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.
well, janice, identity theft and credit card fraud leap to mind.
If the boy is stupid enough to buy a lambo...
It was on sho because the company is lying about the OS. How hard is that to figure?
LOL. Word salad:
BioCentric President Dennis Fisher today announced, "BioCentric has signed their first license agreement with a small private firm, Envision Technologies. In granting this first license to Envision for $250,000, we have taken on the daunting task of providing the necessary education of our solution to coherently and concisely deliver germane information to their registered clients. We welcome Bob Fischer and his crew in becoming our initial deployment of our Value Added Representative (VAR) Program to efficiently and expeditiously generate revenues together
In other words, they hired a shill
kEWL. Only a 40% bid/ask spread
So behl has produced how much fuel?
I think my favorite picture is the dish towel straining the algae. What nonsense.
not likely, maatty. When has it been that high?
Padesta is a liar. This company has never produced a drop of biofuel in its existence.
Do prove me wrong with data, not PR BS.
Uh, how is a company that is supposed to grow algae, harvest it, turn it into biodisel, and sell it, a software company.
You are kidding, right?
It's impressive why? You have what data to support your claim?
So let's see. The hard data for algae yield, oil yield, fuel production, and cost are where?
And a PR doesn't count.
You do realize that this not a linear scalable technology, don't you? Surface friction increases as the square of the baggies' distance; turbulence loss increases as the cube.
Those pics were more than funny. I particularly liked, and will spread far and wide, the one of the algae being strained through the dish towel with the waste water going into the home dopot five gallon bucket.
Impressive, yep.
So you posted that this scam is an economical solution why, if you admittedly don't know?
Name-why don't you spell out the economics of current sharps disposal versus this scams claims.
Be specific.
And you do know that the "FDA approval" is meaningless, don't you? There are multiple sharps destruction units already on the market.
http://www.google.com/search?q=sharps+destruction+unit&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7ACEW_enUS323US323
Now that is funny, xk2. So HIV infected addicts are out foraging landfills for needles?
Ya think they might just keep the ones the have?
Too funny, judy. So a law is going to be passed that mandates that drug addicted HIV patients buy this device.
Judy, are you aware that medicaid and medicare do not pay for needles for drug addicts?
Yes. It's really exciting that this breakthrough technology is trading in three digits.
Pump and dump one day wonder.
Tell me, judy, what law could compel a patient to use this particular device and how would it be enforced? And exactly what do HIV patients do at home that requires a needle?
And I'm quite sure your "lab" already has a sharps disposal unit.
Here is an example of what a real algae start up with real backing looks like:
http://www.technologyreview.com/biztech/20319/
Unlike the parking lot junk pile that is BEHL.
SPNG fails are negligible, and the only reason it even went on the sho list is that FINRA is using an outdated OS figure.
Here is the actual fail data from the end of July. FTD's are trivial:
Fails-to-Deliver Calculator
This is a parsing of the latest failure data coded from the feed at http://www.sec.gov/foia/docs/failsdata.htm
Select Report:
Symbol:
07/15/2009: 3,514,444
07/16/2009: 49,152
07/17/2009: 1,002,442
07/20/2009: 14,725,754
07/21/2009: 9,471,912
07/22/2009: 8,088,135
07/23/2009: 5,200,621
07/24/2009: 4,272,930
07/27/2009: 356
07/28/2009: 322,000
07/29/2009: 140,175
07/30/2009: 6,666,574
07/31/2009: 16,065,416
CORRECTION: The fail to deliver data is a net balance of all fails as of the specific date.
Actually, izzy, the "MOASS" would require a short, which doesn't exist any more that it ever does in these crappy pump and dumps that run about bleating about "NSS".
So, what happened to the "China plant". I thought it was supposed to be up and running long ago.
This company has grown some algae in a parking lot. Nothing suggests they have the ability or capital to have a viable commercial operation.
Zero. Zip. Nada.
Oh please, Cjs. This "me too," no asset company is growing some algae in a parking lot, and you are making the conceptual leap that they are on the verge of being a player in the biofuels market?
That is simply beyond silly.
Here is the FTD data for the second half of July. Anybody claiming a "naked short" is simply ignoring data or deliberately fabricating a story:
Fails-to-Deliver Calculator
This is a parsing of the latest failure data coded from the feed at http://www.sec.gov/foia/docs/failsdata.htm
Select Report:
Symbol:
07/15/2009: 3,514,444
07/16/2009: 49,152
07/17/2009: 1,002,442
07/20/2009: 14,725,754
07/21/2009: 9,471,912
07/22/2009: 8,088,135
07/23/2009: 5,200,621
07/24/2009: 4,272,930
07/27/2009: 356
07/28/2009: 322,000
07/29/2009: 140,175
07/30/2009: 6,666,574
07/31/2009: 16,065,416
CORRECTION: The fail to deliver data is a net balance of all fails as of the specific date.
The only reason the company was ever even on the SHO list is that FINRA is using an outdated, and far to low, OS figure.
BEHL FTD's for the last half of july. Nothing significant whatsoever. No short=no squeeze.
Fails-to-Deliver Calculator
This is a parsing of the latest failure data coded from the feed at http://www.sec.gov/foia/docs/failsdata.htm
Select Report:
Symbol:
07/15/2009: 17,283
07/16/2009: 37,071
07/20/2009: 2,427
07/21/2009: 21,083
07/24/2009: 200,000
07/27/2009: 200,000
07/28/2009: 500,304
07/29/2009: 259,094
07/31/2009: 12,832
CORRECTION: The fail to deliver data is a net balance of all fails as of the specific date.
Uh, cj, you don't produce any fuels, do you?
BULL-average solar flux in southern CA is about 600w/m2 for eight or so hours. No way the conversion energy equals the pump.
If algae is to ever be feasible it will be from a passive system.
That damned second law and all.
Well, mike, given the fact that this company has never produced a drop of fuel, and in fact has zero experience in producing fuel, I think that's pretty damned doubtful.
You do understand quality standards for avgas, don't you?
gee, cj, I have to kinda believe that exxon knows what they are talking about, or is the management of BEHL, with no alternative fuel experience whatsoever, better qualified.
Why didn't Exxon partner with behl, if it's such a superior solution?
Why?
He added, “I am not going to sugarcoat this — this is not going to be easy.” Any large-scale commercial plants to produce algae-based fuels are at least 5 to 10 years away, Dr. Jacobs said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/business/energy-environment/14fuel.html
Really, CJ? I think you are wrong. Here is the FTD data for the second half of july for this wanna be energy company:
Fails-to-Deliver Calculator
This is a parsing of the latest failure data coded from the feed at http://www.sec.gov/foia/docs/failsdata.htm
Select Report:
Symbol: BEHL
07/15/2009: 17,283
07/16/2009: 37,071
07/20/2009: 2,427
07/21/2009: 21,083
07/24/2009: 200,000
07/27/2009: 200,000
07/28/2009: 500,304
07/29/2009: 259,094
07/31/2009: 12,832
CORRECTION: The fail to deliver data is a net balance of all fails as of the specific date.
http://stocksweek.com/fails.php?report=cnsfails200907b.txt&symbol=behl&submit=submit
So where is that NSS again? Surely you have data to back your claim, don't you?
Well, joey, since this company has produced not one drop of biodiesel, I have no idea where your production cost figures come from.
They couldn't produce enough algae in the parking lot for a gallon of feedstock.
Algae Biodiesel Cost - What Exactly Makes Algae Fuel Costly?
Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2008 posted by Ecacofonix @ 8:17 AM
You are at: Oilgae Blog.
Whether it is the person who I meet at a conference, or folks who interact at Oilgae blog, or people who write to me, the one big question they always ask is, "How much does it cost to make fuel from algae?"
Now, I am not going to say I have precise answers, but based on cost estimates of various components as well as based on what other experts and companies have mentioned, I think it is fairly obvious that it is very difficult to have the final fuel cost to be anything less than 7-8 $ per gallon is one uses photobioreactors.
I'd reckon the two main significant cost components of algae fuel are photobioreactors (capex and also its depreciated value in the annual expenditure) and cost of harvesting (my estimates run from anywhere between 0.25 - 1 $ per gallon based on what methods one uses, including capex depreciation). Of these the photobioreactors appear to be the really scary cost component, with current estimates running at about 75-100$ per 100 m2. At that rate, taking a 10% depreciation annually alone would make the depreciated cost of PBRs equal to almost 3-4 $ / gallon of algae fuel produced.
The other two cost components - extraction and transesterification - appear to be fairly reasonable and are comparable to the costs for any other biomass - less than 50 cents per gallon, together.
Based on the above, I'd agree with what some experts have said - closed systems, especially photobioreactors, are simply unlikely to make the cut in future unless someone can bring down their costs by 60-80%. Now that's asking for something really sttep.
http://www.oilgae.com/blog/2008/12/algae-biodiesel-cost-what-exactly-makes.html
Uh, bj, and I should believe a penny stock website why? Where is the independent lab data?
The claimed sales figures make no sense whatsoever. They would put them ahead of Turtle Wax and McGuires combined. Impossible.
Algae Biodiesel: It's $33 a Gallon
Drying, breeding and growing algae – particularly in large quantities – isn't there yet, which means your fishtank is not a gold mine.
You can grow algae with carbon dioxide and sunlight, but that doesn't mean it's free.
Although many believe that algae will become one of the chief feedstocks for diesel and even hydrocarbon-like fuels, growing large amounts of algae and then converting the single-celled creatures remains expensive, said experts at the National Biodiesel Conference taking place in San Francisco on Tuesday.
Algae biofuel startup Solix, for instance, can produce biofuel from algae right now, but it costs about $32.81 a gallon, said Bryan Wilson, a co-founder of the company and a professor at Colorado State University. The production cost is high because of the energy required to circulate gases and other materials inside the photo bioreactors where the algae grow. It also takes energy to dry out the biomass, and Solix uses far less water than other companies (see Cutting the Cost of Making Algae by 90%).
By exploiting waste heat at adjacent utilities (one of our favorite forms of energy around here), the price can probably be brought down to $5.50 a gallon (see Will Waste Heat Be Bigger Than Solar?). By selling the proteins and other byproducts from the algae for pet food, the price can be brought to $3.50 a gallon in the near term.
But that's still the equivalent of $150 a barrel of oil. "We we're excited in July [when oil was approaching that level]," he joked. "But we knew it wasn't sustainable."
It's only in phase II of Solix's business plan that it will be able to drop production costs to $3.30 to $1.57 a gallon, or around $60 to $80 a barrel. Solix has set a goal of cutting the cost of making algae by 90 percent.
Is algae a good feedstock? Yes, he insisted. Ultimately, algae could yield 5,000 to 10,000 gallons an acre, far higher than other feedstocks. Soy is only good for around 40 to 50 gallons an acre. Touted plants like jatropha might only produce 175 gallons an acre, he said.
But algae comes with trade-offs. Wild algae grows fast, but it doesn't yield tremendous amounts of oil naturally – two thirds or more of the body weight of wild algae will be proteins and carbohydrates instead of oil. Genetically modified algae can boost the oil content, but that slows the growth process. Closed bioreactors – i.e., sealed plastic bags placed in the sun -- cost more than open ponds, but it's tough to keep invasive species from taking over open ponds and out-competing algae optimized to produce oil...
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/algae-biodiesel-its-33-a-gallon-5652/
Avarita-could you give me a link to the data on production costs? I think your claim is wildly inaccurate.
I should think that a soap loaded sponge is not hard to duplicate. There are dozens on the market already.
http://www.google.at/search?q=soap+filled+sponge&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
1.5 billion is unproven nonsense:
Fails-to-Deliver Calculator
This is a parsing of the latest failure data coded from the feed at http://www.sec.gov/foia/docs/failsdata.htm
Select Report:
Symbol:
07/15/2009: 3,514,444
07/16/2009: 49,152
07/17/2009: 1,002,442
07/20/2009: 14,725,754
07/21/2009: 9,471,912
07/22/2009: 8,088,135
07/23/2009: 5,200,621
07/24/2009: 4,272,930
07/27/2009: 356
07/28/2009: 322,000
07/29/2009: 140,175
07/30/2009: 6,666,574
07/31/2009: 16,065,416
CORRECTION: The fail to deliver data is a net balance of all fails as of the specific date.
http://stocksweek.com/fails.php?report=cnsfails200907b.txt&symbol=spng&submit=submit
It's the same process (TRANS esterification), it produces the same waste.