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.
I understand you, Sentinel, you have to say this...I really understand it...lol...)
Sentinel,
I can't help it, but sometimes it feels like you know a little more than you share with us...
GL from Europe!
Look at page 5, section 101 - old stuff, too, but also interesting:
http://www.chemeng.titech.ac.jp/~uspc5/list_of_papers_tentative.pdf
This is from a post from exactly one year ago (04/27/06) here at ihub - it was a reply from Mr. Cavasin to artgecko, nothing new, but helping to understand some things:
"I have developed (withmy teams of course) several new technologies - always with "green solutions" in mind (even when working for gas turbine applications as a higher efficiency means less pollution) - some for which my name appears on the patents, inlcuding Pyrogenesis.
I started AlCar and working towards polymer based protective coatings back in 1993, while in parallel I did help create Pyrogenesis and lead their technology developments (if you talk to some of the employees you may find out more). Even though plasma conversion and waste treatment with plasma were my brainchild, I did quit Pyro back in 1998 to concentrate my efforts on Isocyanate free polyurethane and petroleum independent raw materials (mainly for polyurethane, epoxy and polyester resins). The technologies we developed are completely independent from the technologies I pursued at Pyrogenesis. I ALWAYS respected my non competition agreements (even when I not paid my royalties as conveened).
The technology we developed is completety independent from what I developed at Sulzer and Pyrogenesis. We do not use plasma to convert biomass into hydrogen and hydrocarbons. We convert sugars into polyols and hydrocarbons (ethanol). We have been working closely with our patent lawyers and (I am sure you understand and appreciate the point) sometimes new technologies are not protected by patenting, at least not as long as capitaliztion of the project is secured. In our case we did our patentability studies and deposited provisional - the protection is there in the event anyone else tryes to copy or patent (like VCs and institutionals which had access to the technology) - we are now filing as the project financing is coming together. "
GL from Europe
Europe is still there!
Just waiting for better days...)
Good night from Germany
It's amazing how your sentiment changed...I would love to 100% believe your information from your bro-in-law.
But if I do, the next post comes in from someone, who says, hey, this is the internet and everybody at messaging boards is lying.
I hate the internet...couldn't we go back sitting around a fireplace, so we can see each other and decide by our nose, eyes and ears, if someone tells the truth or not...lol
Good night from Europe
@ezxccsc
But where do you think are all these shares coming from, which got sold in the last weeks? Do you think, it's still shorting?
BTW: I'm still holding my shares - GL from Europe
@jerseyboy:
I'm in the first camp, too.
I can't think, someone with his reputation does this for 5mio $.
50mio $ would be different, ok.
No, I'm still convinced - and if the storms calm down and things get clear, I hope I can get in contact with ACMG to ask, how they intend to develop business in Europe.
Here in Europe we have a big need for these technologies and I could imagine bulding up a new business in the environmental "green" area here in Europe - starting with ACMG Germany....
BTW: Did you receive my email?
GL
No, I was just kidding...
I have to admit, though I was more than sceptical abbout this investigation, it gives a good feeling, assuming everything is correct.
By the way: Wasn't it you, who told the forum the amount of money you invested in Alcar?
If yes, it is understandable, that you hired your bro-in-law for this "job".
Thanky you for that.
So to next question: If I buy some shares today, will I get a divi?
GL from Europe!
lol...are you sure about that?
It seems to sound too good...maybe the lady is a scam...was she for real? Could we see pictures of her?
)
Hi Sentinel, I compared the two white papers word by word, here are the differences (again, some are very interesting):
Page 2
Subline to figure 1:
Old WP: Phase 1 and 2 of ACG's Proprietary Process
New WP: ACG's Proprietary Process
Page 3
No copy on page 3
Page 4
Old WP: "The increased cost of petroleum is now
justifying the more expensive polyol production methods from greases, oils and from natural, food and non-food crop, sources."
New WP: "...production method from greases and oils derived from
natural, both vegetable and animal, sources."
Then there are some new paragraphs "Before" and "Now":
"Before : a) High polyols from grease treatment (low performance expensive)
b) Synthetic preparation from petroleum products via
Chlor-intermediates (environmental pollution)
Now: a) Catalytic treatment of carbohydrates from food industry
b) Agricultural waste (products which contain glucose)"
Not in the new WP "... (all losses including separation losses taken into account)"
VERY important on page 4 in the new WP on the bottom - this is new :
"Figure IV exhibits the comparison between the experimental results and the calculations of the proposed kinetic model for relative concentration of polyols (glycerol, ethylene glycol and propylene glycol) vs. sorbitol obtained with the ACG process. Figure V demonstrates the hydrodynamics of the column reactor without process scale-up."
Page 5 completeley NEW graphs!
Page 6:
Old WP: "However, while the industry standard is set by a process similar to ours..."
New WP: "However, while the industry standard is set by IPCI (which seems to employ a process similar to ours)..."
Old WP: "Since additional losses are incurred during the separation stage, especially in a continuous operation, an overall yield of 80% is pretty much the standard achieved using ACG’s process. "
New WP: "Additional losses are incurred during separation, however, an overall yield of
over 80% is achieved using ACG’s process. "
Page 6 (new)/Page 5 (old)
Old WP: "ACG is exploring the same process for the production of ethanol. Preliminary tests show that the reactors are readily utilizable as employed for polyols,..."
New WP: "ACG is planning to explore the same pre-treatment for the production of ethanol. The reactors would be readily utilizable, as employed for polyols,..."
Page 7 (new WP) again VERY important, because Dr. Cavasin shows more details with new graphs:
"Some of the reactions in more detail can be represented as follows:
(Several chemistry graphs)
Thanks for the clarification.
I've been comparing the "hamilton white paper" with the "ACMG website white paper" - and I couldn't find sweetners in the "hamilton wp".
BUT I'm not a chemistry expert, so I couldn't identify them in the graph.
DD is to dig everything from a company - positive and negative.
The negative points are not only well-known, they have been discussed to death already million times on this board - there were days this board was one big red flag.
And if I find something like "IPCI", which is not in the white paper you can download from the current website, but on the website from hamilton institute, I think it's worth going further.
But while you are not owning shares of ACMG you shouldn't waste your time with an obvious scam and by the way you don't have to help us - it's too late, we are kind of addicted to the doctor...lol
????
What do you mean?
If you don't think it's interesting that the new white paper mentions IPCI - ok, fine with me.
I see it as a good sign that the content of the information seems to get updated.
WAKE UP, US and Canada - we are not here for sleeping!!!
If you read the NEW White Paper published on the hamilton institute site, you find a very interesting difference to the old one and it gives a great hint to another green company "IPCI" ("while the industry standard is set by IPCI (which seems to employ a process similar to ours) with a yield of 45%...")).
If you search for "IPCI and polyols" you'll find several interesting links and informations:
http://www.agbob.com/polyol.html
http://www.globalbiochem.com/overview.html
Obviously there is a connection from IPCI to Asia - so it's no wonder, that SIAM came to the table.
Additionally, if you check the activities from the US you'll find much talk, but not much action in the last ten years, no wonder, new developments didn't get financial support.
AND AGAIN: Why did Cavasin mention IPCI in the new white paper, if he is intending to take our money and get away?
Holding strong to my shares - glta from Europe
@sentinel:
Do you mean this phrase?
"...the comparison between the experimental results and the calculations of the proposed kinetic model for relative concentration of polyols (glycerol, ethylene glycol and propylene glycol) vs. sorbitolobtained with the ACG process."
Could it be you have a little birdie...or did you suddenly start studying chemistry...?
GLTA!
I CANNOT HEAR YOU!!!!
WHAT DID YOU SAY????
)
Good morning, PL Sniper!
It's not only two graphs, which make the difference between the old white Paper and the last white Paper published on the hamilton institute website, there are again differences in the text - if you are interested I can post them here.
BUT ONE QUESTION TO SENTINEL:
Where did you read something about the Sweetners (Xylitol and Sorbitol) as products in the NEW white paper? I can't find this.
Again: Do your DD, compare the things we got and then ask, why should one change and improve the white paper, while he's already lying on the beach with a pinacolada in the one hand and an asian beauty at the other hand...lol...no, makes no sense.
GLTA
Ooops, sorry, apologize!
I mixed up the Markman Hearing for Patriot on May 3rd with the agreement finalization on May 7th. Of course I meant May 7th for ACMG.
As long as the observation is more kind of passive, I can live with that...
GLTA from Europe
I don't like the idea of stalking behind the Dr.
If there really had to be a quiet period for ACMG, what could he say, IF he would say anything?
I think, this is the worst idea shareholders could have - this could cause a lot of damage!
Hope the Dr. is NOT in Canada, but still overseas until May 3rd.
Very interesting opinion to Alcar from someone, who seems to understand some things about Ethanol and Chemistry:
http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=DYMTF&read=4427
"Alcar
The objective is excellent. The part of their process that scares me a little is the 100 to 150 cubic meters of hydrogen required. Hydrogen is a commodity and in Canada, the oil companies are using lots of it to upgrade the tar sands. Currently most hydrogen comes from natural gas and the trend towards higher gas prices is well established. Furthermore the Alberta/Saskatchewan gas fields are predicted to peak in 2016 so analysts are predicting a tight market in North America. The peaking of gas is certainly good for the bioenergy sector. The production of hydrogen from biomass should be considered by the company.
In my post yesterday I mentioned the biomass supply issue. Alcar will be competing with others for that supply and long term supply contracts is a must. Their small plants is interesting as they can be located closer to the source of the biomass.
Neither the hydrogen supply nor biomass supply were addressed in the articles I read on them. As for the viability of the technology, I have no reason to believe that these chemicals can't be made via the route they are going. The key question is economics. Their plant states a plus 60% margin. Without backup I can comment on whether or not that is realistic. I have seen more than one case where margins are calculated without including all costs and somehow the writer forgets to include a note to that effect.
I think it is a company and technology to watch. They appear to be quite early in the development cycle so I think it will be a while before they are profitable."
Look at this "old" patent from Pyrogenesis and then imagine, how it developed to the Alcar technology (found this in an old post from April 200&):
http://patents1.ic.gc.ca/details?patent_number=2424805&language=EN
"A two-step gasification process and apparatus for the conversion of solid or liquid organic waste into clean fuel, suitable for use in a gas engine or a gas burner, is described......This offers higher thermal efficiency than conventional technology and produces a cleaner fuel than other known alternatives. "
It would have been so easy to pump this stock in the last weeks.
The Dr. could have put out some well written PRs, explaining the missing of the MN1 interview with some exciting stories etc., and the share price would have gone at least to 10 Cent or more - and then he could have sold shares.
He could have told us fairytales, everyone would have taken them for real...but he didn't...
No, this quiet period reminds me of Patriot:
When they started to speak about the buyback (plus the huge warrant conversion), they didn't have any more interest in supporting the shareprice.
Ask yourself, who is most interested in falling shareprices?
I have to admit that at this point the negatives of ACMG far predominate the positives (because these cannot be proofed) - but then it would be much easier, if those, who do not believe in ACMG anymore and sold, leave this board and the rest can concentrate on creating good vibrations...lol
GLTA
Hi jerseyboy,
of course I can understand your sentiment, but I guess you had the best and most regular contact to the Dr. in the last 12 months and from what you shared with us from the emails between you and him, it makes me wonder, why you lost faith in HIM, in his person?
Though I didn't have that much email-conversation with Mr. Cavasin, the four or five emails I changed with him, strengthen my trust in his integrity.
Also the comparisons between the three business plans show that there was - at least until the middle of march - an interest in keeping the content and numbers accurate. Why should one do this, if this was a scam?
And you've always been impressed of the integrity of the SIAM investors - do you think they lost this in the last four months?
GLTY from Europe
Hi jerseyboy,
did you see my post regarding my question if there are still shareholder on this board, who received the "Shareholder List"-Mail from Dr. Cavasin? It's from Dec 3rd:
"Good Morning,
I am presently updating our stockholders list and would appreciate if you could take a few minutes to let me know if you are still a shareholder in ACMG and how many shares you are holding.
I would appreciate a speedy reply, possibly by tonight, and apologize for any inconvenience.
Thank you.
Alexander P. Cavasin,
CEO"
As you might know, the Dr. sent a "thank you"-mail on the same day after we responded...
Here we go with the BP from Feb 28th. The only difference to the current one is that the Management Team is still in this BP, but comparing with the old BP CFO (Carmel E. Kenny) is missing: "Presently Vacant, CFO".
Well, this all looks like normal progress of an emerging company: development, changes, errors etc. on the way to grow business. I did this by myself and, gesh, I'm so glad, I didn't do it with a public company, you make so much mistakes as a founder...
Another point:
Is anyone here on the board still in ACMG, who received the mail from Dr. Cavasin at Dec 3rd, where he asked about the number of shares one had? It's this one:
"Good Morning,
I am presently updating our stockholders list and would appreciate if you could take a few minutes to let me know if you are still a shareholder in ACMG and how many shares you are holding.
I would appreciate a speedy reply, possibly by tonight, and apologize for any inconvenience.
Thank you.
Alexander P. Cavasin,
CEO"
After answering him, I received another mail from him in the evening, where he thanked us - I think, Jerseyboy was amongst them, who got this mail.
My personal "status quo" on ACMG:
I don't doubt the Dr. - maybe the asian guys have some different approach to communication and business.
But:
If you want to make really big money, you cannot be nice and polite.
GL from sunny Europe!
Hey Chains, great, so we are two from Europe - and three with the Doctor...lol
GLTY
I'm from germany - the only european shareholder of ACMG in Europe I think.
By the way: Did someone find this for CLD (the unknown company who made the first ACMG-evaluation for Midland Baring)?
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.mdeie.gouv.qc.ca/page/web/por....
Cant sleep, here are the pages of this old overview. It was on the website last year, while there was still the possibility to make private placements at ACMG.
"Introduction
While organic chemistry based on renewable natural resources had been the main focus until the dawn of the
20’st century, the attention had shifted to coal during the early 1900’s and by the 1930’s petroleum, due to its
abundance and low cost, had become the raw material of main interest for the chemical industry in general.
Today, chemistry based on petroleum is well understood and the petrochemical industry is a well geared
machine.
An abundance of studies conducted within the past two decades have warned that we will deplete petroleum
reserves by the end of the present century and see a significant shortage and significant increase in crude
costs as early as 2040. Today, almost half a century ahead of any prediction, we have undoubtedly reached
the point where we can see the end of “cheap fossil fuels” and its approaching depletion is becoming a
reality. Furthermore, we have become increasingly aware of the environmental impact caused by
petrochemicals as well as the use of petroleum derivates within the chemical industry in general.
Experience shows that different alcohol groups derived from biomass and biomass in itself are an excellent
source for chemical processes. Several surveys show that we are presently only transforming 5% of available
organic waste. These aspects, highlighted by the barrel of crude climbing past the $50 mark evidence the fact
that the chemical industry needs urgent rethinking, which is exactly what we at ACMG did by developing
our petroleum independent manufacturing process.
Company
Alcar Chemicals Group (OTC ticker symbol: ACMG)’s unique proprietary technology, evaluated at $86M,
allows for economical and environmentally friendly manufacturing of polymer raw materials, conventional
and advanced plastics as well as bio-fuels, utilizing exclusively renewable natural resources (more
specifically non food crop) and organic waste such as agricultural and food-industry waste.
Furthermore, ACMG’s innovative continuous manufacturing process is designed to allow producing directly
at the source of available biomass, significantly reducing transport costs, but most importantly, ACMG can
expect above-average profitability as its production costs are highly economical and because its modular
reactor concept minimizes the required investment. ACMG’s proprietary production process, being entirely
petroleum independent, will remain unaffected by future shortages and sharp rises in petroleum costs.
Technology
The following diagram shows a general overview of the process and reactor schematic employed by ACMG
to manufacture polymer raw materials and bio-fuels. In addition, the closed loop system allows continuous
production to finished plastic products without interruption.
(One graph I cannot copy showing the process)
Several advantages characterize ACMG’s technology, among these we can list:
- size
- modular concept
- closed loop continuous production
- uses non-food crop and organic waste feedstock
- applicable for small volume as well as big scale production
- extremely environmentally friendly operation
- highly economical production
- transportable
It represents today’s most advanced plastic and polymer raw materials manufacturing method. Furthermore,
this technology will allow ACMG to expand into the energy market by economically producing ethanol and
ethanol based biodiesel, excellent alternatives to increasingly expensive petroleum based fuels.
Related Technologies
The main technological advantages of ACMG’s process, when compared to other manufacturers, translate
into economy:
• Lower investment required: $22M for a 120,000 Ton production capacity vs. $100M
• Lower operating cost through:
• high conversion rate and efficiency
• lower pressures and temperatures
• non-food crop and organic waste as main feedstock
Products
Management has restructured its initial plans and opted to abandon a vertical integration within the plastics
manufacturing industry for a horizontal integration concentrated on its biomass conversion technology.
Initial production will concentrate on polyols (of which the market is accusing a serious shortage) with
subsequent additions for the bio-fuel market. Production consists of the following raw materials:
- Glycerol
- Ethylene glycol: (or 1,2 Ethanediol polyol) this product may be employed in applications for
polyurethane manufacturing, for polyester and polyethylene synthesis.
- Propylene glycol: may be used for polyester, alkyd resins, paints and coatings manufacturing in
addition to polyurethane formulations. The high purity product resulting from this process can
find several other uses for the food and pharmaceutical applications.
Taking advantage of the enormous flexibility of ACMG’s technology, organic waste and renewable natural
resources are converted into ethanol and oil, than further reacted into Biodiesel. Biodiesel, synthesized from
ethanol and vegetable oil will yield a high quality fuel grade product with a cleaner burning and lower
freezing point properties than the methanol obtained counterparts.
Business Aspect
ACMG’s approach:
• Minimized initial investment through:
modular reactor systems
economical production (at the site of available biomass)
• Rapid growth rate by:
high margins
expanding capacity to accessible amounts of biomass in each location
Licensing of the technology outside Canada
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Production (tons) 2,500 30,000 60,000 120,000
Average Production cost (/ton) $685 $523 $507 $498
Investments (Equipment) $6M $4M $4M $4M $4M
Table I: Projected production capacity and costs vs initial investment and reinvested profits.
Initial 1st quarter 2nd quarter 3rd quarter Total
Investment $0.5M $3.0M $2M $0.8M $6.3M
Engineering and Patents $250K $600K $0.85M
Facility & Peripherals $1.3M $750K $400K $2.45M
First Reactor Module $850K $1.0M $1.85M
Operating Capital $250K $250K $250K $400K $1.15M
Table II: Financing required and use of proceeds.
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Revenues $0 $3.3M $56.7M $118.1M $236.3M
Gross Margin % 34 49 51 53
EBITDA -$0.31M $24.5M $50.8M $101M
Net Profit -$0.25M $17.8M $36.6M $72.9M
Net Profit % - 7 31 33 34
Table III: Financial Highlights through 2010."
Sorry, on my way to sleep I had to check my ACMG documents and I've found the Business Plan from Feb 28th!
I will compare it with my other BPs, and what abengoma said is absoluteley correct:
The BP from Feb 28th still contains the Management Team.
And I've found a "very old" doc from Nov 2006, with smaller numbers in the financials. Will try to copy it in here tomorrow.
No. that's great, because it shows, that there are at least three versions of a BP:
The first one from Feb 23rd (with USSE in focus), the second from Feb 28th (with SIAM) and the current one with the change in the management presentation.
As I said before, it looks as if "someone" is interested to keep the BP up to date - well at least until the middle of march...lol
No, it's time to go to bed...GoodN8
Reading and writing is part of my job, so I compared "my" both versions word by word...
It would be very interesting if there are only two different versions or more, which would indicate that they adjust the BP according to the developments.
So you have a BP-version from February 28th?
Good night from Europe!
Well, not only semantics, Sentinel:
- Different numbers: as I said before, it looks like someone with more financial experience looked them through.
- The building: from "negotiated" to "acquired"
- Negotiating licensing agreements in India and not in China (old BP)
- The management team
- Potential agreements are now "under negotiation" (former "presently pursued")
- Finalized agreement against "pursuing future partners"
- Dividend in 2009 "at over 1$" in the old plan against the ability to pay significant dividends as early as 2009" - if you are a scam, why change this from the great 1$ divi to just the ability to pay one without saying how much??
It just doesn't make sense to me to change the BP the way it was changed.
Why change semantics, numbers and some important pieces?
The old BP would have been fine for a scam company, if you only would have changed the planned plant in Nachez to the plants in SEA.
Of course it is not a final evidence, but it helps in believing...)
It looks as if someone with more financial experience looked through the BP (look at the sentence with dividends) and with a better english (though I'm not native english speaking it feels like this to me).
The SIAM connection was announced in the middle/end of February, so it seems logical that the date of both BPs is February - the one in the beginning, the other in the end of february (just when things changed between USSE and SIAM).
For example look at the changes regarding license negotiations in China in the old BP and then India in the new BP.
Would you think this is part of a scam? Changing little, middle and important things in a BP, if your only target is to steal money from the stupid shareholders?
Noone would care if the sentences are worded like this or that, or the numbers are that big or that small - no, these changes are made because someone wants to accurat.
This gives me confidence.
And I still didn't sell one share.
GLTA
Ok, and here is the rest from the differences between the two BPs.
There are some changes, which are very interesting and make me feel much better because they seem senseful in the light of SIAM.
Page 13, "Phase two"
Old BP: "...allow additions to grow into a bigger scale plant, scale..."
New BP: "...allow additions in order to grow into a bigger scale plant, a scale..."
"Phase three"
Old BP: "...implementation of phase, and expansion with a 1M Gal per day plant in Natchez, MS. Construction is planned to begin as soon as the first facility reaches full production, foreseen for late summer of 2007."
New BP: "...implementation of phase two, and expansion in South East Asia with an initial four ethanol facilities with a capacity of 1M Gal per day each. Construction is planned to begin as soon as the first facility reaches full production, which is foreseen for late summer of 2007."
Page 14, "Locations & Facilities"
Old BP: "...where a existing building has been negotiated."
New BP: "...where an existing building has been acquired."
Old BP: "...less then 1?4 mile."
New BP: "...less than 1?4 mile from the facility."
(plus changes from "square foot" to "sqft")
Old BP: "Phase three is foreseen to be implemented in Natchez, MS, where an adequate amount of biomass in the form of farm and
forestry wastes has been identified, sufficient to support the planned daily production of 1M Gal of ethanol. An adequate facility offering ample room for implementing the scaled up manufacturing process has already been acquired by the envisioned partner. The selected location offers the availability of an adequate labor pool and reasonable access to transportation roots for marine, rail and land shipping. "
New BP: "Phase three is foreseen to be implemented in Thailand and Malaysia, where tremendous amounts of biomass in the form of sugar cane, farm and forestry wastes have been identified, sufficient to support the planned ethanol facilities."
Page 15
Old BP: "...introducing additional costs but also possible additional revenue streams..."
New BP: "...which introduce additionalcosts but also provide additional..."
Page 16 and 17 in the old BP are presenting the Management Team:
- Alexander Cavasin, CEO
- Carmel E. Kenny, CFO
- Donald Pepin, COO
- Evgeny Stefoglo, CTO
and the accountants and attorneys we know from the former website
New BP: "ACMG’s New Management Team will be announced shortly following restructuring."
Page 19 (old)/Page 17 (new) = Financial Analysis
Change from "in $1,000,000" to "in million dollars"
Table III shows different numbers
Old BP: "...and the following table shows the projected revenue stream from the potential agreements presently pursued."
New BP: "...from the potential agreements presently under negotiation."
Table IV shows slightly different numbers
Table V shows significant different numbers with revenues starting from 2008 (new BP) instead of revenues starting 2009 (old BP)
Page 20 (old)/page 18 (new)
Old BP: "The investment is envisioned to be completed early spring 2007 with the missing $5 capital input which is complemented by a $1.8M loan and a $500K revolving line of credit."
New BP: "The investment is envisioned to be completed by early spring 2007 with a 5 million dollar capital input which is complemented by a loan and a revolving line of credit."
Old BP: Long-term Plans
Management is presently pursuing potential future partners to raise the required funds and finalize the scale-up engineering
during the implementation of the first plant for a full scale 1M Gal daily ethanol facility. Several locations across North America and in South East Asia have been identified which would be capable of sustaining a 1M Gal daily production facility with the locally available biomass in form of cellulosic waste."
New BP: "Management has now finalized an agreement for the financing of the funds required to finalize the scale-up engineering and implementation of full scale ethanol facilities with a production capacity of 360 million gallons per annum. Several locations across South East Asia have been identified which would be capable of sustaining the production capacity with the locally available biomass in form of sugar and cellulosic waste."
Page 21 (old)/page 19 (new)
Old BP: "...as shown by the Free Cash Flow per Share analysis, provide the ability to pay significant dividends at over $1 per share already in 2009."
New BP: "...analysis, will provide the ability to pay significant dividends as early as 2009."
(((very interesting change!!)))
Table VII shows different numbers AND different OS (from 2007 to 2011):
125m - 145m - 185m - 215m - 250m
while the old BP shows 250m from 2007
Well, I'm at home now and here are the differences I found between the Business Plan I downloaded at the 23rd of February and the BP you can download today from ACMG's website. Here the differences for the first 12 pages:
Page 4, Table1: Financial Highlights through 2011:
Different numbers!
Page 10, fourth paragraph, last sentence:
Old BP: "...impeding most economic cyclical effects."
New BP: "...mitigating most economic cyclical effects."
Page 11,
Old BP: "...management believes it will captureits own market share within the targeted segments due to the following:
Global market demands in the targeted polyurethane user segments have already out-stripped supplies and are
experiencing significant material supply shortages, shortages that are forecasted to last for the coming decade. "
New BP: "...management believes it will capturea significant market share within the targeted segments due to the following:
Global market demands in the targeted polyurethane user segments have already out-stripped supplies and such
segments are experiencing significant material supply shortages, shortages that are forecasted to last for the coming decade."
Old BP: "...as the total required investment for such output would be limited
to $22M. "
New BP: "...as the total required investment with this new technology for
such output would be limited to $22M."
Old BP: "...ACMG has already a first contract for a five year duration..."
New BP: "...ACMG already has an initial signed contract with a five year duration..."
(plus one change from point to comma)
Page 12:
Old BP: "...above average profits. Licensing agreements being pursued world-wide will insure an additional revenue stream of significant importance. Furthermore, with a scaled up version now planned in Natchez, MS..."
New BP: "...above average profitability. Licensing agreements being pursued world-wide will insure an additional revenue stream of significant importance. Furthermore, with four scaled-up plants now planned in South East Asia,..."
Old BP: "...underlining principal..."
New BP: "...underlining principle..."
Old BP: "...Management is presently negotiating licensing agreements with China, Taiwan, Brazil and Europe."
New BP: "...Management ispresently negotiating licensing agreements with India, Taiwan, Brazil and Europe. "
Please be aware that the busines plan has been revised in some sentences, I don't have the time to show it up, because I have to go now, but I'll do this in some hours.
I downloaded the BP at the 23rd of February - and looking at the actual BP on the current website there are some changings.
Just before I leave:
Old one: "...where a existing building has been negotiated."
New one: "...where an existing building has been acquired."
See you later, glta
Hi jerseyboy,
good to hear from you!
Well, this could be the most simple answer:
He is making holidays before the "big storm" starts, knowing that he won't have the time to do business as COO of emerging businesses.
I still hold my shares, didn't sell one since April 2006 - it's good, my wife knows nothing about this madness...lol
GLTA from Europe, where we urgently need Ethanol from biowaste
Ok, before getting paranoid, too - I just try to take my last reasonable brain cells and ask:
The price broke down last week BECAUSE Mr. Cavasin didn't show up at the interview.
If he was a scam and wanted to make a lot of money, wouldn't it be much more clever to use the 20minutes on MN1.com and tell the hell out of SIAM, great developments, new plants, new licensees etc.?
The shareprice would have gone to the 0.20ies or 0.30ies - perfect to sell shares and make real money.
So to me a real scam wouldn't be quiet - or what do you think?