Back to the Future

Here are Kevin Kreisler's 2008 comments concerning the tornado generator and how it relates to the older technology of the Range-Hilsch tube.  The GreenShift tonado generator is nicknamed TAZ.

"TAZ has been proven to produce results in myriad applications. While additional research is required to understand more about how it produces those results in each application, we know today that geometry plays a significant role in each. Your reference to the dynamics of the Ranque-Hilsch tube is one of several theories developed since the invention of the RH tube over 70 years ago; none of those theories have been proven to my knowledge. Note the difference in geometry, sizing and volume between the tube and the cyclone designs. To the extent angular momentum plays a role in TAZ (or the RH tube for that matter) it is a different role as compared to the RH tube."

SEE HERE

SkunK

GPRE 1Q Conference Call

GPRE is GreenShift's largest customer.  Their 1Q results are coming out and the conference call has been transcribed.  Thanks to Slash in the previous post comments for the update. 

"We are probably the largest producer of commodity grade corn oil for feed and biodiesel in the U.S. at this point. I feel this has given our shareholders a very stable unencumbered cash flow during the times of margin compression.

Revenues were higher for both of our corn oil production segment and our Agribusiness segment.
Corn oil production contributed $13.5 million in revenues on 33.5 million pounds of production compared to $4.3 million in revenues and 10.1 million pounds respectively.

We continue to see good values for our corn oil in the marketplace.

We have the [de]bottlenecked our corn oil and we continue to the [de]bottleneck our corn oil extraction. We actually got so good at it, we had to push it back to make sure that we don’t degrade the quality of the feed and so we know we’ve managed it very closely to make sure our end used customers get the very best product that we can make for them and without degrading the quality by taking too much of the oil out."
See Here

SkunK

Withdrawal

GEA ACE See Here
SkunK
This is a common event

MAX Extension

MAX Plaintiffs file for - and get - a three week extension to answer the GERS motion to dismiss filed April 2.

See new extension HERE

SkunK

As a reminder this is a non-patent related litigation concerning a formerly owned seed crushing plant in Montana.  Some history here

Bushmills Ethanol receives $800,000 pollution penalty

Bushmills Ethanol Inc. of Atwater, Minn., was fined for illegally discharging salt-laden wastewater into a ditch and then lying about it, the state Pollution Control Agency said Friday.

"There are many companies that follow the rules to protect our air, water and land, and we applaud them," he said. "But when companies break the rules they not only harm our natural resources, they get an unfair competitive advantage and they must be held accountable."

Today reported in BioFuels Digest

Star Tribune story last Friday (Quotes above are borrowed from)

SkunK

As a defendant in the patent litigation - that is $800k not available to meet its other possible (legal) obligations.  The second article quote above is scary relevant . . . indulge me:

"But when companies break the (infringement) rules they not only harm our  natural resources (economic system), they get an unfair competitive advantage and they must be held accountable."

ACE and E-15

Here is some discussion about E-15 by one of the defendants, Ace Ethanol.  Corn Oil production is based on ethanol production and E-15 will increase that market potential by 50%! 

See Here

SkunK

Opinion
I have indoor plumbing and very little of the water that comes through the pipes do I actually drink.  There are people in the world who are thirsty with little access to portable water.  Does my water usage cause their thirst? 

Third world politics, lack of security and logistics are the cause of most hunger in today's world.  It is not the lack of food - its getting the food to those who need it - is nearly always the problem.

A 49-percent increase in corn prices would be expected to raise the price of a box of corn flakes by about 1.6 cents, or 0.5 percent, assuming no other cost increases. The so called Food Vs Fuel debate is more about General Mills not having to support a living wage for farmers with commodity prices that cover the cost of production - and Big Oil trying to get back 100% control over the price of Gasoline - than any kind of worry about those starving in the horn of Africa.

ICM Adapts to Slowdown

Dale Turner of ICM described his employer as an engineering, manufacturing and construction company. He said its business primarily related to distillers grain processing, but he admitted that he didn’t know of any greenfield ethanol plants being built in the United States.

As construction slowed, he said, ICM “reinvented ourselves.” Turner said the company could manufacture and repair pressure vessels and perform custom fabrication work. In addition, he said ICM had developed products to help plants become more profitable and efficient and to provide them a new revenue stream.

SEE HERE

************************
QSI will bring 303 employees to Colwich and will be stationed in the south building of ICM, Inc., located at 128 N. First St. The building is owned by the city as it is under bond issuance. Therefore, ICM requested consent to sublease the space to QSI. This approval was granted during the city council meeting Monday, March 19

SEE HERE

*************************
COLWICH – There could be a buzz of activity in the south building of ICM, Inc., sometime this spring.

For three years, the large office space has been vacant on North First Street in Colwich. During the Colwich City Council meeting Monday, Feb. 20, city leaders heard news of a call center interested in moving into the space. Since the building is under bond issue, the city council must give permission for occupancy and did so during its meeting.

See HERE

**********************
Thanks to a reader for a tip on the status of ICM in recent years.  Although it is a private company with no obligation to disclose its finances, the information above may interest GreenShift shareholders who see an unlimited cash payout at the end of litigation.  It may also interest those litigants who's future is dependent on ICM's ability to indemnifiy their obligations under the United States patent laws. 

This story is still working, . . .

SkunK

Litigation Updates Flow . . .

FLOTTWEG SEPARATION Answers GERS

Al-Corn Seal Approved

Al-Corn Answer

Al-Corn 2nd Seal Approved

Al-Corn AMENDED Answer

Its All Moot

SkunK

Three Strikes . . .

Highlights from Three Court Orders
In light of the Court’s denial of Vander Griend’s Motion to Reconsider the Court’s Order Granting Plaintiff, GS CleanTech Corporation, leave to file its Third
Amended Complaint against Vander Griend, among others, Vander Griend’s Motion to Stay [dkt. no. 247] is DENIED. See Here
********************************
Vander Griend argues that this special appearance alleviates the standing problem faced by ICM’s motion to dismiss. Vander Griend’s special appearance notes that it is made for the purposes of joining ICM’s motion to dismiss but, after filing his special appearance, Vander Griend never actually moved for permission to join in the pre-existing motion or filed his own motion to dismiss indicating that he joins in ICM’s arguments. His special appearance allowed him to do those things, but it did not accomplish them by its mere existence. Therefore, because ICM lacked standing to assert Vander Griend’s rights as explained in the Court’s February 8, 2012 Order, the Court DENIES Vander Griend’s Motion as to its February 8, 2012 Order [dkt. no. 231].
*****************************
However, Vander Griend’s argument improperly conflates the question of whether the Court had jurisdiction over him with the question of whether he was a party to the action. Vander Griend was named as a party in the law suit by CleanTech’s Second Amended Complaint.

Therefore, the Court did not err when it concluded in its February 6, 2012 Order that Vander Griend was a party to the action. Vander Griend’s Motion for Reconsideration with respect to the Court’s February 6, 2012 Motion is DENIED [dkt. no. 231].  See Last Two Here
*********************************
My Apologies to Ernest Thayer

Fraud!" cried the maddened thousands, and echo answered "Fraud!"
But one scornful look from Casey and the audience was awed.
They saw his face grow stern and cold, they saw his muscles strain,
And they knew that Casey wouldn't let that ball go by again.

The sneer has fled from Casey's lip, the teeth are clenched in hate;
He pounds with cruel violence his bat upon the plate.
And now the pitcher holds the ball, and now he lets it go,
And now the air is shattered by the force of Casey's blow.

Oh, somewhere in this favored land the sun is shining bright,
The band is playing somewhere, and somewhere hearts are light,
And somewhere men are laughing, and little children shout;
But there is no joy in Colwich - mighty Casey has struck out.
******************
SkunK

This might be a better fit?

Lots of Readin'

Email
Declaration
Make Special

517 Patent Amaize
517 Patent Al-Corn

GERS Dismiss ACE
GERS Dismiss GEA
GERS Dismiss WEST
SkunK

GERS argues to Dismiss ICM's Complaint

Remember that all these cases go back to the original jurisdiction if we actually get to trial. 

ICM filed against GERS the day GERS got their first patent.  ICM filed first to try and get a friendly home court advantage in Kansas.  ICM charged GreenShift with - of all things - ruining their business with all this patent talk - under the Kansas Consumer Protection Act?  

Apparently no one else has used the Kansas law exactly the way ICM has attempted to here.  Not sure why no one else has used it like this before, but of course I'm not a lawyer or anything.  As a guy who has been known to throw together a good yarn or two, I am really impressed with the originality involved in the ICM lawyering.  Terrific job of improvisation!   Yet still,  I am awful curious to see what the judge thinks.   They always seem to be more impressed with precedent, the way laws are worded - and boring stuff like that.  

By law, GreenShift notified plants that they thought were infringing their patent.  ICM's customers got upset when they found out they might be violating GreenShifts patent.   ICM comforted their customers by saying the letter was illegal and interfered with ICM's business.  And here we are . . . excerpts below:
**************
ICM claims that GreenShift “falsely and materially misrepresented liability” and “knowingly and/or intentionally misrepresented that ICM’s customers had liability.” FAC at ¶¶ 11 & 14. But these naked assertions by ICM are simply not accurate. Not only is ICM unable to show that GreenShift’s statements are false, but ICM also admits that they are not false.

Thus, as did the plaintiff in Stephens, GreenShift had the right to send the July Letters and October Letters to await patent issuance to see if its infringement  allegations were correct. It turns out GreenShift was correct.

Although there appear to be no Kansas cases addressing Kansas unfair competition law based on false advertising and the alleged misuse of a patent and/or patent application, to the extent that such a cause of action is recognized under Kansas law, Defendants submit that ICM fails to set forth any elements of such a claim or state a claim upon which relief can be granted for any such claim.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, (a) Count I of ICM’s Fourth Amended Complaint should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6); (b) any claims arising out of any alleged violation of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act under Count I should also be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1); (c) Count II of ICM’s Fourth Amended Complaint should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to plead with particularity under Rule 9(b) to the extent that Count II seeks a declaration that the ‘858 and ‘516 patents are unenforceable; (d) Count II should be dismissed for lack of standing under Rule (12)(b)(1). Alternatively, if this Court is not inclined to dismiss all of ICM’s claims, then, in the interest of justice, Defendants seek transfer of ICM’s claims to the Southern District of New York for all post-MDL proceedings where the NY Patent Infringement Case is pending.

See All Here
GreenShift also wants a three hour Oral Argument to present this case.
Request for Oral Argument here

SkunK

BioFuels Journal - 5th Patent

GreenShift Receives Fifth Corn Oil Extraction Patent |
See Here

SkunK

Nice to see the Industry is now notified of the 5th COES Patent through the BioFuels Journal.  Will the Ethanol Producer Magazine be next?

GERS Answers Adkins

See HERE

SkunK

Next

What do I think comes next with the 5th COES  patent?

1.  Expect GreenShift to notify the court prior to or shortly after 1 May.
2.  Expect GreenShift to motion to add the patent to the case.
3.  Expect the defendants to fight (like its close to their last chance) against it.

SkunK
Notice the matter of fact PR?  No litigation threat.  No mention of the NOA for the 6th Patent. (key term to get used to in the 6th patent: thin stillage concentrate).  I read this as projecting confidence by the GreenShift side.

Reader's Choice

Here is newsletter update from United Ethanol.  Slash pointed this out a few days ago and it deserves a lead. (Although is is dated Feburary it was only recently posted on its site)

"We also finished our first full year of corn-oil production, extracting 8,565,067 pounds of corn oil."

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

Here is another Corn Oil producer - this time in Canada.

Greenfield Ethanol will invest between $30 million and $50 million into its Chatham plant over the next several years, beginning with an oil extraction unit slated for this September.
See Here
*****************
Here is an article about corn oil related to recent related reports Here

SkunK

Thanks to Kimbrowntxselect for the links on I-Hub above.

5th COES Patent Announced

“GreenShift has pledged to protect the competitive advantage of its licensees and the additional protection is extremely important to our licensees and shareholders,” said David Winsness, GreenShift’s Chief Technology Officer.

See Here

SkunK

Nice to see that my initial impression that this patent is important in its coverage is confirmed by those who actually know something about the subject. :~)

Site Update

The Old (above) and New GreenShift Logo HERE

I see the Corn Extraction Picture has also been updated.  Notice the upscale floor at the facility.  Not the regular finished concrete one would expect at a typical Ethanol Plant.

SkunK

5th COES patent ISSUED!

What I have been calling the GERS 5th COES patent is NOW the 5th COES patent issued!  Patent number 8168037 issue date 1 May 2012.

This patent is important.  Until now It appears the defendants have explored two main paths in engineering around the four other GreeenShift Corn Oil Extraction patents. 

First, if they could simply nail down what "substantially free of oil" in their process stream means - say "x%" - they could then try to design to daylight by going to a "x+1%" process.  In claim six (6) in the 5th patent we see "separating at least a portion of an oil" from the thin stillage concentrate.  Going from the term "substantially free of oil" - which could be pretty limiting - to "separating at least a portion of an oil" is FAR more inclusive.  How could one extract ANY corn oil if they develop a system that does not separate at least a portion of the oil?  WOW!

The second problem is the Markman ruling on the claim construction of the GERS patents limited the defendants from using heat as a pretreatment for extraction.  This controlled heat is key feature of the GERS extraction success.  Yet the court decided the patent only covered the heat in the pretreatment - not using the heat in the evaporators.  It seems to me that the defendants had a wide opening here.  The defendants planned to use the typical long line of 6 to 8 evaporators to concentrate the stillage - but since heat is used in evaporation - also to cause the stillage to rise in heat to the sweet spot.   Once it did - whether it was between evaporators 5 and six or six and seven - it would be sent to oil extraction.  In this way the defendants could basically use the evaporators both to dewater the stillage - and also as a clumsy but effective (noninfringing?) heating pre-treatment extraction phase.  Not anymore.  It seems claims 8 and 9 effectively patent the use of the multistage evaporator as part of the extraction process.

One more thing.  Look through the 15 or so claims and you will notice something missing.  Numbers.  The numbers and percentages used to limit and define other patents are not present.  This seems a VERY inclusive patent which makes it VERY difficult to engineer around.   Will GreenShift acknowledge this significant achievement prior to - or in the 1Q?  We will see.

SEE HERE

SkunK

The defendants must realise that this issue and the other allowed below strengthens GreenShift's position.

6th Coes Patent Application gets NOA

Now that we have 5 COES patents in the Bank - #6 has just been allowed - given a Notice of Allowance..  Another big one.  30 claims allowed.  It just keeps rolling.

See HERE

SkunK

Pig Site

Dried distiller's grains with solubles (DDGS) is the predominant ethanol co-product fed to swine, and its energy value is about equal to corn even though most ofthe starch is removed to produce ethanol.
This is due to the fact that all other nutrients, including corn oil, remaining in the co-product after ethanol distillation, are concentrated by a factor of three. Corn oil has a much higher (about 2.25 times) energy value compared to starch, and is the mainreason why DDGS is considered such a valuable energy ingredient in swine feeds.

However, due to the high price of crude corn oil and the relatively low capital investment required by ethanol plants to install centrifuges to extract some of the corn oil prior to making DDGS, the profitability and return on investment of oil extraction fromthe ethanol co-product stream is high.

Here's a summary of what was learned: The change in oil content of DDGS had much less of an effect on energy value than the change in fiber content.This was initially surprising because of the high amount of calories in corn oil compared to the calorie concentration in corn fibre.

REST of Article HERE

SkunK

Al-Corn

Motion to Dismiss CounterClaims Here
Law in Support to Dismiss HERE

SkunK

Happy Cusotmer

Pay Back is 5.5 months!  Now that is a happy GreenShift customer.

SkunK

Thanks to Petalman on I-Hub for the link

Docs

Here is a couple docs I got from Gerry on I-Hub.

ICM pleading Here
Exhibit C Here

Exhibit C is "the letter" I think I covered it earlier here as exhibit b.  We talked about the experiment exemption to the one year offer for sale limit HERE

SkunK

REX 10-K

We have recently installed corn oil extraction equipment at our One Earth and NuGen facilities and expect to begin generating revenues from corn oil sales in the first half of fiscal year 2012.   SEE HERE p. 7  (try it now)

SkunK

Thanks to Anon/Nycdream poster previous blog for the tip on the 10-K.  Blog History on REX here.  Remember Slash recently made a decent argument that REX may be a GERS customer.

Minuscule Litigation Update

GERS motion for extension to file motion granted HERE.

SkunK

RENEWABLE ENERGY GROUP, INC 10-K

Alternate Theory.  What if the GERS 3Q had accelerated corn oil sales due to the tax credit expiring at the end of the year?  Followed by record production at BioDiesel facilities in the 4Q.  BioDiesel producers might have bought and stored feedstock during the later half of the 3Q - especially high crush inedible corn oil feedstock - filling their storage tanks and even purchasing it while settling/stored in the corn oil tanks at ethanol plants preparing for a flat out production run to earn the tax credit in the 4Q? 

1.  This might explain flat sales of corn oil at GPRE in the 4Q - Were they in part replenishing storage/settling in December while the biodiesel industry ran on accumulated feedstock?

2.  This might explain the record 4Q biodiesel production in the industry.

3.  This might explain the tremendous bump in GERS 3Q revenues, followed by a down turn in the 4Q.  If you averaged the 3Q and 4Q together might it better represent the long term picture?

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

We are the largest producer of biodiesel in the United States based on gallons produced. Page 2

The blenders’ tax credit provided a $1.00 per gallon excise tax credit to the first person who blends the biodiesel with at least 0.1% petroleum-based diesel fuel. The blenders’ tax credit can then be credited against such blenders’ federal excise tax liability or the blender can obtain a cash refund from the United States Treasury for the value of the credit. The blenders’ tax credit became effective January 1, 2005 and then lapsed January 1, 2010 before being reinstated retroactively on December 17, 2010. The blenders’ tax credit again expired as of December 31, 2011 and it is uncertain whether it will be reinstated.  Page 8 Here

Biodiesel production has dropped from its record levels of late-2011 after the renewable fuel’s $1 per gallon tax credit expired on Jan. 1. But ethanol production continues at record levels.
The U.S. biodiesel industry produced 135 million gallons of fuel in the first two months of 2012, according to new numbers released by the EPA Wednesday.

The recent volume is ahead of the 80 million gallons produced in the same two months of 2011, but down from the record production late last year when the industry exceeded 100 million gallons per month for five consecutive months and reached a peak of 160 million gallons in December. cited HERE

Used cooking oil and inedible corn oil can be purchased in nearby forward positions of three to twelve months, and are sometimes indexed to the New York Mercantile Exchange, or NYMEX, heating oil index. We maintain both long term contractual arrangements and long term trading relationships with key feedstock suppliers, which provide us with an advantage. Some of these relationships are with our investors including West Central and Bunge. Here
SkunK

In any case I am just throwing out an alternate theory here.  It might have nothing to do with the litigation - GreenShift might not be free to discuss its customers' business plan. Not pushing this idea - just looking around.  If you see holes feel free to point them out.
Bonus: 
The weight of corn oil?  Top of page 42
"Inedible corn oil prices are reported as the monthly average of the daily market values (Based on 8.2 pounds per gallon)".
(Now that is different from what I have seen published by others in the industry)

Mini Litigation Update

The great thing about being in charge?  You can fix things!  Mandatory Training HERE

GERS request for Extension to respond to Adkins Here

Order to Allow GERS to withdraw mistaken Adkins motion  HERE

SkunK

10-K/A

An amended Annual Report came out Friday afternoon with seemingly minor changes.  HERE
If I am missing something important let me know!  Here is a summary of the changes:

This Amendment No.1 on Form 10-K/A, which amends and restates items identified below with respect to the Form 10-K, filed by GreenShift Corporation with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2012, has been filed to include restated Consolidated Financial Statements, as described in Note 21 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, and to include the following modifications to the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements:

 Note 3, “Fair Value Instruments” was updated to restate the schedule of conversion liabilities;

 Note 4, “Stockholders’ Equity” was updated to restate the estimated settlement value of conversion liabilities at December 31, 2011; and,
Note 21, “Restatement” was added to outline the corrections that were made to the financial statements.

None of the other disclosures in this Report have been amended or updated.
****************
SkunK

Ps  Thanks Petalman for the merge doc, but so far I cannot get it on Google docs to share. 

Micro Litigation Update

1.  GERS moves to withdraw a mistaken filing HERE

2.  Court approves Defendant's withdrawal of mistaken (187) filing HERE
  Documnet 187 HERE
  Document 188 HERE

3.  Court approves GERS Cantrell seal Here

SkunK

About a Week? or 5?

The SkunK designated 5th COES patent looks like it may be about a week from issue - it was just sent to the FDC yesterday, the 4th of April. [Second Picture] As you can see from the first picture below it took about a week for a recent GreenShift patent being sent to FDC before it was isssued. 

The reference below claims the process has a five week average.

The term ‘FDC’ when used in the context pf patents means final data capture. An allowed patent application goes through different phases within the PTO, before it is published. FDC is the final phase of publishing a patent.  After a patent application is allowed, it is sent to the Office of Patent Publication Allowed Files Area. From there it is forwarded to the Initial Data Capture, where the patent file is electronically captured. The patent file then reaches the File Maintenance Facility (FMF), and after all requirements have been met for issuance as a patent, the patent application is forwarded to the FDC stage. The FDC makes necessary updates to the e-file and puts the allowed patent application in an issue. On an average, an allowed application remains in the FDC process for five weeks. HERE

SkunK

COES Litigation Update

GreenShift's motion to dismiss United Wisconsin counterclaims  Here
GreenShift's support to dismiss United Wisconsin's counterclaim Here
******************
GreenShift's support to dismiss LINCOLNWAY'S COUNTERCLAIMS HERE

******************
Al-Corn support of motion to file under seal Here (doc 307)
Al-Corn again -looks familiar?  Here (doc 299)

Today there is something like 9 motions to dismiss and 9 briefs in support.  Each seem to be much the same as another. Two motions to seal by Al-Corn that look much the same and 1 sealed document.  I should get a chance to look closer in the morning.
Skunk

E-15

E-15 continues to move along.  Increasing the market for ethanol and keeping the Ethanol plants running at maximum capacity does affect the production of stillage - the feedstock for corn oil.  E-15 directly improves the chances we will meet our production goals.

See Here
SkunK

MAX and Yahoo

Have you ever wanted the GreenShift legal team to answer some of the worst aluminum foil hat knuckleheads on the Yahoo GERS financial board?  My guess is this is as close as we will get - HERE

This is an ongoing case involving MAX and the sale of a seed crushing plant in Montana some time ago.  Although they finally filed a pleading, pacer does not give access to it.  What we got today is GreenShift's response to it.  Apparently MAX is heavy on the grassy knoll type accusations - and a bit light (gaseous) on specifics - at times - like who, what, where, and when.  GreenShift lawyers occasionally appear hard pressed keeping a straight game face of outrage at some of the accusations.

SkunK

Concentrations

2010 10-K
One customer balance represents 43% of accounts receivable; one customer's revenue represented 34% of total revenue, while three other customers' combined revenue represented 52% of total revenue.
2011 10-K
One customer balance represents 36% of accounts receivable; one customer's revenue represented 37% of total revenue.
*********************
The information above is under "CONCENTRATIONS" in the 10Ks.  It is at least interesting and if one figures that the one customer concerning revenues is GPRE - then it may even be useful. 

(Interesting AND useful, reminds me again of that girl who sat in front of me in High School chemistry . . . but I digress.)

You can deduct a few things from this if you figure that GPRE's COES produce at an average rate among current GreenShift's customers.  [The sale to YAGI of the first generation COES may edge this assumption towards the true category.]   Lets look at on-line production.  From the 10K we learn we ". . .have more than 2.3 BGY of ethanol production today with our licensees at full [ethanol] production."

Now GPRE has 740mmgy capacity of ethanol production - or about 32% of the 2.3Bgy total. 

But SkunK - the GPRE revenues are 37%? 

That is why the SkunK thinks that about 300mmgy of ethanol production [or its equivalent] with GreenShift COES Licenses - are not up and running yet. 

740mmgy is exactly 37% of 2Bgy.
*****************
SkunK

Now you can go and do a lot of things concerning production estimates with the 37% once you know the public figures from GPRE. In fact the number held consistent to within a few % points (34%-37%) over the last year. Oh, wait we already know GPRE's numbers - but that goes without saying.

Bonus for the Non-Skimmers

10-K 2010, 2011
For the purposes of assessing royalties, the sale of corn oil is deemed to occur when shipped, . .
{"shipment to the buyer of the corn oil".}

10-K GPRE 2011
For sales of ethanol, corn oil and distillers grains, we recognize revenue when title to the product and risk of loss transfer to an external customer.

Marketing and Distribution. Our in-house marketing business is responsible for the sales, marketing and distribution of all ethanol, distillers grains and corn oil produced at our nine ethanol plants. We also market and distribute ethanol for third-party ethanol producers. Production capacity of these third-party producers is approximately 260 mmgy. Additionally, we own and operate nine blending or terminaling facilities with approximately 625 mmgy of total throughput capacity in seven south central U.S. states.

FEW Update

Maintaining Coproduct Value while Simultaneously Capturing the Financial Benefits of Corn Oil Extraction

• Moderator: Paula Emberland, Business Analyst, Christianson & Associates PLLP
• David Winsness, Chief Technology Officer, GreenShift Corporation
  Corn Oil Extraction: The True Impact on DDG Values
• Pete Moss, Vice President, Marketing
  Cereal Process Technologies, Fractionation: Optimizing Feed Market Options
• Tara Vigil, Vice President, KATZEN International Inc.
  Coproduct and Product Distinction: Carving out a Niche through Process Design and Operations
• Joseph Riley, General Manager, FEC Solutions
  Developing Long-Term Value for Extracted Corn Oil

See Here
WEDNESDAY, June 6
3:30 pm - 5:00 pm
Near Bottom of Page

SkunK

No ICM Representative doing CoProducts this year.  Hmmmm. They did it last year. 
SEE HERE NEAR END OF PAGE
Brock Beach, Capital Sales Manager, Oil Separation Solutions, ICM Inc.
Next Generation Patent-Pending Corn Oil Extraction: Advanced Oil System