Revenues increased $8.8 million for the quarter ended June 30, 2012 compared to the same period in 2011, primarily due to higher revenues in the corn oil production and agribusiness segments. During the quarter ended June 30, 2012, Green Plains sold 38.6 million pounds of corn oil production compared to 21.5 million pounds in the same period of 2011. p.3
Corn Oil Production Segment
Green Plains initiated corn oil production in the fourth quarter of 2010. By September 30, 2011, corn oil extraction equipment was deployed at all nine of the Company’s ethanol plants. Revenues in the corn oil production segment increased by $5.0 million for the quarter ended June 30, 2012 compared to the same period in the prior year. During the quarter ended June 30, 2012, Green Plains sold 38.6 million pounds of corn oil compared to 21.5 million pounds in the same period of 2011. p.5
Crude oil revenue in the second quarter of 2012 was $17.5 million. p.6
SEE HERE
SkunK
(My math has corn oil @ .453cents/pound in the 2nd quarter.)
How much should they owe greenshift
ReplyDeleteIt may not be what they owe (20% of their revenue) the real question is how much will show up in GERS revenue SEC filing. For the last two quarters licensee revenue and GERS revenue are out of sync and disconnected. This raises questions about the terms of the licenses and/or what GERS is doing with the revenue. By the way, if you do not know the "reported" terms of the GPRE license, a little reading is order; it is "public" knowledge and reported in previous filings and PRs.
ReplyDeleteShould be around 3.49 million this quarter.
ReplyDeleteNobody like s to put a negetive tone on everything. If we settled tomorrow he d find some way to make it a bad thing
Are you willing to come out in the open if GERS' reported revenue for Q2 doesn't' exceed 20% of the GPRE COES revenue for Q2? Remember that GPRE represents less than 40% of the gallons GERS has under under license. Will you put down your Anony veil and openly admit that something is not adding up in Georgia in that case? Will you? Or will you continue your gutless sniping and insipid comments that add nothing to understanding what is going on with our company?
ReplyDeleteWhatever the case ragardless the rate revenues are rising and I'm happy they were better then most thought. I'm betting they're profitable and so I'm buying 1/2 million shares.
ReplyDeleteSounds like Truthless' bravado.
ReplyDeleteNo way your a shareholder already calling a loss why would you stick around
ReplyDeleteNobody, why don't you keep your insidious comments to yourself and stop trying to scare everyone. We shall see what the Q2 has to say in a few weeks. No one denies the profit "disapearing act" in the Q1. We shall see what happens when the Q2 comes out. Until then,there is no reason for your "the sky is falling" giberish.
ReplyDeleteNo we re gonna lose the appeal on five years meanwhile
ReplyDeleteI m still buying shares yeah right. Paid basher
GPRE Pays 7% rate....run those numbers.
ReplyDeleteINSIDIOUS -- gradual and harmful: slowly and subtly harmful or destructive -- accurate only if the questions are not factually based. If so, then your response is that of a dreaded pumper.
ReplyDeletetreble damages are insidious
ReplyDeletegoing to hit 2's today 3's this week
ReplyDeleteINSIDIOUS -- stealthily treacherous or deceitful.
ReplyDeleteIcm is insidious
ReplyDeleteCantor Colburn tore them a new azz hole
Listen after we win and win again the supreme court is gonna rule against us. This will be going on for ten years atleast. So incideous we,are screwed.
ReplyDeletejimmbody 916
ReplyDeleteThe undisputed test results unequivocally demonstrate that the ICM Defendants perform the claimed method of recovering oil so that one stream coming from the centrifuge is “substantially oil” while the other stream is “substantially free of oil.”
ReplyDeleteClassic Nobody. Unless he deems it "factually based" it is gibberish.
ReplyDeleteWho's the cute little liberal/progressive....you are. Tickle, tickle.
The Icm defendants made a costly mistake hanging their hat on “substantially free of oil” It looks as though it'll cost them this case.
ReplyDeleteIf you think the Supreme Court will rule on this case after it is won in Federal Court on the evidence, you don't have much of a grip on the Reality. The Court turns down most of the cases appealed to it...And this is an example of one that will not require Supreme Court interventiion. MOO from DHOLE,The Invisible Poster (on I-HUB).
ReplyDeleteThere's no way the Supreme court would even take it. There's no basis whatsoever. Icm has exausted every possible way out of this. Hoping and dreaming the Supreme court will save them is truely desperation setting in.
ReplyDeleteOh what a beautiful morning
ReplyDeleteOh what a beautiful day
I got a beautiful feeling
The litigation is going my way
I thought everyone was paying 20% or more? Should we believe that 7% crap?
ReplyDeleteSkunk,
ReplyDeleteGPRE has a rail car fleet of 500. They've been leasing these tanker cars for the transportation of crude oil(petroleum). Crude corn oil revenues were a record $15.5 million in Q2 and crude oil transportation revenues were $17.5 million. It was kind of confusing since they said crude oil revenues right after they talked about corn oil.(crude corn oil/crude oil) It caught my eye when I first read it. Even an analyst was confused on this.
GPRE CC Highlights, Record Oil Yields Expected To Continue To Increase.
ReplyDelete"As we noted in our earnings release yesterday, we have locked in approximately 40% of our ethanol margins for the fourth quarter at profitable levels. This combined with positive results from our non-ethanol operating income segments gives us the confidence to say that we believe we’ll return to profitability in the fourth quarter."
"As far as growth opportunities, we continue to look both internally and externally for those."
"And for Green Plains, improvements we have made from the bottle-necking production to implementing corn oil extraction and now are evaluating fine-grind technologies..."
"We have deployed the technology, we refer to as fine-grind in our Shenandoah plant and we are trailing this technology at another one of our facilities. The process goes after the last 7% of the starch for enzyme conversion to sugar, breaking larger starch particles into smaller ones and breaking starch away from the fiber protein or fat in the corn grind."
"We believe this technology could improve our ethanol yield 2% to 3%, and it could also increase corn oil recovery yield 10% to 15%, both having positive contributions to the bottom line over the long-term."
"Corn oil production also achieved a record high production of 38.6 million pounds on a record conversion of 0.64 pounds per bushel of corn."
"The revenue increase was about $8.8 million, which was primarily due to higher revenues in corn oil production and agribusiness. So, 38.6 million pounds of corn oil compared to 21.5 million pounds in the same period of 2011."
"We just continue to make breakthroughs all the time on running these plants cheaper, running them better, getting more out of the corn kernel, and if find grind gets us to that next level, it just makes us more competitive, and you can see that – we had – we continue to see bottleneck our corn oil production as well with record yields this quarter."
"Farha Aslam – Stephens Inc
Just first on your marketing and distribution segment. You’ve corn oil and you’ve crude oil revenues in there. Could you share with us color on kind of how corn oil and crude oils working into your marketing and distribution segment?
Todd Becker
Farha, I will take that one. Corn oil – our corn oil production is sold similar to our ethanol production is sold entirely from our internal company to the marketing distribution segment, and though the base in the market that sells like corn oil. The crude oil activities relates to our real car initiative. In some cases, we’re leasing cars and some cases we are directly buying the crude oil and selling the crude oil and so a portion of our revenues within the marketing distribution comes from that activity.
Farha Aslam – Stephens Inc
Okay. So, corn oil in your market and distribution segment was only $5 m, but revenue out of your corn oil segment is more like $15 million. What’s the difference between the $10 million?
Todd Becker
I think our total revenues – should be virtually identical.
Farha Aslam – Stephens Inc
Okay. So.
Jerry Peters
Because the pound sold was very nearly the same, but I think if you are looking at a $5 million number for marketing distribution, corn oil revenues that will be a misprint. It should be about $15.5 million for corn oil revenue.
Farha Aslam – Stephens Inc
So, it will be $15.5 million, or it shouldn’t be $5.1 million, it should be $15.5 million?
Jerry Peters
It should be $15.5 million.
Farha Aslam – Stephens Inc
So, it should be $15.5 million, not $5.1 million.
Jerry Peters
Correct.
Farha Aslam – Stephens Inc
Okay. That helps, clear enough because I was kind of confused."
http://seekingalpha.com/article/754731-green-plains-renewable-energy-s-ceo-discusses-q2-2012-results-earnings-call-transcript?source=yahoo
GPRE has a rail car fleet of 500. They've been leasing these tanker cars for the transportation of crude oil(petroleum).
ReplyDeleteIn the upper mid west it is going crazy for fracking. What ever it takes to move the oil to market. tankers, barges, trucks. Moving the special sand to the wells, trains, tracks are being upgraded all over the midwest. LNG and Dakota oil. Texas, pensyvania, all over the midwest it is a gold rush in places and because it is on private lands NoBama cannot stop it. (yet)
Although the feds are trying they are failing to stop it and the us economy is being rebuilt with cheap clean LNG. Gangbusters!
Great info on the company! I think the earlier post was a good question. Does anybody know what the royalty percentage to greenshift is? The numbers don't match up?
ReplyDeleteYou are correct; for the last two quarters for which we have data GERS revenue is barely 20% of GPRE COE revenue and GPRE represents less than 40% of the gallons under GERS' license.
ReplyDeleteagain, not all licensees were producing.
ReplyDelete7-30-2012
ReplyDeleteSOYBEAN OIL FUTR (USd/lb.) $53.38 +$0.57 +1.08%
Skunk,
I think you're right on with $.45as the current price(15% discount to soy oil). I got $.402 per pound for GPRE Q212. As I recall, GPRE locked into Q2's oil prices months before the quarter even started.
So basically, royalty payments from GPRE jumped by 15% in 3 months and prices are now 15% higher than what GPRE reported for Q2. Plus, extraction rates can be expected to move 15% higher. This is some serious growth going on here. I think GERS will turn some heads when earnings come out in a couple weeks.
It'll be interesting to see GERS' other customer's prices per pound.
BIOF Earnings Release August 9th http://www.bfenergy.com/news/PressRelease_7_25_12_Earnings_Call.pdf
(NASDAQ:BIOF) announced today that it will be releasing its second quarter 2012 earnings on Thursday, August 9, 2012, after the market closes.
The Company plans to host a conference call on Friday, August 10, 2012, beginning at 11:00 a.m. (EDT) to discuss the results. To participate, please dial (800) 944-8766. The participant code for the call is 29611. This call will be available for phone playback for 30 days by dialing (866) 281-6782. The access code for the replay is 168228.
BioFuel Energy currently has two ethanol plants operating in the Midwestern corn belt. The Company’s goal is to become a leading ethanol producer in the United States by acquiring, developing, owning and operating ethanol production facilities.
Good Luck To All!$!$!$!$
The only rational explanation for this is that GS royalty % is much lower then the 20% that they advertise to the share holders and thus total potential revenue will never be what we all have told. This may not ne a pump and dump thing, but it does seem to indicate that the future financial outlook is not what is being portrait to the market. ?????
ReplyDelete"The only rational explanation for this is that GS royalty % is much lower then the 20% that they advertise to the share holders ...", sounds like a ticket to Leavenworth. Based on my knowledge of the situation, the principals truly believe that 20% is a fair royalty to be paid for their superior technology. Something else is in play as the explanation for the disconnect.
ReplyDeleteNobody - Just because that is the only explanation that makes sense to your warped mind doesn't mean it is "The only rational explanation".
ReplyDeleteThe reading comprehension level of many people posting on this board is abysmal. I clearly stated that there is NOT intentional misrepresentation on the part of GERS principals. As I stated before, you cannot insult people who are too dumb to understand the slight.
ReplyDeleteIt has to be 20 percent.
ReplyDeleteNobody,
ReplyDeleteI think I disagree with you on this one. The most likely explanation is that, whatever the reason, the licence fee to GPRE must be lower than 20%. Any timing differences from Q4 11 and Q1 12 should have unwound by now - we'll know about the latter on the Q2 results. I'm not hopeful of a positive swing from this, but I hope I'm wrong.
Most GERS contracts are sub-15%. Trust me.
ReplyDeleteI am not stating that the royalties are 20%. I stated that they believe these royalties are fair and the 20% is what their target is. My comments were directed at the accusation that GERS' principals were purposely misleading investors. There must be another explanation to the disconnect besides creation of purposely misleading and therefore felonious SEC filings. I am as befuddled as any and believe that we should have some explanation and this is why I state that this controversy is going to escalate after the Q2 is filed and they are still significantly behind in expected revenue. I suspect that the lack of clarification has many factors, including the litigation, businesses practices, and the unspoken as well.
ReplyDeleteNo one "trusts" a faceless and nameless Anony.
ReplyDeleteOne thing IS for certain -- the dilution continues unabated.
ReplyDeleteNeil,
ReplyDeleteAre there adequate data in the GPRE filing to make an approximation of the amount of royalties that they are paying to GERS? Perhaps it is in hidden in entries such as "cost of revenue" for the corn oil segment, if there are such entires? Your knowledge of accounting could be very helpful here if you were able to make such an estimate. Thanks.
Nobody
ReplyDeleteI'll have a look and if I find anything I'll post on Bill's board.
Awe how sweet circle jerk on bills board
ReplyDeleteI suspect that your comment is ample evidence why other venues are preferred.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately you still post here. Go back to bills balls I mean board.
ReplyDeleteYour Honor we rest our case. Or, Q.E.D. For you functionally illiterate, that means -- quod erat demonstrandum, which translates as "which has now been conclusively demonstrated".
ReplyDeleteure homo rectus nobody
ReplyDeletePlease be correct -- I am a specimen of Homo Erectus Soloensis.
ReplyDeleteHomo Erectus Soloensis is extinct.
ReplyDeleteMaybe you meant Homo Limpdickus Solojerkoffis
neilbody playing with himself again
ReplyDeleteHave those of you "anonymii" that post meaningless, spiteful, shallow drivel ever thought about getting a job and doing something productive with your lives? Or perhaps you think there's some sort of kudos in name calling on an internet board?
ReplyDeleteNo, I am the last of my kind. When I pass then that will be extinction.
ReplyDeleteneilbody playing with himself again
ReplyDelete