Sameer Joshi: Got it, thanks for that. And one last one and this is a clarification. The 100,000 MMBtu per quarter, is that the capacity or the actual production that will be achieved by the year end? Just wanted to make sure.
Patrick Gruber: Well, they’ve already demonstrated for running through several weeks at that run rate, so the system is capable of it. Now there’s other things we were looking at to see whether bottlenecks and equipment and whatever needs to be adjusted. So we’re doing some of that. So I think — I would expect that like, I don’t know, probably, winter is never easy to run one of these plants, but let’s say next year I’d expect that to be more of the run rate of a 100,000 million BTUs. We should hit our targets, this year we’ll hit our targets for what we had projected at whatever it was above 300,000 million BTUs, we’ll accomplish that goal.
Sameer Joshi: [indiscernible]
Patrick Gruber: Yes, and it may be that there was a hiccup, there was like if a freeze gets us or something, that can happen and that might ding it, but we’ll be in there. We’ll be right in there.
Sameer Joshi: Got it. Thanks and good luck.
Patrick Gruber: Thanks.
Operator: Thank you. [Operator Instructions] One moment for the next question. Our next question will be coming from Shawn Severson of Water Tower Research. Your line is open.
Shawn Severson: Great, thank you. Pat, I wanted to go back to Verity for a moment and try to understand is there another — is Verity sort of the de facto solution then that would be used for this? I mean, in other words, for an ethanol plant to use — to count any of the feedstock in terms of their CI score and how it’s coming in, was they going to have to use Verity in order to quantify that and be able to use it in their CI calculations?
Patrick Gruber: As far as calculating a CI score, people can do that in multiple different ways. What we’re trying to do is bring together incredibly high quality data along with the methodologies that are incredibly high quality. And then it’s put onto DLT technology. Now DLT technology is the technology that’s behind blockchain. It allows it so no one can mess with it at all. It’s auditable, traceable, completely detailed, and you can’t mess with it. It’s put down on data. You can’t change it. So, there’s no game playing involved here. That’s what makes it attractive. So, there’s two parts in an ethanol plant. There’s the part that when you’re running a plant itself, how one does CI reduction or carbon reductions or call it — they might have choices about whatever they’re doing in their plant.
That’s part of what needs to be documented. And then of course, it’s documented the feats that comes in. The way that we view this is that, these make for very high quality carbon credits insets that people are willing to pay for they tell us. Well we got to go prove that out and see if they really are willing to pay for these high quality inset credits. Inset credits versus an offset credit. Inset credit means, it’s something directly related to a supply chain that you’re involved in. An offset would be, you fly in an airplane and you go plant a tree. That’s an offset. This is actually insets that are done in the supply chain. That means that you’re tracking it all the way to gasoline and things like that. So there’s lots of interesting things that can be done on carbon and different plants have different CI scores.
And this goes into great detail about those things and allows it to be documented and it makes them such a high quality that people appear to be willing to pay for it. This also is true then of the agricultural system. Remember, in an agricultural system like we have, you have the farms and we want people doing sustainable agricultural practices. It’s our premise that if farmers get rewarded and paid for improving the sustainability of their farm, including the carbon reductions or carbon capture in their soil, that benefits the whole of the supply chain by bringing forth a corn that is very low carbon score, but it is also producing protein and oil as well. And so, we like it because it takes away the arguments that we hear from so many environmental groups that say, oh, farming is bad.
Well, I got news. We got data that says farming is very, very, very good. And so, we should reward the farmers that do very, very well. There’s lots of interest in this. Now, the technique that we’re doing, it applies not just to corn farming, it applies to beans, it applies to not just an ethanol plant, it applies to any biofuel plant. And so, Verity is interesting on all of those fronts. And it’s not, so it’s way bigger that — way bigger potential than just what we’re doing, what ethanol plants are doing. It also includes biofuels. It also can track into the food markets with protein and such. But we — we’ll have to stay focused and get this thing commercialized. I want to see the money. I want to see people pay us for the products itself.
I get we’ll get paid for services. I want to see the product, the carbon reduction value. I want to see us get paid for that.
Shawn Severson: How much can sustainable farming practices reduce that CI score if you look at the value chain? Obviously you’re most familiar with yours and ethanol and SAF, but is it a material impact that the farming practices can have on the CI score and hence the value?
Patrick Gruber: About that is it’s kind of mind boggling of what’s possible. So one of the assumptions that you — whenever you’re seeing these people broadly espoused about row crops and crops are bad and blah, blah, blah, they’re using really outdated data and they’re out of touch with what really is done in real life in modern farming. There’s equipment nowadays where, like John Deere [Technical Difficulty]
Operator: Thank you. One moment for the next question.
Patrick Gruber: Oh, excuse me, I was answering Shawn’s question. So — yes, Shawn, so what happens is that imagine the potential is that, right now we’re at about — we’ve seen farms with positives — I mean, they increase carbon incrementally. We’ve seen very negative carbon. There’s all kinds of new techniques that are available to drive carbon score down. And we’ve seen things that have potential like minus 100. And so, we’re at the very beginning, I think of an evolution/revolution in farming as we get better and better at looking at the data, collecting the data, measuring the data, paying people to drive the carbon abatement down. And you get other benefits too in the whole sustainability arena. So for example, I was mentioning that you get a — when you’re — John Deere has a tractor that can go — it has cameras on it for herbicide and it’s an herbicide plier.
