MORE Reliability Issues with non-patented COES - AFTER

On 9 June GOLDEN GRAIN ENERGY, LLC put out their quarterly for the period ending 30 April 2010.  In it they acknowledge they  ". . .have continued to experience reliability issues with our corn oil extraction equipment." 

The SkunK reported on their ongoing problems with non-patented COES performance in a 21 March blog HERE.  He also reported on May 15th about Cardinal's self-reported non-patented COES problem's HERE. 
********************
Some may ask: 
But SkunK, we have only heard about a couple problems with the non-patented COES.  They are not ALL complaining about performance! 

True, it appears that only the LLCs who still report publicly, are reporting they are having problems with their non-patented COES.  Those that do not have to report publicly to their stakeholders - rarely report publicly about their non-patented COES performance.  Think about it.
********************
"The average price of our corn oil increased by approximately 56% during our second quarter of 2010 compared to the same period of 2009. Total pounds of corn oil sold during our second quarter of 2010 decreased by approximately 39% compared to our second quarter of 2009. This decrease in corn oil sales was the result of decreased corn oil production during our second quarter of 2010. We have continued to experience reliability issues with our corn oil extraction equipment. However, after the end of our second quarter of 2010, our corn oil extraction equipment has been operating at capacity. We are continuing to fine tune the operation of our corn oil extraction equipment. Management anticipates that corn oil prices will be relatively flat for the rest of our 2010 fiscal year unless the federal biodiesel blenders’ credit is reinstated. If the credit is reinstated, it may result in increased corn oil demand that could positively impact corn oil prices."


SEE ALL HERE first full paragraph PAGE 16

SkunK's Thoughts

This is the key statement:  This decrease in corn oil sales was the result of decreased corn oil production during our second quarter of 2010. 

The next statement may be a distractor:
*********************
"However, after the end of our second quarter of 2010, our corn oil extraction equipment has been operating at capacity."
*********************
Notice they say "after" the end of our second quarter;  not "at" the end of our second quarter - operating at capacity. 

Or even better:  "Since" the end of our second quarter.  Now that would have been convincing . . . but they did not say "Since" because I suspect they could not say it . . . truthfully.

In my book of English, "after" in this sentence suggests an indefinite period - anytime after 30 April.  It could have been the day before they put out this statement.  It could have been for a 2 hour period two weeks ago.  Both of my examples are "after" the end of the quarter.

("at" would be for a period starting 1 May.  "since" would be for the entire period since 1 May.) 

Why else would the next statement say "We are continuing to fine tune the operation of our corn oil extraction equipment." - if they were not continuing to have problems - even now . . . well into the next quarter. 

When people write public filings they choose words for a reason.  Lawyers may insist upon certain words because of their specific or non-specific meanings.  I suspect that the word "after" in the filing above was discussed and chosen very carefully.  I recommend stakeholders read the filing as carefully as it was written.
This is not splitting hairs.  This is taking notice of hairs that have been split - for a reason.
SkunK