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.
Did anything ever happen to our company's request to FINRA regarding naysayers and their trading?
Or is it a case caveat emptor?
How does a trademark create added value to us when there are other producers of hydrogen from various inputs. It does not create a production or sales monopoly.
Effectively, it limits what others can label their hydrogen in words or symbols.
There are hundreds of millions of dollars going into big hydrogen projects each month. So, a mark, name or brand might help but not to the degree that we hope.
I would not necessarily called them a partner. It is a fee for service. So, if you order Big Macdls for your employees, does that make McDonald's Corp your partner.
Green bonds sounds nice but it will only save you 10 basis points for the same term and risk. We should be asking what risk premium will be levied for a start up?
Grant Thornton is a well known CPA firm. For about 100k, they should be able to perform a review of the technology to render an opinion if the CLNV process would be able to qualify as a green bond.
Green bonds generally have a lower yield for the same duration and quality. CLNV would likely be an unrated bond. Even if a shadow rating were determined, it would not be investment grade. Likely a single B at best but more than likely a higher C rating. This places a green bond issue at a 9 percent minimum.
If a green bond is issued and there is some future issue with qualifying for a green status or monetizing any credits, many bonds have a rate adjustment provision in the indenture.
Getting a green bond takes a little longer than a conventional bond even with a big name firm behind you. I am working on two exchange traded green bonds now. Not overly complicated but it is a longer process.
There is a coal mine operator on the Virginia area that is finalizing its direct coal fines to hydrogen plant design. It should produce about 22500 tons per year of clean hydrogen starting in late 2025.
ESG bonds get listed on LUX every day. I am working on some now. It is very easy to do. The rates for existing commercial businesses using ESG designation tend to be about 50 bps off normal bonds for the same quality and term. The rates for start ups or project financing ESG bonds can be as high as 12 pct.
For a concept stock / start up like CLNV, non dilutive financing would imply very high coupon debt, a top line royalty, an assignment of carbon credits or direct ownership of the hard assets leased back to CLNV. If there is any conversion or warrants then is it dilutive.
Ten years?
I have only owned CLNV for around 2 years now so how 2 years becomes ten years is beyond reason.
It will keep the lights on and pay for legal bills and travel.
The largest number of stations selling hydrogen is in California. The largest chain in the state has 37 locations and has raised over 100 million to build about 25 more.
Most states do not have terminals at the city gate to handle hydrogen let alone consumer sales. For hydrogen to take off as a direct fuel or in fuel cells, we will need to add thousand stations per year for a decade to match what producers and project developers have in mind. This works out to a 40 billion dollar roll out.
A million tons per year works out to about 4000 tons per day on a 250 day year. Even the cheapest offshore made system having a 10 year system life span will cost about 400 million for the equipment. Land, building, offices, storage areas, mobile equipment working capital and so forth are extra. Now, 4000 tons per day using NA sized truck would still require 200 truck loads per day. If you use a Filipino sized truck, you could easily get up to 600 trucks per day. How do you handle the volume? We still have yet to see any previous financial adviser deliver any funds for meaningful capital costs. Even Green funds will want to see a return of the rate of inflation plus 2 pct. Sovereign wealth funds and family offices would want even 3 pct higher than Green funds.
Waste Management Inc has already been involved with pyrolysis plants. I can see them and their competitors holding onto waste collection contracts and diverting high carbon plastics through their own pyrolysis systems. So, how does CLNV get access to the feedstock when the big 10 waste firms have everything tied up? Not in the US or Canada. There are already pyrolysis conversion plants being built in Australia and New Zealand to make power, LCFS fuels and hydrogen. So, to be big at WMI, it would have to be in India and a few African countries. I am personally aware of developers going into India with money and technology but get a gentle push back for local ownership and permitting times.
A million tons per year is a great volume. Assuming you work 250 days per year (five days per week less stat holidays), this comes to 4000 tons per day. This is one incredibly large facility. Even if you can spread the work out onto the weekend and not offend the religious and political leadership, you are still over 3000 tons per day. For a pyrolysis plant, this is massive.
The capital cost of such an operation is mind boggling. It begs the question can the funds be raised? It can be done for an established business with cash flow. It is much harder for a start up.
From an in plant handling perspective, 4000 tons per day works out to 200 truck loads being received likely during daylight hours. The poor weigh scale operators. If this is done at one site but many modules, it is still a challenge to move material.
While we may have differences of opinion, there is a respectful way of saying that I disagree. However, some go as far as calling others liars and so forth.
The body of the press release is clear that they still need to find the 50 million bucks.
The bulk of larger ocean borne plastics comes from ten rivers, none of which are in North America and Europe, and fishing nets in the western Pacific. What is the likely success rate to convince China and Vietnam to use a US patent for PCN. India and two African river systems forms the balance. As for fishing nets, if there is intentional damage, there is not much that can be done.Micro plastics found in personal cleaning products is being phased out in western economies.
Where is the commercial advantage to track each piece or load of plastic waste? A competitor could just build a WTE plant using pyrolysis using plastics as a feedstock today to make hydrogen or other energy outputs without the paperwork. Can you see a GOP government imposing the traceability rules when a straightforward alternative is available?
The funding is for specific purposes such as research, equipment design and the like. If CLNV has a prototype plant in India that we have called our R and D plant and a press release that says that we have a two year co development relationship with the leading pyrolysis equipment manufacturer then where is the connection between the funding to ASU and the plant construction in AZ?
Optimism must be tempered with logic.
The revenue sounds great but when you back out direct and indirect costs, management overheads, interest and taxes, the amount left is not significant. From whatever is left, you have debt service cost and whatever needs to be shared with JV partners.
Cash is King. We need cash flow from operating plants to buy added equipment for subsequent plants.
The 70 million is for research, design, development and the like. According to CLNV, we already have the best in class pyrolysis providers and our own testing site in India. Still.nothing for the capital construction cost in Arizona.
ASU has a relationship in that the university is supplying the access of a pool of researchers to CLNV courtesy of the 2022 press release.
It is not providing capital for any plant construction.
The 2023 press release does not mention CLNV at all.
The original press release regarding ASU is that the Walton Foundation centre at ASU will provide CLNV with assess to 800 researchers. Nowhere is the press release does it sat that ASU or the Waltons are providing capital. The same press release is clear that CLNV is responsible for raising the funds. There has been no reporting of funds being secured for a WTE facility in Arizona.
As for the newest release, there is no mention of CLNV in the document. The 70 million will do wonders for research and experimentation on equipment design.
In a mid 2021, CLNV issued a joint press release with GGII for the supply of the most advanced pyrolysis systems. We have bought a Beston system for India and have stated that the Indian plant is our R and D facility. If we already have the best system going (many sizeable plants built) and our own R + D plant, what commercial value would ASU have for us especially when we are not named in the most recent press release?
This is a great story for ASU but how does it relate to CLNV?
Our company retained Roselle almost 2 years ago to find capital and produced nothing. Two other parties have signed MOU's to find capital without success. It is a tough sell to raise 500 million when you have no appreciable assets or revenues and you are not putting cash into the new project. You will get some credit for future potential but the cost of capital and dilution will be noticeable.
Block chain traceability makes sense for high value products and foodstuffs. For mixed waste plastics, the cost to show the traceability for something that is going to be reduced to an energy product is not cost effective. I cannot see waste consolidators and haulers to process data.
No lie from this side.
I reached out via email and phone. Crickets as they say.
I have reached out to both of them a number of times.
Pyrolysis to electricity, tank ready synthetic fuels or hydrogen requires scale to get the capital, variable and fixed costs to the point that it matches the handling problems. 100 TPD is not big enough to drive the costs down and the volume of output high enough to become a market leader. At 500 TPD, it becomes optimal unless you have excess capital to invest in handling equipment. A slow build up to higher volume is a costly use of capital. The sales side is a challenge. Electricity is generally profitable in lower GDP countries. Pyrolysis oil sells to a discount to WTI. A FT clean up unit changes the revenue per ton of input to a much higher value. This is the best short to medium term output. Hydrogen still has issues on how to ship it and once to the final destination how does it get from the city gate to the retail user. We are about 10 years out to get the distribution problems solved.
I am a project driven professional who with employees, joint venture partners and the like own businesses, in whole or in part, in the WTE field. I am also a supplier of systems and feedstock. I do assist in raising funds for proven developers outside of our target markets.
The company has assessed the market correctly going from pyrloysis to hydrogen. Pyrolysis is better than gas or electricity in that no water is needed to make hydrogen. Whether they sell the hydrogen to direct fuel or to fuel sells, that is not material but they could be losing out of a potential market.
I have been providing information and suitable due diligence level questions. I do not require a higher level account asnI am not an active stock trader.
There is no issue with pyrolysis to make hydrogen. There is no issue with selling hydrogen as a direct fuel or for fuel cells. There are major issues with the transmission and retail distribution today and likely for five plus years. Do people remember that light trucks and vans were going to propane and CNG? How many stations carry these fuels? As for the large pool of government money, assuming it does not get reduced under McCarthy debt ceiling and budget bills, it gets split over a handful of hubs and within each hub by dozens of pre-qualified projects. Have any of our projects been pre-approved by the relevant hydrogen hub bodies? I have not heard anything from management yet.
I enjoy humour like the next guy.
I am a shareholder although I have trimmed back my holdings.
I have been in the WTE space for years. Have you not noticed the quality of questions and understanding of the industry in my posts?
I agree.
I am a shareholder and have experience in the WTE industry. I only provide information and objective questions. No misinformation from me - I have professional standards to observe otherwise there are personal legal consequences. Person risk does not attach to other posters.
Many governments will do some form of grant or loan program but the developer needs to have experience and hard cash invested in the project. There are some that will provide nothing up front but give you tax credits on the backside. However, this means that you need to fully fund the capital cost.
Many a project developer has a good story. They acquire a shell, sell some stock, promote it so they can travel on some one else's dime, sell some more stock and then it fades away until the shell is sold again. Seems as though no one talks about other competitive forces already in the hydrogen game each with very deep pockets.
Actually, the 8B is the total for all of the hubs. Each hub is competing for a slice of the pie. Within each slice, the dollars need to be spread over a pool of qualified projects. In many hubs, about 40 pct are rejected automatically. The best estimate of timing is announcements by the end of the year. Any debt ceiling theatrics could push decisions and announcements into 2024.
So, where does the 50 million in new investment come from? CLNV does not have a good track record of raising capital.
While is sounds good for the industry, it is difficult to extrapolate that growth rate to our company. There are other equipment manufacturers who have proven systems. There are developers who have plants running making hydrogen and LCFS fuels. In WWestern Australia, Hitachi is putting in a 300k TPY WTE plant which will take in more than just mere local plastics.
You may have sent this reply to me in error.
Innovators may have the better mousetrap but typically fail when they cannot raise capital to drive revenues. Even then, there are other factors to consider.
Projects cost more than planned. Revenues due not ramp up as fast as the business plan suggests. Capital takes longer to raise and is more costly than promoters expect. Reliance of tax credits and other inducements is very political and if the project returns are based on these then it is reluctantly in peril.