The CEO is very crafty in what he says... and doesn't say. This is true for this and every other article in the last 2-3 years. All of these articles are from him, by him or from the consulting company he hired...which he dictated.
Now, on to the article.
First and foremost... I will say one last time, I did not say the CTS technology didn't work. I did say that it did not work in the time frame that Daniel says it does, which is crucial in validating all his other claims; taking minutes to produce, making ethanol for <$1/gallon and so on. Re read my prior posts on the patents and it will show you.
As an investor; * why does he not disclose the name of the "large ethanol producer"? He name drops every chance he gets in his articles...why not this time? Perhaps he never got permission? I will give you a hint. Since he says DDG, or distillers grains, it is most likely a repeat posting that they did 2 months prior...the Harvesting Technologies - bolt on pilot test (according to ALLM).
Both articles never mention the ethanol producer by name. Would validate what they say, correct? They probably approached Harvest and pitched the CTS process, offered to show them, test the sugars, share with the ethanol producer their results..., but check out my post earlier this year on Harvest. This NEVER WENT ANYWHERE. They have their own bolt on already in place for corn fibers.
In the article, while they tell you that they made fermentable sugars and that they were validated, they don't tell you if they were C5 or C6 sugars, not tell you how long it took to make them (series of controlled tests conducted over several days). This would be a perfect opportunity to prove he can do it in minutes. This is critical to a manufacturer if you are going to disrupt the ethanol manufacturing industry.
In the last paragraph, Daniel name drops NREL. Clearly this would provide major proof of the technology as he states that they "offered to provide TEA and LCA for the CTS process". This is huge for ALLM as it will validate everything he has been saying; * making sugars in minutes for $0.05/lb * making ethanol for $1/gallon
By NREL running these modeling analysis for the CTS process, it will support what he says. After all, NREL is the "Gold Standard" according to Daniel. Wouldn't you want them backing you, especially if it validated what you have been saying? Certainly would help raise money.
Have you seen these results from this modeling analysis? If it were done and was favorable, Daniel would be blasting it all over the web. Furthermore, he would have offered it up to disprove me months ago when I challenged him on this claim versus what the actual patent tests show. It's been over a year, have you seen anything from NREL?
Since the public hasn't seen these results, what do you think happened here? I think 1 of 2 things; * they did test it and it disproved what he said about how fast the process was, or * He didn't follow through with their offer. If this is true, then why not? Perhaps he knew what the outcome would be?
Altitrade...you must see what I see by now. He is very selective in what he says and doesn't say in his posts. This is by design. Keep the general public and investor interested on the relevant hot topic for industry today...green technology. It's up to the public to assess if this is possible, sift through all that he says to see if it is true. Go back through his posts and see if anything legitimate has been signed to show progress. The California project comes to mind. "Reaching an agreement" has no value to this point with this company.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
