensive compound that enhances lubrication and prevents performance deterioration. Initial field results have resoundingly confirmed PRO's calculations - grease formulated with TechroBond enhanced every aspect of performance, and was shown to increase lubrication by 40% to 200%. These results have now been confirmed independently by Chicago based Falex Labs, and PRO is preparing for a full commercial roll out of TechroBond formulated universal grease products, suitable for applications in automotive, railroad, construction, manufacturing, aerospace and heavy engineering applications.
http://www.techrobond.com/execsummary_commerciallaunch.shtml
.
Commercialization of Railroad Grease
with new additive technology.
http://www.techrobond.com/media/promedia_oct_05.pdf
.
The Next 10Q or 10K
Looking at the last SEC Documents of this stock symbol shows that the last 10Q was November 9, 2006. So another 10Q would be due about February 9. However, looking even further back they Filed a 10K on March 31, 2006. PLRO is so new that we do not even know when their fiscal year ends. They also said somewhere that they will file SEC Documents shortly after the Final Closing of the Merger. We expect the Closing in the middle of March, so perhaps they will File a 10K at the end of March. I am not sure how this will work, seems silly to file an annual document since they have only had operations for 1 quarter. We will just have to wait and see.
.
Only for YOU
but keep the faith, maybe you will grow up some day.
.
Irresponsible Post
That is one of the most wreckless and irresponsible post that I have ever read. Just about every statement is incorrect and you do not even offer any research whatsoever to back up your outrageous claims. You do not even make an attempt.
"Is there a product?"
http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/061120/0185791.html
http://www.techrobond.com/status_chart.htm
http://www.techrobond.com/news_pressreleases.shtml
http://www.techrobond.com/news_media.shtml
"Is there a potential for the product?"
http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/061120/0185791.html
http://www.techrobond.com/addressable_salesfigures.shtml
"Are the proposed BOD even aware they're proposed?"
http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/061113/0183529.html
It is also in the Proxy, an SEC Document. FYI you do not lie in a SEC Document.
"under heavy (paid for) promotion"
PLRO has not been promoted out of the ordinary.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=17114212
"All we really know is the stock trades on the OTC"
That is all that YOU really know. Others do research and DD, to inform themselves, instead of spouting nonsense.
PLRO Board readers BEWARE of this guy. Not one word of truth or research has come from him yet.
.
Dividend
I agree with your post 100%.. According to SEC sellers after Dec 1 should not get the SSTP Dividend. However, USSE is a PinkSheet, and therefore not accountable to SEC Rules and Regulations. So it is still questionable.
.
Elephants vs Mosquitoes
"He only buys well established, well recognized companies that have a long period of positive revenues".
This is very true, I agree with you. Warren Buffet can not or will not buy PLRO as it is now. There are 2 reasons for this.
1.) He only buys companies with long term, established track records.
2.) He manages astonomical sums of money. In order to take a position in PLRO that would benefit his company to any degree, he would have to buy an amount of PLRO that would make PLRO skyrocket. This is simply not practical for him.
Warren Buffet regrets this. He has stated that IF he could buy the companies that he really wanted to, he guarantees he could get an average annual return of 50%!! Can you guess what kind of companies that he wishes he could buy? The answer is Undervalued Small Cap Growth Stocks!
Buffet refers to the type of stocks that he is limited to, as "Elephants". He calls the group of stocks that he would love to invest in as "Mosquitoes". "But that is the universe that I must live in".
We will never know for sure, but PLRO could very well be the kind of company that Warren Buffet would love to invest in, but he won't, not now anyway.
Did you ever think that this may present you with an incredible opportunity? Looking forward several years, it is not unreasonable to see PLRO on the NASDAQ as a Mid-Cap or multi-billion dollar company. The kind of company that Warren Buffet would love to buy, in a few years.
Investors, all the time look at established, successful companies, and say "boy I wish I would have bought that company when they first, just started out". PLRO just might be such a Company.
What you have to figure out as an investor, is what are the chances of PLRO becoming that successful? Would you rather pay 3$ a share for PLRO now, or wait a few years and maybe have to pay $50 a share?.
Good luck with your decision.
.
PLRO BOD Contacts and Influences
Here is only a partial list of Companies and Organizations that our Board of Directors, through their past associations, may possibly have contacts and influences. I say partial list because this info comes only from page 12 of the 14 page PLRO Stock Alert. One could also include perhaps another 50 - 100 Companies if you used the BOD Biographies on the PLRO Website. However, this partial list should give an adequate view of the reach of Platinum Research Organization, Inc.
* Airbus North America Holdings, Inc.
* Legend Airlines
* Federal Express Corporation
* (FAA) Federal Aviation Administration
* International Lubricant Standardization Approval Committee (ILSAC)
* General Motors
* Ford Motors
* Daimler Chrysler
* Toyota
* BMW Group
* Other American, European, and Japanese Automakers
* Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association
* DuPont
* Dow Chemical
* BASF
* Bristol Myers
* ICI
* Other American, European, and Japanese Chemical Manufacturers
* Big "3" Oil Company
* Other Major Oil Companies
* Manufacturers of other Petroleum based Lubricants and Coatings
* Morgan Stanley
* Merrill Lynch
* UBS
* Access to other American and International sources of Finance
* As well as Professional Representation in Corporate Finance Arena
* Continental Airlines
* Greyhound Bus Lines
* Novell Corporation
* Radio Shack Corporation
* British Airways
* American Airlines
* Other American and International Airlines, Fleet Transport, Freight, Shipping and Logistics Companies
* Boeing
* Raytheon
* McDonnell Douglas
* Bombardier
* Caterpillar
* Maersk Shipping
* Other Heavy Equipment, Shipping, Cartage, and Fleet Transport Companies
* Quanstar Group
* United States Department of Justice
* Political Connections, Access to Government and Trade Organizations, other Influential Organizations
Page 12
http://hubbertmarketdigest.com/media/Hubbert_PLRO.pdf
.
USSE vs SSTP
Revenues are broken down:
* Power Sales + Green Certificates.
* Bio Fuel Subsidy.
* Bio Fuel Sales.
* Ash Sales.
I am guessing that each Companies Revenue will look like:
USSE Revenues:
Green Certificates
Bio Fuel Subsidy
Bio Fuel Sales
Ash Sales
SSTP Revenues:
Power Sales
Power Plants Construction
From the Model Assumptions:
$/kWh selling cost of power $0.045
$/kWh selling cost of Green Certificates $0.12
$/kWh total slaes price of power and green certificates $0.165
Seems obvious to me, go with who has the Green Energy Credits, USSE.
.
Re: "Which will be worth more in 5 years SSTP or USSE? It's a question that should be discussed, reasoned, and debated. And its one that should be addresses immediately given the pending/potential... awareness that the coming months could bring".
Do not expect much of an answer, this has been asked before with no response. Most here would rather distract this Board with useless, repetive questions.
Yours is probably the most relevant quation right now. I will give it a shot.
First, let me make perfectly clear, that I think both companies will prosper and sign many contracts. The million dollar question is who will be the most profitable, and thus higher share price?
I think the answer lies in the 38 page Wall St. Resources USSE Report. Go to page 29, Pro forma Income Statement. Note that Revenues is broken down into 4 Segments:
* Power Sales + Green Certificates.
* Bio Fuel Subsidy.
* Bio Fuel Sales.
* Ash Sales.
SSTP will do nicely and make a profit of their sales minus expenses. However, whatever profit SSTP makes, USSE will do that by 4 or 5 times larger, due to the Green Certificates and Bio Fuel Subsidy, that SSTP will not qualify for.
Why is the SSTP Spinoff being done? Because USSE wants the Green Energy Credits which are much more profitable than just selling Bio Fuel.
In my opinion only, USSE will be the higher priced stock in the future.
http://www.wallstreetresources.net/pdf/fc/USSE.pdf
.
Basher Mania
It is now Official, the Bashers have taken over the USSE board. The ignorant, childish, repetitive antics of these last 3 posters is beyond disgusting. They pretty much have succeeded in their mission, this Board is not even worth reading anymore. What a senseless and disgusting shame.
A bunch of babies.
Where is the news? The news!! I gotta have news! Where is the news.
Absolutely disgusting.
.
Current Opportunity
PLRO just went public 3 months ago. Relax, things should start rolling after the Merger Agreement is Closed in March.
From your GF-5 post:
"With their eyes on a projected launch date of 2009, the motor oil and auto industries are sharpening their efforts to define and create GF-5, the next generation of gasoline engine oils".
From PLRO Website:
"TechroBond is positioned to disrupt large, status quo global markets, markets that are controlled by some of the world's largest corporations. PRO is currently working with one of the Big Three automakers along with a global additive firm and a top 5 international oil company in a joint effort to test, certify and commercialize its products..."
The challenge of replacing yesterday's harmful lubricant additives with a new workhorse chemistry able to satisfy the demands of industry today and for years to come presents an incredible opportunity to disrupt several large, global markets for lubricants and coatings, with the resulting effect on market revenues in the billions of dollars."
As we have highlighted in our corporate presentation, PRO's 10 years of development efforts have resulted in the initial commercialization of TechroBond in the grease markets with the introduction of TechroBond in rail-curve applications in late 2006. While we expect a steady stream of products and applications to be commercialized over the next 1-2 years in grease, metalworking fluid, hydraulic fluid and other applications, our largest addressable markets by an order magnitude or more are oil additives and specialty coatings. These markets are potentially multi-billion dollar opportunities for PRO and the key to these markets resides in advanced development tests and discussions that we have ongoing with the leading U.S. industrial and energy companies. While there are no guarantees that all or any of these relationships will result in material agreements, it should be highlighted that these are not research collaborations but development efforts geared towards bringing commercial products to market by 2009. Each of these key efforts is subject to strict non-disclosure agreements protect both intellectual property rights but also to shield competitors from their "go to market" plans.
Ongoing conversations with the key industrial players include standard development practices such as combining respective intellectual properties to introduce a next generation product. There are also ongoing discussions that may result in exclusive relationships with some of these key industry players. Historically, it has been envisioned that the commercialization program would be preceded by a series of announcements, it is entirely possible that TechroBond will enter into an exclusive arrangement to the preclusion of other automobile manufacturers, oil companies and/or chemical companies which could accelerate the business model by several years.
http://www.techrobond.com/ourcompany_currentopp.shtml
.
GF-5 Comments
Good post, thanks.
I have 3 comments on your post.
1.) Do you know the date of the article? It appears to be at least a year old (mid-2009, just three-and-a-half years away).
2.) "Bob Olree of General Motors, who chairs the inter-industry ILSAC/Oil Committee that is developing the new oil’s technical specifications"............
Is it clear to everyone that Michael McMillan, one of our Board of Directors, use to Chair the same Committee that Bob Olree now directs? Again, like Bob Olree, Mr. McMillan, also served with General Motors for over 35 years, where he concentrated on the relationships of fuels and lubricants to their performance in automotive components.
3.) the “needs” statement lists three major objectives:
* Increased fuel economy, and improvement in both fuel economy improvement retention and durability throughout the oil change interval, relative to current GF-4 oils.
* Enhanced oil robustness during high-temperature, high-load operation, to improve engine and piston ring cleanliness while maintaining nitration and oxidation control.
* Chemical limits ensuring protection of emission system components to meet stringent federal and California regulations.
Increased Fuel Economy, Lubricant Superiority, and Reduced Emissions and "Glassivation".
TehcroBond satisfies all 3 objectives, or ILSAC "needs".
.
Valuing PLRO
Market Cap value of PLRO should be about $7.55 right now
"How can you make a statement like that when you have seen NO revenue figures stated by the company?"
I never mentioned the word Revenue. I did not use the Revenue Model. There are many ways to value a company. I used Market Cap with the Biotech Model since both are based on "Disruptive Technology. It is all explained in The Strategis Report.
I made a conservative, logical, estimate backed up with research and data. You can either agree or disagree, it does not matter. However, before you reach a conclusion, you might want to look at the research used to make the conclusion.
Finally, I have 2 questions.
1.) How much do you think PLRO would be worth IF they announced tomorrow, that they were introducing their own brand of engine oil to the $24.8 Billion engine oil market, soon?
2.) TechroBond is a Patent Protected Disruptive Technology developed over the last 10 years, with 57 Patents in 10 different countries. How much do you think the Patents alone, are worth?
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=16856633
http://www.hubbertmarketdigest.com/report.htm
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=17078517
.
PLRO - Misunderstood Stock
I have been wondering about the recent rup-up to $5.80 then the sharp drop to under $3.00. A few said maybe it was Proxy, but I said no, investors are smarter than that. However, looking back the drop coincided with the Proxy PR, plus with what I have heard, I now believe that investors just truely do not understand PLRO. I keep hearing that this is just a penny stock. Nothing could be further from the truth.
My research suggests that in a few years PLRO will be Listed on NASDAQ at least $50 a share. 5 quick reasons for that are:
1.) PLRO has the product, "Disruptive Technology" TechroBond.
2.) The Potential Target Market of $56.8 Billion.
3.) Look at the Patents, these guys mean business.
4.) The potential to be a multi-billion dollar company.
5.) The Management and Board of Directors to execute the business.
PLRO just went public in November. They could have done an IPO or a Reverse Merger. I believe that if they would have chosen the IPO, PLRO might have been offered somewhere between $7 to $10 a share.
Instead they chose the Reverse Merger route, for several reasons, mostly because they are faster and cheaper. Being Listed on the Bulletin Board Exchange is only a temporary step of their business plan. PLRO Investor Relations has verified that PLRO will seek a NASDAQ Listing as soon as they qualify.
Once there Wall Street will be able to purchase PLRO. Most of them can not and/or will not buy right now (under $5). Most have never heard of PLRO, yet. What do you think will happen to the share price when the Institutions and Mutual Funds start buying in?
I wrote a post arguing that the Market Cap value of PLRO should be about $7.55 right now. That is still true. This is how Warren Buffet makes money. He finds quality stocks that are severely undervalued, buys them, and waits until the other investors finally realize the true value.
So, we wait.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=17078517
http://www.businessfinance.com/public-shell-reverse-merger.htm
http://www.techrobond.com/addressable_salesfigures.shtml
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=17154599
http://www.techrobond.com/status_chart.htm
http://www.platinumresearch.com
.
Insiders
"If we can buy the stock so can they in the open market not as a gimmee."
Since the Board of Directors knew that they were probably going to be added to the Board of PLRO, I am not so sure that they can be legally buying the stock of PLRO right now.
Theoretical Share Price
"Right now, management (and our outside accounting / engineering support firms!) have been able to determine that every 200 tube reactor site can generate a minimum of $1.5bn yearly revenue against calculated yearly costs of no more than $810m within existing contract opportunities alone".
$1.5 Billion Revenue
$810 Million Costs
$690 Income
Not sure if taxes have been paid. So to be conservative, deduct taxes.
$690 * .67 = $462 Million
$462 / 1 Billion shares = $0.46 EPS
$0.46 * Multiple of 18 = $8.28
So $8.28 share price for each fully operating 200 tube reactor site.
.
XX Bushels beans = XX KWH electricity
This Board does not exist to satisfy PP. You are wasting your time. He could be satisfied then he will find some other nonsense to bellyache about. That is his agenda.
Having said that, does this help any? From JR's Interview:
* Process uses 440 KW/hour energy and produces 4,400 KW/Hour energy.
To be totally accurate, listen to the interview, yourself.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=17061117
.
Questions Suggestion
A lot posts and time are wasted here with questions that are asked here over and over. May I suggest that everybody on this board get together here and come up with one simple list of perhaps 8 to 10 questions that we would like to be answered by management. Hopefully, that would make this board more productive and reduce the repetitive posts here.
I believe I read that Kippykai is visiting Natchez this week. He seems like a reliable poster, perhaps he would be kind enough to present the list of questions, personally. Or perhaps the list of questions could be sent to Mr. Davis.
We just need a couple of volunteers to organize the questions. Maybe even use the "Survey" function here on IHub, so everyone can vote on their most pertinent questions.
Personally, I want management spending time on the "Business" and not answering questions. They should be receptive to answering all our questions at once, instead of dealing with the same questions over and over.
Just a suggestion. I have seen it done on other Boards. Makes for a more productive Board.
.
Possible Insider Buying
I am so glad you mentioned this topic. I am not sure if you were trying to insinuate that no PLRO Insider has bought shares. The FACT is that no Insider has had the oppotunity to do so, yet. That should change in the near future.
The reverse merger that brought PLRO public in November is not Closed yet. Strictly speaking, it is not official yet. Hopefully the merger is approved March 1, and several weeks later is officially Closed. Then the Mangament and BOD will have the first opportunity to purchase shares of PLRO as Company Officers.
Each Director will then own about 1,056,000 shares of PLRO, some more.
Will the Directors be buying shares of PLRO in the near future? We do not know. There should at least be a 50-50 chance of buying. They are some pretty sophisticated Officers, they will probably never see the share price so low again. If the Officers have a lot of confidence in PLRO, we may see big buying. The end of March and April should be very interesting.
Remember, the Float will be approximately 20 million shares.
.
PLRO Board of Directors
Thomas G. Plaskett, Chairman
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=17126426
John T. (Cork) Jaeger, Jr., President and CEO
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=17127634
Theodore J. (Ted) Brombach
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=17128072
Arnold I. Burns
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=17128333
Ben DuPont
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=17128681
T. Allan McArtor
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=17128965
Michael McMillan
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=17129196
.
Current Reverse Merger Example
Here is an example of a current Reverse Merger that is completed. Actually, this has not even been publicly announced yet. A pinksheet at that. I pasted here, because Yahoo usually clears it the next day. Yes, it closed up friday 625%.
(SSTP) Sustainable Power Corp.
OFFSHORE CREATIONS (Other OTC:SSTP.PK) Delayed quote data
Last Trade: 0.29
Trade Time: 3:59PM ET
Change: Up 0.25 (625.00%)
Prev Close: 0.04
Open: 0.04
Bid: N/A
Ask: N/A
1y Target Est: N/A
Day's Range: 0.04 - 0.29
52wk Range: N/A
Volume: 904,248
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=SSTP.PK
.
Think it is just Similar Name
http://www.pinksheets.com/quote/company_profile.jsp?symbol=SSTP
.
BOD Michael McMillan
Board of Directors member from the PLRO Website:
Michael McMillan, Director (Proposed), formed MLM Consulting Services, Inc. in 2005, providing senior-level consulting services to organizations such as GM Powertrain, ILSAC and selected other organizations in the additive industry. For more than 35 years, Dr. McMillan served with General Motors, where he concentrated on the relationships of fuels and lubricants to their performance in automotive components. Dr. McMillan also has published numerous papers on subjects in this area. He was closely involved in ASTM efforts to develop low-temperature engine oil pumpability testing and high-temperature rheological tests which predict engine wear, as well as CRC and ASTM efforts to solve diesel fuel-related problems including low-temperature operability and exhaust particulate formation. Concerned with all aspects of engine oil quality and performance, he was closely involved with efforts to improve lubricant performance through the development of worldwide performance specifications.
Dr. McMillan has served as chairman of the International Lubricant Standardization and Approval Committee (ILSAC), co-chairman of the Administrative Guidance Panel which oversaw the API Engine Oil Licensing and Certification System, and was an active participant in numerous ASTM and SAE technical committee activities. He was elected a Fellow of the Society of Automotive Engineers in 2002.
Dr. McMillan received his BS (1964) and MS (1965) degrees in Chemical Engineering from the University of Michigan, and a PhD in Chemical Engineering from the Ohio State University in 1970.
.
BOD T. Allan McArtor
Board of Directors member from the PLRO Website:
T. Allan McArtor, Director (Proposed), T. Allan McArtor is chairman of Airbus North America Holdings, Inc., overseeing the activities of Airbus in the United States and Canada, including governmental affairs. Before joining Airbus, he founded and served as chairman and chief executive officer of Legend Airlines, a luxury regional airline based at Dallas Love Field. From 1979 to 1994, he was a member of the senior management team of Federal Express Corporation - except for two years (1987-1989) when President Ronald Reagan appointed Mr. McArtor to serve as the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
Mr. McArtor serves on the board of directors of: EADS North America, Inc.; The European Institute; Washington Area Airports Authority; Aviation Safety Alliance; GKN Aerospace Transparency Systems; and Committee for Economic Development. He is a member of the International Policy Committee and Homeland Security Committee , U.S. Chamber of Commerce. He has also served on the boards of: Excel Communication, Inc.; Teleglobe of Canada; Learjet, Inc.; Fairchild Space and Defense Company (a MATRA company); and Angel Technologies. Currently, he serves on the boards of the Falcon Foundation executive committee, Sabre Society, Air Force Memorial Foundation Board of Trustees, and the St. Jude's Children's Hospital Professional Advisory Board.
Mr. McArtor is a 1964 graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy (BSE) and was the Cadet Wing Commander. In addition, he holds a Masters of Science - Engineering from Arizona State University . Later he was an associate professor of engineering mechanics at the Air Force Academy, piloted with the U.S. Air Force "Thunderbirds" Aerial Demonstration Team, and became a highly decorated combat pilot in Vietnam. Mr. McArtor currently holds a commercial pilot's license (instrument rating, multi-engine) and is a member of Tau Beta Pi (engineering honorary society).
.
BOD Ben DuPont
Board of Directors member from the PLRO Website:
Ben DuPont, Director (Proposed), is founder and president of yet2.com. Yet2.com helps companies scout for and acquire new technology and divest underutilized technology. Yet2.com's current clients include: Proctor & Gamble, Canon, Siemens, Bayer, Agfa, DuPont and Honeywell. Mr. DuPont developed the business plan for yet2.com in 1998, which led to the development of a global organization. Yet2.com has 25 employees with offices in Boston, London and Tokyo.
Prior to founding yet2.com, Mr. DuPont spent 13 years with the DuPont organization in a variety of roles including: specialty chemicals, fibers and automotive business units at sites in South Carolina, Michigan, New Jersey and Delaware. Mr. DuPont launched the DuPont organization's first business on-line in 1994, and for a year, managed DuPont's only internet presence. He also co-founded DigitalEye and Emeron (beachcam.com, trafficam.com, traintimes.com) which was acquired by Diamond Technologies in 2002. Mr. DuPont has four patents.
Mr. DuPont has a BSME from Tufts University. He is a director of Longwood Gardens and the Jefferson Awards. While still in college, Mr. DuPont designed and patented a unqiue children's toy: blocks with offset centers of gravity. This toy won five national awards from Patenting Magazine, Parents Magazine and industry associations. From this effort, he formed a company and sold 20,000 toy sets from his garage.
.
BOD Arnold I. Burns
Board of Directors member from the PLRO Website:
Arnold I. Burns, Director (Proposed), has been the chairman of New York-based QuanStar Group, LLC since 2004. Prior to this, Mr. Burns served as a managing director and senior partner at Natexis Bleichroeder Inc., Arnhold and S. Bleichroeder, Inc., and Proskauer Rose LLP. From 1986 to 1988, he served at the U.S. Department of Justice in Wash., D.C. as an associate attorney general and then as a deputy attorney general.
Mr. Burns is a current member of the American Bar Association, the New York State Bar Association, the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, the New York County Lawyers' Association, the Federal Bar Association and the Cornell Law Association. He is also a member of the board of directors at New Valley Corporation, the NYC Economic Development Corporation, where he also serves on the executive committee, and the Yankee Entertainment Sports Network.
Mr. Burns graduated from Union College in Schenectady, New York in 1950 and from Cornell Law School in 1953. He also completed postgraduate work at Parker School of International Law in New York.
.
BOD Theodore J. (Ted) Brombach
Board of Directors member from the PLRO Website:
Theodore J. (Ted) Brombach (Proposed), a director of the Company, has been an investment banker for more than 20 years. Currently, he is a founder and Managing Partner of XMS Capital Partners, LLC, a boutique investment banking firm based in Chicago. Prior to founding XMS, he spent 16 years at Morgan Stanley, both in New York and Chicago. At Morgan Stanley, Mr. Brombach most recently served as the co-head of the Midwest Investment Banking Group. Prior to joining Morgan Stanley, he served in the Mergers & Acquisitions Department of Kidder, Peabody & Co. Incorporated in New York and also in London.
While at Morgan Stanley, Mr. Brombach served as a generalist investment banker, working across a broad array of industries and geographies, and had responsibility for some of the firm's largest clients. His extensive client experience includes: Anheuser Busch's acquisition of Harbin Brewery, in Harbin, China, the first contested takeover deal in mainland China and a deal voted Asian M&A Deal of the Year in 2005; General Mills'disposition of its shares held by Diageo PLC of London - shares acquired in the context of the acquisition of Pillsbury by General Mills, an award winning equity deal in 2005. In addition, Mr. Brombach's clients have included a number of other food and beverage and industrial clients such as Cargill, 3M, Emerson, ConAgra, Premium Standard Farms and Enersys.
Mr. Brombach is a graduate of the University of Notre Dame where he received a BA, magna cum laude. He also was a 1990 graduate of Northwestern University's Kellogg Graduate School of Management, where he studied finance, accounting and marketing. Mr. Brombach is a member of the board of directors of the Lyric Opera of Chicago and is a member of the board of directors of Great River Holding Company, a multi-bank holding company based in Minnesota.
.
BOD John T. (Cork) Jaeger, Jr., President and CEO
Board of Directors member from the PPLRO Website:
In 1984, Mr. Jaeger founded The Fairmount Company, the co-founding shareholder of Platinum Research Organization, which has shareholders residing in Texas, California, Washington, D.C., Florida, Arizona and Virginia. Mr. Jaeger's executive management skills also have been applied in other business marketplaces. He was chief executive officer of Scotts Valley Circuits, Inc., a circuit board manufacturer from 1982 to 1989 and of Galaxy Boat Manufacturer, Inc., a power boat manufacturer from 1985 to 1988. Mr. Jaeger served as vice president and general manager of Trans Pac Equipment Company, a distributor of heavy duty trucks, construction equipment and buses, and provided parts and service in the Oregon and Washington area. He also was a vice president, principal management participant and chief marketing officer for Great Lakes Diesel Company, which was the exclusive distributor for Detroit Diesel and for the Allison Division of General Motors in Ohio.
Mr. Jaeger received a Bachelor of Arts from Trinity College in Hartford, Conn. Thereafter, in 1965, he attended Cleveland Marshall Law School in Cleveland, Ohio.
.