Sorry, I can't oblige

Show me where they spend a significant amount of R&D or do anything related. Do you think they make algae break-throughs in their bathtub? How many PH.D's are in the organization?

The only thing I am aware of is the agreement that EVLN recently struck, but if you read it carefully it means that they'll be told if a discovery is made, and they can bid on acquiring the rights thereto.

"On August 10, 2009, Evolution Resources, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”) entered into a Membership Agreement (the “Membership Agreement”) with North Carolina University at Raleigh, NC (the “University”). As part of the Membership Agreement, the Company agreed to pay the University membership dues of $25,000 for membership during the period of June 1, 2009 through May 31, 2010 and additional membership dues of $25,000 for membership during the period of June 1, 2010 through May 31, 2011. In consideration for the payment of the membership dues, the Company will participate as a member of the Wood to Ethanol Research Consortium (“WERC”). The Company will receive prompt notice of all inventions made as a result of the research of the University and other members directly relating to the WERC. At such point, the Company will be entitled to negotiate a license for such inventions based on its level of participation with respect to filing for patent protection for the specified invention. "

All I am saying is the companies I showed you have mechanical and chemical engineers that have been trained at the best schools in the country and show millions in R&D expenditures over the past few years.

You contend that without having any of that, EVFL will probably beat these companies to the punch?

In the words of John McEnroe: "You cannot be serious".

By the way, I haven't forgotten about our O/S discussion. Are you willing to stand by your word now?

A thought on yoor other comment: If you are the maker of mass quantities of cellulosic ethanol, I grant you all of your points. If you, however, retail the product someone else makes and you are not alone in this endeavor, I don't.

It's akin to Pfizer creating a drug to cure cancer and the pimple faced pharmacist at Walgreens claiming to be the savior of life.

If all they are going to do is to retail fuel, explain to me again how is this the next big thing?

Don't you think that market is well satiated with formidable companies?

When I drove to work this morning, I couldn't help but thinking what this country really needs is more fuel retail outlets, because there are intersections is Dallas that have a gas station at EACH corner

Now you really have me going.

Are you talking about Denco? I thought their facility was 20-25 mgy, which I considered to be of economic scale.

Interesting

I suppose that anything is possible, but given the fact that EVFL does not own or rent a laboratory, does not maintain a staff of scientists and does not have any discernible investment in research & development over the last few years (as evidenced by their publicly available financial statements) makes the possibility that the company will have a scientific break-through ahead of competitors that spend tens of millions of dollars on these items rather remote, doesn't it?

Before you call this a bash, please compare EVFL to some of the more likely candidates to accomplish such a feat.

http://www.iogen.ca/

http://www.verenium.com/

Also, if you believe that you have a management team and advisory board that is world class and industry-leading, you might want to read deeply into the two links I provided and report back your findings.

Out of curiosity, was that Xethanol Blairstown?

I was thinking the same thing.

The only sense I could make of this is that the agreement was entered into when PNGX stock actually held value (it never was $10), and that they now executed it according to a provision of the original deal.

Either way, chalk one up for DM. That was shrewd.

I does make you wonder who all these debtholders are. The funds who exchanged $74m in debt against the plant that now went bankrupt don't look so smart right now. Might have been a 'hail mary', given the cash position of EVFL.

As Gartenzwrg said, it's go time.

All I am asking you to do is to stand firmly behind the opinions that you post. I am willing to do so. Are you?

Let's set the magical line at 20b shares outstanding as of September 30.

Since you have called for a buy-back for longer than 90 days now, I think it should have been announced by now, Mr-Sits-In-The-Glass-House.

Also, I am so glad you mention it, since you didn't even know the history of Durant. Some moderator you are.

Let me make you an offer: I say no significant buy-back occurs by September 30.

You say it did.

Whoever is wrong must leave this board.

Good post.

While it is correct that the crushing spread in ethanol is presently increasing, I don't believe that the industry can currently survive without the subsidies, which run up to $1 per gallon.

I have stated in other posts before that I am a biofuels afficionado, and don't need to see much convincing about the necessity of moving away from fossil fuels.

But let's see an ethanol plant or an active Durant facility here first before we call this company a conglomerate. What do you think is more likely to occur? This company building the infrastructure to challenge incumbent players like Exxon, BP, Shell and others or these incumbents spending 10% of one years net income to build enough capacity to expand their existing footprint?

Technically, all of the trading volume could have occurred within the 21b that was outstanding at the time.

You are clearly incorrect by stating that share buys between third parties can decrease the O/S. If I own 1 million of the outstanding shares and you buy that million from me via a brokerage, the shares outstanding remains unchanged.

The only way outstanding shares decrease is if the company purchases outsanding shares from private holders in the open market and treats them as treasury stock. The other option is via reverse split.

So we are at least in agreement on what the O/S was as of June 30?

Keep in mind that the report in the link I provided is signed by DM and Kit Chambers.

It is straight from the horses mouth.

Per the legal definition I provided, the buying couldn't have come from the company

Why don't you read my post 30764.

Have you noticed that even the most devoted longs have not supported you?

I think that most people view biofuels as a transitional fuel until hydrogen or solar are mature and feasible, but that does not diminish the role that it will play in the next decade.

The issue of concern is primarily that the industry is not efficient or economically viable and is entirely dependent on tax and blending credits and other governmental subsidies.

The ideal scenario is to find better, faster, cheaper feedestocks, but even the multi-billion dollar players are presently struggling to do so on a commercial scale.

Understand.

But the man was asking for proof and he got it.

Leave it to him to dismiss it.

I am with the german garden gnome.

IB12U, I am willing to wager a substantial sum (up to $5,000) that the O/S as of 6/30 was 21b as represented by Evolution Fuels themselves and that it has not decreased since.

You ask for proof?

Evolution Fuels Balance Sheet - Equity Section

Common Stock, $.0001 par value at June 30, 2009 and $.001 par value at December 31, 2008,
100,000,000,000 shares authorized, 21,165,709,634 shares issued and 21,162,575,500
outstanding at June 30, 2009

http://www.pinksheets.com/otciq/ajax/showFinancialReportById.pdf?id=23904

The proof why it won't have decreased:

The company did not announce a buy-back since 6/30 as required by law.

http://www.eapdlaw.com/newsstand/detail.aspx?news=5

New Item 703 of Regulation S-K
As a result of new Item 703 of Regulation S-K and corresponding changes to Form 10-Q and Form 10-K, public companies must provide a table showing, on a month-by-month basis, the repurchases made during the quarter covered by the periodic report, including4:

the total number of shares purchased;
the average price paid per share;
the total number of shares purchased under publicly announced repurchase programs; and
the maximum number (or approximate dollar value) of shares that may yet be repurchased under these programs.
In addition, a footnote disclosing the principal terms of any publicly announced repurchase plans or programs is required, including:

the date that the plan was announced;
the dollar or share amount approved;
the expiration date of the plan;
plans that expired during the period; and
plans that the company has terminated during the period or plans under which the company does not intend to make purchases.
A footnote regarding repurchases made other than pursuant to a publicly announced plan or program is also required. This footnote must describe the number of shares repurchased outside of publicly announced plans and the nature of the repurchases (e.g., whether the repurchases were made in open market or private transactions, tender offers or in satisfaction of the company's obligations upon exercise of outstanding put options issued by the company or other transactions).

Couldn't agree more. See my more elaborate and rambling post...

Runncoach,

what you are witnessing here is incontrovertible proof that the financial literacy on this board, as well as message boards in general, is at an abysmal level.

It is far beyond my comprehension how people debate ad nauseum about facts and definitions. The FASB and the SEC promulgated the framework of financial reporting to be universally understood, and there is an efficacy in those definitions. There should not be ambiguity in most of the terms. It is clear that most here couldn't point out the difference between shares issued, outstanding, and available. Even if you never been to business school, those things can be googled or just stop by investorwords.com for some helpful definitions

People refuse to look at financial statements and if you quote them, you'll be accused of only bringing up items from the past or being a basher. I have seen people quote language that the company itself put into their financial reports just to be brandished a liar. It is unbelievable.

There is a clear lack of an ability to understand financial impacts of proposed transactions. The most famous example was a poster named Master of All who thought that exchanging a $30m asset to relinquish $74m in debt somehow results in $100m+ in cash for the company. Even when the balance sheet clearly showed $3k in cash, that wasn't proof enough for many.

Other posters claim to have done all of their "DD", but somehow didn't know that Durant was open before and was shut down as it lost money.

The term 'due diligence' does not refer to reading a message board or taking things at face value. It implies studying the financial performance of the company, the health of the markets in which it operates. It involves talking to vendors/suppliers, customers, employees and other stakeholders to ensure what management asserts is actually correct. It involves an analysis of the strategic position of the company, how it intends to compete. Will they go low cost, will they be differentiators? Are there barriers to entry? How is buyer power/supplier power concentrated among the incumbents? Is the company subject to legal proceedings? The list is endless.

That, my friends, is doing due diligence.

It is my honest advice to those who invest simply on a hunch or 'as directed by god', if that is your approach, just stick to blue chips. At least you have a fighting chance there.

Let me offer you this perspective:

If the O/S is as you and you broker assert, the following must hold true:

At a price of $0.0001, the market cap of this company is $76,900.

So for less than the price of a 6 series BMW, you could go and buy the whole shebang, the entire company that according to most here will make millionaires out of many.

If you are cheaper, you can invest $38,500 for a 50.1% stake in the company and you still run the show and you can be DM's boss.

For $7,690, you can own 10% and force shareholder meetings and make major waves in electing members of the BOD.

If you own more than $3,850 worth, you should hurry and file a form 4 with the SEC, because you are a 5% or greater beneficial owner of the company.

Now does any of that REALLY make sense?

Ace,

although your post of support is now deleted, it did not go unnoticed. I give you all the credit in the world that you can appreciate an honest exchange of opinions, as contrary as ours might be, for what it is without succumbing to the temptation of leveling paranoid accusations.

You have proven to be a thoughtful and deliberate individual as well as a worthy "adversary".

These boards are a jungle, but the cream always rises to the top.

I thank you for your service to the country and all US citizens, but that's hardly the debate here. I am not attacking your personal integrity, nor your service record.

I just find it ridiculous how you and others play ostrich here, and if people like myself are getting under your skin so much, how steadfast are you really in your belief in this.

I don't have the truth, and have stated so on several occasions, but at least I am looking at hard facts. You said you have looked at everything. Have you really read all of the public filings? And by read, I mean understood and analyzed, not skimmed?

The folks that are positive here are mostly using conjecture and things that a CEO whispered to them.

Honestly, how many CEOs do you know that maintain relationships with muliple message board posters and try their hardest to keep them in the loop. He made Dusty sign an NDA, but was secretly hoping that Dusty will spread the good word.

As a stark contrast, I am picturing the guy in the corner office at the company I work for when our head of investor relations pokes his head in to tell him that there's this guy who holds 5 grand worth of stock and he wants to talk to you.

This isn't bashing, I am not getting a nickel for a post, this is plain old common sense.

Questionable past, questionable relationships with certain posters, no revenues, no bid, at least 21B shares outstanding, a gagged transfer agent, none of this makes you nervous?

I can understand those that say that this is their lottery ticket, but those who think this stock is at 0.0001 by mere accident and happenstance drive me nuts. There are very few "overlooked gems" in the information age we live in.

Clearly you weren't implying anything, merely sharing.

You want to see a bash, I got one for you:

Please don't mistake my dislike for EVFL as being against energy independence.

Do you think DM's primary goal is energy independence? Do you think he is hard at work for you so you can retire early and travel the world with your loved ones?

Let me quote you some numbers i pulled from EBOF and EVFL financial statements:

Since the company closed on the $52.5m financing in June of 2006, here are the financial highlights:

Revenue: $73.4m
Gross Profit: $5.4m
COMPENSATION: $33.3m
S,G&A (includes T&E plus more compensation: $76.2m

So in short, the company managed to make $5m from selling bio-diesel and LNG from the Topock facility, but spent almost $110m on compensation and S,G&A. The funding, which could have set up the company for a prosperous future was squandered on enriching management. Where is the money now? No assets to show for, but the majority of the debts remain.

Does this look like the action of a man that is out to help the environment, the nation, or his shareholders?

Clearly, he is in for number one.

You can pull all of these numbers from the financial statements by pulling 10-k and 10-Q filings.

http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?company=earth+biofuels&match=&CIK=&filenum=&State=&Country=&SIC=&owner=exclude&Find=Find+Companies&action=getcompany

One man's basher is another man's realist.

I'll pit my opinion based on the company's financial performance over the past three years against the daydreams of 1000 baggers any day

If they run on 'crude-oil', how is this considered a green company that is fostering energy independence from the middle east? And how will they compete with the economies of scale at regular refineries?

On the other hand, where does one obtain enough cooking oil to run a 10 mgy facility?

As to progress, I am sure you can call the city of Durant if there has been any permits issued for modification of the plant.

I think I posted this before, but the Q2 financial statements don't show a $ of Capital Expenditures for 2009, so I am curious when those modifications would have been done.

Durant opened up in late 2006/early 2007 after a ton of delays. It subsequently closed because it didn't make any money. The buzz on the street was that DM designed the plant to harvest maximize federal and local government subsidies for biofuel production and not run run the plant at maximum cost efficiency.

Be that as it may, given the track record of more modern plants, it most likely wouldn't have mattered because there are no margins in the soy-bean based bio-diesel business.

EVFL is talking about using a different feed-stock and I don't know how they are doing with that.

Absolutely. Such is the beauty of these exchanges.

Correction: Not facts, your interpretation of things as they have unfolded.

Not very original. I've seen better...

Could you name one valid business reason why this needs to be confidential?

It's not proprietary nor is it a competitive advantage, and in case they want to merge, aquire or be acquired, the share structure doesn't change until all documents are executed.

So why keep it a secret if not to confound shareholders?

I will be.

Will you?

Apologize for the intrusion, but if he really wanted transparency, he could un-gag the transfer agent immediately to disclose the share structure to all investors.

There is no good business reason to keep investors in the dark, and it doesn't cost an extra nickel to do so.

I am confused, in one post you laud DM's "smart move" to dilute the stock as some sort of a smart anti-takeover poison pill, and in another you suggest that the O/S has decreased since 6/30.

Which is it?

It would.

Although, with an investment that size, that investor would either command preferred shares or would set other protections to ensure that he remains the primary beneficiary of future growth and success. Think about it, current stockholders represent a market cap of $2m, the new guys would run the show and doesn't give a rats behind about existing shareholders

To give you my honest assessment, if I had 100m at my disposal and actually liked the space, I'd buy a more state-of-the-art plant than Durant at one of the many bankruptcy auctions that are ongoing around the nation.

At least I'd start with a clean slate and don't have to take on $30m in existing excess liabilities.

Common sense, right?

Did not, but am not surprised. That plant only produced marginal operating profit before adding all of the leverage.

Thanks for the heads-up.

I would say that I will believe it when I see it.

Let me ask you a question: What would you prefer EVFL to do assuming they would fall into $10m of cash? Do you want them to invest that cash into revenue generating ventures or do you want them to do a gimmicky share transaction?

To take it a step furter, should the new investor be providing debt funds, I can guarantee you that they would not want the funds used to buy back shares. There is no return in this, and how would EVFL repay principal and interest?

Should a new equity investor arrive, why would this investor want to see his cash infusion to be used to modify the existing share struture?

There is no value creation for a start-up to do a buy-back. They should use every penny they can lay their hands on to fund operations and implement a business plan.

I repeat myself, but share buybacks are a tool of last resort for mature companies, the same way cash dividends work.

That information is sourced from pinksheets.com vs. the company's own statements. If you don't believe their financials, who/what are you going to believe?

Pull up their Q2 report and look in the equity section of the balance sheet. That is the section I copied into my post.

Are you truly implying that people are 'bashing' because they are afraid they won't have an opportunity to enter this stock at 0.0001 themselves?

Without incessant 'bashing', this thing would take off immediately?

What would anyone have to gain from bashing a stock that trades at par value? Can it actually trade below par value?

Given that this is a public forum, people with negative viewpoints such as myself just provide a more balanced set of information for those who seek it.

There are no rules that a public forum can be used exclusively to pump and share extremely optimistic scenarios.

You should look at the company's own financial report.

Take the information directly from the horse's mouth.

http://www.pinksheets.com/otciq/ajax/showFinancialReportById.pdf?id=23904

Stockholders’ Equity (Deficiency)
Common Stock, $.0001 par value at June 30, 2009 and $.001 par value at December 31, 2008,
100,000,000,000 shares authorized, 21,165,709,634 shares issued and 21,162,575,500
outstanding at June 30, 2009; 415,253,787 shares issued and 412,119,634 outstanding at
December 31,2008 2,116 415
Additional paid-in capital 162,432 157,881
Accumulated deficit (208,480 ) (219,071 )
Unrealized gain on securities available for sale 1,470 4,700
Treasury stock at cost (3,134,134 shares) (226 ) (226 )
Total Stockholders’ Equity (Deficiency) (42,688 ) (56,301 )

577, let's provide some color to the board when a buy-back is appropriate:

You will typically see buy-backs in mature companies in mature industries with steady perennial free cash flow, and that have limited opportunities to invest further in their respective industry. From a finance perspective, you buy back shares to raise PPS if there are no further NPV opportunities that exceed a compay's hurdle rate.

To keep suggesting that a company with no cash flow and excess liabilities will be engaging in a serious buy-back is wishful thinking at best. Haven't many of you suggested that a buy-back was on its way in Q2 just to find that the O/S had bloated to 21B?

In addition, do you think these guys would have an issue if precious funds were used to a buy-back?

From the Q2 financials:

The Court granted Vertex a Turnover Order on the assets owned
by Evolution on September 26, 2008. Due to the secured assets of Evolution, Vertex was unable to collect any assets. On March 20,
2009 a Second Motion for Turnover was granted to Vertex. The Second Motion for Turnover was for the membership interest in WN
Truck Stop, LLC, at this time the Second Turnover has not been enforced due security interest on the Companies’ ownership in the
truck stop. Evolution made payments totaling $195,000 during the six months ended June 30, 2009 and is working in good faith with
Vertex to reach a mutually agreeable settlement.