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 am not an insider as defined by the SEC of the company or GGII. I have industry contacts some of which are not legally insiders but have access.
However, you may have missed the point that once the company makes a press release generally after three months nothing is ever said about the previous press releases and photo oops. What about Roselle or HSA? What about Ecuador, the DRC, Cameroon, the UAE and Sri Lanka? Nothing new on any of them. This is the point. What countries comes after India and Morocco?
Actually, both CLVN and GGII are linked by press releases and the continuing dialogue between the management of both firms. I have seen evidence from other current documents which supports the discussions and the use of GGII installed pyrolysis systems.
So, to proffer the notion that this is spamming contrary to the TOS, it not well founded.
However, in my last posting, the salient thought was the continuing litany of press releases of new projects and new corporate financing partners then everything goes silent on the same. Nothing further is ever said. Does this not strike people as odd?
The fundamental question comes down the credibility of our management's claims who less that a year ago that GGII was the best in class.
Ditto for projects in South America and Africa where there were big announcements and no follow through. There still is no evidence in local language media that anything is happening.
Further, we are going through corporate finance firms every few months.
Do you see a pattern here?
The GGI Energy WTE plants have been adapted as technological changes happen. They have patented a number of those improvements as well. The GGII order book plus projects pending financing has been growing by leaps and bounds. I understand that they include a number of our Company's projects. Obviously, someone from management has recently represented to GGII that they are still using them for systems.
GGII is a private company and is not listed on any stock exchange. Unfortunately, you are confusing the company name with an unrelated stock symbol.
The GGII system is proven. It can produce power, fuels or hydrogen depending on what the client desires. It is interesting why our company would acquire a smaller system other than to secure interest in pyrolysis.
Without the client having cash to buy the system or the Company to invest in a project, the value of the MOU is low. We have a history of announcements of MOU's, business development trips and new financing houses. The bottom line is show me the money.
GGII systems are fabricated by a very advanced and reputable multinational corporation which has made systems for a couple decades. It's competitors are also commercially and technologically proven. The systems made by such firms are much larger in throughput and as such are more efficient. So, if our Company has done a deal with a major player and then decides to buy a much smaller system, you need to ask why? My hunch is that they could not find funders to cough up millions for a 100 TPD plant and thus buy a 1 TPD mini model to drive interest in CLNV stock.
It is typical for pinkies that the caution is used as the probability of surviving commercially is likely under 10 percent in five years. Look at how many times the name and business of our Company has changed in its lifetime. If it does not get meaningful capital orbits clients do, then, the company will be sold to another project developer. Companies that start with cash, a real plan, credible thirdnparty directors often do not have such auditor statements.
About a year ago, our Company announced a deal with a Singapore company called GGII to provide pyrolysis systems. The claim was that we partnered with the best in class provider of systems.
How is that going?
The Indian photo does not remotely match what GGII assembles.
A little due dilly says that GGII has not received any orders and cash from our Company to start work.
The first quarter report says...
Unless our company raises capital, it will be difficult to roll out its business plan.
If our company sells systems, either our company finds the capital for the client or the client finds it themselves. If our company does not have a track record in finding tens of millions of dollars for a plant of a decent size then what what revenue could we reasonably recognize.
Revenue from a sale of systems does not translate into profit or cash flow. A ten percent markup over the manufacturers delivered price may be reasonable.
Unless the company is the owner or significant part owner of the system then there is no revenue but a loan offset by an investment in equipment through consolidated financial reporting.
What about our projects in...
Ecuador - three cities and no news!
Congo (DRC) - Any word from Brazzaville?
Cameroon - Any word?
Sri Lanka - Civil unrest and a bankrupt government?
Cape Cod - Any updates?
UAE - Any updates?
What ever happened to...
The funding by Roselle Capital?
The funding by HSA Investments/
They have nice websites and promise to find money but we have not heard anything on what have they done for us lately?
So, what about this new firm?
Again, a great website but most of their deals are small and more on the debt side.
Maybe in 4 or so months, a new capital finder will be promoted.
The auditor was plainly clear that without capital available to the company and by its clients, there will no revenue. We have not had any third party substantiation of capital coming in for previously announced projects. With the exception of the company selling shares to buy a demonstration unit for India, there remains a significant degree or risk and promise.
Please remember than many of the EU countries, Canada and the US are reducing the usage of plastics in the form of drinking straws, plastic bags and clam shells. We are going back to paper. Now, these countries were not big polluters of the rivers and oceans. The biggest oceanic polluters were in south and east Asia and one section of Africa.
On top of this, there are many other major firms in the WTE business using plastics. There are some majors that use pyrolysis as well. They already have plants in operation or being constructed. Some of these are in India and the UAE and are much larger in scale than the prototype in operation.
We need to remain pragmatic as to the size of the market, which direction that the market is going, the number of equipment manufacturers and developers that are out there and hat our company's piece of the action might be.
I read in detail the auditors letter who plainly said that the future of the company depends on it (and I assume its clients) being able to raise capital to fund the projects. Without capital, there is no revenue - only speculation.
Specifically, the letter stated:
Subject to available capital, a Clean-Seas processing plant expects to generate revenue from operations in several ways.
Equipment sales – Under the Company’s business plan, in some cases, Clean-Seas plans to sell, through its distribution agreements with technology providers, the recycling equipment needed to start up a fully functional recycling facility. These sales will provide a revenue stream to the company, as well as recurring revenue through a royalty model and ongoing service and maintenance contracts.
Consulting – using the Company’s technical and waste handling expertise, the Clean-Seas team may, in some cases, provide consulting services for a fee to customers seeking to engage the company for an analysis of the viability of a recycling facility
Competitive landscape: We believe that the following are the critical investment attributes of our company: • Over the past six months, the company has developed relationships with Global Green International Energy (GGIE) and American Renewable Technology Incorporated (ARTI). • The Company has acquired its first pyrolysis unit from ARTI for use in our pilot project in Hyderabad, India, which is expected to be operational in March 2022. • The company believes that direct access to decision-makers in governments and municipalities will be the key differentiator and driver of the Clean Seas business model and securing trusted partnerships through these strategic business relationships will off-set potential competition in the marketplace. • As a solutions provider, Clean Seas believes it is well positioned to source best in class pyrolysis/gasification technologies to meet the demands of any specific installation requirement. • The management of Clean Seas has begun to develop relationships with several providers of pyrolysis technologies, with whom the Company expects to seek a strategic partnership or business relationship as we move forward. • We believe that the relationships Clean Seas has developed with providers of pyrolysis technologies will allow the Company to enlist new and emerging technologies as they come to market without the capital requirement of designing and developing proprietary technology
Going Concern The accompanying financial statements have been prepared assuming that the Company will continue as a going concern. As discussed in Note 3 to the financial statements, the Company has an accumulated deficit and recurring losses from operations. These factors raise substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern. Management’s plans in regard to these matters are also described in Note 3. The financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty
NOTE 3 - GOING CONCERN The accompanying consolidated financial statements have been prepared on a going concern basis, which contemplates the realization of assets and the satisfaction of liabilities in the normal course of business. The Company has an accumulated deficit of $13,165,085 at December 31, 2021 and had a net loss of $6,034,411 for the year ended December 31, 2021. The Company’s ability to raise additional capital through the future issuances of common stock and/or debt financing is unknown. The obtainment of additional financing, the successful development of the Company’s contemplated plan of operations, and its transition, ultimately, to the attainment of profitable operations are necessary for the Company to continue operations. These conditions and the ability to successfully resolve these factors raise substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern. The financial statements of the Company do not include any adjustments that may result from the outcome of these aforementioned uncertainties. Management plans to continue to implement its business plan and to fund operations by raising additional capital through the issuance of debt and equity securities. The Company’s existence is dependent upon management's ability to implement its business plan and/or obtain additional funding. There can be no assurance that the Company’s financing efforts will result in profitable operations or the resolution of the Company's liquidity problems. Even if the Company is able to obtain additional financing, it may include undue restrictions on our operations in the case of debt or cause substantial dilution for our stockholders in the case of equity financing
Where are we on Roselle or the other west coast funder in raising capital for the various projects. Nothing appears on the financials. No updates have been presented prior to India. Is this a case where I am looking ahead and nothing in the rear view mirror doesn't count?
It does not take an advanced degree in math or business to see that the average prices are falling. The question comes to do what bankable information that will be forthcoming to reverse the trend.
We need to keep in mind that the true value of a business is the recurring revenue. The one time sale of a system may constitute revenue but may not generate any revenues beyond the commissioning of the plant. If our company has a recurring interest in the revenue (as opposed to profit) that could be worth something. If the company holds a share of the profits that may not translate into cash flow to the company as the project costs need to be repaid in some fashion.
I did read the section on where the revenue sources will come from.
It is the first few words that are the most telling. Any revenue is based on the company or a client being capable of raising the funds needed to build and operate a plant. Without capital, the revenue projections and by default the sources become irrelevant.
As I have said along, we need to focus more on getting the cash to roll out the business plan rather than press releasing new initiatives.
When you drill down into the breakdown of the sources of income, not all will attribute to CLNV. For example, if someone buys a system, funds it themselves and operates it themselves, then no tipping fees, commodity revenues or carbon offsets would go to CLNV.
Tipping fees in second and third world countries are generally much lower than in Canada, the US or in the EU. For the most part they do not constitute the largest source of potential revenue. As for carbon offset revenues in the same markets, quite often but all of the time they do not have a carbon market regime in place. Where they do, the revenue per ton of saved carbon is less than what the first tier carbon credits trade at.
The only secure and higher price revenue comes from the sale of power or fuels. We should be careful in not overplaying our hand.
Never has answered a call, email or a posting on this site to me.
Never has with me!
Interesting.
Then it does beg the question why has he not answered my calls or emails?
Why doesn't he answer the basis questions on previous postings?
I am long CLNV.
I like CLNV. I own stock but maybe not as much as others.
The question boil down to this - does CLNV have the strength to grow in a competitive market or will it remain at the sides. As a CPA and in the WTE field, the jury is still undecided.
Carjockey 2 asked me about my on the absence of any news.
My focus was raising questions on the status of the previous announced projects in South America and Africa. Unless I am wrong, the company has not said anything further about those projects such as the status of the financing, the placement of purchase orders, signing contracts for inputs and offtakes, etc.
Carjockey's focus was purely on the hot press in India and does not look to the salient question of accountability and transparency of management relating to press leases within the past year.
I was asked the question "If you do not like Clnv .. sell .. or if you do not own clnv.. move on.."
As with any OTC stock, you need to do your homework to see if the company has the potential to grow exponentially or is it a short term speculation. There are some great aspects to CLNV. Similarly, the failure to report any follow up on previously announced statements raises some concern such as is it a pump and dump?
I do hold slightly less than one million shares with an average cost close to 3 cents.
I have asked IR twice to call me or email me. No response to date.
You would think that the company especially the IR side of things would monitor pages like I-Hub and diffuse any reasonable questions.
I have asked twice for a call to go over the South American projects with no response by phone or email.
Further, if he does look at the I-Hub postings, surely he would attempt to diffuse a logical question.
My focus is more on South America where Dan and Co. had three press releases in a row. No word of any update there.
Now speaking of Africa, how are we doing in the Congo and Cameroons? Any updates? Any news in the local country press?
It boils down to credibility. It is okay for management to say these other projects failed or will take substantially longer. However, no word raised concerns.
There are other major players going into India using pyrolysis. They have deep pockets and Cabinet level "partners". The same people are also into the UAE and some countries around the Med. We need to be cautious of the competition.
I agree that oil is cheaper to ship than hydrogen but the world will be shifting to cleaner fuels, LCFS, hydrogen, wind and solar in the next decade. To me, it would seem reasonable that pyrolysis based fuels would be more likely to be produced and used locally.
I am long CLNV and have racked up a nice paper profit.
I hope so.
It has been getting on to closer to a year for Roselle and about 7 months for the west coast financial advisor.
It generally takes about 6 months for a private placement when all of the land, equipment, permits, inputs and offtakes are presented to a funder. Once word gets out that you are looking for funds and it does not close, it becomes harder to convince other finders or direct funders to come to the table.
FYI, look out for no announcements regarding the work done or not done by previously announced financial advisors retained to find the money as this will typically be followed up by announcements of new advisors to do the same task.
I am long CLNV and like the paper return that I have to date. I am just being pragmatic.
With respect, I know something of the WTE business and the technology needed to convert various forms of inputs to something of value.
Yes, I do have a quality source of information that has no vested interest in the price of our stock.
I go back to the salient questions - has there been any shred of third party evidence as to the status of the South American projects? Yes or no?
There is nothing reported in the filings on OTC. There is nothing on the company's financial showing any revenue, expense, asset or liability attached to these projects either as a division, equity interest or the like.
The capital cost to take pyrolysis oil to a fuel is small relative to the bump up in the price of tank ready pyrolysis derived fuels. So, if they choose to make oil then the total gross revenue estimates are even lower.
I am a little concerned on the quoted $ 195 million in revenue from Sri Lanka.
A 500 TPD system will operate for about 330 days per year which allows for holidays, planned and unplanned outages and the like. This suggests some 165k NT per year of waste which is totally doable in Sri Lanka.
At 400 litres of fuel per ton (MSW with the local mix of plastics) this equates to 66 million litres annually. A quick Google search suggests a current retail fuel price of $ 1.10 USD or 73 million per year. If the inputs were solely plastics and avoiding contamination from MSW or high moisture, you might get 550 litres per ton or about 93 million litres per year, At current retail, this is about 102 million USD per year.
If you switch to making power, you lose some of the tank ready fuels. A plant of this size would make say 15 Mwhr. In a given year, this is slightly under 119k Mwhr. The current price for power sold in Sri Lanka is about $ 55 per Mwhr which suggests if we make power only, the revenue is about $ 7 million.
When it comes to carbon credits, even with high siding the price at $ 100 USD if they can be sold in the EU, is about $ 33 million. The higher the percentage of plastics the lower the carbon offset revenue.
Whether we talk fuel or power, the distributor will want their cut and the consumers will not pay more. This means that the revenues have to be less than the estimates found above. To sell carbon credits, look at losing about 10% or so for selling costs assuming the buyers will accept the validated credit from Sri Lanka.
Sri Lanka has a lot of dumps. They just pitch garbage everywhere. However, tipping fees are still quite low. Even in similar equatorial countries, $ 10 USD per ton would be very aggressive. This would be less than $ 2 million.
The bottom line is that I come up with significantly less gross revenue. We need to keep in mind that the after tax cash flow when you back out the debt service cost there may not be sufficient available cash to our company for several years.
Has anyone done some DD on the status of the 3 Ecuadoran projects?
Have we found the money to order the equipment?
Has the feedstock been secured?
Any word on the status of the permits?
I have not seen any company updates on these files.
I did hear from a reliable source that there are issues with the feedstock supply. Also, no money yet.
Be careful with overhyped hydrogen stories.
At the current time, most of the largest domestic and foreign car manufacturers are shifting away from ICE to BEV in there passenger car lineup. The rationale is that the bulk of the sales are for short trips.
Hydrogen fuel cells are better suited where torque and long sustained running time is required. This will focus on trucks, buses and some locomotives. The biggest NA player in this market is Ballard with a market cap of some 3.5 billion.
You can run liquid hydrogen through an ICE with about $ 1100 in modifications. Logically, this makes a good alternative to shuttering all engine and transmission plants in Canada, the US and Mexico..
However, regardless with route the market goes with hydrogen, the biggest problem is distribution. There are less than 100 hydrogen filling stations in California. There is about the same number in Japan. It's like buying a natural gas powered truck in the 1980's. Great idea but no source for the fuel. We are about a decade away from larger scale distribution for hydrogen in NA. Europe is a toss up but my money would be on BEV as they have excellent public transit.
There are some big names in producing hydrogen such as Kawasaki and Mitsubishi. Will there be enough room and credibility for the major oil companies to look at an off brand hydrogen producer like CLNV?
The long term prospects for hydrogen show a decrease in pricing down to a dollar per kg. You need scale and technology to get to these prices.
I appreciate your reply but my response was made solely in the context of the previously announced Ecuadorian LOI's.
Management has failed to provide its shareholders with any updates to any previously announced LOI's or MOU's. Are the understandings still valid or voided due to the passage of time? No one knows. There us a litany of globetrotting LOI's. We went from Ecuador to the Congo to the Cameroons and now India. What is next? Are they hoping that we forget? We need to get away from focusing on the flavour of the day (India) and look at what was said previously.
As for Indian law, I did delve into the Indian Contract Act of 1872 and the related cases. For the most part, an LOI or MOU is not binding unless six conditions are met. I would like to see the full signed LOI to be sure that the statute law is being followed. For example, an LOI spelling out the high level terms subject to a definitive contract is not binding. Anything with is indeterminant is not an enforceable contract.
I note your phrasing "if funded".
The three Ecuadoran LOI's are quite long in the tooth since the press release.
Our company has not issued a statement (a press release) giving a status update on those projects.
There has been no local language media coverage of these great news contained within the press releases. Never.
Even the Mayors named in our press releases have said anything on their own social media pages. If it such a great news story then why haven't they tooted their own horns by saying "look at what I brought you".
As for being worth a buck a share, it is only worth the some multiple of the cash flow coming back to CLNV. There will be a fair bit of debt to payback leaving very little to us.
In the absence of a press release updating the shareholders on these three projects, I suspect that they have been using brokers rather than principals to invest in the project. In other words the deal is being shopped around. When the length of time is too long, I would think that our management would try to find another broker to shop the deals around. Rinse and repeat.
Based on the photo, it is a very small scale unit likely made in Chine or SE Asia. It clearly was not made by the preferred pyrolysis supplier mentioned in earlier press releases. The latter typically does units much, much larger than the one in the photo.
Looking at the size, the unit likely cost in the $ 1 to $ 2 million dollar range. That is a far cry from the $ 30 million plus per plant for the three plants in Ecuador.
Again the question comes down to what is the status of the money for the five LOI's? Our leader has not press released anything nor have the financial statements shown any impact from any sale or ownership of these five sites.
Show me the money to execute the LOI's?
Has Roselle, HSA or anyone else come to the table with cash (not an LOI) to build out the projects in Ecuador, the Congo and the Cameroons?
The absence of press releases or any financial data within the statements filed with the OTC raises legitimate questions.
There are a lot of big players in the emerging hydrogen industry. They are armed with cash, technology, markets and political connections. How does our company and many other startups try to compete with the likes of Kawasaki and Mitsubishi?
Well stated.
There are a number of press releases announcing a new LOI. However, there are no further updates or disclosure of any progress on those older press releases. This leads to speculation of what has happened or not happened.