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.
Between the complexities of dealing with government and businesses in India and the amount of capital to build out a pyrolysis network to produce power, fuels or even hydrogen in that country, it will be a steep road to climb if our company has not yet completed the financing and ordered the equipment for five press released sites.
A photograph of one small system does not an empire make.
Audited financial statements only attest to the accuracy of the management prepared statements. Until there is positive cashflow form operations, the notes will include a statement that the future of the company is dependent on their ability to raise capital. An audit never attests to future uncertain revenues or profits. It is very difficult to raise capital for a large scale project if you have no past operations or are contributing cash towards the new project.
So, in the absence of anything from the company in the form of a press release or something in the financial statements, nothing has happened.
Did the feedstock collapse for Ecuador? Did the permits not get issued? Did Roselle or HSA fail to find a party to pony up the $ 100 million plus?
All of this should have been press released? Even saying something as simple as it is in progress would be helpful although more concrete language would be better.
The up listing request happened well after a reasonable amount of time since these press releases went out. Saying now that we are relying on the up listing suggests that nothing has gone on in South America.
There are already some world scale engineering companies moving into hydrogen. They have the brains and the bucks to pull it off. How can we compete for the production and distribution of hydrogen with these huge companies?
What ever happened to...
Any word from our management on the status on the financing for three Ecuadoran opportunities?
Or did this press release get replaced by subsequent press releases for other sites hoping that we forget about Ecuador or the Congo or the Cameroon?
There are a number of clean incinerators in Canada and in Europe.
Even the GGI clean incinerator (pre-pyrolysis development) remains modern despite its age.
Plastics do raise the BTU value in clean incinerators balancing off the low BTU value MSW. There is a trade off between trying to pull out the plastics either at the source or at a processing site. If you collect the plastics within the regular stream you will get all of the plastics. If you rely on the homeowner, you will only get part of it.
If you pull out the plastics from any kind of processing system - clean incineration, plasma or pyrolysis the remaining waste is harder to convert.
As more WTE sites get developed the competition for waste may drive down the tipping fees.
When plastic straws, bakery clam shells, bags, plastic beverage bottles and the plastic rings for a six pack go, this represents a significant volume decrease. Thick paper is already replacing straws and food service containers. Paper bags are already coming back into grocery stores. Glue is being used on beer cans rather than the rungs.
I agree, plastics will not disappear but its use will be significantly curtailed in major markets.
The three Ecuadoran LOI's.
How are they doing?
Did Dan find the money yet to buy the equipment?
Its been too long since we heard anything about these projects?
What about the DRC project? How is its funding going?
What about the funding for the three Ecuadoran plants? How is that going? It's getting long in the tooth. Any status updates from Dan or the funder?
If the EU and Canada have banned single use plastics, with the US and other advanced economies be far behind. Ditto for India and the UAE. It begs the question if the supply of plastic waste falls, what does this say about the long term demand for feedstock to process?
Any word on how the funding is going?
Remember No funding means No equipment means No profit to our company.
One Indian state is going the plasma route to produce power.
One of the wealthiest and largest states is going to use pyrolysis to power route using a different provider.
Both states do not want to use home owner sorted plastics as part of the plan as they won't get it right.
Now, what about the issue of banning single use plastics? This will, in the long run, reduce the supply of plastics to process. How does this affect a site's economics? How does this affect the demand for future sites if the feedstock is no longer as plentiful.
You might want to consider the following article:
https://gizmodo-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/gizmodo.com/why-trying-to-clean-up-all-the-ocean-plastic-is-pointle-1848111529/amp
Has anyone done any cost and benefit analysis of converting all inclusive MSW to power versus culling out plastics from MSW and producing power from low BTU MSW (plastic deprived) and plastics to either power or oil?
If so, does the picture differ from the operator perspective and the MSW suppliers perspective?
Has anyone considered the notion that the tipping fees for waste could fall as more MSW to power plants come into operation and bidding forces lower fees.
I have learned from a few ex-pat Indians and some locals that the Indian authorities are looking for design - build - finance deals where the project entity raises the funds so it does not become a government debt. At the end of a specified period (likely 15 to 20 years) the project is turned over to the state governments for a nominal rupee.
Does our firm have the bandwidth to arrange financing on this scale without government backing of the debt? Local governments will supply the waste and a higher level of government will buy the power as produced.
In order to wean off coal and nuclear, many European countries turned to the clean incineration of waste to produce power. Sweden and Germany are large importers of MSW (primarily from the UK) which includes plastics, C + D material, home furnishings and food waste. By keeping the high BTU value plastics and C + D material (excl stone) in the mix, they get better productivity.
The EU already sells larger systems into the Middle East.
Only when an older plant is up for replacement will they consider pyrolysis. The question will come down to use what they know and already make versus a new large scale pyrolysis plant.
In the long run, the demand for imported oil will come down as more people use EV over ICE cars. Shifting plastics away from incineration for power to plastics derived fuels for cars using a pyrolysis system does not make long term commercial sense,
I wish to quote a CLNV press release as follows:
Under the terms of the two-year agreement, the companies will partner on the development, build out and maintenance of commercial-scale plastic waste-to-energy processing plants that serve municipal and regional population centers worldwide.
Clean-Seas is responsible for the business development, managing the permitting process and securing the project financing. GGII shall serve as an exclusive vendor to Clean-Seas throughout much of the world by providing it with project technical design expertise, specifications, and building, testing and then maintaining the processing plants.
Seems to me that GGII is the supplier of choice to the pyrolysis solution that our company is providing. Or did we walk away from that deal?
Does it seem strange to you that the company promoted its arrangement with GGII then does not mention them after Ecuador?
The photo used in some of the Congo press was of a pyrolysis system installed in Mexico.
The photo used for the India story is a demonstrator model. It appears to be Chinese or SE Asia made - not GGII.
Strategically, why would you not use a GGII system in going into a large potential market? It would appear that we are selling a concept but not the equipment (supplier) that we have promoted earlier in the year unless we are no longer going to use GGII.
I totally agree.
No politician would promote any stock.
However, a politician would promote the good news story of a $ 30+ million WTE project coming to my city or town.
When the local media does not report the story or the Mayor promote the job creating and environment enhancing project anywhere then something is off.
It is a red flag.
There is also the potential of our own management's failure to report any updates on these WTE projects including the most material aspect of funding the purchase of the touted equipment.
Did the project die on the vine?
To see the local Mayors not even repost the CLNV press releases at a minimum suggests that they either do not believe that our company will deliver at all or have seen operators like us and wait for something to develop.
In either case, it would suggest that our company did not offer sufficient comfort on a realistic closing of the deal. As I have offered in the past, an LOI for the money to pay for the equipment and an LOI with the local counterparties might not be strong enough for a Mayor to go out a sell a story. They do not want to tarnish their reputation.
Flipping it another way, why is there no evidence from our management that there progress in the money being found to buy the equipment. Clearly if there was any progress Bates would have press released the update.
I have reached out to the company to verify previous press releases.
Typically, it should take about 4 months to raise capital for the WTE projects subject to some cash equity is infused into the project. Six months would be the upper limit. We are now getting closer to 10 months for the appointment of Roselle and over half a year for the announced Ecuadoran projects.
Speaking of South America, I still do not see any reference to the projects on the respective towns or mayors websites. Ditto for the local Spanish press. If this was such a good news story, where is the follow through?
He has my number and email address.
He has sent me two emails saying that he will get back to me.
I assume that as the IR guru for the company that he is watching multiple forums to gauge the sentiment of the punters. If true, then, he would have picked up on the unanswered question posed by me and others asking so me the money.
If you follow the trail of press releases, it is always something new but never goes back to referring to the good news from previous press releases. You would think that any movement on closing the financing or permitting any project previously would be news to celebrate. Alas, nothing.
I appreciate the response.
However, it does not answer my question on why is the system different than what the previously touted preferred supplier, GGII of Singapore, manufactures? This could be a big deal.
There has still not be an official update on the status of the financing of any of the plants? Without financing, the LOI's of deals does not mean anything.
India is a difficult country to transact business with. I know of a few recycling and WTE developers who have tried to get into that large but extremely fragmented market. Any deal at the national level does not trickle down to the state level. The States tend to thumb their nose at the capital no different than the US states and DC.
BTW, I am long CLNV but I am now in a loss position.
A few things strike me as being off with the pyrolysis system.
A 2.5 ton per day system does seem small. Scalable, yes. Economic, maybe.
The photograph does not match what is regularly produced by GGII so it raises the question what happened with that relationship? Did our company switch providers? If not, why would we be buy someone else's device as a demonstrator when the quality system would be available from GGII?
As for India, anyone who has cleantech has been going to India on a regular basis and has for some time. It is a very difficult market to get into even with the right connections. Depending on what state you want to sell a system into, the vendor needs to provide the long term capital as well.
Speaking of which, how are we doing on raising the $ 100 million for the three South American plants? What about the $ 30+ million for the Congo? Crickets!
It is always good to understand what other WTE developers are trying to do.
The CLNV vision has merit but its execution is less than desirable.
Once their is a little run, I will start selling off my position.
Just to let you know, I worked the corporate finance desk for an independent regional full service investment dealer for almost a decade.
I have In owned and continue to develop various cleantech and alternative energy projects and have done so for about 15 years before it became in vogue.
I should also mention that I am a duly licensed CPA so I do know a thing or two about financial statements.
I have also patented innovative products and know intimately how difficult it is to get the market to adopt knew ideas.
In addressing your comment, I do know what I am talking about.
My reflections are based on my training, experience and the statements made the the company's officials and not any person on I-Hub.
CLNV has a good concept but it is predicated in getting real cash into the project entities. In this late Covid market, it is awash with trillions in cash, investment banks have been going gangbusters for several months now with green projects. However, they are looking from proven leadership, commercialized technology and a predictable revenue stream. The failure for a meaningful update on the status of the financing should be a red flag. I have asked twice for such an update from our company and it has not been forthcoming.
The financial statement clearly show that the company has enough to promote the story, file patents and do some travel. Clearly there is no evidence in the 3rd quarter financials that they have the cash now or anything under contract that requires disclosure in the financials.
The only thing that we do have are a few press releases that reference two agents that will try and find the funding at the project level.
Roselle has had sufficient time to find a credible bank or fund to fund the Ecuador projects. Any big name funder can close a solid deal in under six months from scratch. I suspect that Roselle could be facing some reluctance in finding funding for South America. As for the Congo, many top banks would take a pass based on country risk let alone technology or management risk.
Our newest agent may have better luck but there is a potential overhanging problem in raising project funding if the story of the project has been shopped around for too long. The industry takes the approach that if no investment banker has snapped up the deal by now then what is wrong with it?
There is ample cash to fund travel and issue press releases.
The more relevant question is whether or not the company or its agents can find the cash to place the orders for the equipment in the communities that it so proudly press released.
No one will rush out to lend money to a project without cash equity going in. Serious debt or equity investors will not move until they can see a commercialized project of the same size and technology that is being touted for Ecuador and the Congo.
The absence of any follow up press releases on the status of the financing for these four sites should be a warning sign.
Most of the waste plastic in the oceans is sourced from 10 rivers most of which are in Asia. The countries involved are not adherents to US patent rules or have markets which are difficult to access through multiple layers of middlemen with their hands out. So, how do you access the markets which are the biggest water borne polluters?
As for land based plastics in the G 20 nations, the issue has been a combination of lazy homeowners throwing single use plastics on the ground and the inability to process plastics into new products whether is pellets or an oil. Source diversion into blue boxes has proven not to be effective in many markets as the rule makers do not consider human behaviour.
There is already commercialized technology and plants to cleanly incinerate all manner of household wastes including plastics. This would eliminate both landfill gasses and plastics. So, where is the economic argument to divert plastics at the source to process? Further, why would a business or government invest in a new technology where proven tech already exists?
Our company has not made it clear why our solution is better than existing methods. Offering a solution is one thing but it needs to be better than what is possible now.
I would not want to ascribe blame to any party.
However, there is a need for greater transparency and credibility with timely follow through. Strange thing about human psychology - you can tell us that there will be a delay for which we will accept but the absence of solid data and we think that it is going off the rails. Simple disclosure would eliminate most of the discounted price.
I am not a short seller.
In fact, my broker does not allow it for issues this CLNV.
I hold slightly less than a million shares. I have held them for some time. I have a keen interest in Cleantech - Alt E.
The overarching objectives of CLNV have merit.
However, there are parallels with other pinkies where after a press release there is no verified follow through by company management. Shareholders in every company need to keep management on the straight and narrow.
On two different occasions I have asked questions on the funding for Ecuador through CLNV's funding agent or any other parties. I have had two replies saying that we will get back to me and to date not a peep. Assuming our PR guy reads all of the I-Hub posts then he should see the problem.
There seems to be some questionable attribution of third party projects to the company that has nothing to do with CLNV at all.
The Aussie and Kiwi projects have been in development for a few years by Bioplant Ltd a publicly held controlled sub of GGII. The funding is not being arranged by CLNV and its associates so how does our company have any right to claim that it is ours? This was all done before the company changed its name to CLNV and PCN was created!
As for Ecuador, don't count your chickens before they are hatched. The local mayors have not promoted the good news of the CLNV press release on their own social media. Local Spanish speaking media has not picked up on the story as well. And what about the money to fund the project and purchase the equipment? A first tier financial institution would have closed the deal by now so it begs the question can funding be delivered.
In terms of processing plastics and most other MSW, there are already a number of clean incineration suppliers and plants in operation. From a customers (plant operator or taxpayers) perspective, how does PCN lower my cost capital and operating cost to eliminate landfills and methane emissions over existing technology?
It does not matter if you have a better solution but if it has not yet been commercialized and have a better financial outcome why change in what you are doing? The EU is moving more towards clean incineration despite alternative plasma and pyrolysis technologies.
Despite COP26, there is a big move towards the clean incineration of waste to produce electricity. Sweden and Germany are big importers of garbage.
Waste streams running the gamut from single use plastics, tyres, brush, paper, food scraps and the like can be handle relatively cleanly with virtually no dioxins, NOx or SOx. These plants would likely be carbon negative as they avoid landfill sourced methane emissions.
So, what is the economic benefit to move away from clean incineration or to divert plastics from the waste stream? Does the revenue from clean fuels offset what could be already earned from power sales? What is the environmental cost in shipping plastic to a different source than an incinerator which does everything else?
Clean incineration is well documented. Pyrolysis and plasma for treating wastes is not as well known and would require a lot of education of political leaders and public servants in the more advanced countries. Maybe this is why all of the projects mentioned in the PR's are less advanced countries.
Has anyone heard if the funding for Ecuador has been finalized yet? Any credible funder would have closed the deal by now.
Now that the House has approved the Infrastructure bill and the Senate is on side with it, President Biden will need to sign it into law. However, he will not sign it unless the Build Back Better bill gets passed in both chambers. With some work, it will pass in the House. As for the Senate, unless Biden can get the two Democratic senators on side, the BBB bill is dead on arrival. Despite the two bills, they are linked so it becomes all or none with the none side favored to win.
Suppose both bills do pass and they are signed into law, there are only two elements of the infrastructure bill that could affect our company. The environmental remediation and clean power. The remediation is more for landfills and methane emissions. As for clean power, the language favors solar and wind (onshore and offshore). WTE plants regardless of the feedstock are really not on the political radar. Suppose that WTE was a major thrust, wouldn't the government go with proven large scale operators? Wouldn't they use US made equipment over offshore made?
The two bills while very good for the US economy and the environment may have very little to do with CLNV as a commercial enterprise other than offering an emotional lift in the share price.
An LOI is designed to drive up the price of the stock.
Many companies in the Cleantech space have announcements but it never results in a contract due to the absence of deep pockets.
There are a number of companies in the waste to energy sector ranging from clean incineration, pyrolysis to make power, fuel or hydrogen and plasma to power, fuel or hydrogen.
There is a common factor amongst these processes.
The economic viability it tied to the revenue generated per ton, the availability of ample, patient, cheap capital and the time it takes to get to commercialized operation.
You can always find feedstock.
Profitability generally follows the scale of the project. The more tons per day the more economic it becomes. so there is more revenue per ton of input as you get larger.
However, more capacity means a higher capital investment. The availability of capital is often the killer for most projects. No one wants to be first or take up all of the capital stack. So, how does CLNV plan to address this reality?
Putting in a system requires a lot of pre-equipment order costs. If you are in a developing country, how long does it take to get introduced to the right decision makers. Quite often there are too many intermediaries who want a consulting fee. Once you get to the right party, how long is the permitting process. In a major country, the environmental lobby can add 3 to 10 years before a permit is issued. So, from a CLNV perspective, an LOI announced today could mean revenue no matter how large or small in say 5 years on average. So, what impact does this have on the share price? Business valuation?
A number of years ago, I had some money in a solar power company which was developing systems to run pumps on farms in a developing country. Leading edge solution for the local agricultural need. The solar power company was to buy the panels from a proven third party provider. In essence, the listed pinkie was a reseller of solar panel and not a solar panel maker or installer.
The CEO visited Dubai twice for meetings. The guy then went to India and created a new partially owned subsidiary to sell and install these panels and pumps. There were photos of government officials all over the place with the CEO and the panel supplier. It all sounded great.
The CEO increased the number of issued shares from less than 100 million to over 300 million driving down the price. There were press releases from other firms announcing financing for a number of projects promoted by the CEO.
Is this starting to sound familiar?
An audit was arranged to drive up the share price. When the audit was released, the company had large receivables from the sale of systems. When push came to shove, nothing could be proven. The qualified auditor for pink sheet companies had his license cancelled.
We still lack third party proof.
It seems very quiet on the Ecuadoran front?
Anything new? Did Roselle find the money for the equipment purchase yet?
It has been long enough for a private placement of dent or equity for these plants to be negotiated and closed. So, it begs the question if it will close?
If Roselle, is no longer in the picture then our leader should mention that too!
Respectfully, I beg to differ on the matter of verification.
On the plus side, an audit was done and it does not seem to be materially different than the unaudited statements. The big caveat is the going concern document where the future of the company is dependent on raising capital.
Also, on the plus side, it a patent filing statement. However, having a patent does not insure revenue or profit if there is no capital to market the patent and no one wants to buy the benefit of the patent. There are other ways to utilize used plastics beyond pyrolysis that are proven to be clean.
On the negative side, the company has been asked to provide a status report on the financings for the Ecuadoran projects without any reply. Did the original funding agent run into road blocks? We cannot verify the status of the financing which drives the funding for the third party equipment purchases
Finally, on the negative side, there has been no local press Spanish media coverage of the Ecuadoran projects nor any social media releases by the Mayors quoted in our press releases. If this is a great news story then why does it not appear in local media?
It does become very relevant when the story always changes.
How did the twitter release go from HSA Investment to posting saying it is HSA Group when management does not mention the HSA Group. Even when you drill down into the HSA Group there does not seem to be am investment arm mentioned within its own website.
How did the first twitter release mention Nicholas only once then he is replaced by Hatem from the same organization. Surprisingly, you cannot find anything on Nicholas via Google. As for Hatem, he has a reported finance background but no connection to HSA.
It is the shifting account of what is happening which is raises the specter of a Middle East money scam. I am not saying it is a scam but rather it follows the pattern for this part of the world.
Assuming it is legit, and I hope it is given my modest shareholding, it still will take about a year even with the best access to the principals to do a deal.
It is interesting to see from the HSA Group website that there is no mention of HSA Investments. None of the web pages suggests an financing or investing arm.
How did we go from HSA Investments which was in the original twitter release to HSA Group in the body of these posts?
How did we go from Nicholas at HSA Investments to Hatem at the same entity with no one asking what happened to Nick? Is he gone? If you do some Goggle searches for Hatem you do get references to investment activity but nit under the HSA brand.
From my own experience, the Middle East is well known for its money scams.
I came across one where a person had a UPS mail box and a rented office in the same building for the alleged big name firm that he represented When you checked out the website the address matched but the company name was every so slightly difference from the real firm. The website used by the fraudster was virtually identical to that of the real firm.
It is also common to have a North American or UK based person as the introducing party who refers you to their boss and money person in the UAE. When you ask the right questions, it becomes clear that there is an attempted fraud.
I assisted one person in their referral to local regulatory authorities.
Caveat emptor.