2012

In order to tease out the current from the things aged 90 days, here I looked at just at the 54 mentions of 2012 in the annual.  Not all 54 mentions are here - but I found these things interesting:

As of March 30, 2012, there were 23,000,139 ­­­­­­­­­ shares of common stock outstanding

We believe that we will continue to increase our market penetration during 2012.

The RFS mandate level for conventional biofuels for 2012 of 13.2 billion gallons approximates current domestic production levels.

As of March 30, 2012, we had approximately 15 full time equivalent employees. ["Equivalent" is important here.  If GreenShift has say 12 "on call" techs who live in the corn belt, run their own business, is semi-retired or whatever - and each gets about 500 hours of "on call work" - that would be 3 "equivalent" employee in my book.  My theroy, I believe is backed by an earlier LinkedIn search ]

The Company’s corporate headquarters are now located in Alpharetta, Georgia. The Alpharetta lease is a three year term that terminated on February 2012, at which time the lease was extended by another year. The monthly lease payment is $1,600.

Nosan, et at v. GS COES (Yorkville I), LLC, et. al., 
GreenShift Corporation and GS CleanTech Corporation are not currently parties to this action. On February 27,2012, the Court issued an oral ruling effectively dismissing this matter. A motion to enter an order dismissing the case will be heard on April 16, 2012. GS COES intends to vigorously defend this action. This case is in the discovery phase.  [If litigation is affecting the tone of this filing - the possibility that this case is part of the reason cannot be ignored.]

<>

<>

<>

<><><>

Approximate Number of Holders of Record as of March 30, 2012
Common Stock, $0.0001 par		930

The number of holders does not give effect to beneficial ownership of shares held in the street name by stock brokerage houses or clearing agents.

Our financial performance for the balance of 2012 and beyond can be expected to be most significantly impacted by the rate at which our existing and new licensees commence production, the amount of corn oil that our licensees produce, the market price for that corn oil, the extent to which we collect reasonable royalties, and the costs incurred in our ongoing litigation for infringement of our patents.

Notwithstanding the impact of new license agreements that we may enter into or fluctuation in the market price for corn oil, we expect that our quarterly results of operations will continue to improve sequentially at least until the third or fourth quarter of 2012 as all of our existing licensees commence and achieve full production.

We expect to continue incurring substantial costs in connection with our ongoing litigation for infringement of our patented corn oil extraction technologies. These costs have increased during the second half of 2011 and are expected to continue to increase through the middle of 2012 in advance of trial, and as we expand our litigation to protect the competitive advantage of our licensees by prosecuting additional producers and other parties infringing our patents.

We owe about $27.6 million in debt to YA Global and its assignees and about $4.5 million to related parties. Our debt to YA Global and our related party lenders matures on December 31, 2012. In February 2012, we entered into an amended agreement with YA Global pursuant to which we agreed to begin servicing our debt to YA Global with cash payments of about $1.6 million during 2012 to supplement and offset equity conversion. We are otherwise not required to pay any of these amounts in cash in advance of the maturity date for the debt, and the lenders have primarily sought repayment in the form of common stock issued upon the conversion of debt. Despite this feature, repayment of the balance of these obligations in cash is an important objective for us moving forward, and we hope to complete a financing during 2012 to refinance and recapitalize all of our remaining convertible obligations.

fixed debt service requirements

2012

$

29,515,908

The Company entered into an Amended and Restated Management Agreement with YA Corn Oil on January 17, 2012, pursuant to which the foregoing amounts were reconciled, resulting in the payment to YA Global of such expense in the form of convertible debt. 
The A&R Debenture matures on December 31, 2012 and bears interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

On January 17, 2012, the Company entered into an Amended Management Agreement in connection with the YA Corn Oil Transaction (see Note 11, Debt Obligations, above), pursuant to which the Company agreed to certain terms which reconciled the impact of about $1.9 million in indemnification expenses accrued by the Company during the year ended December 31, 2011.

On February 29, 2012, the Company entered into an Amended Global Forbearance Agreement pursuant to which the Company agreed to amend the terms of the A&R Debenture issued to YA Global (see Note 11, Debt Obligations, above), to provide for about $1.6 million in cash payments during 2012.

SkunK

BREAK the SEALS!

"The defendants in several cases have recently made a rash of filings under seal—and not just of portions of briefs, but of entire pleadings (in most cases, their answers to the third amended complaint). These filings are accompanied only by cursory motions that recite nothing more than that the filings contain confidential information or that the filing under seal “is submitted pursuant to the Court’s Protective Order.” 

SEE REST HERE

SkunK

This is an interesting development . . .
However this comes out, you hav'ta love the drama. :~)

10-K First Glance

Here are some things that caught my eye going through quickly the first time.  Revenues down from expected levels, yet EPS at .53/.63 basic/diluted???????  On a dime share?  Cash on hand nearly equals market cap? 

We have executed license agreements with ethanol producers corresponding to more than about 2.3 billion gallons per year of ethanol. We believe that we will continue to increase our market penetration during 2012.

We won significant new business during 2011, more than doubling the amount of ethanol production licensed to use our extraction technologies from 1.0 billion gallons per year (“BGY”) at the end of 2010 to more than 2.3 BGY of ethanol production today with our licensees at full production.

Our annual interest expense is now expected to be about $1.8 million, or about 50% less than the interest expense we incurred during 2011.

The current market price for corn oil is more than about $3.40 per gallon, up significantly from its trailing four year average.

We transitioned to profitability (excluding the impact of one-time bonuses). We reduced debt by about 30% by liquidating our remaining production assets, and we have begun to service our remaining debt to our senior lender out of cash flow to supplement and offset equity conversion.

Looking forward, we will continue to work with our licensees to maximize the benefits and minimize the costs of recovering as much corn oil as possible. Our existing licensees collectively have the potential to recover more than 150 MGY of corn oil.

We expect to continue incurring substantial costs in connection with our ongoing litigation for infringement of our patented corn oil extraction technologies. These costs have increased during the second half of 2011 and are expected to continue to increase through the middle of 2012 in advance of trial, and as we expand our litigation to protect the competitive advantage of our licensees by prosecuting additional producers and other parties infringing our patents.

During 2011 and 2010, some of our license agreements provided for royalties in the form of a discounted corn oil purchase price. In these cases, our royalty payments were equal to the gross profit realized upon sale of corn oil, or the difference between the market price of the corn oil produced and our discounted purchase price in each relevant license.

Net income (loss) per share – basic 0.53
Net income (loss) per share - diluted 0.63

Costs of sales for 2011 comprised about 44% of revenue. These amounts compare to 82% of revenue for the same period in 2010.

GreenShift Corporation currently has 15 full-time employees as of March 30, 2012. In addition to its executive officers, GreenShift employs sales personnel, staff engineers, process managers, maintenance managers, administrative personnel and general facility technicians.

Do I sense a purposeful change in tone?  Although we showed a profit, I see little talk of profits.  Is this the tone of a plaintiff showing they have been damaged by infringers?  A plaintiff who needs to be made whole by the court?  Although we know we have had new customers added, we see little talk of that.  No grand goals for 2012?  Why?  Can't you hear the disposition?  You claim that infringers are costing you market share, yet you have plans to license an additional 20% of the market - just this year?  GreenShift's litigation game face may explain a few more things as well . . . but some things are best left unsaid.

For everything there is a season, for every thing there is a reason.

SkunK
To find any of the quotes (in Green above) - just do an "edit" "find on this page" with a portion of the quote and it should take you right to it.)

Update on Customer buys Litigant

Members of Amaizing Energy Holding Company LLC voted on Wednesday to approve the sale of the ethanol production facility in Denison to The Andersons, Inc., according a release issued by the company.  The transaction is anticipated to close on May 1, 2012.
See Here
SkunK

Annual Report is OUT!

Plan of Operations


Our business continues to improve. We won significant new business during 2011, more than doubling the amount of ethanol production licensed to use our extraction technologies from 1.0 billion gallons per year (“BGY”) at the end of 2010 to more than 2.3 BGY of ethanol production today with our licensees at full production.


We were awarded contracts to design, build and install extraction systems for several of our licensees after extensive due diligence and third party review, including a state of the art new corn oil recovery facility in Fulton, New York for Sunoco, Inc. We helped our licensees to optimize yield while minimizing costs, which enables our licensees to extract the highest percentage of corn oil than any other infringing technology. In support of our clients we have assisted in the marketing of the corn oil into diversified markets outside of biodiesel. Today, only about 65% of our licensee's sell corn oil to biodiesel producers.

New patents were allowed during 2011 that we believe substantially strengthen our issued patents and ability to protect the competitive advantage of our licensees. We expanded our technology portfolio by filing new patent applications and pressing forward with exciting new innovations designed to further enhance the profitability of our licensees. We transitioned to profitability (excluding the impact of one-time bonuses). We reduced debt by about 30% by liquidating our remaining production assets, and we have begun to service our remaining debt to our senior lender out of cash flow to supplement and offset equity conversion.

Looking forward, we will continue to work with our licensees to maximize the benefits and minimize the costs of recovering as much corn oil as possible. Our existing licensees collectively have the potential to recover more than 150 MGY of corn oil. We plan to help our licensees to achieve as much of that potential as possible while also maximizing the value and marketability of their other co-products. We will also remain focused on winning new business and increasing our licensed penetration. To do so, we will continue to provide exceptional win-win services, the highest-performing systems packages available, and access to new technologies for further dramatic gains in licensee profitability and competitive advantage.

We will continue to expand our patent portfolio. We have many additional patents pending and we will remain committed to developing new technologies to further enhance the profitability of our licensees. And, we will stay the course in our ongoing infringement litigation but plan to expand our efforts to aggressively prosecute any entity, manager or other person infringing or inducing infringement of our technologies – all with a view towards enhancing and protecting the significant competitive advantage of our licensees.

Our financial performance for the balance of 2012 and beyond can be expected to be most significantly impacted by the rate at which our existing and new licensees commence production, the amount of corn oil that our licensees produce, the market price for that corn oil, the extent to which we collect reasonable royalties, and the costs incurred in our ongoing litigation for infringement of our patents.

A number of our licensees are in various stages of deploying or optimizing the performance of the systems needed to use our technologies. Notwithstanding the impact of new license agreements that we may enter into or fluctuation in the market price for corn oil, we expect that our quarterly results of operations will continue to improve sequentially at least until the third or fourth quarter of 2012 as all of our existing licensees commence and achieve full production. In addition, future results may be improved by the impact of event-driven systems integration contracts as we continue to receive significant interest for our engineering and other services in connection with the design, construction, integration and modification of corn oil extraction systems and other new systems for existing and prospective licensees.
SkunK

HERE

MORE LATER . . .

Greenshift-GERS.com

Petalman Spreadsheet update HERE
Speadsheet Updates (and another place to post/read news)
HERE @ greenshift-gers.com

SkunK

Update (Previous Post)

MOTION TO FILE ANSWERS AND SUPPORTING EXHIBITS FOR DEFENDANTS GEA MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT US, INC. AND ACE ETHANOL, LLC UNDER SEAL

Pursuant to Local Rule 5-11, Defendants GEA Mechanical Equipment US, Inc. (“GEA”) and Ace Ethanol, LLC (“Ace”) respectfully move this Court for leave to file their respective Answers and Counterclaims to Plantiff’s Third Amended Complaint, along with accompanying exhibits, under seal.

See Here
SkunK

Looks like on the previous blog - I caught them in mid post. . .

We don't know what we don't know

AS IF we were all suffering from too much information and not enough suspense - we just got two sealed Docs added to the litigation.  As you can see at step one a sealed doc normally comes with an unsealed motion explaining who it is from and why it needs to be sealed.  Today we get two sealed docs added with no explanation . . .

SkunK

COES SreadSheet

Here is a Spreadsheet listing ethanol producers and their known public status with corn oil.  It is a nice work in progress.  Thanks to Petalman on I-hub.

See Here

SkunK

Do not expect any news today, but since I am off to town for supplies., who knows?

GreenShift is a "Player"

GreenShift (P) [Plaintiff] gets a quick mention on page 7 of this power point as a "Hot Spot" leading litigant in Biofuels.
See Here
SkunK

Thanks to vineyardstock on I-Hub for the dd post

Talk'n Corn Oil in Iowa

The ethanol industry is a pretty tight knit one and today, managers from plants across the country met to share ideas. Their main topics: changes in OSHA-required process safety regulations and oil extraction, a bi-product of ethanol production.

See Here

SkunK

More Corn Oil Extractors

East Kansas Agri Energy LLC claims 5 million pounds of corn oil from a 40mmgy ethanol plant on their home page HERE.

Thanks to Anonymous 8:44 on Saturday's post for the heads up.  He reports KAAPA and Guardian of Lima are also extracting.  Neither outwardly claim extraction on their sites but Guardian says this HERE:

"Importantly, companies today are involved in technological innovations such as cold starch fermentation, corn fractionation and corn oil extraction. " 

Here is some of the company Guardian keeps:

"Members of Guardian Energy Holdings are also invested with AL-Corn Clean Fuel Cooperative of Claremont, MN; Central Minnesota Ethanol Coop of Little Falls, MN and Golden Grains LLC of Mason City, Iowa in Guardian Energy LLC which owns and operates a 100 million gallon per year ethanol plant in Janesville, MN." 

More potential customers on the list.

SkunK

Pork Network

Dr Rob Musser began the day with data on how DDGS is changing as ethanol plants alter their production practices. In March of 2011 he estimated that there were 132 ethanol plants in the US producing DDGS as a co-product. Of these plants, greater than 80% were not extracting any corn oil from the thin stillage flow following the fermentation process.

In contrast, this year he listed 143 ethanol plants with DDGS as a co-product. Almost 40% of the plants are now doing some form of corn oil extraction. The result of this growth is corn oil removal can be seen from their data. In March of 2011, DDGS samples averaged 10.0% crude fat. This year they are averaging 9.3% and he predicted that in 2013 the average will drop to 8.5%.

The good news – he thinks the value (total energy) will be higher than what you would predict if you only relied on the lower fat level as a predictor.

See all Here
SkunK
PS.  Did not know pork even had a network?  I think the figure is now beyond 40%.  The corn oil extraction market is literally exploding in 2012.  If they do not have COES already, management teams are having to explain two things to their stakeholders:
1.  Why not? 
2.  When will they have it?

I fully expect certified smart people (financial analysis types) to enter the COE play shortly.  (Over next few months)  I also expect subtle things in the Annual Report to reflect our new expanded audience.  Having speculated here for some 5 years and having blogged 1094 times about corn oil extraction and GreenShift over the past 4 years and one month, I no longer feel like I am two steps ahead of the herd.  A single step perhaps.  But the herd is definitely on the move and it is coming this way.  I expect the herd to eat the green (shift) grass when it gets here, but that remains to be seen.    In the mean time I will have to put up with my own (repulsive) self-image being a (disdain) "investor" rather than a true cowboy "speculator". lol

psbs  Sorry to only have 4 choices for the Revenue poll.  The blogger gadget normally lets me add choices past 4 but after the last "improvement" that feature no longer works.  If you wonder about the text of some of the possible answers, traditionally I try to give voice to the full spectrum of blog readers.

Glide Path

This is the Patent Application I have been calling the 5th COES patent.  You can see at the first check mark we have a Notice of Allowance.  The Second check is it is ready for issue.  Now after some slumber we have some movement this month.  I expect it to issue shortly.   

***********************

Although it is too soon to call it the 6th COES patent - I think this one is on a glide path to become just that.  It recently received a Terminal Disclaimer (bait).  SEE HERE 

This makes it easier to issue since it you basically give up the full term of the new patent (lasts only as long as your parental patent) - so you do not have to prove you are not infringing your own parental patent.   This keeps people from changing a small part of the parental patent trying to reset the patent term.  Tactically this allows GreenShift to tighten up and broaden the patent language to strengthen their position even further - post Markman construction.

" to disclaim or dedicate to the public the entire term or any portion of the term of a patent or patent to be granted. A TD may be filed for the purpose of overcoming a judicially created double patenting rejection."

My Opinion?   Any small signs of light the alleged infringers may hope for in the present litigation - are being rammed shut by patents moving through the process.  Momentum continues to build.

SkunK

Nice Week

I do not normally comment on stock price, however we had quite a week.  I managed to get a few of the circled sevens.  Although I did not want to chased them north, now it looks like I should have got more. :~)

 I see some great dd out there and Slash has put together a compelling argument that REX American Resources and even Pacific Ethanol maybe GreenShift customers.  Using the same jargon to describe their system - as present customers - may indeed lead us in the right direction.  It certainly suggests a common source.  Phrases like "state of the art"  "2nd generation technology" "the best" and "without the use of chemical additives" all can be tied back to present GreenShift customers.  I consider it compelling if potential customers start to use those same words to sell their COES equipment decision to their shareholders.  It certainly puts them on the probable list.  It may also reflect maturing marketing themes from GreenShift - as they move from just "patented"   (a reason not to buy the other guys) to "state of the art" (a reason to install GreenShift). 

We are now within 2-4 weeks of the annual report.  I believe that many of our questions will be answered, however I think the days of GreenShift listing their customer base in their filings is over.  Since GreenShift owned physical assets in the past at the plant that was almost required to be included in at least the annual.  Now that GreenShift's market plan is royalty based I think we are more likely to get a total "gallons of ethanol production under contract" and the market share percentage that that represents.  All the more reason to keep an updated customer list.  (Mine needs a lot of work!)  I hub has a list that may need some updating after the recent Slash dd.  Since we are unlikely to get a simple list in the filings, might I suggest we decide on a simple format?   Here is a rating system for discussion: 

1.  Confirmed
Announced by the customer or GreenShift that they are using GreenShift technology.  Once a customer is confirmed, any additional plant they own with COE would be considered confirmed once it comes on line.

2.  Probable
Majority of evidence points to GreenShift - For instance:  No chemicals, patented, "state of the art" "royalty"  etc.

3.  Potential
Evidence they are using or investigating using corn oil extraction/separation.  No substantial evidence they are using GreenShift or a competitor.  Once a majority of evidence indicates they are using GreenShift - they move up to Probable.  Once it is evident they are using a competitor - they move off the list. Maybe to a different

4. Potential litigant, or a

5. Litigant list

This would help us track the industry and although somewhat subjective - it would define our terms.  We could then focus our efforts on the potential and probable list to move them up (or down) as warranted.  We will soon have a reality check on our list when the Annual Report tells us the total numbers.  Suggestions?

SkunK

GEA and ACE Get Time

This  defendant time extension is unopposed and allowed.
See Here

SkunK

This could mean someone was busy and needed more time to file a motion. OR . . . You have to remember this is the third Amended complaint.  Any copy/paste reply to the 3rd Amended Complaint is gonna look a lot like the first two.  How much time do you need for that?  Have we negotiated a Maverick and colt from the herd?  Interesting to think about.  But not too loud.

Mixed

Biodiesel production down from last quarters highs, but up significantly from same time as last year.
See Here
SkunK

Biodiesel provides the backstop for our bread and butter - corn oil. 

Another Win

This is a solid win.  Not a minor win.  Neither a knockout punch.  This is another win in a string of wins.
Discovery Order Here

SkunK
Favorite quote from the order:
"The extent to which the plaintiffs—now faced with the Markman ruling that the de-oiled concentrate stream is one “substantially free of oil”—must further explain the line or range above which the stream is no longer substantially free of oil is either
(a) an issue to be explored on summary judgment;
(b) an issue to be explored through a motion to construe the meaning of “substantially free of oil”; or
(c) an issue for trial.
Further, it appears that the issue of where the line is drawn is one for which expert testimony may be necessary, or at least desirable."

Why is this a significant win?  In my opinion it shoves the defendants towards settlement.  Why? Because it shows the defendants three options to get the answer to their question - none of which they can be looking forward to.  I will take them one at a time.
(a) an issue to be explored on summary judgment;
If the defendants got what they wanted - the patents declared invalid - there would be no reason to have a discussion after a summary judgment about what "substantially free of oil" means.  You would only have that discussion if the patents were upheld and the judge had to decide on the limits of the patent.  Sounds to me like a hint.

(b) an issue to be explored through a motion to construe the meaning of “substantially free of oil”;
Do you really think the defendants want to allow this court to decide the case now?  They have not had much luck with their point of view prevailing.  The judge decided "substantially free of oil" in the Markman hearing.  The court has said that all parties know how much oil is left.  The plaintiffs know, the defendants know and the judge knows.  Lets say the most it contains is X% of oil.  All the judge would have to say is X+1% and the defendant's case fades like an afternoon sunset off Big Sur.

(c) an issue for trial.
Mo' money, Mo' risk, Mo' time.  Nothing the defendants want.  GreenShift is winning the war for market share.  The patents are assumed valid and have to be proved otherwise.  David normally does pretty well against the Goliath with John Q.  Citizens will relate and pull for the little guy.  Big companies all know that.  And while the little guy can count on being out-lawyer-ed when facing Goliath - I have only seen the exact opposite up to this point. :~)

Well that's my opinion and I'd be happy to hear yours in the comment section

Minor Web Update

In a MINOR web update, GreenShift adds Form 8937 to the end of its Presentations and Reports Section HERE.

SkunK

PS
New CICS filing
SEE some history HERE

Heron Lake BioEnergy Update

"In February 2012, the Company completed installation of a corn oil separation system. The corn oil system will create a new revenue source for the Company."  See Here Page 13

SkunK

Note the key words "corn oil separation system".   Saying "separation" instead of extraction normally points to an ICM system.  Lots of layers here but Fagen owns a big chunk of Heron Lake and many **** agreements as laid out HERE.

Court's Protective Order

Blue Flint Ethanol, LLC ("Blue Flint") for its Motion to File Under Seal states that this Motion is submitted pursuant to the Court’s Protective Order. Blue Flint hereby submits under seal its Answer and Counterclaims of Blue Flint Ethanol, LLC to GS Cleantech’s Amended Complaint.

See Here

File Case under seal

Motion to extend time.  Looks the same as yesterday - but refiled again today.  Note the date at the top of 1st and 2nd is 15th - 3rd and 4th pages is the 16th?

SkunK
Nothing else too exciting.  Also three sealed documents and three motions to seal them.  They are sealed so we do not know what they say.

SkunK Hall of Fame

Slashnuts said...

SIRE Shareholder Meeting Protest
I'm sitting in Treynor, Iowa, right now outside of the
Treynor Community Center.

SIRE of Council Bluffs is holding their annual shareholder meeting inside this building as I type this. I'm here with a few friends passing around information to the farmers/investors of SIRE explaining the patents that SIRE is infringing under the direction of ICM. One gentleman I spoke with wasn't aware of the situation but was receptive to the information I gave him. Another guy heard about it but wasn't sure what to think either way, he was nice though. These are just normal farmers from around the area. I came here today to inform them that ICM is putting their investment at a great risk. To the first gentleman, I pointed out that SIRE has stated in their filings that that basically ICM controls SIRE and may not have SIRE shareholders best interests at heart. I'm debating about going inside the meeating as it just started.

March 16, 2012 1:21 PM

*******************************

SkunK

Klassic . . .

BioFuel Energy Corp 10-K

Remember this is not ADVANCED BioFuel Energy LLC from the GreenShift video.  This is BioFuel Energy Corp that announced in their conference call that they intended to sign with GreenShift
This interesting quote part of the XML of the 10-K:

In October 2011, subsidiaries of the LLC entered into operating lease agreements to lease corn oil extraction systems for each of its plants over a of period of two years. Pursuant to these lease agreements, the subsidiaries are paying approximately $4.4 million per year for both of the corn oil extraction systems. Rent expense is recognized on a straight line basis over the terms of the leases. Events of default under the leases include failure to fulfill monetary or non-monetary obligations and insolvency.

SEE HERE 4th Paragraph
***************************
SWEET CONFIRMATION
Corn oil marketing

During 2011, we began installing corn oil extraction systems at each of our plants so that we could begin producing corn oil as an additional co-product. These systems were installed using certain patented technology we have licensed from Greenshift Corporation, for which we pay a royalty. The installation in Wood River was completed in December 2011, and the installation in Fairmont was completed in January 2012. The corn oil produced at our plants is used primarily as a feedstock for the production of biodiesel and, potentially, as an animal feed ingredient. The corn oil produced in Wood River is being sold to the same independent third party marketer that purchases our dried distillers grains from that facility. The corn oil produced in Fairmont is being sold to a biodiesel producer under an off-take agreement. Corn oil is shipped from our plants by trucks.
See Here Page 4

Other Quotes from their 10-K

Corn oil. Corn oil is extracted on the “back end” of the dry-mill ethanol production process from the condensed distillers solubles stream portion of the process. The oil is extracted using a separator, or centrifuge, and then further clarified in settling tanks. It is then sold either as a feedstock to produce biodiesel or as an animal feed ingredient. We began producing corn oil in January 2012.

We may also hedge against changes in corn oil prices by means of heating oil futures contracts.

During 2011, the Company decided to install corn oil extraction systems at each of its ethanol plants so that it could begin producing corn oil as an additional co-product. These systems were installed using certain patented technology we have licensed from Greenshift Corporation for which we pay a royalty. On October 28, 2011, the Company’s Operating Subsidiaries received funding under an operating lease each Operating Subsidiary entered into with Farnam Street Financial, Inc. These operating leases provided the funding to pay for most of the costs of installing the corn oil extraction systems at each Operating Subsidiary. The installation in Wood River was completed in December 2011 and the installation in Fairmont was completed in January 2012. Both Operating Subsidiaries began generating revenues from corn oil sales early in the first quarter of 2012. p 33

SkunK

PS REminder.  GreenShift has a fiscal and calander year that ends 31 December.  Therefore the 4Q report is swept into the annual report.  That makes the report due the end of this month.  However the Annual Report also has an automatic 15 day extension that GreenShift normally takes.  (if the 15th day is on a holiday or weekend it can go to the following Monday) (Qs have only a five day extension).  You can confirm this with the SEC calender and/or look at the previous releases.  Last year they only used one day of the extension and it came out 1 April, the two years before were 15 and 16 April.  This year it could come out as early as 30 March - and with an automatic extension as late as 16 April (a Monday). 

Litigation Update

GreenShift Opposition to DJVG's motion

GreenShift's Opposition to DJVG's Motion to stay Service

GEA's Motion to Extend Time

Motion to SEAL (1 of many)

Lincolnland's Answer (1 of 5)

ICM's 4th Amended Complaint

SkunK

Here is the Protective Order referenced in the Motion to Seal

All Quiet

Just checked Pacer again - all quiet.

SkunK
. . . quiet before the storm?

Al-Corn Dec Report

"We are also very pleased with our corn oil production rates. Corn oil recovery has been a very nice addition to our mix of products, and JP and team continue to find ways to squeeze just a little more out of it every day. The recovery rate for the period is 0.67 lbs per bushel, and our good folks have been pulling out over 0.75 pounds in the last month. At $0.40 per pound of oil, that nets up our bushel value by $0.30—very nice! "

SEE HERE

SkunK

Al-Corn is a 50mmgy plant that also extracts corn oil.  It is one of the defendants in the GreenShift COES infringment case.

Ethanol Production and Corn Prices both up

Ethanol production jumped this week by 10,000 barrels per day. Old crop corn values will need to remain firm to ration both exports and ethanol production; however, look for a setback in the grain markets early next week if the Chinese purchases cannot be confirmed.
SEE HERE

One of the things that will affect GreenShift corn oil production into the future - is Ethanol production.  We saw corn oil production remain flat with GPRE last quarter as GPRE cut some plants back to 70% ethanol production.  Various levels of ethanol production at different plants are more efficient than others.  Less stillage, less corn oil.  So I suspect we need to occasionally focus one eye on ethanol production at our established customers in order to properly estimate present, short term revenues.  It is good to see ethanol production go up for the week.  Future revenues focus will remain on new customers.

SkunK

Ethanol Song!

This video, titled "I Got You Ethanol," won first place in IRFA's 2nd Annual Fuel the Future high school renewable fuels video contest.

I got You Ethanol

SkunK
Iowa's Renewable Fuel Asociation site HERE

Senate vote Imminent

"Senate vote imminent on Stabenow amendment to extend tax credits"

"The amendment could extend the $1 tax incentive for biodiesel and renewable diesel for one year, through Dec. 31, 2012.  Stabenow’s amendment would also extend the cellulosic biofuel producer credit."
SEE HERE

SkunK

Corn Oil Article

"There’s no doubt that corn oil extraction has benefits for ethanol producers. In a tight margin environment, additional sources of revenue can be key. It might even mean the difference between keeping a plant running or idling."
Rest of Article Here
SkunK
Not sure if everyone has seen this . . .

40%

It is always nice to get a third party's view on anything.  Somebody without a cat in the fight.  Here is some interesting estimates by Gary Roth the CEO of Syntroleum Corporation (SYNM) Q4 2011 Earnings Call March 7, 2012 11:00 AM ET

"We have received and processed shipments of inedible corn oil from ethanol plants. Approximately 40% of all ethanol plants have installed corn oil extraction technology and is expected that most ethanol plants will install this technology in the coming years creating a growing source of feedstock.

Our consultant to their National Biodiesel Board estimates that of [if] all dry mill corn ethanol plants installed corn oil extraction technology and [an] estimated 350 million to 375 million incremental gallons of inedible corn oil would be added to the supply chain annually."

SEE HERE

SkunK
40% of the industry extracting oil today is good to hear.  Although I think it is already more than that.  How much is under GreenShift license will be interesting to (eventually - lol) find out.

Lets see . . . 20% (2011 market share goal) of 350 million gallons is  . . . 70M . . . Now take 20% (royalty) of Corn oil @ even $2.50 gallon  - that's Annual GERS Revs of 35M?  or about 8.75M/quarter?   Plenty to be very profitable.  But are the estimates too conservative????  Just one current customer - GPRE has projected annual corn oil sales (based on six months of full production) of 130M pounds. (oophs, corrrection made!)

Served Before Lunch

At ICM HQ.

SEE HERE

SkunK

Entry From Discovery Conference

Conference call about Discovery on the 1st of March.  This is the one from the "Moving Defendants" wanting to know exactly how to engineer around (the "but for" market?) . . .  or how they are specifically infringing the patents.  Both sides could follow up until the 5th.  Now we await a ruling.  See Here

This shows GreenShift's argument HERE

Here is Defendant's Legal Sources HERE

Defendants Exhibit A

SkunK

As a bonus I have a common example of a lawyer leaving a firm in an active case.  They send in an administrative note to the court that someone is leaving or coming in.  Defendants have had a few, but not seemingly excessive over time, so I do not bother you with them.  Here is a recent example.

NOW here is an update of ICM's COES patent application. First is a telly conference.  Then on the 4rd page ICM revokes their Law Firm's power of Attorney on 14 Feb.  SEE HERE.  Also note on page two that on the ICM end of the phone was Barbara Clark on the telly 16 Feb.  As you see here Barbara Clark is a branch manager for the law firm that had its power of attorney revolked two days earlier on the 14th of Feb.  ??????????  Let me think on this . . . .

ICM's Amended Complaint

SkunK's attempt to condense ICM's Key Points - Using mostly ICM's language in the motion.
Count 1
1.  Defendant GreenShift knowingly misrepresented itself as the owner of the ‘859 and ‘231 patent applications.

2.  . . . substantial amendments made to the claims of the ‘859 and ‘231 patent applications since the publication date of the ‘859 and ‘231 patent applications.

Count II
3.  None of the independent claims of the ’858 patent identify a quantity of oil; a rate at which oil must be obtained; identify a commercial standard for performing the method; nor a standard for determining that the concentrated thin stillage stream leaving [the] centrifuge is substantially free of oil.
4.  Prior to July 31, 2003, David Cantrell was in possession of test results that established that oil could be easily separated from concentrated thin stillage by mechanical processing.The withholding of [this] information was with the intention of deceiving the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office about a written offer by David Cantrell to Agri-Energy, to sell an oil recovery system for recovering oil from concentrated thin stillage via mechanical separation more than one year prior to the August 17, 2004 filing date of U.S. Provisional Application Serial No. 60/602,050.
See ICM Filing Here

SkunK's answer to ICM's four points:
1.  GreenShift owns 100% of Clean Tech and Clean Tech owns the patents.  Does that mean GreenShift owns the patents?  I don't know what the law says but I can apply common sense.  We recently learned GPRE has an internal 100% owned company Green Plains Commodities LLC  that runs their COE portion of their business.  Does GPRE own its COE Systems?  Or does Green Plains Commodities LLC?  If no one paid ICM when they installed the GPRE COES, who would ICM have sued?  Not much of a rusty nail to hang your jeans on.

2.  Define "substantial"?

3.  Again, define "substantial".  GreenShift gets accused here of having received issued patents that are difficult to engineer around.  I thought that was the point?  I am sure ICM would have appreciated if GreenShift had limited their invention to COES painted green.  Then ICM could have painted theirs red.  GreenShift has patented a process and is not going to limit the process in any way to make engineering around it simple.

4.  No mention of the experimentation exception.  If one could receive patents off simple bench results - then I expect we would have numerous patents for perpetual motion machines.  GreenShift went to experiment, refine and prove its invention in the field and patent law has a well known exception to the one year rule for this.

SkunK

Well of course its just my opinion.  I would appreciate yours in the comment's section.  Thanks

Big River

COUNT I
(Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,008,516)
32. GS CleanTech repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-31, above, as though fully set forth herein.
33. Big River infringes and will continue to infringe one or more of the claims of the ‘858 patent by, among other activities, practicing the claimed methods and/or processes.
34. Big River’s infringement has injured GS CleanTech, and GS CleanTech is entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate it for such infringement.
35. Big River’s infringement has been willful, deliberate, and objectively reckless.
36. Big River’s infringing activities have injured and will continue to injure GS CleanTech, unless and until this Court enters an injunction prohibiting further infringement and, specifically, enjoining further manufacture, use, sale, importation, and/or offer for sale of products or practice of any methods and/or processes that come within the scope of the claims of the ‘858 patent.

See Here

SkunK

This is the 4th of the 11 amended complaints.

GPRE Buys Own Stock

GPRE buys back 3.7M shares of its own stock
See Here

Detailed Filing with corn oil mentioned HERE
You can file, search for "corn oil". 
Lots of hits, although I did not see anything radical.

SkunK

Motions and Submission

Defendants Bushmills Ethanol Company, Inc., Chippewa Valley Ethanol Company LLLP, Heartland Corn Products, and United Wisconsin Grain Producers, LLC (collectively “Moving Defendants”) hereby request a telephonic discovery conference with the Magistrate. Moving Defendants wish to obtain resolution of the following issues:
SEE HERE

Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
Exhibit D
Exhibit E
*************
What I get out of these Emails above is the defendants want to force the inventors to cite exact numbers so then they can immediately move to adjust their process outside at least one of those numbers.  To "Engineer around a patent" I believe it is called. 
**************
MOTION BY DAVID J. VANDER GRIEND TO STAY SERVICE OF PLAINTIFF GS CLEANTECH CORPORATION’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Mr. Vander Griend further moves the Court to stay service of a summons and Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint pending the Court’s decision on Mr. Vander Griend’s motion for reconsideration.

SEE HERE
****************************
Submission
SEE HERE
****************************
SkunK

PS  "Moving Defendants"???  What?
Notice the service portion of the summons is not filled out - like previous ones have been.

Sunoco Update!

"Moreover, Sunoco added a corn oil extraction system which successfully started-up in December."

SEE HERE

SkunK

Sunoco June PR HERE

Thanks to Wayback on I-Hub for the find!

Adrian Final Echo?

This may be the final news coming from the litigation surrounding the BioDiesel plant in Adrian Michigan.  It looks like GreenShift will NOT be the one stuck paying all the bills.  Along with every other BioDiesel plant at the time - NextDiesel went through real tough times.  In their case, they actually went out of business.  

For GreenShift Investors this is good news and allows us to move forward with one less worry on the worry list.
SEE HERE

SkunK