Attached files

file filename
EX-31.2 - EXHIBIT 31.2 - Iowa Renewable Energy, LLCc94155exv31w2.htm
EX-31.1 - EXHIBIT 31.1 - Iowa Renewable Energy, LLCc94155exv31w1.htm
EX-32.2 - EXHIBIT 32.2 - Iowa Renewable Energy, LLCc94155exv32w2.htm
EX-32.1 - EXHIBIT 32.1 - Iowa Renewable Energy, LLCc94155exv32w1.htm
Table of Contents

 
 
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
 
FORM 10-K
 
     
þ   Annual report under Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
For the fiscal year ended September 30, 2009
     
o   Transition report under Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act.
For the transition period from                      to                     
Commission file number 000-52428
IOWA RENEWABLE ENERGY, LLC
(Name of small business issuer in its charter)
     
Iowa   20-3386000
(State or other jurisdiction of   (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
incorporation or organization)    
     
1701 East 7th Street, Washington, Iowa   52353
(Address of principal executive offices)   (Zip Code)
(319) 653-2890
(Issuer’s telephone number)
Securities registered under Section 12(b) of the Exchange Act:
None
Securities registered under Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act:
26,331
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. o Yes þ No
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act. o Yes þ No
Note — Checking the box above will not relieve any registrant required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act from their obligations under those Sections.
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act during the past 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. þ Yes o No
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulations S-T (§ 229.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). o Yes o No
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. þ
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filed, an accelerated filed, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.
             
Large accelerated filer o   Accelerated filer o   Non-accelerated filer o   Smaller reporting company þ
        (Do not check if a smaller reporting company)    
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). o Yes þ No
As of December 1, 2009, the aggregate market value of the membership units held by non-affiliates (computed by reference to the issuer’s offering price of such membership units in its 2006 state registered offering, as no current trading market exists for such membership units) was $23,581,000.
As of December 15, 2009, there were 26,331 membership units outstanding.
DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
The registrant has incorporated by reference into Part III of this Annual Report on Form 10-K its definitive proxy statement to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days after the close of the fiscal year covered by this Annual Report.
 
 

 

 


 

Table of Contents
         
    3  
 
       
    3  
 
       
    26  
 
       
    37  
 
       
    37  
 
       
    38  
 
       
    38  
 
       
    38  
 
       
    39  
 
       
    39  
 
       
    49  
 
       
    50  
 
       
    63  
 
       
    63  
 
       
    64  
 
       
    64  
 
       
    64  
 
       
    64  
 
       
    64  
 
       
    64  
 
       
    64  
 
       
    64  
 
       
    65  
 
       
 Exhibit 31.1
 Exhibit 31.2
 Exhibit 32.1
 Exhibit 32.2

 

2


Table of Contents

AVAILABLE INFORMATION
Our website address is http://www.iowarenewableenergy.com. Our annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), are available, free of charge, on our website under the link “SEC Filings,” as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such materials with, or furnish such materials to, the Securities and Exchange Commission. The contents of our website are not incorporated by reference in this annual report on Form 10-K.
PART I
ITEM 1. BUSINESS.
Business Development
Our plant’s construction is fully complete. We began producing biodiesel on July 10, 2007. The plant was operating at full capacity until the end of September 2007; with only minor temporary shut downs for maintenance and a weather-related power outage. Since the beginning of October 2007, we have only been operating to produce biodiesel to satisfy existing contracts for the sale of our biodiesel and have not been producing biodiesel for speculation. This has allowed us to avoid excess inventory, but also resulted in several plant shutdowns. During the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2009, we operated our plant at approximately 36% of our plant’s capacity.
Most of our shutdowns have been due to:
   
Lack of biodiesel contracts at profitable margins;
 
   
Our inability to obtain adequate amounts of feedstock in a timely manner;
 
   
Our inability to obtain adequate amounts of feedstock at competitive costs;
 
   
Lack of demand for biodiesel;
 
   
Inadequate funds to obtain feedstock due to having to pay for feedstock while waiting for payments from our biodiesel sales; and
 
   
Insufficient working capital to operate our business.
From October 1, 2008 through September 30, 2009 we produced approximately 9,507,597 gallons of biodiesel, which is only approximately 32% of our plant’s capacity. We anticipate operating the plant at similar levels during our fiscal year 2010; however, our ability to operate depends upon many factors outside of our control, such as demand for biodiesel, price for biodiesel, cost of feedstock, and possible expiration of the blenders credit. If demand for biodiesel remains at its current low levels, or drops further during our 2010 fiscal year, we will likely operate our plant even less during our 2010 fiscal year. We do not anticipate speculatively producing biodiesel in the next 12 months. Therefore, if demand does not increase such that we can obtain contracts for at least the same number of gallons as produced during fiscal year 2009, then we may operate at a lower production rate than during fiscal year 2009. In addition, we have been experiencing liquidity difficulties since beginning operations and if these conditions do not improve, or get worse, during our 2010 fiscal year, then we will likely be unable to purchase sufficient feedstock to operate our plant at the levels we operated during fiscal year 2009.
Since our start-up of operations we have been dealing with short term liquidity issues. We currently only have contracts to sell approximately 75,000 gallons of biodiesel after December 31, 2009. In addition, if the blenders tax credit is not extended, our marketer does not anticipate it will have any contracts for us in January or February. On February 1, 2008, our $34,715,000 loan with Marshall Bankfirst Group (Bankfirst) converted from a construction loan to a term loan, which requires monthly principal and interest payments. As of the date of this report, we have timely paid all of our monthly payments under the loan, however, for the September and October payments, we made draws from our debt service reserve for the principal portion of the payments. We began to replenish the draw on our debt service reserve in December 2009 and plan to fully replenish the debt service draw

 

3


Table of Contents

by the middle of January 2010. The loan agreements and related documents, including the mortgage, security agreement, and promissory notes (collectively, the “Loan Agreement”) contain covenants that require a minimum ratio for current assets to current liabilities (working capital ratio) and a minimum debt coverage and fixed charge coverage ratios. On April 2, 2009, we received a written notice of default from Bankfirst (the “Notice”). The Notice constituted a notice of default under Section 6.01(b) of the Loan Agreement, which provides the Company has 30 days to cure the covenant defaults or it will be considered an event of default. The Notice advises, and the Loan Agreement provides, that upon the occurrence of an event of default, Bankfirst may exercise a variety of remedies afforded to them under the Loan Agreement, by applicable law or equity, including without limitation, acceleration of the due date of the unpaid principal balance of the Loan Agreement and all accrued but unpaid interest thereon. Further, according to the mortgage and security agreement, Bankfirst may, during an event of default and in accordance with applicable law, foreclose its mortgage on our real estate and its security interest in our personal property and exercise any other remedies provided therein. We have not been able to cure the defaults. Thirty days have passed since we received the Notice and Bankfirst has not communicated with us in writing further on the matter. In July 2009, however, Bankfirst was shut down by state regulators and the FDIC was named its receiver. We are currently working with OSM, a bank out of Minneapolis, Minnesota, as an interim administrative bank to make payments under our Loan Agreement, until permanent assignment of our Loan Agreement is made. We anticipate that early in the calendar year 2010 Met Life will assume lead bank status under our Loan Agreement and we will begin making payments to Bankers Trust as the permanent administrative bank under our Loan Agreement. However, as of the date of this report, we have received no written notification as to Bankfirst’s successor. We have been in discussions with the group of bank participants in our Loan Agreement regarding our liquidity issues and have received a written offer sheet from Washington State Bank and Federation Bank, both participant banks in our Loan Agreement, for a line of credit of up to $1.5 million. If we close on a new line of credit, we anticipate this would improve our liquidity.
While BankFirst did not elect to exercise its remedies under the Loan Agreement, there is no assurance that the receiver or new lead lender will not accelerate our existing obligations which could greatly affect our ability to continue as a going concern. In addition, the blenders credit is set to expire on December 31, 2009 and if it is not extended, we would likely be unable to produce and sell biodiesel profitably, which would likely result in significant plant shut downs either on a temporary or permanent basis. These liquidity issues raise doubt about whether we will continue as a going concern. If our financial condition does not improve substantially, which may not occur due to our historical performance and the anticipated seasonal decrease in demand for biodiesel, we will continue to be in violation of these covenants. In addition, our loan contains an event of default for any material adverse change in our financial condition, and the term “material adverse change” is defined in such a way that leaves this determination to the subjective opinion of our lender.
As discussed in the accompanying financial statements, we have generated accumulated losses of $10,884,041 since inception and undertaken significant borrowings to finance the construction of our biodiesel plant. These liquidity issues raise doubts about our ability to continue as a going concern (See Note 6 to the financial statements). In the event our lender declares a default under the Loan Agreement and elects to accelerate our payments under the Loan Agreement or take possession of our assets securing the Loan Agreement, we may be forced to shutdown the plant and our members could lose some or all of their investment. In addition, the blenders credit is set to expire on December 31, 2009 and if it is not extended, we would likely be unable to produce and sell biodiesel profitably, which would likely result in significant plant shut downs either on a temporary or permanent basis. These losses and risk of default have raised doubts as to our ability to continue as a going concern.
General Demand
The biodiesel industry is still relatively new and unknown especially when compared to the ethanol industry. In 2008, the Renewable Fuels Association reported that a record 9.0 billion gallons of ethanol were produced in the United States. However, the biodiesel industry produced only approximately 700 million gallons of biodiesel in 2008, constituting only a small part of the U.S. diesel fuel market and a fraction of the amount of 2008 ethanol production. Total 2008 biodiesel production is also significantly less than current national biodiesel production capacity. The National Biodiesel Board estimates that as of June 22, 2009 (the latest date for which information is available), national biodiesel production capacity totaled approximately 2.69 billion gallons per year. Some plants are currently closed and some do not currently operate at full capacity due to this excess production capacity and other economic factors. The National Biodiesel Board estimates that production capacity could increase by another 427.8 million gallons if the plants currently under construction or engaged in expansion begin production.

 

4


Table of Contents

While there have been some uncertain or negative public opinion regarding biodiesel, in July 2009 there was a change to the ASTM standards which allows up to 5% biodiesel to be blended in with petroleum diesel and the product to still be labeled as petroleum diesel. This may increase demand for biodiesel and offset some of the negative public opinions the biodiesel industry has faced.
Principal Products and Markets
The principal products produced at our plant are biodiesel and crude glycerin. Iowa Renewable Energy’s biodiesel facility is able to pretreat crude vegetable oils and animal fats. Our plant, however, does not have a soybean crushing facility and we are not capable of producing pharmaceutical grade glycerin. The plant is capable of having an annual capacity to process approximately 160,000,000 pounds of soybean oil and 70,000,000 pounds of animal fats and grease into approximately 30 million gallons of biodiesel and 3 million gallons of crude glycerin per year. Our equipment does, however, allow a variance from this ratio to compensate for changes in feedstock cost and availability. During the fiscal year ended September 30, 2009 we processed approximately 13,488,750 pounds of soybean oil and 60,800,171 pounds of animal fats and grease into 9,507,597 gallons of biodiesel and 7,797,330 pounds of crude glycerin.
We anticipate that we will continue to operate the plant at a similar ratio in the upcoming fiscal year, so long as feedstock costs remain at similar levels. If feedstock costs fluctuate, we will adjust what feedstocks we use accordingly so as to produce our biodiesel in the most cost-effective manner.
Primary Product-Biodiesel
Biodiesel is a clean-burning alternative fuel produced from domestic, renewable resources. Biodiesel primarily used in compression ignition (diesel) engines and biodiesel can also be used as home heating oil. Biodiesel is comprised of mono-alkyl esters of long chain fatty acids derived from vegetable oils or animal fats, that can be used as feedstock for our facility. A chemical process called transesterification removes the free fatty acids from the base oil and creates the desired esters. Transesterification is the reaction of vegetable oil or animal fat with an alcohol, such as methanol or ethanol, in the presence of a catalyst. The process yields four products: mono-alkyl ester (biodiesel), glycerin, feed quality fat, and methanol. The methanol can be used again in the process. Biodiesel can then be used in neat (pure) form, or blended with petroleum diesel.
Biodiesel that is in neat (pure) form is typically designated in the marketplace as B100. The 100 indicates that the fuel is 100% biodiesel. Biodiesel is frequently blended with petroleum based diesel. When biodiesel is blended, it is typically identified in the marketplace according to the percentage of biodiesel in the blend. For instance, B20 indicates that 20% of the fuel is biodiesel and 80% is petroleum-based diesel.
Biodiesel’s physical and chemical properties, as they relate to operations of diesel engines, are similar to petroleum-based diesel fuel. As a result, biodiesel, in its pure form or blended with petroleum diesel, may be used in most standard diesel engines without making any engine modifications. Biodiesel demonstrates greater lubricating properties, referred to as lubricity, than petroleum-based diesel. This could lead to less engine wear in the long-run as biodiesel creates less friction in engine components than petroleum-based diesel. Biodiesel also demonstrates greater solvent properties. With higher percentage blends of biodiesel, this could lead to break downs in certain rubber engine components such as seals. The solvent properties of biodiesel also can cause accumulated deposits from petroleum-based diesel in fuel systems to break down. This could lead to clogged fuel filters in the short-term. Fuel filters should initially be checked more frequently when using biodiesel blends. These problems are less prevalent in blends that utilize lower concentrations of biodiesel compared to petroleum-based diesel.
Glycerin
Glycerin is the primary co-product of biodiesel production. Glycerin is produced at a rate of approximately 10% of the quantity of biodiesel produced. Glycerin possesses a unique combination of physical and chemical properties that make it suitable for use in a wide variety of products. It is highly stable under typical storage conditions, compatible with a wide variety of other chemicals and comparatively non-toxic. Glycerin has many applications, including as an ingredient or processing aid in cosmetics, toiletries, personal care, drugs, and food products. Our glycerin, however, cannot be used in pharmaceutical products without further processing, and we do not have the capabilities to refine our glycerin into pharmaceutical quality.

 

5


Table of Contents

Biodiesel Markets
Biodiesel is primarily used as fuel for compression ignition (diesel) engines. It is produced using renewable resources and provides environmental advantages over petroleum-based diesel fuel, such as reduced vehicle emissions. Our ability to market our biodiesel is heavily dependent upon the price of petroleum-based diesel fuel as compared to the price of biodiesel, in addition to the availability of economic incentives to produce and use biodiesel.
Biodiesel is frequently used as fuel in transport trucks, ships, trains, in farming activities and in many government vehicles. Government legislation that seeks to encourage the use of renewable fuels could lead to an expansion of the market for biodiesel in the future. Biodiesel has been identified as a potentially good substitute for diesel fuel in underground mining operations because it burns cleaner and leads to less air pollution, a feature that is very important in confined places such as mines. Further, biodiesel may be safer to handle in a mine setting where fire can be disastrous. Additional markets may become available as a result of growing environmental concerns by American consumers as well as an increased awareness of energy security and the United States’ ability to supply its own fuel needs. However, biodiesel still only accounts for a very small percentage of the diesel fuel market as a whole. The biodiesel industry will need to continue to grow demand in order to sustain the price of biodiesel into the future.
Wholesale Market/Biodiesel Marketers
The wholesale market involves selling biodiesel directly to fuel blenders or through biodiesel marketers. Fuel blenders purchase neat (B100) biodiesel from biodiesel production plants, mix it with petroleum diesel fuel according to specifications, and deliver a final product to retailers. There are few wholesale biodiesel marketers in the United States. Three examples are World Energy of Chelsea, Massachusetts, Eco-Energy, Inc. of Franklin, Tennessee, and REG, Inc. of Ames, Iowa. These companies use their existing marketing relationships to market the biodiesel of individual plants to end users for a fee. We have entered into a Management and Operational Services Agreement (the “MOSA”) with REG, Inc. (“REG”) to market the biodiesel we produce at our facility. On April 3, 2009, however, we received a written notice of termination of the MOSA from REG. The notice states that it shall constitute the twelve (12) month advance termination notice required by Section 6 of the MOSA and that the MOSA will terminate effective as of July 12, 2010. REG provided the notice of termination due to changes in the biodiesel market since the MOSA was originally signed. REG has proposed that the parties review and cooperate to negotiate a new contract on terms mutually beneficial to the Company and REG; however, there is no guarantee that a new contract will be signed with REG. We are also exploring other options for the marketing of our biodiesel, in the event a new contract is not signed. We may be unable to find a new company to provide these management and operational services, or we may not enter into a new agreement on favorable terms. Any lack of a provider for these services would have a negative impact on our revenues. See “Distribution of Principal Products” and “Dependence on One or More Major Customers” below.
Retail Market
The retail market consists of biodiesel distribution primarily through fueling stations to transport trucks and jobbers, which are individuals that buy products from manufacturers and sell them to retailers, for the purpose of supplying farmers, maritime customers and home heating oil users. Retail level distributors include oil companies, independent station owners, marinas and railroad operators. The biodiesel retail market is still in its very early stages as compared to other types of fuel. If demand for biodiesel were to increase, then the present marketing and transportation network must expand significantly in order for our company to effectively market our biodiesel to retail users. Areas that would require expansion include, but are not limited to:
   
additional storage facilities for biodiesel;
   
expansion in refining and blending facilities to handle biodiesel; and
   
growth in service stations equipped to handle biodiesel fuels.

 

6


Table of Contents

With greater consumer awareness of renewable fuels, we anticipate that the availability of biodiesel may increase in the future. However, substantial investments required for these infrastructure changes and expansions may not be made or they may not occur on a timely basis. Any delay or failure in making the changes to or expansion of infrastructure could hurt the demand or prices for our products, impede our delivery of products, impose additional costs on us or otherwise have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial position. Our business is dependent on the continuing availability of infrastructure and any infrastructure disruptions could have a material adverse effect on our business.
International Markets
Through our marketer, REG, we expect that a portion of our biodiesel may be sold abroad to international markets, particularly Europe. However, we are unable to track precisely where our biodiesel is delivered or how much of it is exported to Europe or other international markets. In some instances, we believe that international biodiesel sales may return greater profits than domestic biodiesel sales. However, demand for international sales have been greatly reduced as a result of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy tariffs imposed by the European Commission on all biodiesel produced in the United States. The tariffs went into effect March 13, 2009 and the European Commission determined in July 2009, that the tariffs would be extended through 2014. According to the May 2009 issue of the Biodiesel Magazine, the tariffs could result in an additional charge of $30 to $265 per metric ton of biodiesel.
Government/Public Sector
The government has increased its use of biodiesel since the implementation of the Energy Policy Act (EPACT) of 1992, amended in 1998, which authorized federal, state and public agencies to use biodiesel to meet the alternative fuel vehicle requirements of EPACT. Although it is possible that individual plants could sell directly to various government entities, it is unlikely our plant could successfully market our biodiesel through such channels. Government entities have very long sales cycles based on the intricacies of their decision making and budgetary processes.
Glycerin Markets and Demand
In 2006, excess production of glycerin caused the price of crude glycerin to decline dramatically, to the point that some producers had to pay to dispose of their glycerin. Since then glycerin prices have been experiencing an increase. As of early December 2009, according to the Jacobsen Biodiesel Bulletin, average crude glycerin prices were approximately 5 to 6 cents per pound. REG currently markets the glycerin produced at our plant pursuant to our MOSA. If oversupply of glycerin and low glycerin prices occur it may limit our ability to generate revenues through the sale of our primary co-product. This may negatively affect the profitability of our business.
Relatively higher refined glycerin prices, averaging approximately 32 to 36 cents per pound according to the Jacobsen Biodiesel Bulletin in December 2009, have prompted some of our competitors, such as Cargill Inc. (Cargill) and Archer Daniels Midland Co. (ADM) to expand their glycerin refining capacities. These biodiesel producers may therefore have a competitive advantage over plants like ours that do not have glycerin refining capabilities.
Additional uses for glycerin are being researched. Research has been underway to develop technology that converts glycerin, a byproduct of biodiesel production, into ethanol. Ethanol made from glycerin may be cheaper to produce than ethanol made from corn, as glycerin does not require the extensive pre-processing steps required for corn. Research has also been underway to develop methods of converting glycerin into propylene glycol, which is a compound used in a variety of industrial products, including paints, polyester resins, lubricants, antifreeze and cosmetics. Accordingly, development of these technologies could increase the demand for glycerin. However, such technologies are still currently under development and there is no assurance that such technologies will become readily available or that they would increase demand for glycerin. Moreover, there is no assurance that our glycerin would work to be processed into ethanol, and taking advantage of such technology may require additional equipment or equipment modification. If we did not have the resources to purchase additional equipment or make equipment modifications, such technology developments could result in our glycerin being at a competitive disadvantage.

 

7


Table of Contents

Distribution of Principal Products
We entered into the MOSA with REG for the purpose of management and operational services. These services include REG marketing all of our biodiesel and glycerin. We pay REG a fee of 5.7 cents per gallon of biodiesel produced for all the services under this agreement. REG estimates a break down of this fee to be two cents (2¢) per gallon for biodiesel marketing services. Additionally, REG estimates one fifth cent (1/5¢) per gallon of this fee to be for the sales and marketing of glycerin. The sales and marketing services of REG include certain transportation services such as: arranging for transportation, logistics, and scheduling of biodiesel shipments; where advantageous, arranging for leased tankers for rail shipments; analyzing and auditing bulk transportation providers; overseeing reconciliation of shipments, invoicing and payments on a weekly basis; and providing invoicing and accounts receivable management for biodiesel shipments. Under the terms of the agreement, REG takes title to the product when loaded for delivery FOB the plant.
Our products can be delivered by truck or rail. Our property is located approximately thirty-five miles from Interstate 80 and thirty miles from the Mississippi River. We have established rail service directly to the plant so that we are able to ship biodiesel to our customers by rail. Rail service is provided by the Iowa, Chicago and Eastern Railroad and REG coordinates all of our transportation services.
On April 3, 2009, however, we received a written notice of termination of the MOSA from REG. The notice states that it shall constitute the twelve (12) month advance termination notice required by Section 6 of the MOSA and that the MOSA will terminate as of July 12, 2010. Loss of a marketing company, if we are unable to negotiate a new agreement with REG or unable to find a new marketing company, would have a significant negative impact upon our revenues. Pursuant to our MOSA, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2009, we recognized an expense of approximately $541,932 under this agreement.
Sources and Availability of Raw Materials
Feedstock Cost and Supply
The cost of feedstock is the largest single component of the cost of biodiesel production, accounting for 70% to 90% of the overall cost of producing biodiesel. As a result, increased prices for feedstock greatly impact the biodiesel industry. Our plant is capable of pretreating crude vegetable oil, including soybean oil and corn oil, and animal fats and utilizing the same to produce biodiesel. Animal fat has been less expensive to acquire than soybean oil and, accordingly, we attempt to use as much animal fat feedstock as possible so long as producing our biodiesel from animal fat would return greater profit margins. Animal fat biodiesel demand, however, does typically decline in the colder fall and winter months and, accordingly, our use of animal fats have been declining during such months. In fiscal year 2009, we also continued to utilize corn oil as a lower-cost feedstock alternative to soybean oil. We anticipate that we will continue to use corn oil as a feedstock source for so long as its use returns greater profit margins as compared to soybean oil. The USDA December 2009 Oil Crops Outlook report provides that the average November 2009 price for corn oil was 38.12 cents per pound, which was slightly higher than the November 2009 price for soybean oil of 36.59 cents per pound.
In the event we cannot obtain adequate supplies of feedstock at affordable prices, our ability to operate profitably may be materially impaired. We may be forced to shut down the plant temporarily or even permanently. Due to the increased prices for our inputs, decreased demand for biodiesel and our liquidity issues, we have experienced temporary shutdowns and are currently operating well below our capacity. For the fourth quarter of the year ended September 30, 2009, our plant operated at approximately 36% of its capacity, averaging 32% capacity production during the twelve months ended September 30, 2009. Continued plant shutdowns and increased feedstock costs may reduce our revenues and the value of your investment.

 

8


Table of Contents

Soybean Oil
The ten-year average price for soybean oil is approximately 26 cents per pound. However, soybean oil prices have been extremely volatile, reaching record highs in the summer of 2008 and sharply declining thereafter. The USDA December 2009 Oil Crops Outlook report provides that the average November 2009 soybean oil price was approximately 36.59 cents per pound, which is below the July 2008 peak prices of 62.54. The drop in soybean oil prices was likely caused by the changing global economic conditions triggered by the recent failure of various major U.S. financial institutions, the passage of the federal government’s $700 billion bailout plan, the tightening of credit markets and the economic downturn experienced by the U.S. and other countries. According to the USDA’s National Weekly Ag Energy Round-Up report, crude soybean oil prices in Iowa for the week of December 11, 2009 ranged from 35.59 to 38.15 cents per pound. The USDA forecasted that these soybean oil prices will remain in this range during the 2009/2010 marketing season, with a predicted price range of 35.5 to 38.5 cents per pound. The charts below show U.S. soybean oil prices over the past ten years and for each month from the beginning of the 2008/2009 marketing year to November 2009:
U.S. Soybean Oil Average Prices for the Past 10 Years
         
Marketing Year   Price (cents)  
1999/00
    15.60  
2000/01
    14.15  
2001/02
    16.46  
2002/03
    22.04  
2003/04
    29.97  
2004/05
    23.01  
2005/06
    23.41  
2006/07
    31.02  
2007/08
    52.03  
       
2008/09
    32.16  
       
2009/2010
    35.5-38.5 (1)
       
U.S. Soybean Oil Average Prices for 2008-2009
Marketing Year
         
Month   Price (cents)  
October 2008
    35.50  
November 2008
    31.55  
December 2008
    29.30  
January 2009
    32.16  
February 2009
    28.93  
March 2009
    28.23  
April 2009
    32.76  
May 2009
    36.06  
June 2009
    35.66  
July 2009
    31.08  
August 2009
    33.69  
September 2009
    30.96  
October 2009
    33.15  
November 2009(1)
    36.59  
     
(1)  
Preliminary Price
Data provided by USDA, Oil Crops Outlook Report, December 11, 2009
Because it takes more than seven pounds of soybean oil to make a gallon of biodiesel, increases in soybean oil costs significantly reduce the potential profit margin on each gallon of biodiesel produced from soybean oil and sold. Any increase in the cost of soybean oil will negatively impact our ability to generate revenues and profits. Conversely, if the soybean oil price drops, this would have a positive impact on our revenues. Due to high soybean oil costs throughout most of the 2009 fiscal year, we have been using alternative forms of feedstock as substitutes for soybean oil to the greatest extent possible. These substitutes include animal fat and corn oil. However, prices for these alternative feedstocks have tended to increase along with the cost of soybean oil. Accordingly, we will continue to explore additional low-cost feedstocks and utilize soybean oil to the extent it remains a profitable and marketable option.
Increased competition with other biodiesel plants for soybean oil may result in prices again increasing for soybean oil. Accordingly, the number of acres of soybeans planted and harvested can impact the price of and competition for soybean oil. In its December 2009 Oil Crops Outlook report, the USDA reported that 74.7 million soybean acres were harvested in the 2008-2009 crop year. The portion of that used to make biodiesel is not expected to increase significantly due to the competition from other vegetable oils and animal fats being used as alternative sources of feedstock.
Animal Fats and Other Alternative Feedstocks
Our plant is also capable of utilizing animal fats to produce biodiesel and, like soybean oil, animal fat costs have also increased over the past several years. Animal fat costs peaked in the summer of 2008, and have since fallen as domestic and global economic conditions have worsened. Although prices for animal fats have declined from their recent peak, animal fat costs are nonetheless higher than their historical average. The USDA December 2009 Oil Crops Outlook report provides that the average November 2009 prices for lard and edible tallow were 30.07 and 29.65 cents per pound, respectively. The USDA predicted lard and edible tallow prices could increase slightly for 2009/2010, ranging from 28.5 to 31.5 cents per pound for lard and 29.5 to 32.5 cents per pound for edible tallow. If animal fat prices increase such that it is not profitable to use this feedstock, we may again increase our use of soybean oil.

 

9


Table of Contents

The charts below show U.S. lard and edible tallow prices over the past ten years and for each month from the beginning of the 2008/2009 marketing year to November 2009:
Lard & Edible Tallow Average Prices for Past Ten Years
                 
            Edible  
            Tallow  
Marketing Year   Lard (cents)     (cents)  
1999/00
    13.64       13.21  
2000/01
    14.61       13.43  
2001/02
    13.55       13.87  
2002/03
    18.13       17.80  
2003/04
    26.13       22.37  
2004/05
    21.80       18.48  
2005/06
    21.74       18.16  
2006/07
    28.43       27.32  
2007/08
    40.85       41.68  
2008/09
    26.72       25.47  
2009/2010
    27.5-31.5 (1)     29.5-32.5 (1)
Lard & Edible Tallow Average Prices for 2008-2009
Marketing Year
                 
            Edible  
            Tallow  
Month   Lard (cents)     (cents)  
 
               
October 2008
    37.07       26.97  
November 2008
    26.40       18.13  
December 2008
    20.00       17.50  
January 2009
    25.36       23.36  
February 2009
    20.31       21.40  
March 2009
    19.49       19.42  
April 2009
    23.36       23.77  
May 2009
    29.00       28.92  
June 2009
    30.06       30.14  
July 2009
    27.63       27.64  
August 2009
    32.20       34.14  
September 2009
    29.73       34.21  
October 2009
    25.75       27.63  
November 2009
    30.07 (1)     29.65 (1)
     
(1)  
Preliminary Prices
Data provided by USDA, Oil Crops Outlook Report, December 11, 2009
We have also been using corn oil that we obtain from ethanol plants as an alternative feedstock from time to time. We expect that, like animal fats, corn oil may be a less costly feedstock alternative to soybean oil. The National Weekly Ag Energy Round-Up for the week of December 11, 2009 indicates that crude corn oil costs in the Midwest ranged from 39.5 cents to 40.5 cents per pound. Corn oil-based biodiesel has cold flow properties similar to those of soybean oil-based biodiesel and accordingly, we may be able to continue to use corn oil as feedstock in the fall and winter months when demand for animal fat-based biodiesel could decrease. Corn oil, however, tends to cause a waxy substance to build-up during the production process. Due to this build-up, we expect that we will not be able to produce any biodiesel blends containing greater than 5% corn oil. The unique characteristic of corn oil could cause it to be a less desirable feedstock then other feedstocks. The amount of corn oil that we will be able to acquire will likely depend upon the rate in which ethanol plants begin installing corn oil extraction equipment at their plants and the extent to which they market their corn oil.
In the event we cannot obtain adequate supplies of feedstock at affordable costs for sustained periods of time, then we may be forced to shut down the plant temporarily or permanently. Shut downs and increased feedstock costs may reduce our revenues from operations which could decrease or eliminate the value of our units.

 

10


Table of Contents

Feedstock Cold Flow Properties
Because biodiesel has different cold flow properties depending on the type of feedstock used in its manufacture, cold flow also becomes a primary factor in determining the type of feedstock to use. “Cold flow” refers to a fuel’s ability to flow easily at colder temperatures and is an important consideration in producing and blending biodiesel for use in colder climates and in colder seasons. The pour point for a fuel is the temperature at which the flow of the fuel stops. Therefore, a lower pour point temperature means the fuel is usable in colder temperatures. The following table represents the pour points for different types of fuels:
         
Type of Fuel   Pour Point  
Soy-based Biodiesel (B100)
    30ºF  
Tallow-based Biodiesel (B100)
    61ºF  
No. 2 Petro Diesel (B0)
    -30ºF  
B2 Soy Blend with No. 2 Diesel
    -25ºF  
To provide biodiesel with an acceptable pour point in cold weather, we will need to blend our biodiesel with petroleum-based diesel. Generally, biodiesel that is used in blends of 2% to 20% will provide an acceptable pour point for the Iowa market. We expect that our marketer will sell our biodiesel throughout the nation and abroad. Cold flow additives can also be used seasonally to provide a higher level of cold weather protection, similar to the current practice with conventional diesel fuel. Demand for our biodiesel may diminish in colder climates and during the colder months as a result of cold flow concerns. We are currently producing biodiesel from soybean oil, corn oil, and animal fats. Approximately 80% of our biodiesel production for fiscal year 2009 was animal fat biodiesel blends, which is a significant increase from the 68% in fiscal year 2008, which means we will likely be more effected by seasonal downtrends and lack of demand for biodiesel produced from animal fat during the winter months.
Hedging
Due to fluctuations in the price and supply of feedstock, we have utilized forward contracting and hedging strategies to manage our commodity risk exposure and optimize finished product pricing and supply, however; as of the date of this report we do not have any forward contracts. Hedging means protecting the price at which we buy feedstock and the price at which we will sell our products in the future. It is a way to attempt to reduce the risk caused by price fluctuations. The effectiveness of such hedging activities is dependent upon, among other things, the cost of feedstock and our ability to sell sufficient amounts of biodiesel. Although we attempt to link hedging activities to sales plans and pricing activities, such hedging activities can themselves result in costs because price movements in feedstock contracts are highly volatile and are influenced by many factors that are beyond our control. We may incur such costs and they may be significant. The market for soybean oil trades 18 months into the future. The animal grease market has no futures trade. However, there is a quoting system through the USDA that provides for price discovery for animal grease. There is not enough volume of biodiesel produced to currently justify a futures market. As such, there is no spot biodiesel price, making current price discovery limited. See “MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS — Commodity Price Risk Protection.”
Pretreatment Costs
Crude soybean oil and all animal fats need to be pretreated before being processed into biodiesel. Pretreatment takes crude soybean oil, corn oil and any animal fat or grease, removes the impurities and prepares the feedstock to go through the biodiesel production process. Some types of feedstock need more treatment than others. For example, virgin soybean oil can be easier and cheaper to pretreat than turkey fat, and turkey fat can be easier and cheaper to pretreat than beef tallow. The cost of the process is driven by the structure of the feedstock and the impurities in the feedstock.
For soybean oil, the pretreatment process results in refined and bleached (RB) oil. The price differential between RB oil and crude soy oil is ordinarily 5 cents per pound. Our processing plant has pretreatment capabilities allowing us to utilize crude vegetable oil and many types of fat or grease as feedstock in our facility. This added flexibility allows us to choose the feedstock that will produce biodiesel in the most cost-effective manner possible. Transitioning between feedstocks or to new feedstocks, however, does require our employees to spend time adjusting our equipment and determining the specific process to most profitably use a different feedstock takes time and resources.

 

11


Table of Contents

Feedstock Procurement
We entered into the MOSA with REG to provide management and marketing services for our facility. Under the MOSA, REG is responsible for arranging the purchase and procurement of the feedstock and chemical inputs necessary to produce biodiesel at our plant. Under the MOSA, REG will:
   
Provide analysis and audit of feedstock suppliers;
   
Purchase feedstock at competitive prices meeting specifications and in quantities adequate to satisfy the production schedule of our plant;
   
Negotiate for discounts on feedstock, where obtainable;
   
Arrange for transportation, logistics, and scheduling of feedstock deliveries;
   
Provide analysis and audit of bulk transportation providers;
   
Perform due diligence requirements for investigation of suppliers of the chemical inputs;
   
Provide analysis and audit of chemical suppliers and bulk transportation suppliers;
   
Purchase chemical inputs at competitive prices meeting specifications for use in our plant;
   
Negotiate for discounts on the purchase of chemical inputs, where obtainable;
   
Procure adequate chemical inputs to meet our production schedules; and
   
Arrange for transportation, logistics, and scheduling services for chemical input deliveries by suppliers.
The inability of REG to obtain adequate feedstock for our facility at economical prices, or at all, could have significant negative impacts on our ability to produce biodiesel and on our revenues. On April 3, 2009 we received a termination notice of our MOSA from REG. The MOSA is thus set to expire July 10, 2010. If we cannot negotiate a new agreement with REG, enter into a marketing agreement with a new company, or successfully market our biodiesel on our own, our revenues will be negatively impacted.
Utilities
Our biodiesel plant requires a significant and uninterrupted supply of electricity, natural gas and water to operate. We do not have any long term agreements for our utilities but receive them on a monthly invoice basis.
Electricity. We require a significant supply of electricity to operate our plant. Alliant Energy supplies us with our electricity needs, on a monthly basis at variable rates.
Water and Sewer. We require a significant supply of water to operate our plant. The City of Washington supplies us with water, on a monthly basis at variable rates. We have entered into an agreement to have our wastewater handled by the Cities of Cedar Rapids, Muscatine and Des Moines until the City of Washington has the capacity to handle our wastewater.
Natural Gas. We require a significant supply of natural gas. Alliant Energy supplies us with natural gas on a monthly basis at variable rates.
Rail. Our rail access is complete and we are currently shipping our biodiesel by both rail and truck. The Iowa, Chicago & Eastern Railroad supplies our plant with rail service and REG makes all of our transportation arrangements.
New Products and Services
We have not introduced any new products or services during the fiscal year ended September 30, 2009.
Government Regulation and Federal Biodiesel Supports
Federal Biodiesel Supports
We expect demand for biodiesel in the United States to grow due to the demand for cleaner air, an emphasis on energy security, and the Renewable Fuels Standard and other government support of renewable fuels. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 and Jobs Bill established the groundwork for biodiesel market development. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 was designed to further encourage the production and use of biodiesel in the United States.

 

12


Table of Contents

Renewable Fuels Standard
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 created the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) which required refiners to use 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuels by 2012. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) expanded the existing RFS to require the use of 9 billion gallons of renewable fuel in 2008, increasing to 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel by 2022. The EISA requires that 600 million gallons of renewable fuel used in 2009 must come from advanced biofuels other than corn-based ethanol, such as ethanol derived from cellulose, sugar or crop residue and biomass-based diesel (which includes biodiesel and renewable diesel), increasing to 21 billion gallons in 2022. The EISA further includes a requirement that 500 million gallons of biodiesel and biomass-based diesel fuel be blended into the national diesel pool in 2009, gradually increasing to one billion gallons by 2012. However, in November 2008, the EPA announced that the RFS program in 2009 will continue to be applicable to producers and importers of gasoline only. This means that the 500 million gallons of biomass-based diesel required by the RFS, as amended by the EISA, does not have to be blended into U.S. fuel supplies in 2009. This is due to the fact that the regulatory structure of the original RFS program does not provide a mechanism for implementing the EISA requirement for the use of 500 million gallons of biomass-based diesel. The EPA intends to propose options and develop mechanisms for implementing the EISA biomass-diesel requirements. The RFS was modified in 2007 to require that advanced biofuels reduce life cycle greenhouse gas emissions by 50% relative to gasoline sold or distributed in transportation. In May 2009, the EPA proposed rules that took into account indirect land use changes when calculating greenhouse gas emissions. Based on the EPA’s preliminary findings, soy-based biodiesel was found to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by only 22%, which would disqualify it from counting towards the RFS. Biodiesel from animal fat was found to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 80%. The EPA’s draft results did not measure biodiesel produced from corn oil. The EPA has announced that it intends to publish final rules prior to the end of 2009; however, as of the date of this filing, such final rules have not been released. The EPA has suggested that the final rules will take into account estimates for the uncertainty of the inclusion of indirect land use changes in its calculations of greenhouse gas emissions.
We anticipate that the RFS may increase demand for biodiesel in the long-term, as it sets a minimum usage requirement for biodiesel and other types of biomass-based diesel. However, there can be no assurances that demand for biodiesel will be increased by the RFS, and demand for biodiesel from soybean oil will not be increased if the EPA rules determine soybean oil-based biodiesel does not qualify for the RFS. As of June 22, 2009, the National Biodiesel Board estimated that national biodiesel production capacity was approximately 2.69 billion gallons per year, which already exceeds the 2012 biodiesel and biomass-based diesel use mandate contained in the EISA. Accordingly, there is no assurance that additional production of biodiesel and biomass-based diesel will not continually outstrip any additional demand for biodiesel that might be created by this new law. Furthermore, any additional delays in the EPA’s implementation of the EISA biomass-based diesel requirements could hinder the stimulation of additional biodiesel demand. If the RFS does not significantly increase demand compared to increases in supply, the RFS will not likely lead to an increase in biodiesel demand. We also anticipate that the expanded RFS will be primarily satisfied by ethanol, including both corn-based and other types of ethanol. The amount of corn-based ethanol that may be used to satisfy the RFS requirements is capped at 15 million gallons starting in 2015 and, accordingly, other types of ethanol, including cellulose-based ethanol, will likely be used to satisfy any requirements over and above the 15 million gallon corn-based ethanol cap.
Biodiesel Tax Credit
The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 originally created the biodiesel blender’s excise tax credit under the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit (“VEETC”). Known as the blender’s credit, it provides a tax credit of $1.00 per gallon for biodiesel. The blender’s credit may be claimed in both taxable and nontaxable markets, including exempt fleet fuel programs and off-road diesel markets. The desired effect of the blender’s credit is to streamline the use of biodiesel and encourage petroleum blenders to blend biodiesel as far upstream as possible, which will allow more biodiesel to be used in the marketplace. The blender’s credit also streamlines the tax refund system for below-the-rack blenders to allow a tax refund of the biodiesel tax credit on each gallon of biodiesel blended with diesel (dyed or undyed) to be paid within 20 days of blending. Below-the-rack blenders are those blenders that market fuel that is for ground transportation engines and is not in the bulk transfer system. The blender’s credit was set to expire on December 31, 2008, but was extended until December 31, 2009 as part of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (“EESA”) and as of the date of this report has not been extended further. The blender’s credit, as extended by the EESA, contained a few significant changes. The law closed the so-called “splash and dash” loophole, which refers to the instances where biodiesel produced in foreign countries was transported to the United States, blended with a small percentage of diesel to claim the tax incentive, and then shipped to a third country for sale and use. Pursuant to updated blenders’ credit, biodiesel produced outside the United States no longer qualifies for the biodiesel tax incentive. The law also reduced the credit for biodiesel co-processed with petroleum feedstock from $1.00 to 50 cents. A bill known as the Biodiesel Tax Incentive Reform and Extension Act of 2009 (Senate Bill 1589) has been introduced, however; as of the date this article went to print, the bill had not moved past the Finance Committee. If the credit is not extended again, or if the extension includes overly-restrictive limitations, it will have a negative impact on the biodiesel industry’s ability to compete with petroleum-based diesel. The loss of the biodiesel blender’s credit would decrease our revenues and have an adverse impact on our ability to generate a profit, and therefore could reduce the value of your units.

 

13


Table of Contents

Commodity Credit Corporation Bioenergy Program
The Farm, Nutrition and Bioenergy Act of 2008 reauthorized the Commodity Credit Corporation, or CCC, Bioenergy Program. The program provides $55.0 million in funding in both 2009 and 2010, $85.0 million in funding in 2011 and $105.0 million in funding in 2012 for producers of advanced biofuels derived from renewable biomass, including biodiesel, other than corn kernel. Biodiesel producers must apply for this credit and will be paid based on the quantity and duration of advanced biofuels production and on net nonrenewable energy content of the advanced biofuel. Funding to a single eligible producer may be limited to ensure equitable distribution of funding. Producers with production capacity of less than 150 million gallons will be eligible for 95% of the funds provided under the program. We received approximately $216,000 in funds pursuant to the CCC Bioenergy Program.
Biofuels Interagency Working Group
The White House has recently announced that it has directed Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack to spearhead a Biofuels Interagency Working Group, to combine the efforts of the Department of Agriculture, Department of Energy, and the EPA to increase the nation’s energy independence, accelerate the investment in the production of biofuels and increase rural economic development. Secretary Vilsack was directed to expedite and increase production of and investment in biofuels development efforts by refinancing existing investments in renewable fuels to preserve jobs in ethanol and biodiesel plants, electricity generation plants, and other supporting industries; and making renewable fuels energy financing opportunities from Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 available within 30 days. While the specific details on what the Biofuels Interagency Working Group will accomplish remain unclear, we anticipate that we will benefit from this taskforce’s activities.
State Legislation
Several states, including Iowa, are currently researching and considering legislation to increase the amount of biodiesel used and produced in their states. Minnesota was the first state to mandate biodiesel use. The Minnesota legislation, which became effective in September 2005, required that all diesel fuel sold in the state contain a minimum of 2% biodiesel. In 2008, Minnesota passed additional legislation to increase biodiesel content of diesel fuel sold in the state from 2% to 20%, which is the highest in the nation, by 2015. The 2% soy biodiesel blend has nearly the same cold flow properties as No. 2 petroleum diesel, which allows it to be used in Minnesota’s colder climate much the same as petroleum diesel throughout the year. Similarly, in July 2008, Massachusetts signed a law that requires all home heating oil and diesel fuel in the state to consist of 2% biodiesel by 2010 and 5% biodiesel by 2013. However, the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources will be entitled to delay those requirements if it determines that fuels are not available to meet these requirements.
In May 2006, Iowa passed legislation that creates a renewable fuels standard that requires 10% of the fuel used in Iowa to be from renewable sources by 2009 and increasing the renewable fuel standard to 25% by 2019. While this does not require biodiesel use, it may significantly increase renewable fuels use in Iowa, which may include increased biodiesel use in Iowa. The Iowa legislation includes tax credits to help retailers meet this requirement. The Iowa legislation also provided for an incentive of three cents per gallon of biodiesel sold for retailers who sell at least 50% biodiesel blends. This is also expected to increase biodiesel sales and production.
Other states have enacted legislation to encourage (but not require) biodiesel production and use. Several states provide tax incentives and grants for biodiesel-related studies and biodiesel production, blending, and use. In addition, several governors have issued executive orders directing state agencies to use biodiesel blends to fuel their fleets.

 

14


Table of Contents

Future Legislation
Environmental regulations that may affect our company change frequently. It is possible that the government could adopt more stringent federal or state environmental rules or regulations, which could increase our operating costs and expenses. The government could also adopt federal or state environmental rules or regulations that may have an adverse effect on the use of biodiesel. Furthermore, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) governs our plant operations. OSHA regulations may change such that the costs of the operation of the plant may increase. Any of these regulatory factors may result in higher costs or other adverse effects on our operations, cash flows and financial performance. These adverse effects could decrease or eliminate the value of our units.
Competition with Other Biodiesel Producers
We operate in a very competitive environment. Biodiesel is a relatively uniform commodity where competition in the marketplace is predominantly based on price, consistent fuel quality, and to a lesser extent delivery service. We compete with large, multi-product companies and other biodiesel plants with varying capacities. Some of these companies can produce biodiesel in a more efficient manner than we are able. We face competition for capital, labor, management, feedstock and other resources. Some of our competitors have greater resources than we currently have or will have in the future. Some of our competitors have soy-crushing facilities and are therefore not reliant upon third parties for their soybean oil supply.
In 2008, approximately 700 million gallons of biodiesel were produced in the United States. As of June 22, 2009 (the latest date for which data is available), the National Biodiesel Board reported that there were 173 operating biodiesel plants in the United States with a total annual production capacity of 2.69 billion gallons. One of these plants was undergoing expansion to increase its annual production capacity. Another 29 plants were reported to be in the planning stages or under construction as of June 2009. The additional combined capacity of these plants under construction or expansion is estimated at 427.8 million gallons per year. Accordingly, biodiesel supply may already far exceed demand for biodiesel. Currently, there are 15 existing biodiesel plants in Iowa, including our plant; however, several of these plants may not be operating, may not be operating at full capacity, or may never begin operations. We expect that additional biodiesel producers may enter the market if the demand for biodiesel increases. As additional biodiesel plants are constructed and brought on line, we expect the supply of biodiesel to increase. The absence of increased demand may cause prices for biodiesel to decrease. We may not be able to compete successfully or such competition may reduce our ability to generate the profits necessary to operate our plant.
While REG markets our biodiesel to end users both domestically and internationally, biodiesel plants in Iowa are direct competitors for local end users and resources other than customers. We compete with the plants in Iowa for capital, labor and management. These resources tend to be utilized from a local market, and additional strains placed on these resources by increased competition in Iowa could result in our company being forced to expend additional funds on recruiting labor and management to relocate from other areas. In addition, while we may receive feedstock from areas beyond the state of Iowa, the most cost-efficient feedstock will likely come from local suppliers, as this will reduce transportation costs. We directly compete with Iowa biodiesel plants for business from a limited number of local feedstock suppliers. Local end users will also be the most cost-efficient customers for REG, due to reduced transportation expenses. Therefore, we compete directly with Iowa biodiesel producers, including REG, for these local customers.
Our MOSA with REG does not prevent REG from providing marketing and sales services for our competitors. If REG provides marketing and sales services for the biodiesel of our competitors, the result will be increased competition among those biodiesel producers. Biodiesel producers that work with REG, including our company, rely on REG to market their biodiesel and if REG cannot market all of the biodiesel it has committed to sell, then all of the biodiesel producers that work with REG are at risk that this loss will be allocated to them.

 

15


Table of Contents

We must compete with other biodiesel producers in the industry not just in the sale of our biodiesel, but also in the acquisition of soybean oil, animal fats and other feedstocks and raw materials. A majority of biodiesel plants, including many of the largest biodiesel producers, utilize soybean oil. This may change over time as high soybean oil prices are encouraging biodiesel producers to find ways to utilize alternative and less costly types of feedstock. Furthermore, producers may increasingly design their plants with the capability to use multiple feedstocks. Nonetheless, we expect that increased biodiesel production will continue to increase the demand and cost of not only soybean oil, but also animal fats and other inputs. We expect this will make it more expensive for us to produce our biodiesel and will reduce our profit margins from biodiesel. This is because there is little or no correlation between the cost of feedstock and the market price of biodiesel and, therefore, we cannot pass along increased feedstock costs to our biodiesel customers. In order to stay competitive in the diesel industry, biodiesel must be competitively priced with petroleum-based diesel. Therefore, biodiesel prices fluctuate more in relation to petroleum-based diesel market prices than with feedstock market prices. As a result, increased feedstock costs and reduced biodiesel prices result in decreased profit margins. If we experience high feedstock costs or reduced biodiesel prices for a sustained period of time, such pricing and costs may reduce our ability to generate revenues and our profit margins may significantly decrease or be eliminated.
Many current plants are capable of using only vegetable oil for feedstock. Our plant is able to use both vegetable oils and animal fats to produce biodiesel, allowing us to use whichever types of feedstock provides the greatest return at any given time. This is beneficial because the cost of feedstock is the highest cost associated with biodiesel production. Our ability to utilize animal fats is also significant because animal fat-based biodiesel has some favorable advantages over soybean oil-based biodiesel, such as better lubricity and lower nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions and qualifying for RFS under the preliminary EPA findings. However, some purchasers of animal fat-based biodiesel may believe that it is not suitable for use during the winter months in colder climates due to its tendency to gel at higher temperatures. This could limit our ability to sell animal fat-based biodiesel during winter months.
We compete with large, multi-product companies and other biodiesel plants with varying capacities. Some of our competitors have greater resources than we currently have or will have in the future. Large plants with which we compete include the 85 million gallon per year Archer Daniels Midland Co (ADM) canola-based plant in Velva, North Dakota; the 90 million gallon per year Green Earth Fuels multi-feedstock plant in Galena Park, Texas; the 100 million gallon per year multi-feedstock Imperium Grays Harbor plant in Grays Harbor, Washington; the 100 million gallon per year multi-feedstock plant in Las Vegas, Nevada; and the 180 million gallon per year multi-feedstock RBF Port Neches plant in Port Neches, Texas which became operational in the fourth quarter of 2008.
Although most biodiesel plants are not equipped to process raw materials (such as soybeans) into feedstock (such as soybean oil), there are several of our competitors that have soy-crushing facilities and are therefore not reliant upon third parties for their feedstock supply like we are. As a result, we face a competitive challenge from biodiesel plants owned and operated by the companies that supply our inputs, such as Cargill, Inc., Ag Processing, Inc. (AGP) and ADM. Cargill, AGP and ADM have significant crush capabilities throughout North America and are large suppliers of soybean oil that own and operate their own biodiesel plants in the Midwest. Cargill owns a 37.5 million gallon plant in Iowa Falls, Iowa and AGP owns a 30 million gallon per year plant in Sergeant Bluff, Iowa, both of which process soy oil into biodiesel. ADM has constructed an 85 million gallon plant in Velva, North Dakota which processes canola oil into biodiesel. Also, increasing feedstock costs have spurred, and will likely continue to spur, additional development of crush facilities throughout the country. Such vertical integration provides these plants with greater control over their feedstock supplies, thereby providing them with a competitive advantage over plants like ours that do not have soy-crushing capabilities, especially as prices and competition for soybean oil and other feedstocks have increased.

 

16


Table of Contents

The following map produced by the National Biodiesel Board indicates the locations of current active plants in the U.S as of December 7, 2009. Active plants are those companies that are actively producing biodiesel.
Commercial Biodiesel Production Plants (December 7, 2009).
                             
            Ann.              
            Production         Start    
Company   City   State   Capacity     Feedstock   date   BQ9000
Allied Renewable Energy, LLC
  Birmingham   AL     15,000,000     Soy   May-07    
Eagle Biodiesel, Inc.
  Bridgeport   AL     30,000,000     Multi Feedstock   Apr-07    
N.A.B. Energy Group, Inc.
  Florence   AL                    
Delta American Fuel, LLC
  Helena   AR     40,000,000     Multi Feedstock   Mar-09    
Amereco Biofuels Corp.
  Arlington   AZ     15,000,000     Multi Feedstock   Sep-07    
Environmental Development Group
  Tucson   AZ     1,500,000     Recycled Cooking Oil   Aug-09    
Grecycle Arizona, LLC
  Tucson   AZ     2,500,000     Yellow Grease   May-09    
Performance Biofuels, LLC
  Chandler   AZ     1,500,000     Recycled Cooking Oil   Dec-08    
Baker Commodities
  Los Angeles   CA     10,000,000     Multi Feedstock   Dec-10    
Biodiesel Industries of Ventura, LLC
  Port Hueneme   CA     3,000,000     Full Spectrum, including but not limited to yellow grease, jatropha & algae   Aug-09    
Community Fuels
  Stockton   CA     10,000,000     Multi Feedstock   Jun-08    
Crimson Renewable Energy, LP
  Bakersfield   CA     30,000,000     Multi Feedstock   3Q 2009    
Eco Energy Biodiesel, Inc.
  Adelanto   CA     1,000,000     Multi Feedstock   3Q 2009    
Enviro Fuels Enterprises, LLC
  Fresno   CA               3Q 2009    
GeoGreen Biofuels, LLC
  Vernon   CA     3,000,000     Recycled Cooking Oil   Apr-09    
Imperial Western Products
  Coachella   CA     8,000,000     Multi Feedstock   Oct-01   *
Manning Beef, LLC
  Pico Rivera   CA           Tallow   3Q 2009    
New Leaf Biofuel, LLC
  San Diego   CA               Dec-08    
Noil Energy Group
  Commerce   CA     5,000,000     Multi Feedstock   2Q 2009    
Promethean Biofuels Cooperative Corporation
  Temecula   CA                    
Renewable Energy Products, LLC
  Santa Fe Springs   CA     10,000,000     Multi Feedstock   Jul-08    
Simple Fuels Biodiesel, Inc.
  Chilcoot   CA               3Q 2009    
Whole Energy Fuels
  Pacifica   CA     3,000,000     Recycled Cooking Oil   2Q 2009    
Wright Biofuels, Inc.
  San Jacinto   CA     5,500,000     Multi Feedstock   Sep-07    
Yokayo Biofuels, Inc.
  Ukiah   CA     350,000     Recycled Cooking Oil   Apr-06    
Hawaiian Islands Bioenergy, Inc.
  Parker   CO     1,000,000     Multi Feedstock   May-09    
BioDiesel One Ltd.
  Southington   CT     4,000,000     Recycled Cooking Oil   Feb-09    
BioPur Inc.
  Bethlehem   CT     1,000,000     Multi Feedstock   Jul-06    
Clayton
  Clayton   DE`     11,000,000     Multi-Feedstock   Jan-10    

 

17


Table of Contents

                             
            Ann.              
            Production         Start    
Company   City   State   Capacity     Feedstock   date   BQ9000
Agri-Source Fuels, Inc.
  Dade City   FL     10,000,000     Multi Feedstock   Oct-07    
New Eden Energy, LLC
  St. Cloud   FL     1,000,000     Recycled Cooking Oil   Dec-08    
Smart Fuels, LLC
  Fruitland Park   FL               3Q 2009    
Southern Biodiesel Corporation
  Miami   FL               4Q 2009    
Alterra Bioenergy of Middle Georgia, LLC
  Gordon   GA     15,000,000     Multi Feedstock   Aug-07    
Alterra Bioenergy of Plains Georgia, LLC
  Plains   GA     30,000,000     Soy   4Q 2008    
BullDog BioDiesel
  Ellenwood   GA     18,000,000     Multi Feedstock   Jan-08    
Down to Earth Energy, Inc.
  Monroe   GA     2,000,000     Multi Feedstock   Aug-09    
ECO Solutions, LLC
  Chatsworth   GA     25,000,000     Multi Feedstock   Aug-07    
Middle Georgia Biofuels
  East Dublin   GA     1,500,000     Poultry Fat, Tallow   Apr-06    
Peach State Labs
  Rome   GA           Soy   Jan-05   *
Perfect Circle Renewable Energy, LLC
  Atlanta   GA           Recycled Cooking Oil   Jul-09    
Seminole Biodiesel
  Bainbridge   GA     10,000,000     Multi Feedstock   Jan-08    
AGP
  Sergeant Bluff   IA     30,000,000     Soy   Aug-96   *
Cargill
  Iowa Falls   IA     37,500,000     Soy   Jun-06   *
Central Iowa Energy, LLC
  Newton   IA     30,000,000     Multi Feedstock   Apr-07   *
Energy Tec, LLC
  Maquoketa   IA     37,000         Sep-08    
Iowa Renewable Energy, LLC
  Washington   IA     30,000,000     Multi Feedstock   Jul-07   *
Maple River Energy, LLC
  Galva   IA     5,000,000     Soy   May-09    
Nova Biosource Clinton County
  Clinton   IA     10,000,000     Multi Feedstock   Apr-06    
REG Ralston, LLC
  Ralston   IA     12,000,000     Multi Feedstock   2002   *
Riksch BioFuels, LLC
  Crawfordsville   IA     10,000,000     Multi Feedstock   Dec-06    
Sioux Biochemical, Inc.
  Sioux Center   IA     2,000,000     Corn, Soy   Dec-06    
Western Dubuque Biodiesel
  Farley   IA     30,000,000     Crude or Refined Vegetable Oils   Aug-07   *
Western Iowa Energy, LLC
  Wall Lake   IA     30,000,000     Multi Feedstock   Jun-06   *
BiofuelBox Corporation
  American Falls   ID     1,000,000     Waste Vegetable Oil, Brown Grease   Feb-09    
Blue Sky Biodiesel, LLC
  New Plymouth   ID     10,000,000     Soy   Jul-06    
Pleasant Valley Biofuels, LLC
  American Falls   ID     1,500,000     Recycled Cooking Oil, Tallow   Aug-08    
BioVantage Fuels, LLC
  Belvidere   IL     5,000,000     Multi Feedstock   3Q 2009    

 

18


Table of Contents

                             
            Ann.              
            Production         Start    
Company   City   State   Capacity     Feedstock   date   BQ9000
Blackhawk Biofuels, LLC
  Danville   IL     45,000,000     Multi Feedstock   Nov-08   *
Incobrasa Industries, Ltd.
  Gilman   IL     31,000,000     Soy   Jan-07    
Midwest Biodiesel Products, Inc.
  South Roxanna   IL     30,000,000     Multi Feedstock   May-07    
Nova Biosource Seneca
  Seneca   IL     60,000,000     Multi Feedstock   Apr-08   *
Stepan Company
  Millsdale   IL     22,000,000     Multi Feedstock   Jan-01   *
Alternative Fuel Solutions, LLC
  Huntington   IN               3Q 2009    
e-biofuels, LLC
  Middletown   IN     15,000,000     Multi Feedstock   Jun-07    
Integrity Biofuels
  Morristown   IN     10,000,000     Soy   Aug-06    
Kingsbury Energy Group, LLC
  La Porte   IN           Soy   Dec-08    
Louis Dreyfus Agricultural Industries, LLC
  Claypool   IN     80,000,000     Soy   Jan-08   *
Healy Biodiesel, Inc.
  Sedgwick   KS     1,000,000     Recycled Cooking Oil   Jun-07    
REG Emporia, LLC
  Emporia   KS     60,000,000     Multi Feedstock   2Q 2010    
Griffin Industries
  Butler   KY     1,750,000     Multi Feedstock   Dec-98   *
Owensboro Grain
  Owensboro   KY     50,000,000     Soy   Jan-08    
REG New Orleans, LLC
  New Orleans   LA     60,000,000     Multi Feedstock   2Q 2010    
Baker Commodities
  Billerica   MA     15,000,000     Multi Feedstock   Dec-10    
Baystate Biofuels, LLC
  North Andover   MA     10,000,000     Multi Feedstock   3Q 2009    
Biofuels of New England, LLC
  Newburyport   MA     300,000     Recycled Cooking Oil   Nov-08    
MBP Bioenergy, LLC
  Attleboro   MA     500,000     Recycled Cooking Oil   Nov-06    
Eagle Creek Fuel Services, LLC
  Baltimore   MD           Recycled Cooking Oil, Multi Feedstock   Aug-08    
Greenlight Biofuels, LLC
  Princess Anne   MD     4,000,000     Multi Feedstock   Oct-07    
Michigan Biodiesel, LLC
  Bangor   MI     10,000,000     Multi Feedstock   Jan-07    
TPA Inc.
  Warren   MI     20,000,000     Multi Feedstock   Jul-08    
Ever Cat Fuels, LLC
  Isanti   MN     3,000,000     Multi Feedstock   Aug-09    
FUMPA BioFuels
  Redwood Falls   MN     3,000,000     Multi Feedstock   Dec-04    
Minnesota Soybean Processors
  Brewster   MN     30,000,000     Soy   Aug-05   *
AGP
  St. Joseph   MO     29,900,000     Soy   Sep-07   *
American Energy Producers, Inc.
  Carrollton   MO     50,000,000     Soy   4Q 2009    

 

19


Table of Contents

                             
            Ann.              
            Production         Start    
Company   City   State   Capacity     Feedstock   date   BQ9000
Global Fuels, LLC
  Dexter   MO     3,000,000     Multi Feedstock   Apr-07    
Mid America Biofuels, LLC
  Mexico   MO     30,000,000     Soy   Dec-06   *
Paseo Cargill Energy, LLC
  Kansas City   MO     37,500,000     Soy, Animal Fats   Apr-08   *
Prairie Pride
  Deerfield   MO     30,000,000     Soy   Dec-07   *
Producers’ Choice Soy Energy LLC
  Moberly   MO     5,000,000     Soy   Jun-09    
Terra Bioenergy, LLC
  St. Joseph   MO     30,000,000     Multi Feedstock   4Q 2009    
Delta Biofuels, Inc.
  Natchez   MS     80,000,000     Multi Feedstock   May-07   *
GreenLight Biofuels, LLC
  Meridian   MS               Mar-09    
Scott Petroleum Corporation
  Greenville   MS     20,000,000     Multi Feedstock   Oct-07   *
Earl Fisher Bio Fuels
  Chester   MT     250,000     Canola, Camelina, Safflower, Sunflower   Apr-08    
Blue Ridge Biofuels
  Asheville   NC     1,000,000     Multi Feedstock   May-06    
Evans Environmental Energies, Inc.
  Wilson   NC     3,000,000         May-07    
Foothills Bio-Energies, LLC
  Lenoir   NC     5,000,000     Multi Feedstock   Sep-06    
Leland Organic Corporation
  Leland   NC     30,000,000     Multi Feedstock   Sep-08    
Patriot Biodiesel, LLC
  Greensboro   NC     1,500,000     Multi Feedstock   Dec-08    
Piedmont Biofuels
  Pittsboro   NC     4,000,000     Multi Feedstock   Nov-06   *
Triangle Biofuels Industries, Inc.
  Wilson   NC     3,000,000     Multi Feedstock   Jan-08    
ADM
  Velva   ND     85,000,000     Canola   Aug-07   *
Atlantic Biodiesel
  Salem   NH     3,000,000         3Q 2009    
White Mountain Biodiesel, LLC
  North Haverhill   NH               3Q 2009    
Fuel Bio One, LLC
  Elizabeth   NJ     50,000,000     Multi Feedstock   Mar-07    
Innovation Fuels
  Newark   NJ     40,000,000     Multi Feedstock   Jul-04   *
ARFuels, LLC
  Clovis   NM     30,000,000     Multi Feedstock   3Q 2010    
Rio Valley Biofuels, LLC
  Anthony   NM     750,000     Multi Feedstock   Jul-06    
Bently Biofuels
  Minden   NV     1,000,000     Multi Feedstock   Nov-05    
Biodiesel of Las Vegas
  Las Vegas   NV     100,000,000     Multi Feedstock   4Q 2009    
Metro Fuel Oil Corp.
  Brooklyn   NY               2009    
Northern Biodiesel, Inc.
  Ontario   NY     20,000,000         Jun-08    

 

20


Table of Contents

                             
            Ann.              
            Production         Start    
Company   City   State   Capacity     Feedstock   date   BQ9000
TMT Biofuels, LLC
  Port Leyden   NY     250,000     Recycled Cooking Oil   Sep-08    
Agrifuels, LLC
  Bremen   OH     1,000,000     Multi Feedstock   Mar-07    
Ambiol Flex Fuels, LLC
  East Toledo   OH     2,000,000     Soy   Feb-08    
American Ag Fuels, LLC
  Defiance   OH     7,000,000     Multi Feedstock   Jul-05    
Arlington Energy, LLC
  Mansfield   OH     4,000,000     Multi Feedstock   Jul-08    
Center Alternative Energy Company
  Cleveland   OH     5,000,000     Soy, Choice White Grease, yellow grease, tallow   May-07    
Jatrodiesel Inc.
  Miamisburg   OH     5,000,000     Multi Feedstock   Jun-07    
Peter Cremer NA
  Cincinnati   OH     30,000,000     Soy   Oct-02   *
PK Biodiesel
  Woodstock   OH     5,000,000     Multi Feedstock   Aug-08    
Twin Rivers Technologies Natural Ingredients, LLC
  Cincinnati   OH     60,000,000     Multiple Feedstocks   Dec-06   *
High Plains Bioenergy
  Guymon   OK     30,000,000     Multi Feedstock   Mar-08   *
South East Oklahoma Biodiesel
  Valliant   OK     5,000,000     Multi Feedstock   Nov-08    
Tulsa Biofuels, LLC
  Tulsa   OK               Nov-07    
Beaver Biodiesel, LLC
  Albany   OR     1,200,000     Multi Feedstock   Feb-09    
Green Fuels of Oregon, Inc.
  Klamath Falls   OR     1,000,000     Canola, Waste Vegetable Oil   Mar-07    
Biodiesel of Pennsylvania, Inc.
  White Deer   PA     1,500,000     Multi Feedstock   Mar-07    
Eagle Bio Diesel
  Kane   PA               2Q 2009    
Keystone BioFuels, Inc.
  Shiremanstown   PA           Multi Feedstock   Mar-06    
Lake Erie Biofuels
  Erie   PA     45,000,000     Soy   Sep-07   *
Middletown Biofuels, LLC
  Middletown   PA     4,000,000     Soy   Jun-07    
Mother Earth Energy, Inc.
  Chester   PA     3,500,000     Recycled Cooking Oil, Vegetable Oils   3Q 2009    
Pennslyvania Biodiesel, Inc.
  Monaca   PA     25,000,000     Multi Feedstocks   Jul-09    
Soy Energy, Inc.
  New Oxford   PA     1,500,000     Soy   Feb-07    
United Biofuels, Inc.
  York   PA     3,000,000     Multi Feedstock   Apr-06    
United Oil Company
  Pittsburgh   PA     5,000,000     Multi Feedstock   Dec-05    
US Alternative Fuels Corp.
  Johnstown   PA               4Q 2008    
Lantic Green Energy, LLC
  West Greenwich   RI               1Q 2009    
Newport Biodiesel, LLC
  Newport   RI     500,000     Recycled Cooking Oil   Jan-08    

 

21


Table of Contents

                             
            Ann.              
            Production         Start    
Company   City   State   Capacity     Feedstock   date   BQ9000
Cateechee Biofuels, LLC
  Central   SC               3Q 2009    
Ecogy Biofuels, LLC
  Estill   SC     30,000,000     Soy   Dec-07    
Green Valley Biofuels, LLC
  Warrenville   SC     10,000,000     Multi Feedstock   3Q 2009    
Greenlight Biofuels, LLC
  Laurens   SC     10,000,000     Multi Feedstock   4Q 2008    
Greenpath Biofuels of Myrtle Beach, Inc.
  Conway   SC           Recycled Cooking Oil   4Q 2009    
Southeast BioDiesel, LLC
  North Charleston   SC     8,000,000     Multi Feedstock   Jan-07    
Midwest BioDiesel Producers, LLC
  Alexandria   SD     7,000,000     Multi Feedstock   Mar-06    
Milagro Biofuels of Memphis
  Memphis   TN     5,000,000     Multi Feedstock   Oct-06    
Southern Alliance for Clean Energy
  Knoxville   TN     380,000     Recycled Cooking Oil   Jul-09    
SunsOil, LLC
  Athens   TN     1,500,000     Multi Feedstock   Oct-07    
Agribiofuels, LLC
  Dayton   TX     12,000,000     Multi Feedstock   Dec-06    
AgriMax Fuels, LLC
  Channelview   TX     3,000,000     Soy   Mar-07    
Beacon Energy
  Cleburne   TX     12,000,000     Multi Feedstock   Mar-06   *
Biodiesel of Texas, Inc.
  Denton   TX     360,000     Multi Feedstock   3Q 2009    
BioSelect Fuels (GBBLP)
  Galveston   TX     30,000,000     Multi Feedstock   May-07    
Brownfield Biodiesel, LLC
  Ralls   TX     2,000,000     Cottonseed, Soy, Canola   Apr-06    
Direct Fuels
  Euless   TX     10,000,000     Multi Feedstock   Feb-08   *
Global Alternative Fuels, LLC
  El Paso   TX     5,000,000     Multi Feedstock   Mar-09    
Green Earth Fuels of Houston, LLC
  Galena Park   TX     90,000,000     Multi Feedstock   Jul-07    
Greenlight Biofuels, Ltd.
  Littlefield   TX     5,000,000     Multi Feedstock   Aug-07    
Hardin Fuels, Inc.
  Kountze   TX               Mar-08    
Mississippi Investment Petroleum Co., LLC
  Houston   TX     5,000,000     Poultry Fat, Recycled Cooking Oil   3Q 2009    
New Fuel Company
  Dallas   TX     250,000     Multi Feedstock   Apr-06    
Organic Fuels, LLC
  Galena Park   TX     45,000,000     Multi Feedstock   Jan-06   *
RBF Port Neches, LLC
  Port Neches   TX     180,000,000     Multi Feedstock   4Q 2008    
Red River Biodiesel Ltd.
  New Boston   TX     15,000,000     Multi Feedstock   May-08    
REG Houston, LLC
  Seabrook   TX     35,000,000     Multi Feedstock   Jul-08    
Texas Green Manufacturing, LLC
  Littlefield   TX     1,250,000     Tallow   Apr-09    

 

22


Table of Contents

                             
            Ann.              
            Production         Start    
Company   City   State   Capacity     Feedstock   date   BQ9000
The Sun Products Corp
  Pasadena   TX     15,000,000     Palm   Jun-05   *
TM Chemicals LP
  Deer Park   TX     7,000,000     Tallow   Dec-08    
Denali Industries, LLC
  American Fork   UT     3,800,000     Multi Feedstock   Jul-07    
Chesapeake Custom Chemical
  Ridgeway   VA     5,500,000     Multi Feedstock   Jan-06    
RECO Biodiesel, LLC
  Richmond   VA     10,000,000     Multi Feedstock   Dec-06    
Red Birch Energy, Inc.
  Bassett   VA     2,500,000     Multi Feedstock   Jun-08    
REVNOVA Biofuels, LLC
  Remington   VA               Oct-08    
Synergy Biofuels, LLC
  Pennington Gap   VA     3,000,000     Multi Feedstock   Dec-08    
Virginia Biodiesel Refinery
  West Point   VA     7,000,000     Multi Feedstock   Oct-03    
General Biodiesel Seattle LLC
  Seattle   WA     5,000,000     Multi Feedstock   Jun-09    
General Biodiesel Seattle LLC
  Seattle   WA     5,000,000     Multi Feedstock   3Q 2009    
Gen-X Energy Group, Inc.
  Burbank   WA     15,000,000     Multi Feedstock   Jun-07    
Imperium Grays Harbor
  Hoquiam   WA     100,000,000     Multi Feedstock   Aug-07   *
Inland Empire Oilseeds, LLC
  Odessa   WA     8,000,000     Canola, Soy, Camelina   Nov-08    
Whole Energy Fuels
  Bellingham   WA           Recycled Cooking Oil   1Q 2009    
Best Biodiesel, Inc.
  Cashton   WI     10,000,000     Multi Feedstocks   Jan-08    
Bio Blend Fuels Inc.
  Manitowoc   WI     2,600,000         May-09    
Sun Power Biodiesel, LLC
  Cumberland   WI     3,000,000     sunflower, canola   Dec-09    
Walsh Bio Fuels, LLC
  Mauston   WI     5,000,000     Multi Feedstock   May-07    
AC & S, Inc.
  Nitro   WV     3,000,000     Soy   Dec-07    
     
Source: National Biodiesel Board
 
*  
Denotes BQ-9000 Accredited Producers
 
(1)  
Annual Production Capacity only refers to the reported maximum production capability of the facility. It does not represent how many gallons of biodiesel were actually produced at each plant.
 
(2)  
Includes the annual production capacity of plants which chose not to list their production.

 

23


Table of Contents

Competition from Other Fuel Sources
The biodiesel industry is in competition with the diesel fuel segment of the petroleum industry. Historically, biodiesel prices have correlated to the prices of petroleum-based diesel. Over the past several years, according to the Energy Information Administration, the price of diesel fuel steadily increased until reaching record high prices in July 2008 of approximately $4.70 per gallon for No. 2 ultra low sulfur diesel, and thereafter declined sharply to approximately $2.75 as of December 7, 2009. Although the price of diesel fuel has decreased over the past several months, diesel fuel prices per gallon remain at levels below or equal to the price of biodiesel. Following the trend of diesel prices, biodiesel prices steadily increased over the past year to their peak in the summer of 2008, after which time they decreased. As of December 11, 2009, the National Weekly Ag Energy Roundup reports that B100 biodiesel prices in Iowa ranged from $3.25 to $3.50 per gallon, which is up from a range of $2.65 to $2.84 approximately one year ago. If the diesel fuel industry is able to produce petroleum-based diesel fuel with acceptable environmental characteristics, we may find it difficult to compete with diesel fuel. In addition, other more cost-efficient domestic alternative fuels may be developed and displace biodiesel as an environmentally-friendly alternative. If diesel prices do not continue to increase or a new fuel is developed to compete with biodiesel, it may be difficult to market our biodiesel, which could result in the loss of some or all of our ability to operate profitably.
One advantage biodiesel has in the petroleum diesel market is the marketability and value of RINs. The RFS system will be enforced through a system of registration, recordkeeping and reporting requirements for obligated parties and renewable producers (“RIN generators”), as well as any party that procures or trades renewable identification numbers, either as part of their renewable purchases or separately. Any person who violates any prohibition or requirement of the RFS program may be subject to civil penalties for each day of each violation. For example, a failure to acquire sufficient RINs to meet a party’s renewable fuels obligation would constitute a separate day of violation for each day the violation occurred during the annual averaging period. The enforcement provisions are necessary to ensure the RFS program goals are not compromised by illegal conduct in the creation and transfer of RINs. The EPA has assigned “equivalence values” to each type of renewable energy fuel in order to determine compliance with the RFS. The equivalence values used ethanol as the base-line measurement (such that one gallon of ethanol is equivalent to one credit towards RFS compliance) and assigned biodiesel and equivalence value of 1.5, such that each gallon of biodiesel used by an obligated party will be equal to one and one-half gallons credit towards its RFS compliance. A market has established in the petroleum diesel industry for trading these RINs. Thus, the value of the RIN can sometimes offset higher biodiesel pricing, which can make biodiesel more competitive on the market with petroleum diesel.
At least one large oil company has previously announced its intent to produce renewable diesel, another form of diesel with which we may be required to compete. Renewable diesel has characteristics similar to that of petroleum-based diesel fuel and can be co-processed at traditional petroleum refineries from vegetable oils or animal fats mixed with crude oil through a thermal de-polymerization process. However, as a result of an Internal Revenue Service interpretation of the application of certain biodiesel tax credits created under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, renewable diesel processed in traditional petroleum-refining equipment is currently eligible for the blenders’ tax credit, but only at a reduced rate of 50 cents per gallon. Opponents of the IRS interpretation argue that the blenders’ tax credit was intended for specific, limited production technologies, including the methyl ester biodiesel production process, and that the recent interpretation will allow a large subsidy of conventional petroleum refinery capacity at the expense of free-standing producers of biodiesel. In 2007, ConocoPhillips announced its plans to add technology to some of its refineries to produce approximately 175 million gallons of renewable diesel per year. Because renewable diesel is currently eligible for the blenders’ tax credit (although only at a reduced credit of 50 cents compared to the $1.00 credit available for biodiesel), other large oil companies may also decide to add production capacity for renewable diesel, if the blenders tax credit is extended past December 31, 2009. These large petroleum refiners likely have greater financial resources than we do and may be able to devote greater production capacity to the production of renewable diesel than the typical biodiesel plant, which on average has an annual production capacity of 30 million gallons. Accordingly, if renewable diesel proves to be more cost-effective than biodiesel, our revenues and our ability to operate profitably may be adversely affected.
Glycerin Competition
Excess production of glycerin, a co-product of the biodiesel production process, may cause the price of glycerin to decline, thereby adversely affecting our source of revenue from glycerin. It is estimated that every one million gallons of biodiesel produced adds approximately another 100,000 gallons of crude glycerin into the market. Accordingly, as biodiesel production has increased, the glycerin market has become increasingly saturated. As a result, glycerin prices dropped dramatically in 2006, with crude glycerin prices hovering around 2 cents per pound or less. Some plants were forced to give away glycerin, and according to the Jacobsen Publishing Company’s Biodiesel Bulletin, others paid 3 cents to 4 cents per pound to dispose of crude glycerin. However, as of early December 2009, according to the Jacobsen Biodiesel Bulletin, average crude glycerin prices increased to approximately 5 to 6 cents per pound. REG markets the glycerin produced at our plant under our MOSA, however, our MOSA is set to terminate on July 10, 2010.

 

24


Table of Contents

Excess glycerin production capacity may limit our ability to market our glycerin co-product, and we may even be forced to pay to dispose of our glycerin if prices decrease as they did in 2006. Low glycerin prices may also limit our ability to generate revenues through the sale of our co-product. This may negatively affect the profitability of our business. Additionally, some of our competitors, such as Cargill and ADM, have expanded their glycerin refining capacities due to relatively higher prices for refined glycerin when compared to the price of crude glycerin. In Iowa Falls, Iowa, Cargill has built a 30 million pound per year glycerin refinery near its 37.5 million gallon per year biodiesel production plant. These biodiesel producers may therefore have a competitive advantage over plants like ours that do not have glycerin refining capabilities.
Research and Development
We do not conduct any research and development activities associated with the development of new technologies for use in producing biodiesel and glycerin.
Dependence on One of a Few Major Customers
We have entered into a marketing contract with REG in which REG markets all biodiesel and glycerin produced at our facility. Therefore, we are highly dependent on REG for the successful remarketing of our products. REG provides market analysis of biodiesel supply and demand; market access to distribution channels developed by REG; analysis and audit of biodiesel customers, including creditworthiness; provides marketing specialists and sales representatives to attain and establish sales opportunities and relationships for the facility’s products; provides transportation and logistics for biodiesel shipments; and invoicing and accounts receivable management.
On April 3, 2009, we received a written notice of termination of the MOSA from REG. The notice states that it shall constitute the twelve (12) month advance termination notice required by Section 6 of the MOSA and that the MOSA will terminate as of July 12, 2010. REG provided the notice of termination due to changes in the biodiesel market since the MOSA was originally signed. REG has proposed that the parties review and cooperate to negotiate a new contract on terms mutually beneficial to the Company and REG; however, there is no guarantee that a new contract will be signed. In the event a new contract is not signed, we have begun to search for a new company to provide these management and operational services. We may not be able to find a marketer, or may not enter into an agreement on favorable terms. Any lack of a provider for these services would have a negative impact on our revenues. Any loss of REG as our marketer for our products or any inability of REG to successfully market our products could have a significant negative impact on our revenues.
Furthermore, we are in direct competition with REG due to its ownership and management of other existing biodiesel plants and proposed biodiesel plants, and any failure by REG to comply with the terms of our MOSA could negatively impact our ability to generate revenues. The MOSA does not prohibit REG from providing services to our competitors, and its does not provide any procedures as to how REG will address any conflicts of interest that may arise during REG’s service to our plant and competitor plants. If REG places the interests of other biodiesel plants which it owns or manages ahead of our interests, our profitability may be negatively impacted.
Costs and Effects of Compliance with Environmental Laws
We are subject to extensive air, water and other environmental regulations and we have been required to obtain a number of environmental permits to construct and operate the plant. We have obtained all of the necessary permits to begin plant operations including air emissions permits, a NPDES Permit, storm water discharge permits, and boiler permits. We have obtained all of the permits required to construct the plant. The majority of our expenses in complying with environmental laws, including the cost of obtaining construction and operation permits have been paid by REG, however; during our 2009 fiscal year we expended approximately $13,000 on environmental costs that were not paid by REG. In addition, we may have to pay any environmental compliance and permitting costs that arise after our MOSA terminates. Any retroactive change in environmental regulations, either at the federal or state level, could require us to obtain additional or new permits or spend considerable resources on complying with such regulations.

 

25


Table of Contents

We are subject to oversight activities by the EPA. We have obtained an identification number from the EPA for any hazardous waste that may result from our production of biodiesel. There is always a risk that the EPA may enforce certain rules and regulations differently than Iowa’s environmental administrators. Iowa or EPA rules are subject to change, and any such changes could result in greater regulatory burdens on plant operations. We could also be subject to environmental or nuisance claims from adjacent property owners or residents in the area arising from possible foul smells or other air or water discharges from the plant. Such claims could have an adverse result in court if we are deemed to engage in a nuisance that substantially impairs the fair use and enjoyment of real estate.
Employees
Currently we have 16 full-time employees to operate our biodiesel facility, which is a reduction in staff from our 2008 fiscal year. We have been forced to reduce our staff in order to save costs when the plant is not operating at full capacity. In addition to the employees that are directly employed by Iowa Renewable Energy, REG has hired a General Manager, Al Yoder, and Operations Manager, Glen Hansel, who direct the operations of our biodiesel facility. The General Manager and Operations Manager are employees of REG.
ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS.
You should carefully read and consider the risks and uncertainties below and the other information contained in this report. The risks and uncertainties described below are not the only ones we may face. The following risks, together with additional risks and uncertainties not currently known to us or that we currently deem immaterial could impair our financial condition and results of operations.
Risks Related to Our Business
We are experiencing liquidity issues which could require us to cease operations. We are experiencing liquidity issues associated with the high cost of our raw materials, lack of demand for our product, and the ordinary delay between when we purchase raw materials and when we receive payments from REG for our finished products. This has resulted in a situation where we are short on cash. This has caused us to scale back production at our biodiesel plant, and may require us to cease operations altogether. These shutdowns could be temporary or permanent depending on the cash we have available to continue operations. We have already had several temporary shut downs at the plant and are not operating at full capacity. Should we not be able to continue to secure the cash we require in order to pay our obligations as they become due, we may have to cease operations, either on a permanent or temporary basis, which could decrease or eliminate the value of our units.
We have a history of losses and may not ever operate profitably. For the fiscal year ended September 30, 2009 we incurred a net loss of $3,320,609. There is no assurance that we will be successful in our efforts to continue to operate the biodiesel plant. Even if we successfully meet all of our objectives, there is no assurance that we will be able to operate profitably. We have experienced very high raw material costs and low biodiesel prices that in some cases have been less than our production costs. Should our raw material costs increase without an increase in the price we receive for our biodiesel or glycerin, we may have to scale back or cease operations at the biodiesel plant, either on a temporary or permanent basis. This may affect our ability to generate revenues and could decrease or eliminate the value of our units.
We may be required to write down our long-lived assets and these impairment charges would adversely affect our operating results. We account for the impairment of long-lived assets to be held and used in accordance with ASC Topic 360. In accordance with ASC Topic 360, an asset (other than goodwill and indefinite-lived intangible assets) is considered impaired when estimated future cash flows are less than the carrying amount of the asset. In the event the carrying amount of such asset is not deemed recoverable, the asset is adjusted to its estimated fair value. Fair value is generally determined based upon estimated discounted future cash flows. At September 30, 2009 the carrying amount of our fixed assets is $36 million. In determining if there has been an impairment, we have projected future cash flows assuming that we are able to obtain sufficient working capital to operate our plant, our expectations related to the extension of the blenders credit, and favorable legislation related to the applicability of soybean oil-based biodiesel under the RFS. If conditions or events change and we have to reconsider our plans, the projected cash flows could change, requiring the assets to be adjusted to the estimated fair value. As a result, the amount of any annual or interim impairment could be significant and could have a material adverse effect on our reported financial results for the period in which the charge is taken.

 

26


Table of Contents

Our business is not diversified. Our success depends largely upon our ability to profitably operate our biodiesel plant. We do not have any other lines of business or other sources of revenue if we are unable to operate our biodiesel plant and manufacture biodiesel and glycerin. We have no other line of business to fall back on if the biodiesel business declines or if our biodiesel plant cannot operate at full capacity for any extended period of time. Should we continue to experience difficulty operating our biodiesel plant, the value of our units may decrease or be eliminated.
We are in competition with REG, our design-builder, manager and marketer, which could place us at a competitive disadvantage and cause a conflict of interest for REG. We have contracted with REG for management, feedstock procurement and marketing services for our plant. We are highly dependent upon REG to procure our inputs and market our products. Further, if our plant does not operate at the level anticipated by us in our business plan, we will rely on REG to adequately address such deficiency. REG operates its own biodiesel production facility in Ralston, Iowa, and acquired a 35 million gallon per year plant in Houston, Texas, which now operates under the name REG Houston, and anticipates increasing its biodiesel production through wholly-owned and third-party managed biodiesel plants in the future. Moreover, REG has entered into a merger agreement with Blackhawk Biodiesel and into asset purchase agreements with Central Iowa Energy and Western Iowa Energy. This means that REG is in competition with us in many aspects of our business, including feedstock procurement and biodiesel production and marketing. We also have to compete with REG for employees. Because REG operates its own biodiesel production facilities and competes with us in many aspects of our business, REG may have a conflict of interest in managing our plant. Although we have entered into a MOSA with REG for management and marketing services, there is no assurance that REG’s performance of these services is not compromised by its own biodiesel production operations. We are currently in arbitration with REG based on our claims of breach of the MOSA by REG, which may further result in a conflict of interest for REG.
We have limited experience in the biodiesel industry, which increases the risk of our inability to operate the biodiesel plant. We are presently, and will likely continue to be, dependent upon our directors to manage our business. Most of our directors are experienced in business generally but have limited or no prior experience in operating a biodiesel plant or in governing and operating a public company. Most of our directors have no expertise in the biodiesel industry. In addition, certain directors on our board of directors are presently engaged in business and other activities that impose substantial demands on the time and attention of such directors. REG has hired Al Yoder to be General Manager and Glen Hansel to be Operations Manger of the plant and they have experience with production facilities. However, REG may not be successful in retaining such individuals because of the competitive market for such individuals and when the MOSA expires, and if we do not enter into a new agreement with REG, then we will have to find and retain our own General Manager and Operations Manager. In addition, we or REG may have difficulty in attracting other competent personnel to relocate to Iowa in the event that such personnel are not retained. If we cannot retain skilled management for our plant, our members could lose all or substantially all of their equity interest.
We engage in hedging transactions which involve risks that can harm our business. We are exposed to market risk from changes in commodity prices. Exposure to commodity price risk results from our dependence on soybean oil or other feedstocks for the biodiesel production process. In addition, we have engaged in hedging transactions for home heating oil, in an attempt to lock in profit margins on the sale of our biodiesel, because home heating oil has historically tracked with the price of biodiesel. The effectiveness of our hedging strategies is dependent upon the cost of soybean oil and home heating and our ability to sell sufficient amounts of our products. There is no futures market for animal fats. There is no assurance that our hedging activities will successfully reduce the risk caused by price fluctuation which may leave us vulnerable to volatile soybean oil and home heating oil prices. Alternatively, we may choose not to engage in hedging transactions, which is our situation currently. As a result, our results of operations and financial conditions may also be adversely affected during periods in which soybean oil prices increase.
Hedging activities themselves can result in increased costs because price movements in soybean oil contracts and home heating oil contracts are highly volatile and are influenced by many factors that are beyond our control. There are several variables that could affect the extent to which our derivative instruments are impacted by price fluctuations in the cost of soybean oil and home heating oil. However, it is likely that commodity cash prices will have the greatest impact on the derivative instruments with delivery dates nearest the current cash price. We may incur such costs and they may be significant. If we realize losses with respect to our derivative instruments, our net loss could increase.

 

27


Table of Contents

Risks Related to Operation of the Biodiesel Plant
We depend on key suppliers, whose failure to perform could force us to abandon business, hinder our ability to operate profitably or decrease the value of our units. We are highly dependent upon REG or its affiliates for the operations of the plant. Should REG fail to perform in any manner significant to our operations, our project could fail and our members could lose some or all of the value of their investment. Further, we are depending on REG’s assessment of the cost and feasibility of operating our plant. If REG’s assessment of the cost and feasibility of operating our plant are incorrect, we may encounter unforeseen costs or difficulties in the operation of our plant which could affect our profitability or force us to abandon our business.
We are highly dependent upon REG to procure our inputs and market our products. REG has already had difficulty selling all of our biodiesel. If REG does not perform its obligations pursuant to our management and operations services agreements we may be unable to specifically enforce our agreement which could negatively affect the value of our units. Our reliance on REG may place us at a competitive disadvantage. REG and its affiliates are competitors for many aspects of our business including: feedstock procurement, biodiesel marketing, as well as management service providers and employees.
Moreover, on April 3, 2009 we received a notice of termination from REG, meaning that our MOSA is set to expire on July 10, 2010. If we do not enter into a new agreement with REG, we may be unable to find a new marketer and manager or may be unable to enter into such an agreement on favorable terms. We will likely be highly dependent upon any new marketer or manager we may hire and if they do not adequately perform their duties, or if we cannot find a new marketer or manager, we will likely experience increased losses and our business may fail.
Changes in production technology could require us to commit resources to updating the biodiesel plant or could otherwise hinder our ability to compete in the biodiesel industry or to operate at a profit. We expect advances and changes in the technology of biodiesel production to occur. Such advances and changes may make our biodiesel production technology less desirable or obsolete. The plant is a single-purpose facility and likely has no use other than the production of biodiesel and associated products. Much of the cost of the plant is attributable to the cost of production technology which may be impractical or impossible to update. The value of our units could decline if changes in technology cause us to operate the plant at less than full capacity for an extended period of time or cause us to abandon our business. Further, more efficient technologies might be developed in the future that we cannot implement that would allow our competitors to produce biodiesel in a more cost effective manner than us.
Because our natural gas provider will not allow us to enter into forward contracts for our natural gas, we may pay higher prices for our natural gas than other biodiesel producers, which puts us at a competitive disadvantage and may increase our losses. Our natural gas provider does not allow us to enter into forward contracts for our natural gas, and management has determined that it is not feasible to use a different natural gas provider. Many biodiesel producers can and do enter into forward contracts for their natural gas, which may allow them to lock in their natural gas costs at a lower price. Our inability to enter into forward contracts for our natural gas may put us at a competitive disadvantage which may increase our losses.
Risks Related to Biodiesel Industry
The downturn in the U.S. economy has caused demand for biodiesel to decline, which may adversely affect our ability to generate revenues. The U.S. stock markets tumbled in the Fall of 2008 upon the collapse of multiple major financial institutions, the federal government’s takeover of two major mortgage companies, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and the President’s enactment of a $700 billion bailout plan pursuant to which the federal government will directly invested in troubled financial institutions. Financial institutions across the country have lost billions of dollars due to the extension of credit for the purchase and refinance of over-valued real property. Other large corporate giants, such as the big three auto makers, have also received government bailout money. These factors have caused significant economic stress and upheaval in the financial and credit markets in the United States, as well as abroad. Credit markets have tightened and lending requirements have become more stringent. Oil prices have dropped rapidly as demand for fuel has decreased. Although demand for biodiesel typically declines in colder winter months due to its cold flow properties, we believe that these economic factors have contributed to an even greater decrease in demand for biodiesel, which may persist throughout all or parts of fiscal year 2010. It is uncertain for how long and to what extent these economic troubles may negatively affect biodiesel demand in the future. If demand for biodiesel declines, we may be forced to temporarily or permanently cease operations and you may lose some or all of your investment.

 

28


Table of Contents

Several biofuels companies throughout the country have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy due to industry and economic conditions, and we may also be forced to consider filing for bankruptcy protection in the event that economic conditions and our liquidity problems do not improve. In November 2008, Freedom Fuels, LLC, a biodiesel plant located near Mason City, Iowa, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and is proceeding from a Chapter 11 bankruptcy into Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Beatrice Biodiesel, a biodiesel plant near Beatrice, Nebraska, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, but has not found a company to purchase and reorganize the company. In December 2009, Hawkeye Renewables, an ethanol plant filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. A Chapter 11 bankruptcy is an option in which a company attempts to reorganize with the intent that it will continue to operate. A Chapter 11 bankruptcy differs from a Chapter 7 bankruptcy because under Chapter 7 the assets of a company are liquidated and it is not anticipated that the business will continue to operate. Unfavorable worldwide economic conditions, the decreasing availability of credit, and volatile biofuel prices and input costs have likely contributed to the necessity of these bankruptcy filings. We are experiencing liquidity problems due to our lack of credit and low cash reserves, which are resulting primarily from the general decrease in demand for biodiesel that the industry is currently experiencing, our lack of biodiesel sale contracts, the unfavorable economic conditions that are currently prevailing in the U.S. and abroad and the other factors identified in this report. We anticipate operating at significantly below our nameplate production capacity for the first quarter of 2010 based on our historical performance and lack of seasonal demand. If our current liquidity problems persist and we are unable to generate sufficient revenues from the sale of our biodiesel, we may also have to consider bankruptcy as an option to cope with our financial difficulties. This could reduce or eliminate the value of our members’ investments in the Company.
The decline in oil and diesel prices may affect our ability to sell biodiesel at profitable prices. The price for biodiesel is correlated to the price for diesel, as biodiesel is used primarily as a diesel additive. The price of biodiesel tends to increase as the price of diesel increases, and the price of biodiesel tends to decrease as the price of diesel decreases. Diesel prices are typically influenced by oil prices. The recent global economic downturn has resulted in a rapid decline in oil and diesel prices. In November 2008, oil prices fell to their lowest level in more than three years, dropping below $50 a barrel, down from approximately $150 a barrel in July 2008, and the current December 2009 average is up slightly at approximately $75 per barrel. Additionally, average retail diesel prices declined by approximately 40% from July 2008 to November 2008, and the price of biodiesel went down also. Since then diesel and biodiesel prices have risen slightly from the November 2008 lows, with diesel fuel at approximately $2.75 per gallon in early December 2009, according to the Energy Information Administration and biodiesel prices at approximately $3.25 to $3.50 per gallon in Iowa as of December 11, 2009, according to the National Weekly Ag Energy Roundup. If oil and diesel prices remain low or decline even further, biodiesel prices will also likely remain low or decline further. This could make it difficult for us to produce and sell biodiesel at a profit and you could lose some or all of your investment as a result.
An investigation by the European Commission into whether the U.S. biodiesel industry has been engaging in unfair trade practices has led to the imposition of tariffs on biodiesel imported into Europe, which could result in further losses from our business. The European Commission conducted antisubsidy and antidumping investigations on U.S. biodiesel imports into Europe. Based on complaints from the European Biodiesel Board (EBB), the European Commission claims that U.S. biodiesel producers, after claiming maximum U.S. subsidies for B99 biodiesel, have been dumping biodiesel in the European market, where it may also be eligible for European subsidies. The European Commission states that these factors have adversely affected the European biodiesel industry, causing adverse effects on the prices and market share of European biodiesel producers. The EBB claims that subsidized B99 exports are a trade practice that breaches World Trade Organization rules. The tariffs went into effect March 13, 2009 and the European Commission determined in July 2009 that the tariffs would be extended through 2014. According to the May 2009 issue of the Biodiesel Magazine, the tariffs could result in an additional charge of $30 to $265 per metric ton of biodiesel. These tariffs have virtually eliminated our ability to make profitable sales in Europe.

 

29


Table of Contents

If demand for biodiesel fails to grow at the same rate as planned supply, the excess production capacity will adversely impact our financial condition. In 2008, approximately 700 million gallons of biodiesel were produced in the United States, according to the National Biodiesel Board. Our biodiesel plant alone could produce almost 4% of the 2008 domestic production. The National Biodiesel Board estimates the current dedicated U.S. biodiesel production capacity of existing biodiesel plants as of June 22, 2009 (the latest date for which information is available) is approximately 2.69 billion gallons per year. Further, plants under construction and expansion as of June 22, 2009, if completed, are expected to result in another 427.8 million gallons of annual U.S. biodiesel production capacity, for total annual production capacity of approximately 3.89 billion gallons. Thus, the current annual production capacity of existing plants far exceeds 2008 annual biodiesel consumption, and will likely far exceed 2009 biodiesel consumption. As production capacity increases, our competition with other biodiesel producers for the sale of our products increases, especially if there is not a corresponding increase in demand for biodiesel. Many biodiesel plants do not operate at full capacity due to the discrepancy between annual domestic biodiesel consumption and annual U.S. biodiesel production capacity. Several biodiesel plants have even been forced to completely shut down or declare bankruptcy, which may be due in part to an increase in national excess production capacity without a corresponding increase in biodiesel demand in combination with the worsening economic conditions. If biodiesel production capacity continues to expand at its current pace, and demand does not grow to meet the available supply, we may be forced to suspend production at our plant and the value of your units could be decreased or eliminated.
Excess capacity in the biodiesel industry may cause increased competition for inputs and decreased market prices for biodiesel. Biodiesel production at our plant requires significant amounts of soybean oil, animal fats and other inputs. If overproduction of biodiesel occurs, we will face increased competition for inputs which means we may be either unable to acquire the inputs that we need or unable to acquire them at profitable prices. In addition, if excess capacity occurs, we may also be unable to market our products at profitable prices. If the demand for biodiesel does not grow at the same pace as increases in supply, we would expect the price for biodiesel to decline. Any decrease in the price at which we can sell our biodiesel will negatively impact our future revenues. Increased expenses and decreased sales prices for biodiesel will result in decreased revenues and increased losses.
Excess production of glycerin, the primary co-product of the biodiesel production process, may cause the price of glycerin to decline, thereby adversely affecting our ability to generate revenue from the sale of glycerin. It is estimated that every million gallons of biodiesel produced adds approximately another one hundred thousand gallons of crude glycerin into the market. As biodiesel production has increased, the glycerin market has become increasingly saturated, resulting in significant declines in the price of glycerin. In 2006, glycerin prices dropped dramatically, with crude glycerin prices hovering around 2 cents per pound or less. According to the September 2006 issue of Biodiesel Magazine, some smaller plants were even forced to essentially give away glycerin and some even had to pay to dispose of the glycerin. Since then, however, there has recently been a steady, gradual increase in glycerin prices. The Jacobsen Company reported average glycerin prices of 5 to 6 cents in December 2009. However, if the price of glycerin declines again, our revenues will be adversely affected and we could even be forced to pay to dispose of our glycerin as plants were required to do in the past. Any further excess glycerin production capacity may limit our ability to market our glycerin co-product and could negatively impact our future revenues.
The biodiesel manufacturing industry is a feedstock limited industry. As more plants are developed and go into production there may not be an adequate supply of feedstock to supply the demands of the industry, which could threaten the viability of our plant. The number of biodiesel manufacturing plants either in production or in the planning or construction phase continues to increase. As more plants are developed and go into production, and as more existing plants expand their production capacities, there may not be an adequate supply of feedstock to supply the demand of the biodiesel industry. Consequently, the cost of feedstock may rise to the point where it threatens the viability of our plant. This is because there is little or no correlation between the cost of feedstock and the market price of biodiesel and, therefore, we cannot pass along increased feedstock costs to our biodiesel customers. We cannot pass along increased feedstock costs to our biodiesel customers because in order to stay competitive in the diesel industry, biodiesel must be competitively priced with petroleum-based diesel. Therefore, biodiesel prices fluctuate more in relation to petroleum-based diesel market prices then with feedstock market prices. As a result, increased feedstock costs or decreased biodiesel prices may result in decreased revenues. If we experience a sustained period of high feedstock costs or reduced biodiesel prices, such pricing and costs may reduce our ability to generate revenues and our profit margins may significantly decrease or be eliminated. Furthermore, REG currently owns and operates biodiesel plants in Ralston, IA and Houston, TX and has also entered into a merger agreement with Blackhawk Biodiesel and asset purchase agreements with Central Iowa Energy and Western Iowa Energy. This means that our plant manager and product marketer, REG and its affiliates, are competitors for a limited supply of feedstock.

 

30


Table of Contents

The biodiesel industry is becoming increasingly competitive and we compete with some larger, better financed entities which could impact our ability to operate profitably. We face a competitive challenge from larger biodiesel plants and from biodiesel plants owned and operated by the companies that supply our inputs. Cargill, Inc., a large supplier of soybean oil, owns a 37.5 million gallon plant in Iowa Falls, Iowa. Another large corporation and supplier of soybean oil, Archer Daniels Midland Co., has constructed an 85 million gallon plant in Velva, North Dakota to process canola oil into biodiesel. Additionally, Biodiesel of Las Vegas is expected to begin operations of a 100 million gallon per year multi-feedstock plant in the fourth quarter of 2009, Imperium Renewables operates a 100 million gallon per year biodiesel plant in Grays Harbor, Washington, and RBF Port Neches operates a 180 million gallon per year multi-feedstock plant in Port Neches, Texas making these plants some of the largest biodiesel producers in the country. These plants will be capable of producing significantly greater quantities of biodiesel than the amount we expect to produce. Moreover, some of these plants may not face the same competition we do for inputs as the companies that own them are suppliers of the inputs. In light of such competition, lower prices for biodiesel may result which would adversely affect our ability to generate profits and adversely affect our financial obligations.
Risks Related to Biodiesel Production
Declines in the demand for and prices of biodiesel and its primary co-product will have a significant negative impact on our financial performance. Our revenues will be greatly affected by the price at which we can sell our biodiesel and its primary co-product, glycerin. These prices can be volatile as a result of a number of factors over which we have no control. These factors include the overall supply and demand, the price of diesel fuel, level of government support, and the availability and price of competing products, and domestic and global economic conditions. The total production capacity of biodiesel continues to expand at this time. Demand may not rise to meet the increase in supply, and increased production of biodiesel may lead to lower prices. Any lowering of biodiesel prices may negatively impact our ability to generate profits.
We believe that the recent U.S. recession and global financial market turmoil may also depress biodiesel demand and prices. Biodiesel prices have significantly declined over recent months. We expect that we will operate below our nameplate capacity throughout our fiscal year 2010. If we continue to operate at less than full capacity, this would have a negative impact on our revenues.
In addition, increased biodiesel production has lead to increased supplies of co-products such as glycerin. While prices have been increasing after a dramatic drop in 2006, prices are still lower than ten year historical prices. If the price of glycerin declines, our revenue from glycerin may substantially decrease. Increased expenses and decreased sales prices for our products will result in decreased revenues.
Because of volatile soybean oil prices, we are attempting to use alternative feedstocks, such as corn oil, to produce our biodiesel, which may have risks and disadvantages of which we are not yet fully aware. We are currently producing some of our biodiesel from corn oil that we obtain from ethanol plants or other sources. Corn oil, however, poses several unique challenges due to its moisture and solid content, as well as its elevated free-fatty-acid levels. Furthermore, unlike many other oil sources, corn oil from ethanol plants contains waxy compounds and sterols. This tends to cause a waxy substance to build-up in the process equipment during the production process. Unless a process for removing this waxy substance is developed, we expect that we will not be able to produce any biodiesel blends containing greater than 5% corn oil. The technology utilized by the ethanol plant which extracts the corn oil may also cause the suitability of the corn oil for the biodiesel production process to vary. These characteristics of corn oil could cause corn oil-based biodiesel to be less desirable than other types of biodiesel. Furthermore, special technologies may be necessary to pretreat corn oil for utilization in the biodiesel production process. Accordingly, our use of alternative feedstocks, such as corn oil, may require us to make modifications to our equipment, purchase new equipment or repair equipment that could unexpectedly be damaged by the use of different feedstocks. There may be disadvantages to the use of corn oil as a feedstock of which we are not yet aware. If as a result of the unique characteristics of corn oil, the demand for or price we are able to receive for biodiesel produced from corn oil is less than what we can receive for biodiesel produced from other types of feedstock, our revenues could be negatively affected.

 

31


Table of Contents

The decreasing availability and volatile cost of feedstock may hinder our ability to profitably produce biodiesel and may result in plant shut downs and decreased revenues. On December 11, 2009, the USDA reported the November average cost of soybean oil was approximately 36.59 cents per pound, which is below the July 2008 peak prices but higher than a year ago. Although prices have sharply dropped from the record high prices experienced in the summer of 2008, the November average is still higher than historical averages. The ten-year average price for soybean oil is approximately 26 cents per pound. In the USDA December 2009 Oil Crops Outlook Report, it was forecasted soybean oil prices will likely remain close to current prices during the 2009/2010 marketing season, with a predicted price range of 35.5-38.5 cents per pound. Soybean oil prices have been extremely volatile over the recent years. The declining global economic conditions brought on by the collapse of major U.S. financial institutions in the fall of 2008 and the disruption of the financial and credit markets likely contributed to the sharp drop in prices from the summer of 2008 through fall of 2008. However, demand, supply, acres planted, weather, soybean crush rates and many other factors can contribute to price volatility. Prices for animal fats have also been volatile in recent months, as they tend to correlate to the prices of soybean oil. In a December 2009 Oil Crops Outlook Report, the USDA provided that the average November 2009 prices for lard and edible tallow were 30.07 cents and 29.65 cents per pound, respectively, which are down from their peak prices in the summer of 2008. These average prices, however, still exceed their historical averages. We expect that this volatility in feedstock costs will continue through the 2010 fiscal year. In the event we cannot obtain adequate supplies of feedstock at affordable costs for sustained periods of time, then we may be forced to shut down the plant, either temporarily or permanently. Shut downs or the persistence of recent high feedstock costs, or any further increase of feedstock costs, may reduce our revenues from operations which could decrease or eliminate the value of our units.
If we are forced to continue to have to temporarily cease operating our biodiesel plant, we might not be able to meet our current liabilities and our losses may be increased. If we are forced to temporarily cease operations at our biodiesel plant, either due to our inability to sell the biodiesel we are producing, feedstock costs, our lack of working capital and available credit, defects in our equipment at the plant, violations of environmental law, or any other reason, our ability to produce revenue would be adversely affected. We do not have any source of revenues other than production of biodiesel and glycerin at our biodiesel plant. If our plant were to cease production for any significant period of time, we would not generate any revenue and we might not be able to pay our debts as they become due, including payments required under our loan agreements with our lender. If the plant ceases to operate for enough time, we might not be able to re-start operations at the plant and our members could lose some or all of their investment.
We are at a disadvantage in marketing our glycerin because our plant will not produce pharmaceutical grade glycerin, thereby decreasing the market for the glycerin we produce. A major use of glycerin is in the production of drugs. The glycerin our plant produces, however, is not pharmaceutical grade glycerin. This limits our ability to market the glycerin produced by our biodiesel plant. The glycerin we produce has to be purified in order for it to be used in pharmaceutical applications. Since the market in which we can sell our glycerin is limited, we might not be able to sell all of the glycerin we produce or we may not be able to sell our glycerin at a favorable price. If we cannot sell all of the glycerin we produce or cannot sell it at a favorable price, our ability to operate our biodiesel plant profitably might be adversely affected which could decrease the value of our units.
Competition from other sources of fuel may decrease the demand for our biodiesel. Diesel fuel prices per gallon remain at levels below or equal to the price of biodiesel making it difficult for the biodiesel industry to compete with the diesel fuel industry without government support programs. In addition, other more cost-efficient domestic alternative fuels may be developed and displace biodiesel as an environmentally-friendly alternative. If diesel prices do not continue to increase or a new fuel is developed to compete with biodiesel, it may be difficult to market our biodiesel, which could result in increased losses for our company.
Concerns about fuel quality may impact our ability to successfully market our biodiesel. Industry standards impose quality specifications for biodiesel fuel. Actual or perceived problems with quality control in the industry may lead to a lack of consumer confidence in the product and hinder our ability to successfully market our biodiesel. An inability to successfully market our biodiesel will lead to decreased revenues and may adversely impact our ability to operate at all.

 

32


Table of Contents

Cold weather may cause biodiesel to gel, which could have an adverse impact on our ability to successfully market our biodiesel. The pour point for a fuel is the temperature at which the flow of the fuel stops. A lower pour point means the fuel is usable in colder weather. The pour point of 100% soy-based biodiesel is approximately 27ºF to 30ºF. The pour point for 100% tallow-based biodiesel is approximately 61ºF. The pour point for No. 2 petroleum diesel fuel, the non-biodiesel fuel currently used in machines, is approximately -30ºF. When diesel is mixed with soy-based biodiesel to make a 2% biodiesel blend, the pour point is -25ºF. Therefore, we believe we will need to blend soy-based biodiesel and animal fat-based biodiesel with petroleum diesel in order to provide a biodiesel product that will have an acceptable pour point in cold weather. Generally, biodiesel that is used in blends of 2% to 20% is expected to provide an acceptable pour point for colder markets comparable to the No. 2 petroleum diesel pour point. In colder temperatures, lower blends are recommended to avoid fuel system plugging. This may cause the demand for our biodiesel in northern markets to diminish during the colder months.
The tendency of biodiesel to gel in colder weather may also result in long-term storage problems. At low temperatures, fuel may need to be stored in a heated building or heated storage tanks. This may result in a decrease in demand for our product in colder climates due to increased storage costs.
Automobile manufacturers and other industry groups have expressed reservations regarding the use of biodiesel, which could negatively impact our ability to market our biodiesel. Because it is still a relatively new product, the research on biodiesel use in automobiles and its effect on the environment is ongoing. Some industry groups, including the World Wide Fuel Charter, have recommended that blends of no more than 5% biodiesel be used for automobile fuel due to concerns about fuel quality, engine performance problems and possible detrimental effects of biodiesel on rubber components and other parts of the engine. Although some manufacturers have encouraged use of biodiesel fuel in their vehicles, cautionary pronouncements by others may impact our ability to market our product.
In addition, studies have shown that nitrogen oxide emissions increase by 10% when pure biodiesel is used. Nitrogen oxide is the chief contributor to ozone or smog. New engine technology is available and is being implemented to eliminate this problem. However, these emissions may decrease the appeal of our product to environmental groups and agencies who have been historic supporters of the biodiesel industry, which may result in our inability to market our biodiesel.
Moreover, the EPA has made preliminary findings that soybean oil-based biodiesel does not sufficiently decrease greenhouse gas omissions (when indirect land use changes are taken into account) in order to qualify for the RFS. If these preliminary findings are reiterated in the final EPA rules, demand for soybean oil-based biodiesel will likely further decrease.
Competition from other diesel fuel lubricity additives for ultra low sulfur diesel may be a less expensive alternative to our biodiesel, which would cause us to lose market share and adversely affect our ability to generate revenues. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued regulations to reduce the amount of sulfur in diesel fuel in order to improve air quality. These regulations affect all diesel fuel available for retail sale since October 2006. The removal of sulfur from diesel fuel also reduces its lubricity which must be corrected with fuel additives, such as biodiesel which has inherent lubricating properties. Our biodiesel plant is expected to compete with producers of other diesel additives made from other raw materials having similar lubricity values as biodiesel, such as petroleum-based lubricity additives. Many major oil companies produce these petroleum-based lubricity additives and strongly favor their use because they may be used in lower concentrations than biodiesel. In addition, much of the infrastructure in place is for petroleum-based additives. As a result, petroleum-based additives may be more cost-effective than biodiesel. Therefore, it may be difficult to market our biodiesel as a lubricity additive, which could adversely affect our ability to generate revenues.
Our management and operational services agreement with REG does not address feedstock allocation between REG and its other customers which could lead to insufficient feedstock to operate our plant and negatively affect our financial condition. We have entered into a MOSA with REG, whereby REG acquires the feedstock that we require to operate our biodiesel plant. Our agreement does not address the way in which REG allocates feedstock between us and the other customers for which REG acquires soybean oil. If a shortage of feedstock was to occur, there is no provision in the MOSA that requires REG to supply us with the feedstock we require as opposed to REG’s other customers, including REG’s own biodiesel facilities. REG has already encountered difficulties in obtaining enough feedstock for us to operate the plant at full capacity. If a shortage of feedstock occurs, REG may not supply us with all of the feedstock we require to operate the plant which could decrease our revenues and could decrease or eliminate the value of our units.

 

33


Table of Contents

Risks Related to Our Financing Plan
We are experiencing liquidity issues which could require us to cease operations. We are experiencing liquidity issues associated with the high cost of our raw materials, decreased demand for biodiesel, and the delay between when we purchase those raw materials and when we receive payments from REG for sales of our finished products. We have exhausted the funds available under our debt facilities and do not have further commitments for funds from any lender, other than the offer sheet we have received from Washington State Bank and Federation Bank, current participants in our Loan Agreement, for a line of credit of up to $1.5 million. We also do not currently have significant cash reserves. Accordingly, we are currently lacking sufficient working capital to fund continual operations at this time and, accordingly, we are only producing biodiesel when an order for our product has been placed and when we have sufficient cash on hand to acquire the necessary feedstock. Our lack of funds could cause us to further scale back production at our biodiesel plant or cease operations altogether. These shutdowns could be temporary or permanent depending on the cash we have available to continue operations. We are already not operating at full capacity. Should we not be able to secure the cash we require to operate the plant and pay our obligations as they become due, we may have to cease operations, either on a permanent or temporary basis, which could decrease or eliminate the value of our units.
The loan agreement under which we obtained financing for the construction of our biodiesel plant contains restrictive covenants. We have undertaken significant borrowings to finance the construction of the biodiesel plant. Our loan agreements with our lender contain restrictive covenants which, among other things, require us to maintain minimum levels of working capital, as well as debt coverage and fixed charge coverage financial ratios. These covenants may restrict our ability to make distributions on the units without the prior consent of our lender. In addition, failure to comply with these covenants may constitute an event of default under our loan agreements. On April 2, 2009, we received a written notice of default from Bankfirst (the “Notice”). The Notice constituted a notice of default under Section 6.01(b) of the Loan Agreement, which provides the Company has 30 days to cure the covenant defaults or it will be considered an event of default. The Notice advises, and the Loan Agreement provides, that upon the occurrence of an event of default, Bankfirst may exercise a variety of remedies afforded to them under the Loan Agreement, by applicable law or equity, including without limitation, acceleration of the due date of the unpaid principal balance of the Loan Agreement and all accrued but unpaid interest thereon. Further, according to the mortgage and security agreement, Bankfirst may, during an event of default and in accordance with applicable law, foreclose its mortgage on our real estate and its security interest in our personal property and exercise any other remedies provided therein. We have not been able to cure the defaults. Thirty days have passed since we received the Notice and Bankfirst has not communicated with us in writing further on the matter.
In July 2009, however, Bankfirst was shut down by state regulators and the FDIC was named its receiver. We are currently working with OSM as an interim administrative bank to make payments under our Loan Agreement, until permanent assignment of our Loan Agreement is made. We anticipate that early in the calendar year 2010 that Met Life will assume lead bank status under our Loan Agreement and we will begin making payments to Bankers Trust as the permanent administrative bank under our Loan Agreement. However, as of the date of this report, we have received no written notification as to Bankfirst’s successor. While BankFirst did not elect to exercise its remedies under the Loan Agreement, there is no assurance that the receiver will not accelerate our existing obligations which could greatly affect our ability to continue as a going concern. These liquidity issues raise doubt about whether we will continue as a going concern. If our financial condition does not improve substantially, which may not occur due to our historical performance and the anticipated seasonal decrease in demand for biodiesel, we will continue to be in violation of these covenants. In addition, our loan contains an event of default for any material adverse change in our financial condition, and the term “material adverse change” is defined in such a way that leaves this determination to the subjective opinion of our lender.
We may be unable to raise additional capital in the event our funds from operations and our credit facilities are insufficient to fund our operations for the next twelve months. In the event that the board of directors deems it necessary to obtain additional capital in order to fund plant operations or to otherwise comply with the covenants contained in our financing agreements with our lender during the next 12 months, the board of directors may decide to attempt to issue additional membership units in our company through one or more private placements. In such event, however, there is no guarantee that such an offering of our membership units would be successful in raising the desired capital. Due to current market conditions in the biodiesel industry, such as the increasing costs of soybean oil, animal fats, and methanol, and lack of demand for our biodiesel, we may not be able to attract sufficient numbers of investors to provide us with the necessary amount of additional capital. For the same reasons, we may be unable to obtain additional debt financing for operations in the event we cannot raise sufficient capital. In such event, we may be forced to shut down the plant, either temporarily or permanently, or we may continue to be unable to comply with the loan covenants contained in our Loan Agreement, which entitles our lender to accelerate payments under our Loan Agreement or foreclose its lien or security interest in the assets securing the Loan Agreement.

 

34


Table of Contents

Our auditor has raised doubts about our ability to continue as a going concern and if we are unable to continue our business, our units may have little or no value. As discussed in the accompanying financial statements, we have generated accumulated losses of $10,884,041 since our inception, have experienced significant increases in our input costs and undertaken significant borrowings to finance the construction of our biodiesel plant. These liquidity issues raise doubts about our ability to continue as a going concern. See Note 6 to the financial statements. Moreover, our term loan is listed as a current liability because we have a going concern in the notes to our financial statements and GAAP requires long term debt to be listed as a current liability when a company has a going concern disclosure. In the event our lender declared a default under the Loan Agreement and elected to accelerate our payments or take possession of our assets securing the loans, we may be forced to shut down the plant and our members could lose some or all of their investment. These factors have raised doubts as to our ability to continue as a going concern.
Risks Related to Regulation and Governmental Action
Loss of or ineligibility for favorable tax benefits for biodiesel production could further hinder our ability to operate at a profit and reduce the value of our units. The biodiesel industry and our business are assisted by various federal biodiesel incentives. One such incentive is the biodiesel blenders credit, which provides a tax credit of $1.00 per gallon of biodiesel. The blenders credit is set to expire on December 31, 2009 and there can be no guarantees that it will be extended beyond this date. These tax incentives for the biodiesel industry may not continue, or, if they continue, the incentives may not be at the same level. The elimination or reduction of tax incentives to the biodiesel industry, including the blenders’ tax credit, could significantly reduce the market for biodiesel and could materially impair our ability to profitably produce and sell biodiesel. The loss or reduction of the blenders’ tax credit would make it more costly or difficult to produce and sell biodiesel and we could be forced to take significant cost savings measures or temporarily or permanently cease production at our plant. If the federal tax incentives are eliminated or sharply curtailed, we believe that a decreased demand for biodiesel will result, which could depress biodiesel markets and negatively impact our financial performance.
A change in environmental regulations or violations thereof could result in the devaluation of our units. We are subject to extensive air, water and other environmental regulations. We have obtained all of the permits required to construct the plant and have obtained all the permits currently required to operate the plant. Environmental laws and regulations, both at the federal and state level, are subject to change and changes can be made retroactively. Consequently, even if we have the proper permits at the proper time, we may be required to spend considerable resources to comply with future environmental regulations or new or modified interpretations of those regulations, which may increase our losses and could reduce or eliminate the value of our units.
The EPA’s delay in implementing the RFS requirement that 500 million gallons of biomass-based diesel be blended into the national diesel pool in 2009 and preliminary findings that soybean oil-based biodiesel does not meet the RFS standards may hinder stimulation of demand for biodiesel that may have otherwise been created by the 2007 amendments to the RFS program. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) amended the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program originally created by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 by increasing the amount of biofuels that are required to be blended into the national diesel pool annually through 2022. The EISA created a biodiesel mandate requiring that 500 million gallons of biomass-based diesel fuel be used in on-road fuel in 2009, increasing to 1 billion gallons in 2022. However, in November 2008, the EPA announced that the RFS 2009 program will continue to be applicable to producers and importers of gasoline only. This means that the 500 million gallons of biomass-based diesel required by the EISA does not have to be blended into U.S. fuel supplies in 2009. The EPA indicated that this is due to the fact that the regulatory structure of the original RFS program does not provide a mechanism for implementing the EISA biomass-based diesel mandate. The EPA intends to propose options and develop mechanisms for implementing the EISA biomass-based diesel requirements. Accordingly, the EPA’s delay in implementing the RFS biomass-based diesel mandate may hinder any growth in biodiesel demand that may have otherwise been created if the 2009 mandate was implemented as originally anticipated.

 

35


Table of Contents

Moreover, the RFS was modified in 2007 to require that advanced biofuels reduce life cycle greenhouse gas emissions by 50% relative to gasoline sold or distributed in transportation. In May 2009, the EPA proposed rules that took into account indirect land use changes when calculating greenhouse gas emissions. Based on the EPA’s preliminary findings, soy-based biodiesel was found to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by only 22%, which would disqualify it from counting towards the RFS. Biodiesel from animal fat was found to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 80%. The EPA’s draft results did not measure biodiesel produced from corn oil. The EPA has announced that it intends to publish final rules prior to the end of 2009; however, as of the date of this report, such final rules have not been released. Any future delays in the implementation of the RFS biomass-based diesel mandate or implementation of final rules that find soybean oil-based biodiesel does not count towards the RFS could cause stagnant biodiesel demand, which could adversely affect our ability to generate profits.
Risks Related to Conflicts of Interest
We may have conflicts of interest with REG, which may cause difficulty in enforcing claims against REG. Until the MOSA terminates (which is set to occur on July 10, 2010), we anticipate REG to continue to be involved in substantially all material aspects of our operations. There is no assurance that our arrangements with REG are as favorable to us as they could have been if obtained from unrelated third parties. In addition, because of the extensive roles that REG has in the operation of the plant, it may be difficult or impossible for us to enforce claims that we may have against REG. We are currently in arbitration with REG, based on our claims against REG for breach of the MOSA, which may exacerbate REG’s conflict of interest. Such conflicts of interest may increase our losses and reduce the value of our units and could result in reduced distributions to investors.
REG and its affiliates may also have conflicts of interest because employees or agents of REG are involved as owners, creditors and in other capacities with other biodiesel plants in the United States. We cannot require REG to devote its full time or attention to our activities. As a result, REG may have conflicts of interest in allocating personnel, materials and other resources to our biodiesel plant.
Our directors may have relationships with individuals, companies or organizations with which we do business which may result in conflicts of interest. There may be business relationships between our directors and other individuals, companies or organizations with which we do business that may pose potential conflicts of interest with us. These relationships may result in conflicts of interest with respect to transactions between us and the other individuals, companies or organizations if our directors and officers put their interests in other companies or their own personal relationships ahead of what is best for our company.
Risks Related to Tax Issues in a Limited Liability Company
We expect to be taxed as a partnership, however, if we are taxed as a corporation we could be subject to corporate level taxes which could decrease our net income, if any, and decrease the amount of cash available to distribute to our members. We expect that our company will continue to be taxed as a partnership. This means that our company does not pay any company level taxes. Instead, the members are allocated any income or losses generated by our company based on the member’s ownership interest, and could pay taxes on the member’s share of our income, if any. If we are not taxed as a partnership, our company could be liable for corporate level taxes which would decrease our net income, if any, which may decrease the cash we have to distribute to our members.
Members may be allocated a share of our taxable income that exceeds any cash distributions received, therefore members may have to pay this tax liability using their personal funds. We expect to continue to be taxed as a partnership. This means members are allocated a percentage of our taxable income or loss based on their ownership interest in our company. Members may have tax liability based on their allocation of this income, if any. We may make distributions that are less than the amount of tax members owe based on their allocated percentage of our taxable income, or we may not make any distributions. If this is the case, members would have to satisfy this tax liability using their personal funds.
If we are audited by the IRS resulting in adjustments to our tax returns, this could cause the IRS to audit members’ tax returns, which could lead to additional tax liability for our members. The IRS could audit our tax returns and could disagree with tax decisions we have made on our returns. This could lead to the IRS requiring us to reallocate items of income, gain, losses, deductions, or credits that could change the amount of our income or losses that were allocated to members. This could require adjustments to members’ tax returns and could lead to audits of members’ tax returns by the IRS. If adjustments are required to members’ tax returns, this could lead to additional tax liabilities for members as well as penalties and interest being charged to members.

 

36


Table of Contents

We do not anticipate declaring distributions to members in the foreseeable future. We have incurred a net loss of $3,320,609 as of our fiscal year ended September 30, 2009. We do not anticipate that our board of directors will be declaring distributions to members in the foreseeable future. Accordingly, members will not likely receive distributions on their units and, in the event that members incur any tax liability as a result of their ownership of units in the company, members may be required to satisfy such liability with their personal funds.
ITEM 2. PROPERTIES.
Our property consists primarily of the plant and the real estate upon which the plant sits near Washington, Iowa. The plant is fully operational. The plant is located on an approximately 28 acre site located near Washington, Iowa. The site is approximately thirty-five miles from Interstate 80 and thirty miles from the Mississippi River. We paid $420,000 for the site. The plant’s address is 1701 East 7th Street, Washington, Iowa. The site is adjacent to the main line of the Iowa Chicago & Eastern Railroad, which serves the plant. The plant consists of the following buildings:
   
Administrative building
   
Processing building
   
Pretreatment building
   
Storage tank farm
The site also contains improvements such as rail tracks and a rail spur, landscaping, drainage systems and paved access roads. Construction of the plant was substantially complete in June 2007.
All of our tangible and intangible property, real and personal, serves as the collateral for the debt financing with Marshall Bankfirst Corporation (Bankfirst). Bankfirst has been seized by the FDIC. We are currently working with OSM as an interim administrative bank to make payments under our Loan Agreement, until permanent assignment of our Loan Agreement is made. We anticipate that early in the calendar year 2010 that Met Life will assume lead bank status under our Loan Agreement and we will begin making payments to Bankers Trust as the administrative bank under our Loan Agreement. However, as of the date of this report, we have received no written notification as to Bankfirst’s successor. Regardless of the final receiver of our Loan Agreement, all of our tangible and intangible property, real and personal, will continue to serve as collateral under our Loan Agreement. Money borrowed under the Iowa Department of Economic Development loan is also secured by substantially all of the company’s assets, but is subordinate to the agreements with Bankfirst.
ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.
In February 2009, we gave notice to REG that it had breached the MOSA in a variety of manners and requested the annual review of the MOSA, as provided for in the MOSA. After not receiving requested information and being unable to resolve any disputes, in June 2009, we gave notice to REG that we intended to proceed with arbitration to resolve disputes arising under the MOSA. On or about October 30, 2009, we delivered our Statement of Claims to REG and the selected arbitrator alleging the following: (1) breach of the MOSA for failure to utilize best efforts; (2) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) breach of fiduciary duties; (4) fraudulent non-disclosure; and (5) negligent misrepresentation. On or about December 7, 2009, REG responded to these claims and also asserted counterclaims for breach of written contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of oral contract and promissory estoppel, all of which arise out of one customer issue. On or about December 16, 2009, we responded to the counterclaims. No date has been set for the arbitration and no discovery has been initiated or completed.

 

37


Table of Contents

On November 4, 2009, three of our directors, Denny Mauser, William J. Horan and Warren L. Bush, which are also members of The Biodiesel Group, LLC, (the TBG Directors), filed suit in the Iowa District Court for Washington County against the remaining directors of our board of directors: Michael J. Bohannan, Mark A. Cobb, Richard Gallagher, John Heisdorffer, Edwin Hershberger and J. William Pim (Defendants). The TBG Directors requested temporary and permanent injunctions against the Defendants, in an effort to reverse certain actions taken by Defendants, acting as a majority of the board of directors. These actions include the adoption of an Executive Committee Charter, the appointment of Defendants to the Executive Committee, and adoption of a Resolution adopting the Amended and Restated Director and Officer Compensation Plan.
The TBG Directors claim that Defendants exceeded their authority, acting as a majority of the board, in taking these actions. Defendants claim that under our amended and restated operating agreement, Defendants were permitted and justified in taking such actions, due to recent revelations regarding certain payments made in 2007 to the TBG Directors by predecessors in interest to REG, which Defendants claim constitute a conflict of interest and breach of our amended and restated operating agreement. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on November 16, 2009, on which arguments were heard on December 18, 2009, and a decision by the judge regarding summary judgment is pending.
Iowa Renewable Energy is not a party to this lawsuit. However, under Section 5.20 of our amended and restated operating agreement, we are required to indemnify and pay all judgments and claims against each director or officer of ours relating to any liability or damage incurred by reason of any act performed or omitted to be performed by such director, or officer, in connection with our business. This indemnification includes reasonable attorney’s fees incurred by such director or officer in connection with the defense of any action based on any such act or omission. These attorney’s fees may be paid as incurred, including those fees relating to all such liabilities under federal and state securities laws as permitted by law. As a result, we may be required to indemnify Defendants for costs incurred in defending this litigation.
At this time we are unable to predict whether such indemnification, if any, could have a material effect on our financial statements, taken as a whole. We have been notified by our insurance company that this litigation is not covered by director and officer insurance.
ITEM 4. SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS.
We did not submit any matter to a vote of our unit holders through the solicitation of proxies or otherwise during the fourth fiscal quarter of our fiscal year ended September 30, 2009.
PART II
ITEM 5. MARKET FOR REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED MEMBER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES.
Market Information
There is no public trading market for our units. We have created a private qualified online matching service in order to facilitate trading of our units, however; as of the date of this report no trades have been completed on our private qualified online matching service. Our online matching service consists of an electronic bulletin board that provides information to prospective sellers and buyers of our units. We do not receive any compensation for creating or maintaining the matching service. We do not become involved in any purchase or sale negotiations arising from our qualified matching service. In advertising our qualified matching service, we do not characterize Iowa Renewable Energy as being a broker or dealer in an exchange. We do not give advice regarding the merits or shortcomings of any particular transaction. We do not receive, transfer or hold funds or securities as an incident of operating the online matching service. We do not use the bulletin board to offer to buy or sell securities other than in compliance with the securities laws, including any applicable registration requirements. We have no role in effecting the transactions beyond approval, as required under our amended and restated operating agreement, and the issuance of new certificates. So long as we remain a public reporting company, information about the Company will be publicly available through the SEC’s filing system. However, if at any time we cease to be a public reporting company, we will continue to make information about the Company publicly available on our website. No sales of our units have been completed under our qualified online matching service.

 

38


Table of Contents

Unit Holders
As of September 30, 2009, we had approximately 640 unit holders of record.
Distributions
We have not declared or paid any distributions on our units. Our board of directors has complete discretion over the timing and amount of distributions to our unit holders. However, our amended and restated operating agreement requires the board of directors to endeavor to make cash distributions at such times and in such amounts as will permit our unit holders to satisfy their income tax liability in a timely fashion.
Equity Compensation Plans
We do not have any equity compensation plans under which equity securities of Iowa Renewable Energy are authorized for issuance.
Sale of Unregistered Securities
We did not make any sales of equity securities that were unregistered during the fiscal year ended September 30, 2009.
Repurchases of Equity Securities
Neither we, nor anyone acting on our behalf, has repurchased any of our outstanding units.
ITEM 6. SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA.
We are a smaller reporting company as defined by Rule 12b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and are not required to provide information under this item.
ITEM 7. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS.
Cautionary Statements Regarding Forward Looking Statements
Throughout this report, we make “forward-looking statements” that involve future events, our future performance, and our future operations and actions. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by the use of words such as “may,” “should,” “plan,” “future,” “intend,” “could,” “estimate,” “predict,” “hope,” “potential,” “continue,” “believe,” “expect” or “anticipate” or the negative of these terms or other similar expressions. These forward-looking statements are only our predictions and involve numerous assumptions, risks and uncertainties. Our actual results may differ from these forward-looking statements for many reasons, including the following factors:
Changes in interest rates or the availability of credit;
Our ability to raise additional equity capital proceeds or obtain additional debt financing;
Overcapacity within the biodiesel industry resulting in increased competition and costs for feedstock and/or decreased prices for our biodiesel and glycerin;
Decrease in the demand for biodiesel;
Actual biodiesel and glycerin production varying from expectations;
Economic consequences of the domestic and global economic downturn and recent financial crisis;
Availability and cost of products and raw materials, particularly soybean oil, animal fats, natural gas and methanol;
Our ability to market and our reliance on third parties to market our products;

 

39


Table of Contents

Changes in or elimination of governmental laws, tariffs, trade or other controls or enforcement practices such as:
   
national, state or local energy policy;
 
   
federal and state biodiesel tax incentives;
 
   
legislation establishing a renewable fuel standard or other legislation mandating the use of biodiesel or other lubricity additives; or
 
   
environmental laws and regulations that apply to our plant operations and their enforcement;
Total U.S. consumption of diesel fuel;
Fluctuations in petroleum and diesel prices;
Changes in plant production capacity or technical difficulties in operating the plant;
Changes in our business strategy, capital improvements or development plans;
Results of our hedging strategies;
Competition with other manufacturers in the biodiesel industry;
Our ability to generate free cash flow to invest in our business and service our debt;
Our liability resulting from litigation;
Our ability to retain key employees and maintain labor relations;
Changes and advances in biodiesel production technology;
Competition from alternative fuels and alternative fuel additives;
Failure to comply with loan covenants contained in our financing agreements;
Our ability to continue to export our biodiesel;
The imposition of tariffs or other duties on biodiesel imported into Europe;
Our ability to generate profits; and
Other factors described elsewhere in this report.
We are not under any duty to update the forward-looking statements contained in this report. We cannot guarantee future results, levels of activity, performance or achievements. We caution you not to put undue reliance on any forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date of this report. You should read this report and the documents that we reference in this report and have filed as exhibits completely and with the understanding that our actual future results may be materially different from those we currently expect. We qualify all of our forward-looking statements by these cautionary statements.
Overview
Our plant is currently fully operational. We began producing biodiesel on July 10, 2007. After obtaining independent testing of our biodiesel to certify that our biodiesel meets the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards, we began shipping our first lot of 7,200 gallons of biodiesel on July 12, 2007. The plant was operating at full capacity until the end of September 2007, with only minor temporary shut downs for maintenance and a weather-related power outage. Since the beginning of October 2007, we have only been operating to produce biodiesel to satisfy existing contracts for the sale of our biodiesel and have not been producing biodiesel for speculation. This has allowed us to avoid excess inventory, but also, resulted in several plant shutdowns. During the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2009, we operated our plant at approximately 36% of our plant’s capacity.

 

40


Table of Contents

Most of our shutdowns have been due to:
   
Our inability to obtain adequate amounts of feedstock in a timely manner;
   
Our inability to obtain adequate amounts of feedstock at competitive costs;
   
Lack of demand for biodiesel;
   
Lack of biodiesel contracts at profitable margins; and
   
Inadequate funds to obtain feedstock due to having to pay for feedstock while waiting for payments from our biodiesel sales.
From October 1, 2008 through September 30, 2009 we produced approximately 9,507,597 gallons of biodiesel, which is only approximately 32% of our plant’s capacity. We anticipate operating the plant at similar levels during our fiscal year 2010; however, our ability to operate depends upon many factors outside of our control, such as the demand for biodiesel, price for biodiesel and cost of feedstock. If demand for biodiesel remains at its current low levels, or drops further during our fiscal year 2010 we will likely operate at even lower levels. We do not however, anticipate speculatively producing biodiesel in the next 12 months. Therefore, if demand does not increase such that we can obtain contracts for the same amount of biodiesel that we produced during our fiscal year 2009, then we may operate at a lower production rate than during our fiscal year 2009. In addition, we have been experiencing liquidity difficulties since beginning our operations and if these conditions do not improve, or get worse, during our fiscal year 2010 then we will likely operate our plant at lower levels than we did during our fiscal year 2009.
On February 1, 2008, our $34,715,000 Loan Agreement with Bankfirst converted from a construction loan to a term loan, which requires monthly principal and interest payments. As of the date of this report, we have timely paid all of our monthly payments under the Loan Agreement, however; we made draws from our debt service reserve for the principal portions of our September and October 2009 payments. We began to replenish our debt service reserve in December 2009 and anticipate it will be completely replenished in January 2010. The Loan Agreement with Bankfirst currently contains covenants that require a minimum ratio for current assets to current liabilities (working capital ratio) and a minimum debt coverage and fixed charge coverage ratios.
On April 2, 2009, we received a written notice of default from Bankfirst (the “Notice”). The Notice constituted a notice of default under Section 6.01(b) of the Loan Agreement, which provides the Company has 30 days to cure the covenant defaults or it will be considered an event of default. The Notice advises, and the Loan Agreement provides, that upon the occurrence of an event of default, Bankfirst may exercise a variety of remedies afforded to them under the Loan Agreement, by applicable law or equity, including without limitation, acceleration of the due date of the unpaid principal balance of the Loan Agreement and all accrued but unpaid interest thereon. Further, according to the mortgage and security agreement, Bankfirst may, during an event of default and in accordance with applicable law, foreclose its mortgage on our real estate and its security interest in our personal property and exercise any other remedies provided therein. We have not been able to cure the defaults. Thirty days have passed since we received the Notice and Bankfirst has not taken any further action or communicated with us in writing further on the matter. In July 2009, however, Bankfirst was shut down by state regulators and the FDIC was named its receiver. We are currently working with OSM as an interim administrative bank to make payments under our Loan Agreement, until permanent assignment of our Loan Agreement is made. We anticipate that early in the calendar year 2010 that Met Life will assume lead bank status under our Loan Agreement and we will begin making payments to Bankers Trust as the administrative bank under our Loan Agreement. However, as of the date of this report, we have received no written notification as to Bankfirst’s successor. We have been in discussions with the group of bank participants in our Loan Agreement regarding our liquidity issues and have received a written offer sheet from Washington State Bank and Federation Bank, current participants in our Loan Agreement, for a line of credit of up to $1.5 million. If we closed on a new line of credit, we anticipate this would improve our liquidity.
While BankFirst did not elect to exercise its remedies under the Loan Agreement, there is no assurance that the receiver, or our new lead bank, will not accelerate our existing obligations which could greatly affect our ability to continue as a going concern. These liquidity issues raise doubt about whether we will continue as a going concern. If our financial condition does not improve substantially, which may not occur due to our historical performance and the anticipated seasonal decrease in demand for biodiesel, we will continue to be in violation of these covenants. In addition, our loan contains an event of default for any material adverse change in our financial condition, and the term “material adverse change” is defined in such a way that leaves this determination to the subjective opinion of our lender.

 

41


Table of Contents

Plan of Operations for the Next 12 Months
Plant Operations
We expect to spend the next 12 months engaging in the production of biodiesel and glycerin at our plant. Our plant is fully operational. We are actively producing biodiesel at our plant, although not at full capacity.
Results of Operations
Comparison of Fiscal Years Ended September 30, 2009 and September 30, 2008
The following table shows the results of our operations and the percentage of revenues, costs of goods sold, operating expenses and other items to total revenues in our statements of operations for the fiscal years ended September 30, 2009 and September 30, 2008.
                                 
Income Statement   Fiscal Year Ended     Fiscal Year Ended  
Data   September 30, 2009     September 30, 2008  
Revenues
  $ 29,132,604       100.00 %   $ 67,135,224       100.00 %
 
                               
Cost of Goods Sold
  $ 29,795,410       102.28 %   $ 67,000,778       99.80 %
 
                               
Gross Profit (Loss)
  $ (662,806 )     (2.28 )%   $ 134,446       0.20 %
 
                               
Operating Expenses
  $ 1,421,907       4.88 %   $ 1,729,356       2.58 %
 
                               
Interest Income
  $ 36,579       0.13 %   $ 91,762       0.14 %
 
                               
Interest (Expense)
  $ (1,272,475 )     (4.37 )%   $ (2,281,776 )     (3.40 )%
 
                               
Net (Loss)
  $ (3,320,609 )     (11.40 )%   $ (3,784,924 )     (5.64 )%
Our operating results generally reflect the relationship between the price of biodiesel and the costs of feedstocks used to produce our biodiesel. Because biodiesel is used as an additive or alternative to diesel fuel, biodiesel prices are strongly correlated to petroleum-based diesel fuel prices. Historically, the price of biodiesel has fluctuated with the price of diesel fuel. In addition, the price of biodiesel is generally influenced by factors such as general economic conditions, the weather, and government policies and programs. Surplus biodiesel supplies also tend to put downward price pressure on biodiesel. Additionally, prices for diesel and the costs of feedstock, including soybean oil or animal fats, have been volatile and such fluctuations in the cost of feedstock may significantly affect our financial performance. Our results of operations will benefit when the margin between biodiesel prices and feedstock costs widens and will be harmed when this margin narrows. The biodiesel industry experienced very high feedstock costs during the summer of 2008, without corresponding increases in biodiesel prices, thereby causing profit margins to be small or nonexistent. More recently, the biodiesel industry has been experiencing dropping feedstock costs; however, biodiesel prices have dropped even more rapidly, resulting in continued small or nonexistent profit margins. We expect these price relationships to continue for the foreseeable future. In addition, our revenues are also impacted by such factors as our dependence on one or a few major customers who market and distribute our products; the intensely competitive nature of our industry; the extensive environmental laws that regulate our industry; possible legislation at the federal, state and/or local level; and changes in federal biodiesel tax incentives.

 

42


Table of Contents

Revenues
                                 
    Fiscal Year Ended     Fiscal Year Ended  
    September 30, 2009     September 30, 2008  
Revenue Source   Amount     % of Revenues     Amount     % of Revenues  
Biodiesel Sales
  $ 24,995,232       86 %   $ 57,539,313       86 %
Glycerin Sales
  $ 486,327       2 %   $ 1,887,636       3 %
Fatty Acids and Soapstock Sales
  $ 424,978       1 %   $ 901,617       1 %
Federal Incentives
  $ 3,226,067       11 %     6,806,658       10 %
                         
Total Revenues from Sales
  $ 29,132,604       100 %   $ 67,135,224       100 %
                         
Revenues from operations for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2009 totaled $29,132,604 compared with $67,135,224 for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2008. Included within our total revenues for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2009 and 2008 are approximately $3,226,067 and $6,806,658 respectively, in incentives we received or which were receivable from certain federal government programs for the sale of our biodiesel. Revenues in fiscal year 2009 were approximately half the revenues in fiscal year 2008. The decrease in revenues was due primarily to decreased production and sales volume of biodiesel, glycerin, fatty acids and soapstock. The decrease in production volume was due to lack of demand and contracts for our biodiesel.
Lower biodiesel prices in fiscal 2009 compared to fiscal 2008, combined with a decrease in biodiesel sales volume, contributed to the lower total revenues in fiscal year 2009 as compared with fiscal year 2008. Average biodiesel sale prices during most of the year ended September 30, 2009 trended downward from the average biodiesel sale prices we experienced in the same period in 2008. The average biodiesel sale price we received for the year ended September 30, 2009 was approximately 32% lower than our average biodiesel sale price for the comparable period in 2008.
Because biodiesel is primarily used as an additive to petroleum-based diesel, biodiesel prices have generally correlated to diesel fuel prices. Diesel prices have climbed over the past several years reaching record highs of over $4.70 per gallon in July 2008, but have since trended downward, as oil prices have plummeted and the U.S. economic downturn and credit crisis have contributed to a decrease in demand for fuel in general. According to the Energy Information Administration, average retail prices for No. 2 Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel peaked at over $4.70 per gallon in July 2008, but rapidly dropped thereafter to approximately $2.75 per gallon as of early December 2009. Biodiesel prices have followed a similar trend, peaking in the summer of 2008 and declining thereafter. Nonetheless, diesel fuel prices per gallon remain at levels below or equal to the price of biodiesel. For example, the price for B100 biodiesel in Iowa was approximately $3.25 to $3.50 per gallon for the week of December 11, 2009, according to the USDA’s Weekly Ag Energy Round-Up report. However, according to the Energy Information Administration, Midwestern diesel fuel prices as of the week of December 14, 2009 averaged approximately $2.72 per gallon, which is slightly lower than the price per gallon for B100 biodiesel after the tax credit. The premium of biodiesel prices over diesel prices could cause a reduction in the demand for biodiesel. Through most of fiscal year 2008, biodiesel prices steadily increased and were well above historical highs and, therefore helped, to a certain extent, to offset high input costs, such as soybean oil. However, we expect that a continued drop in biodiesel prices without a corresponding decrease in the cost of feedstock and other inputs will cause the profit margin on each gallon of biodiesel produced to continue to be small to nonexistent, which could result in significant losses. Due to the volatility of the global economic conditions and commodities markets, it is uncertain whether biodiesel prices and input costs will continue to decrease or whether they will rebound to the higher prices experienced in the summer of 2008.
Based on historical trends, we anticipate that seasonal demand for biodiesel will decrease in the fall and winter months when blenders have typically decreased their biodiesel blend percentages due to cold flow concerns. Such decrease in demand could cause downward pressure on biodiesel sale prices. We anticipate the RFS will increase demand for biodiesel; however, until the EPA final rules under the RFS are released it is unclear what impact, if any, the RFS will have on biodiesel demand. Our financial condition may be negatively affected by decreases in the sales price of biodiesel. This is especially true during periods when feedstock costs for soybean oil and animal fats are relatively high, causing our profit margins to decrease even further.

 

43


Table of Contents

We also believe that recent U.S. and global economic downturn and the financial crisis that led to a collapse of a variety of major U.S. financial institutions and the federal government’s passage of a $700 billion bailout plan may also place downward pressure on the demand for fuel, including biodiesel. These factors have caused significant upheaval in the financial markets and economy of the U.S., as well as abroad. Credit markets have tightened and lending requirements have become more stringent. Commodity markets have tumbled as a result of the recent economic turmoil, causing oil and other commodity prices to drop significantly. We expect that these conditions may lead to a decline in biodiesel demand and it is uncertain for how long and to what extent these financial troubles may negatively affect biodiesel demand in the future.
Excess production capacity in the biodiesel industry could make it difficult for us to market our products at profitable prices. The National Biodiesel Board estimates that current dedicated biodiesel production capacity of existing plants as of June 22, 2009 (the most recent date for which data is available) was about 2.69 billion gallons per year, which is up from approximately 1.92 billion gallons per year as of September 2007. The National Biodiesel Board also estimates that plants under construction and expansion as of June 22, 2009 could add another 427.8 million gallons to U.S. biodiesel production capacity, for a total annual production capacity of 3.89 billion gallons. Despite these significant increases in production capacity, the National Biodiesel Board estimates that only 700 million gallons of biodiesel were produced in 2008. Many biodiesel plants do not operate at full capacity due in part to the fact that total production capacity significantly exceeds demand. If the demand for biodiesel does not grow at the same pace as increases in supply, we expect the price for biodiesel to decline in the long-term.
Higher crude glycerin sales prices in fiscal 2009 compared to fiscal 2008, did not, however; result in increased revenues. This is because even though demand for glycerin has increased, we produced less biodiesel in our fiscal year 2009 due to decreased demand for biodiesel, which meant we had less of our primary by-product, glycerin, to sell. The sales price of glycerin has increased due to increased demand for crude glycerin, which has trended upwards due to expanding glycerin refining capacity and increasing uses for glycerin.
We expect our results of operations to benefit from federal and state biodiesel supports and tax incentives. Biodiesel has generally been more expensive to produce than petroleum-based diesel and, as a result, the biodiesel industry depends on such incentives to be competitive. Changes to these supports or incentives could significantly impact demand for biodiesel. The most significant of these are the biodiesel blender’s credit, which is set to expire December 31, 2009, and the RFS. See “BUSINESS — Government Regulation and Federal Biodiesel Supports.”
We are highly dependent upon REG for the successful marketing of our products. We do not have our own sales force and we do not have any other agreements or relationships with feedstock suppliers. If REG breaches the agreement or does not have the ability, for financial or other reasons, to market all of the biodiesel and glycerin we produce, we will not have any readily available means to sell our biodiesel. Any loss of our relationship with REG could have a significant adverse impact on our revenues. Moreover, REG has given us a termination notice under the MOSA, which is now set to terminate on July 10, 2010. Our inability to retain a new marketer, or negotiate a new agreement with REG, could have also have a significant adverse impact on our revenues.
Cost of Goods Sold
The primary components of cost of goods sold from the production of biodiesel are raw materials (soybean oil, animal fats, corn oil, methanol and other chemicals), energy (natural gas and electricity), labor and depreciation on process equipment. Our business is sensitive to feedstock costs. The cost of feedstock is the largest single component of the cost of biodiesel production, typically accounting for 70-90% of the overall cost of producing biodiesel. Any fluctuation in the cost of feedstock will alter the return on investment that our members receive. Changes in the price or supply of feedstock are subject to and determined by market forces and other factors over which we have no control, such as crop production, carryout, exports, government policies and programs, and weather. Because biodiesel prices are strongly correlated to diesel fuel prices, the biodiesel industry is unlike many other industries where finished product prices are more strongly correlated to changes in production costs. This characteristic of the biodiesel industry makes it difficult for biodiesel producers to pass along increased feedstock costs and, therefore, increases in feedstock costs can significantly affect our ability to generate profits.
Cost of goods sold for our products for the year ended September 30, 2009 was $29,795,410, which is approximately half that of cost of goods sold for the year ended September 30, 2008, which was equal to $67,000,778. The decrease is primarily attributed to our lowered production rate. As a percentage of revenues, our cost of goods sold increased slightly from fiscal year 2008 to fiscal year 2009, which were 99.8% and 102.28%, respectively. This increase was due primarily to the lowered selling price for our biodiesel.

 

44


Table of Contents

Our average soybean oil costs for the year ended September 30, 2009 were approximately 30% lower than soybean oil costs for the year ended September 30, 2008. Likewise, animal fat costs for the year ended September 30, 2009 were approximately 42% lower than animal fat costs for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2008. In fiscal year 2009, we also utilized approximately 1.5 million pounds of corn oil feedstock, which is consistent with the minimal amounts of corn oil used in fiscal year 2008.
In order to minimize cost of goods sold, we have been increasingly utilizing lower-cost feedstocks such as animal fats and corn oil in place of higher-cost feedstocks such as soybean oil during the year ended September 30, 2009 as compared with the same period in 2008. In fiscal year 2008, approximately 68% of the feedstock used in our biodiesel production was animal fats and 32% was soybean oil. In fiscal year 2009, by comparison, approximately 80% of feedstock used in biodiesel production was animal fats, and approximately 20% was soybean oil.
In addition, natural gas has recently been available only at prices exceeding historical averages. We expect continued volatility in the natural gas market. Global demand for natural gas is expected to continue to increase, which may further drive up prices. Any ongoing increases in the price of natural gas will increase our cost of goods sold.
Commodity prices have been extremely volatile over the recent year, increasing by historic proportions in the summer of 2008 before dropping rapidly over the past several months. Soybean costs fell to $9.48 per bushel in November 2009, down from a high of approximately $13.30 per bushel in July 2008, according to the USDA’s December 2009 Oil Crop Outlook Report. Soybean oil prices have followed a similar trend, which according to the USDA’s December 2009 Oil Crop Outlook Report, average soybean oil prices reached a peak of approximately 62.43 cents per pound in June 2008, but have come down to a price of 36.59 cents per pound in November 2009, which is dramatically lower than the June 2008 peak. The drastic decrease in soybean oil prices is likely due to the rapid changes in the global economy. The USDA National Weekly Ag Energy Round-Up Report indicates that as of December 11, 2009, soybean oil prices in Iowa are approximately 35.59 to 38.15 cents per pound, which is up from the price range of 27.96 to 30.72 cents per pound one year ago. The USDA forecasted that 2009/10 soybean oil prices would range from 35.5 to 38.5 cents per pound. Accordingly, based on recent trends, management expects that cost of goods sold on the basis of a per-gallon of soybean oil-based biodiesel sold may decrease below levels experienced in fiscal year 2009. However, management still expects that prices may remain volatile through fiscal year 2010. It is uncertain to what extent and for how long domestic and global economic conditions may exert downward pressure on the cost of soybean oil and other commodities. Because it takes more than seven pounds of soybean oil to make a gallon of biodiesel, price fluctuations can have a significant affect on our profit margin on each gallon of biodiesel produced and sold. Soybean crushing, soybean acres planted, and weather conditions could increase volatility in the soybean oil market. Animal fats prices have also increased significantly, although they still remain lower than soybean oil prices.
Like soybean oil prices, animal fat costs also peaked in the summer of 2008. Although animal fat costs did not reach prices as high as soybean oil prices in the summer of 2008, animal fat costs nonetheless increased well above their historical average. The prices for animal fats tend to move in relation to the price of other feedstocks such as soybean oil. Accordingly, as soybean oil prices increase, animal fat costs will also likely increase and vice versa. According to the USDA’s December 2009 Oil Crop Outlook report, lard and edible tallow prices for November 2009 were estimated at 30.07 cents and 29.65 cents per pound, respectively, which are down from their peak of 52.82 cents and 38.61 cents per pound, respectively, in July 2008. However, management expects that prices may remain volatile throughout fiscal year 2010, as domestic and global economic conditions and commodities markets may affect input prices, including animal fats.
Based on recent trends of soybean oil and animal fat costs, we expect that cost of goods sold on a per-gallon basis may decrease below levels experienced in fiscal year 2009. However, management still expects that prices may remain volatile through fiscal year 2010. It is uncertain to what extent and for how long domestic and global economic conditions may exert downward pressure on the cost of soybean oil and animal fats. We will attempt to utilize feedstocks that provide us with the greatest margins on the sale of our biodiesel. Nonetheless, even if feedstock costs continue to drop, decreases in the price at which we may sell our biodiesel and glycerin in the future could still result in low profit margins, which could have an adverse affect on our net income.

 

45


Table of Contents

We experienced a $560,099 net gain during the year ended September 30, 2009 related to our derivative contracts, which is an increase from the $1,636,163 net loss recognized during the fiscal year ended September 30, 2008. The decrease in net loss related to hedging is likely due to reduction in our forward contracts and less volatile market conditions. We enter into option contracts to reduce the risk caused by market fluctuations of soybean oil and home heating oil. The contracts are used to fix the purchase price of our anticipated requirements of soybean oil in production activities and to manage exposure to changes in biodiesel prices. The fair value of the derivatives is continually subject to change due to the changing market conditions. As the value of soybean oil and home heating oil fluctuate, the value of our derivative instruments are impacted, which affects our financial performance. We anticipate continued volatility in our cost of goods sold due to the timing and changes in value of derivative instruments relative to the cost of the commodity being hedged.
Operating Expenses
Operating expenses for the year ended September 30, 2009 totaled $1,421,907, which is slightly lower than operating expenses of $1,729,356 for the same period in 2008. This decrease is largely due to the decline in our sales volume, which resulted in the marketer fee under our MOSA being substantially less in 2009 when compared to 2008. Operating expenses as a percentage of revenues increased slightly from fiscal year 2008 to fiscal year 2009, at 2.58% and 4.88% respectively. The increase in operating expenses as a percentage of revenues is primarily due to our reduced production and sales price for our products. We expect that our operating expenses for fiscal 2010 will remain fairly consistent if average plant production levels remain consistent.
Other Income (Expenses)
Our other income and expenses for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2009 was interest expense of $1,272,475 and interest income of $36,579, compared to an interest expense of $2,281,776 and interest income of $91,762 in 2008. The interest expense represents interest and amortization costs. The decrease in interest expense was primarily the result of a decrease in our outstanding borrowings and a decrease in our average interest rates.
Changes in Financial Condition
The following table highlights the changes in our financial condition from September 30, 2008 to September 30, 2009:
                 
    September 30,     September 30,  
    2009     2008  
Current Assets
  $ 5,746,294     $ 11,178,526  
Current Liabilities
  $ 31,016,570     $ 35,640,464  
Members’ Equity
  $ 12,281,381     $ 15,601,990  
Current Assets. Current assets totaled $5,746,294 at September 30, 2009 down from $11,178,526 at September 30, 2008. The decrease during this period is a result of decreased receivables and depressed inventory values.
Current Liabilities. Total current liabilities totaled approximately $31,016,570 at September 30, 2009, down slightly from $35,640,464 at September 30, 2008. This decrease was due largely to the repayment of $3,339,767 of debt and a decrease in accounts payable as a result of a reduction in production.
Members’ Equity. Members’ contributions at both September 30, 2009 and September 30, 2008 were equal to $23,165,422. Total members’ equity as of September 30, 2009 was $12,281,381, down from $15,601,990 as of September 30, 2008. The decrease in total members’ equity is due to a $3,320,609 loss during fiscal year 2009.

 

46


Table of Contents

Liquidity and Capital Resources
Cash Flow from Operating Activities. Net cash flow provided by operating activities for the year ended September 30, 2009 totaled $4,039,052 compared to $15,075 used for the year ended September 30, 2008. This increase was due to reduced payables and accrued expenses and increases in hedging activity.
Cash Flow from Investing Activities. Net cash flow used in investing activities for the year ended September 30, 2009 totaled $239,462, of which $156,301 was for increases in restricted cash requirements and $83,161 used for capital expenditures for minor improvements to our plant for efficiency and upgrade purposes.
Cash Flow from Financing Activities. Net cash used in financing activities for the year ended September 30, 2009 totaled $3,339,767, which was payments on our long-term debt financing.
Short-Term and Long-Term Debt Sources
In October 2006, we closed on our $34,715,000 debt financing with Bankfirst. The financing with Bankfirst provided for a $29,715,000 term loan, with an interest rate during construction (the first 14 months following loan closing) of 0.75% over the Prime Rate as of the effective date reported in the Money Rates column of The Wall Street Journal. Our construction loan converted to a term loan in February 2008. Starting on February 1, 2008 and on the 1st day of each month thereafter, 59 monthly payments of principal and interest (which is prime plus 0.25%) is due and payable through and including January 1, 2013. Payments are calculated in an amount necessary to amortize the principal amount of this note plus interest thereon over a 10 year period. The remaining unpaid principal balance, together with all accrued but unpaid interest, is due and payable in full on January 1, 2013.
The term loan imposes various covenants upon us which may restrict our operating flexibility. We are subject to several ratios in the term loan which may limit how we allocate our sources of funds. The term loan imposes a negative covenant on distributions which may restrict our ability to distribute earnings to our members. The term loan also requires us to obtain Bankfirst’s permission prior to making any significant changes in our material contracts with third-party service providers.
In addition, we have a $5,000,000 revolving line of credit with Bankfirst. This loan provides for the same interest options as under the term loan. Advances under the reducing revolving credit note are available through the life of the commitment. The commitment reduces by $900,000 semi-annually beginning July 1, 2012 and continuing through January 1, 2016, with a final reduction at the expiration of the commitment on July 1, 2016 at which time any outstanding balance shall be due and payable in full. The note requires interest payments based on unpaid principal. The interest options are the same as those under the term loan.
We executed a mortgage in favor of Bankfirst creating a first lien on substantially all of our assets, including our real estate, plant, all personal property located on our property and all revenues and income arising from the land, plant or personal property for the loan and credit agreements discussed above. As of the date of this report, we have timely paid all of our monthly payments under the loan, however, for the September and October payments we made draws from our debt service reserve for the principal portion of the payments. We began to replenish the draw on our debt service reserve in December 2009 and anticipate it will be completely replenished in January 2010. The Loan Agreement currently contains covenants that require a minimum ratio for current assets to current liabilities (working capital ratio) and a minimum debt coverage and fixed charge coverage ratios.
On April 2, 2009, we received a written notice of default from Bankfirst (the “Notice”). The Notice constituted a notice of default under Section 6.01(b) of the Loan Agreement, which provides the Company has 30 days to cure the covenant defaults or it will be considered an event of default. The Notice advises, and the Loan Agreement provides, that upon the occurrence of an event of default, Bankfirst may exercise a variety of remedies afforded to them under the Loan Agreement, by applicable law or equity, including without limitation, acceleration of the due date of the unpaid principal balance of the Loan Agreement and all accrued but unpaid interest thereon. Further, according to the mortgage and security agreement, Bankfirst may, during an event of default and in accordance with applicable law, foreclose its mortgage on our real estate and its security interest in our personal property and exercise any other remedies provided therein. We have not been able to cure the defaults. Thirty days have passed since we received the Notice and Bankfirst has not communicated with us in writing further on the matter. In July 2009, however, Bankfirst was seized by state regulators and the FDIC was named its receiver.

 

47


Table of Contents

We are currently working with OSM, a bank out of Minneapolis, Minnesota, as an interim administrative bank to make payments under our Loan Agreement, until permanent assignment of our Loan Agreement is made. We anticipate that early in the calendar year 2010 Met Life will assume lead bank status under our Loan Agreement and we will begin making payments to Bankers Trust as the administrative bank under our Loan Agreement. However, as of the date of this report, we have received no written notification as to Bankfirst’s successor. We have been in discussions with the group of bank participants in our Loan Agreement regarding our liquidity issues and have received a written offer sheet from Washington State Bank and Federation Bank, current participants in our Loan Agreement, for a line of credit of up to $1.5 million. If we closed on a new line of credit, we anticipate this would improve our liquidity.
While BankFirst did not elect to exercise its remedies under the Loan Agreement, there is no assurance that the receiver, or our new lead bank, will not accelerate our existing obligations which could greatly affect our ability to continue as a going concern. In addition, the blenders credit is set to expire on December 31, 2009 and if it is not extended, we would likely be unable to produce and sell biodiesel profitably, which would likely result in significant plant shut downs either on a temporary or permanent basis. These liquidity issues raise doubt about whether we will continue as a going concern. If our financial condition does not improve substantially, which may not occur due to our historical performance and the anticipated seasonal decrease in demand for biodiesel, we will continue to be in violation of these covenants. In addition, our loan contains an event of default for any material adverse change in our financial condition, and the term “material adverse change” is defined in such a way that leaves this determination to the subjective opinion of our lender. Our term loan is listed as a current liability because we have a going concern in the notes to our financial statements and generally accepted accounting principals (GAAP) require long term debt to be listed as a current liability when a company has a going concern disclosure.
Grants and Government Programs
We entered into a loan with the Iowa Department of Economic Development for $400,000. This loan is part of the Iowa Department of Economic Development’s Value Added Program and $100,000 of the loan is forgivable and the $300,000 principal amount does not bear interest. The balance at September 30, 2009 was $225,000.
In addition, on May 14, 2007 we entered into a Railroad Revolving Loan and Grant Program Agreement with the Iowa Department of Transportation (IDOT) for an amount of up to $168,000 (or 13.3% of the cost for the railroad project, whichever is less) and a loan amount of up to $132,000 (or 10.5% of the cost for the railroad project, whichever is less). Interest on the loan amount is at 3.67% per year for five years. The balance at September 30, 2009 was $275,478.
Critical Accounting Estimates
Management uses estimates and assumptions in preparing our financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. These estimates and assumptions affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities and the reported revenues and expenses.
Revenue Recognition
Revenue from the production of biodiesel and its co-products is recorded when title transfers to customers. Biodiesel and its co-products are generally shipped FOB from the plant.
Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities
Accounting Standards Certification (ASC) Topic No. 815, Derivatives and Hedging Activities, or ASC 815, requires a company to evaluate its contracts to determine whether the contracts are derivatives. Certain derivative contracts may be exempt under ASC 815 as normal purchases or normal sales, which are contracts that provide for the purchase or sale of something other than a financial instrument or derivative instrument that will be delivered in quantities expected to be used or sold over a reasonable period in the normal course of business. At this time, our forward contracts related to the purchase of soy oil are considered normal purchases and, therefore, are exempted from the accounting and reporting requirements of ASC 815.

 

48


Table of Contents

Commodity Price Risk Protection
We seek to minimize the risks from fluctuations in the prices of raw material inputs, such as soybean oil, and finished products, such as biodiesel, through the use of derivative instruments. In practice, as markets move, we actively manage our risk and adjust hedging strategies as appropriate. Although we believe our hedge positions accomplish an economic hedge against our future purchases, they do not qualify for hedge accounting, which would match the gain or loss on our hedge positions to the specific commodity purchase being hedged. We are using fair value accounting for our hedge positions, which means as the current market price of our hedge positions changes, the gains and losses are immediately recognized in our cost of goods sold. The immediate recognition of hedging gains and losses under fair value accounting can cause net income to be volatile from quarter to quarter due to the timing of the change in value of the derivative instruments relative to the cost and use of the commodity being hedged.
During the year ended September 30, 2009, the gains/losses on our derivative instruments relating to certain commodities, including soybean oil and heating oil, was a realized gain of $692,002 and a change in unrealized loss of $131,903 for a net gain of $560,099. We recognized a net loss of $1,636,163 during the year ended September 30, 2008, which consisted of a realized loss of $2,211,551 and a change in unrealized gain of $575,388. The unrealized portion of any hedging loss is subject to change with market fluctuations and may be offset by future higher-priced biodiesel sales.
There are several variables that could affect the extent to which our derivative instruments are impacted by price fluctuations in the cost of soybean oil or biodiesel. However, it is likely that commodity cash prices will have the greatest impact on the derivative instruments with delivery dates nearest the current cash price. As we move forward, additional protection may be necessary. As the prices of these hedged commodities move in reaction to market trends and information, our statement of operations will be affected depending on the impact such market movements have on the value of our derivative instruments. Depending on market movements, crop prospects and weather, these price protection positions may cause immediate adverse effects, but are expected to produce long-term positive growth for the Company.
Impairment of long-lived assets
Long-lived assets, including property, plant and equipment, are evaluated for impairment on the basis of undiscounted cash flows whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of an asset may not be recoverable. An impaired asset is written down to our estimated fair market value based on the best information available. Considerable management judgment is necessary to estimate discounted future cash flows and may differ from actual cash flows.
Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements
We do not have any off-balance sheet arrangements.
ITEM 7A. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK.
We are a smaller reporting company as defined by Rule 12b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and are not required to provide information under this item.

 

49


Table of Contents

ITEM 8. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
(MCGLADREY & PULLEN LOGO)
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
To the Board of Directors and Members
Iowa Renewable Energy, LLC
We have audited the balance sheets of Iowa Renewable Energy, LLC as of September 30, 2009 and 2008, and the related statements of operations, members’ equity and cash flows for the years then ended. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Iowa Renewable Energy, LLC as of September 30, 2009 and 2008, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the years then ended in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.
The accompanying financial statements have been prepared assuming that the Company will continue as a going concern. As discussed in Note 6 to the financial statements, the Company has suffered losses from operations and has experienced significant increases in the input costs of its products. This has created liquidity issues and caused the Company to be in violation of its bank debt covenants and there is no assurance that such violations will be waived which, together raise substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern. Management’s plans in regard to these matters are also described in Note 6. The financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.
We were not engaged to examine management’s assessment of the effectiveness of Iowa Renewable Energy, LLC’s internal control over financial reporting as of September 30, 2009 included in Item 9AT of the 10-K and, accordingly, do not express an opinion thereon.
/s/ McGladrey & Pullen, LLP
Davenport, Iowa
December 29, 2009

 

50


Table of Contents

Iowa Renewable Energy, LLC
Balance Sheets
September 30, 2009 and 2008
                 
    2009     2008  
Assets
               
Current Assets:
               
Cash and cash equivalents
  $ 649,297     $ 189,474  
Due from broker
    477,059       82,182  
Accounts receivable, net of allowance for doubtful accounts of 2009 $7,218; 2008 none
    1,090,753       4,469,451  
Derivative financial instruments
          65,141  
Federal incentive receivable
    146,182       747,741  
Inventory
    3,265,653       5,580,906  
Prepaids and other assets
    117,350       43,631  
 
           
Total current assets
    5,746,294       11,178,526  
 
           
 
               
Property and Equipment:
               
Land
    420,000       420,000  
Plant and processing equipment
    40,742,442       40,673,235  
Office building, furniture and fixtures
    572,769       572,632  
Equipment and vehicles
    240,241       226,424  
 
           
 
    41,975,452       41,892,291  
Accumulated depreciation
    (5,963,978 )     (3,313,970 )
 
           
 
    36,011,474       38,578,321  
 
           
 
               
Other Assets:
               
Cash, restricted by loan agreement
    1,201,118       1,044,817  
Financing costs, net
    339,065       440,790  
 
           
 
    1,540,183       1,485,607  
 
           
 
  $ 43,297,951     $ 51,242,454  
 
           
 
               
Liabilities and Members’ Equity
               
Current Liabilities:
               
Current maturities of long-term debt
  $ 30,005,576     $ 33,345,343  
Accounts payable and accrued expenses
    944,232       2,295,121  
Derivative financial instruments
    66,762        
 
           
Total current liabilities
    31,016,570       35,640,464  
 
           
 
               
Long-Term Debt
           
 
           
 
               
Commitments
               
 
               
Members’ Equity:
               
Member contributions, net of issuance costs, units outstanding 2009 and 2008 26,331
    23,165,422       23,165,422  
Accumulated (deficit)
    (10,884,041 )     (7,563,432 )
 
           
 
    12,281,381       15,601,990  
 
           
 
  $ 43,297,951     $ 51,242,454  
 
           
See Notes to Financial Statements.

 

51


Table of Contents

Iowa Renewable Energy, LLC
Statements of Operations
Years Ended September 30, 2009 and 2008
                 
    2009     2008  
Revenues:
               
Sales
  $ 25,906,537     $ 60,328,566  
Federal incentives
    3,226,067       6,806,658  
 
           
 
    29,132,604       67,135,224  
 
               
Cost of sales
    29,795,410       67,000,778  
 
           
 
               
Gross profit (loss)
    (662,806 )     134,446  
 
           
 
               
Operating expenses:
               
General and administrative
    1,383,907       1,691,356  
Depreciation
    38,000       38,000  
 
           
 
    1,421,907       1,729,356  
 
           
 
               
(Loss) before other income (expense)
    (2,084,713 )     (1,594,910 )
 
               
Other income (expense):
               
Interest income
    36,579       91,762  
Interest expense
    (1,272,475 )     (2,281,776 )
 
           
 
               
Net (loss)
  $ (3,320,609 )   $ (3,784,924 )
 
           
 
               
Weighted average units outstanding
    26,331       26,331  
 
           
 
               
Net (loss) per unit — basic and diluted
  $ (126.11 )   $ (143.74 )
 
           
See Notes to Financial Statements.

 

52


Table of Contents

Iowa Renewable Energy, LLC
Statements of Changes in Members’ Equity
Years Ended September 30, 2009 and 2008
                                 
            Member     Accumulated     Total Members’  
    Member Units     Contributions     Deficit     Equity  
 
                               
Balance, September 30, 2007
    26,331     $ 23,165,422     $ (3,778,508 )   $ 19,386,914  
Net (loss)
                (3,784,924 )     (3,784,924 )
 
                       
Balance, September 30, 2008
    26,331       23,165,422       (7,563,432 )     15,601,990  
Net (loss)
                (3,320,609 )     (3,320,609 )
 
                       
Balance, September 30, 2009
    26,331     $ 23,165,422     $ (10,884,041 )   $ 12,281,381  
 
                       
See Notes to Financial Statements.

 

53


Table of Contents

Iowa Renewable Energy, LLC
Statements of Cash Flows
Years Ended September 30, 2009 and 2008
                 
    2009     2008  
Cash Flows from Operating Activities:
               
Net (loss)
  $ (3,320,609 )   $ (3,784,924 )
Adjustments to reconcile net (loss) to net cash provided by operating activities:
               
Depreciation
    2,650,008       2,650,008  
Amortization
    101,725       101,723  
Unrealized (gain) loss on derivative financial instruments
    131,903       (575,388 )
Change in working capital components:
               
(Increase) decrease in due from broker
    (394,877 )     1,255,678  
Decrease in accounts receivable
    3,980,257       1,219,351  
(Increase) decrease in inventory
    2,315,253       (1,765,184 )
(Increase) in prepaids and other assets
    (73,719 )     (6,599 )
Increase (decrease) in accounts payable and accrued expenses
    (1,350,889 )     920,410  
 
           
Net cash provided by operating activities
    4,039,052       15,075  
 
           
 
               
Cash Flows from Investing Activities:
               
Purchase and construction of property and equipment
    (83,161 )     (22,481 )
Sales tax and utitlity refund from construction of property and equipment
          813,390  
(Increase) in cash restricted
    (156,301 )     (1,044,817 )
 
           
Net cash used in investing activities
    (239,462 )     (253,908 )
 
           
 
               
Cash Flows from Financing Activities:
               
Proceeds from long-term borrowings
          1,717,442  
Payment on long-term borrowings
    (3,339,767 )     (2,014,657 )
 
           
Net cash used in financing activities
    (3,339,767 )     (297,215 )
 
           
 
               
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents
    459,823       (536,048 )
 
               
Cash and cash equivalents:
               
Beginning
    189,474       725,522  
 
           
Ending
  $ 649,297     $ 189,474  
 
           
 
               
Supplemental Disclosure of Cash Flow Information, cash payments for interest
  $ 1,119,767     $ 2,287,429  
See Notes to Financial Statements.

 

54


Table of Contents

Iowa Renewable Energy, LLC
Notes to Financial Statements
Note 1. Nature of Business and Significant Accounting Policies
Nature of business:
Iowa Renewable Energy, LLC (the Company), located in Washington, Iowa, was formed in April 2005 to pool investors to build a biodiesel manufacturing plant with an annual capacity of 30 million gallons. The Company was in the development stage until July 2007, when it commenced operations.
Significant accounting policies:
Use of estimates: The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates.
Concentrations of credit risk: The Company’s cash balances are maintained in bank deposit accounts which at times may exceed federally insured limits. The Company has not experienced any losses in such accounts.
Cash and cash equivalents: The Company considers all highly liquid debt instruments purchased with a maturity of three months or less to be cash equivalents.
Restricted cash: Includes deposits to custodial accounts held by our lender. Debt service reserve: Commencing one month following the conversion date, the Company shall make monthly deposits to a debt service reserve until such time as the balance equals $1,319,265. Monthly deposits shall consist of not less than one-third of all available monthly projected EBITDA. Capital improvements reserve: Commencing one month after the conversion date, the Company shall make deposits into an account held by the Lender. The fund will be used to fund capital improvements. During the term of the loan, the capital improvements reserve must be maintained at $125,000.
Accounts receivable: Accounts receivable are presented at face value, net of the allowance for doubtful accounts. The allowance for doubtful accounts is established through provisions charged against income and is maintained at a level believed adequate by management to absorb estimated bad debts based on historical experience and current economic conditions. The provision for bad debts charged to expense was $7,218 and $135,170 for the years ended September 30, 2009 and 2008, respectively.
The Company’s policy is to charge simple interest on trade receivables past due balances; accrual of interest is discontinued when management believes collection is doubtful. Receivables are considered past due based upon payment terms set forth at the date of the related sale. The Company had no receivables accruing interest at September 30, 2009 or 2008
Inventory: Inventory is valued at the lower of cost or market using the first-in, first out (FIFO) method. Inventory consists of the following as of September 30, 2009 and 2008:
                 
    2009     2008  
 
               
Raw material
  $ 1,418,828     $ 2,695,569  
Finished goods
    1,846,825       2,885,337  
 
           
 
  $ 3,265,653     $ 5,580,906  
 
           

 

55


Table of Contents

Iowa Renewable Energy, LLC
Notes to Financial Statements
Organizational costs and startup costs: The Company expenses all organizational and startup costs as incurred.
Property and equipment: Property and equipment is stated at cost. Depreciation of such amounts commenced when the plant began operations. Depreciation is computed using the straight-line method over the following estimated useful lives:
         
    Years  
 
       
Plant and process equipment
    10 – 20  
Office building
    10 – 20  
Office equipment
    3 – 7  
Other equipment and vehicles
    3 – 7  
Maintenance and repairs are expensed as incurred; major improvements and betterments are capitalized.
The Company reviews its property and equipment for impairment whenever events indicate that the carrying amount of the asset may not be recoverable. An impairment loss is recorded when the sum of the future cash flows is less than the carrying amount of the asset. The amount of the loss is determined by comparing the fair market values of the asset to the carrying amount of the asset. No loss has been recorded during the years ended September 30, 2009 or 2008.
Offering costs: The Company classifies all costs directly related to raising capital as deferred offering costs until the capital is raised, at which point the costs were reclassified as an offset to equity as issuance costs.
Financing costs: Deferred financing costs associated with the construction and revolving loans and the $34,715,000 construction loan (Note 4) include expenditures directly related to securing debt financing. These costs are being amortized using the effective interest method over the 6-year term of the related debt agreement.
Derivative instruments: The Company has entered into derivative contracts to hedge its exposure to price risk related to forecasted soybean oil purchases and forecasted biodiesel sales. These derivative contracts are to be accounted for under Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) Topic No. 815, Derivatives and Hedging. ASC 815 establishes accounting and reporting standards for derivative instruments, including certain derivative instruments embedded in other contracts, and for hedging activities. It requires that an entity recognize all derivatives as either assets or liabilities in the statement of financial position and measure those instruments at fair value. If certain conditions are met, a derivative may be specifically designated as (a) a hedge of the exposure to changes in the fair value of a recognized asset or liability or an unrecognized firm commitment, (b) a hedge of the exposure to variable cash flows of a forecasted transaction, or (c) a hedge of the foreign currency exposure of a net investment in a foreign operation, an unrecognized firm commitment, an available-for-sale security, or a foreign-currency-denominated forecasted transaction.
Although the Company believes its derivative positions are economic hedges, none have been designated as a hedge for accounting purposes and derivative positions are recorded on the balance sheet at their fair market value, with changes in fair value recognized in current period earnings. The following amounts have been included in cost of goods sold for the years ended September 30, 2009 and 2008:
                 
    2009     2008  
 
               
Realized (gain) loss
  $ (692,002 )   $ 2,211,551  
Change in unrealized (gain) loss
    131,903       (575,388 )
 
           
 
               
Net (gain) loss
  $ (560,099 )   $ 1,636,163  
 
           
Revenue recognition: Revenue from the production of biodiesel and related products is recorded upon transfer of the risks and rewards of ownership and delivery to customers. Interest income is recognized as earned.

 

56


Table of Contents

Iowa Renewable Energy, LLC
Notes to Financial Statements
Federal incentive payments and receivables: Revenue from federal incentive programs is recorded when the Company has sold blended biodiesel and satisfied the reporting requirements under the applicable program. When it is uncertain that the Company will receive full allocation and payment due under the federal incentive program, it derives an estimate of the incentive revenue for the relevant period based on various factors including the most recently used payment factor applied to the program. The estimate is subject to change as management becomes aware of increases or decreases in the amount of funding available under the incentive programs or other factors that affect funding or allocation of funds under such programs.
Cost of sales: The primary components of cost of sales from the production of biodiesel products are raw materials (soybean oil, animal fats, hydrochloric acid, methanol, sodium methylate, and chemicals), energy (natural gas and electricity), and labor. Cost of sales detail for the years ended September 30, 2009 and 2008 is as follows:
                                 
Cost of Sales   2009 Dollars     2009 Percentage     2008 Dollars     2008 Percentage  
 
                               
Input costs (soy oil, chemicals, etc.)
  $ 24,580,763       82.50 %   $ 58,780,600       87.73 %
Plant wages and salaries
    733,760       2.46       824,139       1.23  
Utilities and wastee disposal
    1,055,769       3.4       1,847,708       2.76  
Fees-procurement
    142,591       0.48       253,547       0.38  
(Gain) loss on derivative financial instruments
    (560,099 )     (1.88 )     1,636,163       2.44  
Depreciation
    2,612,008       8.77       2,612,008       3.90  
Maint., supplies and other expenses
    1,230,618       4.13       1,046,613       1.56  
 
                       
Total cost of sales
  $ 29,795,410       100.00 %   $ 67,000,778       100.00 %
 
                       
The negative margin in 2009 was in part due to our marketer committing to indexed contracts that produced unfavorable margins, volatility in raw materials pricing and low production volumes. These factors were significant components of the negative margin.
Shipping and handling costs: Shipping and handling costs are expensed as incurred and are included in the cost of sales.
Income taxes: The Company is organized as a limited liability company which is accounted for like a partnership for federal and state income tax purposes and generally does not incur income taxes. Instead, the Company’s earnings and losses are included in the income tax returns of its members. Therefore, no provision or liability for federal or state income taxes has been included in these financial statements.
Earnings (loss) per unit: Loss per unit has been computed on the basis of the weighted average number of units outstanding during each period presented.
Fair value of financial instruments: The estimated fair value of financial instruments was determined by reference to various market data and other valuation techniques as appropriate. The carrying amounts of cash and cash equivalents, accounts receivable, accounts payable and accrued expenses approximate their fair values because of the short maturity of these financial instruments. The carrying value of the debt also approximates fair value as the interest rate reprices when market interest rates change. The fair values of the derivate instruments are based on quoted prices in active exchange-traded or over-the-counter markets.
The Company follows the guidance set forth in ASC Topic 820 for assets and liabilities recognized at fair value on a recurring basis. ASC 820 establishes a framework for measuring fair value and requires enhanced disclosures about assets and liabilities carried at fair value.
As defined in ASC 820, fair value is the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in the principal or most advantageous market for the asset or liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. ASC 820 establishes a fair value hierarchy, which prioritizes the inputs used in measuring fair value into three broad levels as follows:
Level 1 — Quoted prices are available in active markets for identical assets or liabilities as of the reported date. The types of assets and liabilities included in Level 1 are highly liquid and actively traded instruments with quoted prices, such as commodity derivative contracts listed on the Chicago Board of Trade.

 

57


Table of Contents

Iowa Renewable Energy, LLC
Notes to Financial Statements
Level 2 — Pricing inputs are other than quoted prices in active markets, but are either directly or indirectly observable as of the reported date. The types of assets and liabilities included in Level 2 are typically either comparable to actively traded securities or contracts or priced with models using highly observable inputs.
Level 3 — Significant inputs to pricing have little or no observability as of the reporting date. The types of assets and liabilities included in Level 3 are those with inputs requiring significant management judgment or estimation, such as the complex and subjective models and forecasts used to determine the fair value of financial transmission rights.
The following table presents the fair value hierarchy for those assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis as of September 30, 2009. As required by ASC 820, financial assets and liabilities are classified in their entirety based on the lowest level of input that is significant to the fair value measurement. The Company’s assessment of the significance of a particular input to the fair value measurement requires judgment and may affect the valuation of fair value assets and liabilities and their placement within the fair value hierarchy levels.
                                 
    Total Carrying             Significant other     Significant  
    Value at     Quoted prices in     observable     unobservable  
    September 30,     active markets     inputs     inputs  
    2009     (Level 1)     (Level 2)     (Level 3)  
Liabilities
                               
Derivative financial instruments liabilities
  $ 66,762     $ 66,762     $     $  
The Company enters into various commodity derivative instruments, including forward contracts, futures, options and swaps. The fair value of the Company’s commodity derivatives is determined using unadjusted quoted prices for identical instruments on the applicable exchange in which the Company transacts. When quoted prices for identical instruments are not available, the Company uses forward price curves derived from market price quotations. Market price quotations are obtained from independent energy brokers, exchanges, direct communication with market participants and actual transactions executed by the Company. Market price quotations for certain inputs are generally readily obtainable for the applicable term of the Company’s outstanding commodity derivative instruments and, therefore, the Company’s forward price curves for those locations and periods reflect observable market quotes.
Subsequent events: The Company has considered subsequent events through December 29, 2009, the date of issuance, in preparing the financial statements and notes thereto.
Recently adopted accounting standards: Effective with the quarter ended June 30, 2009, the Company adopted ASC Topic 825, Interim Disclosures about Fair Value of Financial Instruments and it did not have a material impact on its financial position or results of operations. ASC 825 requires disclosures about fair value of financial instruments in interim and annual financial statements. ASC 825 became effective for periods ending after June 15, 2009.
Effective with the quarter ended June 30, 2009, the Company adopted ASC Topic 855, Subsequent Events and it did not have a material impact on its financial position or results of operations. ASC 855 establishes general standards of accounting for and disclosure of events that occur after the balance sheet date but before financial statements are issued.
In June 2009, the FASB issued SFAS No. 168, The FASB Accounting Standards Codification and the Hierarchy of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles — a replacement of SFAS No. 162 (“SFAS 168”). Under SFAS 168, the FASB Accounting Standards Codification (“Codification”) will become the source of authoritative U.S. GAAP recognized by the FASB to be applied by nongovernmental entities. Rules and interpretive releases of the SEC under authority of federal securities laws are also sources of authoritative GAAP for SEC registrants. On the effective date of SFAS 168, the Codification will supersede all then-existing non-SEC accounting and reporting standards. All other non-grandfathered non-SEC accounting literature not included in the Codification will become non-authoritative. SFAS 168 is effective for financial statements issued for interim and annual periods ending after September 15, 2009. In the FASB’s view, the issuance of SFAS 168 and the Codification will not change GAAP, except for those nonpublic nongovernmental entities that must now apply the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants Technical Inquiry Service Section 5100, “Revenue Recognition”, paragraphs 38-76. The adoption of SFAS 168 did not have a material impact on our financial position or results of operations.

 

58


Table of Contents

Iowa Renewable Energy, LLC
Notes to Financial Statements
Note 2. Major Customer and Related Party
Iowa Renewable Energy, LLC entered into a marketing agreement with Renewable Energy Group (REG), where REG makes efforts to market and sell all of the biodiesel produced. Sales to REG for the years ended September 30, 2009 and 2008 were approximately $25.9 million and $60.3 million, respectively. Related accounts receivable from REG as of September 30, 2009 and 2008 were approximately $1.1 million and $4.5 million, respectively.
Iowa Renewable Energy, LLC also entered into procurement and management agreements with REG to supply IRE with feedstocks and chemical inputs necessary for production and to manage operations.
These marketing, procurement and management agreements will expire on July 31, 2010; however, the agreement will renew annually unless terminated by either party upon one year’s prior written notice. Fees under this agreement are based on the number of biodiesel gallons produced and in addition the agreement provides for payment of a yearly bonus based on the Company’s net income. Total fees expensed under the agreement for the years ended September 30, 2009 and 2008 were $541,932 and $923,687, respectively.
REG provided the notice of termination of the agreement due to changes in the biodiesel market since the agreements were originally signed. REG has proposed that the parties review and cooperate to negotiate a new contract on terms mutually beneficial to the Company and REG; however, there is no guarantee that a new contract will be signed. The Company is also exploring other options for the marketing of their biodiesel, in the event a new contract is not signed. They may be unable to find a new company to provide these management and operational services, or they may not enter into a new agreement on favorable terms. Any lack of a provider for these services would have a negative impact on our operations and financial position.
Note 3. Members’ Equity
The Company was formed on April 14, 2005 to have a perpetual life. The Company has one class of membership unit with each unit representing a pro rata ownership interest in the Company’s capital, profits, losses and distributions. Income and losses are allocated to all members in proportion to units held.
The Company was initially capitalized by 12 members of the original board of directors, contributing an aggregate of $240,000 for 480 units. The Company was further capitalized by 78 members contributing an aggregate of $2,440,000 in exchange for 4,880 units. These units were issued pursuant to a private placement memorandum, limited to Iowa residents in which the Company offered a maximum of 6,000 units at a cost of $500 per unit for a maximum offering of $3,000,000, with all funds collected being considered at-risk capital. Each investor was required to purchase a minimum of 50 units for $25,000, with the option to purchase additional units in increments of one unit for $500 thereafter up to a maximum purchase by a single investor of 100 units for $50,000. Additionally, a total of 500 units were issued to the members of an entity related to the Company through common ownership in exchange for project development services provided pursuant to a consulting agreement. The private placement memorandum for the seed round offering was closed on November 30, 2005.
In April 2006, the Company issued an Iowa registered offering of membership units. The intrastate offering was set for a minimum of 17,595 membership units up to a maximum of 25,095 units for sale at $1,000 per unit, for a minimum offering amount of $17,595,000 and a maximum offering amount of $25,095,000. The minimum purchase requirements were 25 units for a minimum investment of $25,000. The Company began the intrastate offering on April 17, 2006 which was completed on May 1, 2006. A total of 19,371 membership units were issued to 508 members amounting to $19,371,000 of gross proceeds.

 

59


Table of Contents

Iowa Renewable Energy, LLC
Notes to Financial Statements
In November 2006 the directors exercised 1,100 units at $500 per unit. 100 units were unexercised and expired. In accordance with the Loan agreement, referenced in Note 4 below, the options funds were used for construction contract obligations prior to the initial draw on the loan in December 2006.
Note 4. Long-Term Debt
Long-term debt consists of the following as of September 30, 2009 and 2008:
                 
    2009     2008  
 
               
Note payable to Marshall Bank Group for construction loan (A)
  $ 29,505,098     $ 32,760,343  
Note payable to the Iowa Department of Economic Development (B)
    225,000       285,000  
Note payable to the Iowa Department of Transportation (C)
    275,478       300,000  
 
           
 
  $ 30,005,576     $ 33,345,343  
 
           
Due to the liquidity issues addressed in Note 6, the debt has been classified as current.
(A)  
On October 26, 2006, the Company entered into a $34,715,000 construction-term loan agreement which was used to complete the biodiesel project. The loan consisted of two phases: a “construction phase” where the Company made periodic requests for fund advances to meet construction obligations and at the completion of construction, the loan converted to a “senior debt instrument.” The note bears interest at prime plus .25% (3.5% as of September 30, 2009 and 5.25% as of September 30, 2008) and is due in monthly principal and interest payments of $373,000. The Company was in violation of the debt covenants at September 30, 2009 and on April 2, 2009 received a written notice of default from the lender (See Note 6).
Debt service reserve: Commencing one month following the conversion date, the Company shall make monthly deposits to a debt service reserve until such time as the balance equals $1,319,265. Monthly deposits shall consist of not less than one-third of all available monthly projected EBITDA.
Capital improvements reserve: Commencing one month after the conversion date, the Company shall make deposits into a custodial account held by the Lender. The fund will be used to fund capital improvements. During the term of the loan, the capital improvements reserve must be maintained at $125,000.
Sinking fund: Commencing one month after the conversion date, one-third of all monthly projected EBITDA shall be applied to reduce loan principal. At the point the outstanding principal loan balance is reduced to $20,182,750 no additional sinking fund deposits will be required.
(B)  
The Company has a $300,000 loan agreement and a $100,000 forgivable loan agreement with the Iowa Department of Economic Development. The $300,000 loan is noninterest-bearing and due in monthly payments of $5,000 beginning December 2006 for a term of 60 months with a balance as of September 30, 2009 and 2008 of $125,000 and $185,000, respectively. Borrowings under this agreement are collateralized by substantially all of the Company’s assets and will be subordinate to the $34,715,000 of financial institution debt. The $100,000 loan is forgivable upon the completion of 36 months of the 60 month term.
   
The $100,000 loan will be forgiven if the Company complies with certain employment and production criteria defined in the agreement. In the event of noncompliance or default, the loan will be repaid over a two-year period starting with the date of noncompliance, including interest at 6%.
(C)  
The Company has a $132,000 loan agreement and a $168,000 forgivable grant agreement with the Iowa Department of Transportation. The $132,000 loan bears interest at 3.67% beginning June 2008 and is due in semi-annual payments of $14,569 beginning December 2008 for a term of 60 months. The balance at September 30, 2009 was $107,478. Borrowings under this agreement are collateralized by substantially all of the Company’s assets and is not subordinate to the $34,715,000 of financial instrument debt. The $168,000 grant is forgivable upon completion of the loan agreement.

 

60


Table of Contents

Iowa Renewable Energy, LLC
Notes to Financial Statements
(D)  
In July 2009, the FDIC seized Marshall Bank First. Marshall Bank First had served as “Lead Bank” for the purposes of loan administration as described in item (A) above. In August the FDIC assigned OSM as the “lead bank” for administration of the Long-Term debt until a permanent “lead bank” could be assigned. Management anticipates that Met Life will be assigned as the permanent lead bank and that Bankers Trust will be assigned as the permanent administration bank, however, as of the date of this filing, the Company has not been notified in writing regarding the assignment of the permanent lead or permanent administration bank.
Maturities with long-term debt are as follows:
         
Year ending September 30:
       
2010
  $ 3,308,977  
2011
    3,316,875  
2012
    3,377,751  
2013
    20,001,973  
 
     
 
  $ 30,005,576  
 
     
Note. 5 Lease Commitment and Other Contingencies
The Company leases a copier under a long-term operating lease that will expire in December 2010. The lease requires payments of $275 per month plus applicable taxes.
Minimum lease payments under these operating leases for future years are as follows:
                 
Year ending September 30:
               
2010
          $ 3,304  
2011
            1,377  
 
             
 
          $ 4,681  
 
             
The European Union is currently leveling tariffs on biofuels exported from the United States due to subsidies paid on biofuels. These tariffs went into effect March 13, 2009. In July 2009, the European Commission decided to extend these tariffs beyond their initial July 2009 expiration date until 2014. The Company will likely face increased competition for sales of its biodiesel and international demand for its product will likely decrease as a result of these tariffs. If any governmental supports are modified or removed and decreased demand for the Company’s biodiesel results, its profitability will be reduced. Because biodiesel has historically been more expensive to produce than diesel fuel, the biodiesel industry has depended on governmental incentives that have effectively brought the price of biodiesel more in line with the price of diesel fuel to the end user. These incentives have supported a market for biodiesel that might not exist without the incentives. The most significant of these incentives for biodiesel is the blenders’ tax credit which provides a $1.00 tax credit per gallon of pure biodiesel, or B100, to the first blender of biodiesel with petroleum based diesel fuel. The blenders’ tax credit will expire on December 31, 2009 subject to any action Congress may take in 2010. The elimination or reduction of tax incentives to the biodiesel industry could likely result in the Company’s inability to produce and sell biodiesel profitably.

 

61


Table of Contents

Iowa Renewable Energy, LLC
Notes to Financial Statements
Note 6. Going Concern
The accompanying financial statements have been prepared assuming that the Company will continue as a going concern. Through September 30, 2009, the Company has generated accumulated losses of $10,884,041, has experienced significant volatility in its input costs and undertaken significant borrowings to finance the construction of the biodiesel plant. The loan agreements with the Company’s lender contains covenants that require a minimum ratio of current assets to current liabilities (working capital ratio) minimum debt coverage and fixed charge coverage ratios. The Company is not in compliance with these covenants at September 30, 2009 and it is projected that the Company will fail to comply with one or more of the loan covenants throughout fiscal 2010. Failure to comply with these loan covenants constitutes an event of default under the Company’s loan agreements which, at the election of the lender, could result in the acceleration of the unpaid principal loan balance and accrued interest under the loan agreements or the loss of the assets securing the loan in the event the lender elected to foreclose its lien or security interest in such assets. In addition, the Company’s loan agreement allows the lender to consider the Company in default of the loan at any point for poor financial performance. These liquidity issues raise doubt about whether the Company will continue as a going concern.
The Company has been in communication with its lender as to the steps it needs to take to resolve this situation, but there can be no assurance that the lender will waive the Company’s noncompliance with any one or more of the loan covenants. The Company’s ability to continue as a going concern is dependent on the Company’s ability to comply with the loan covenants and the lender’s willingness to waive any noncompliance with such covenants. Management anticipates that if additional capital is necessary to comply with its loan covenants or to otherwise fund operations, the Company may pursue strategies that could include issuing additional membership units through one or more private placements, or to solicit a sale or merger of the Company with other strategic partners. However, there is no assurance that the Company would be able to raise the desired capital. The Company could elect to reduce its production capacity through the remaining winter months by scaling back on biodiesel production or temporarily shutting down the biodiesel plant depending on the Company’s cash situation and its ability to purchase raw materials to operate the plant. The Company may also seek to produce biodiesel on a toll basis where biodiesel would be produced using raw materials provided by someone else. Finally, the blenders credit is set to expire on December 31, 2009 and if it is not extended, the Company would likely be unable to produce and sell biodiesel profitably, which would likely result in significant plant shut downs either on a temporary or permanent basis.

 

62


Table of Contents

ITEM 9. CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE.
McGladrey & Pullen, LLP is our independent registered public accounting firm at the present time. The Company has had no disagreements with its auditors.
ITEM 9AT. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES.
Disclosure Controls and Procedures
Our management, including our chief executive officer (the principal executive officer), Michel Bohannan, along with our chief financial officer (the principal financial officer), Todd Willson, have reviewed and evaluated the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures as of September 30, 2009. Based on a review and evaluation, these officers believe that our disclosure controls and procedures are effective in ensuring that material information related to us is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods required by the forms and rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Management’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting
Our management, including our chief executive officer and our chief financial officer, is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting for the Company. Internal control over financial reporting is defined in Rule 13a-15(f) or 15d-15(f) promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as a process designed by, or under the supervision of, the Company’s principal executive and principal financial officers, or persons performing similar functions, and effected by the Company’s board of directors, management and other personnel, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and includes those policies and procedures that:
   
Pertain to the maintenance of records that in reasonable detail accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the Company;
   
Provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial statements in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the Company are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the Company; and
   
Provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition of the Company’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.
Our management assessed the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of September 30, 2009. In making this assessment, the Company’s management used the criteria set forth by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) in Internal Control-Integrated Framework. Based on this assessment, our management concluded that, as of September 30, 2009, our integrated controls over financial reporting were not effective because of the material weakness discussed below.
Management’s evaluation of the design and operating effectiveness of our internal controls over financial reporting identified a material weakness with respect to a deficiency in the operation of our controls, such that our internal control over financial reporting does not operate as designed or the person performing the control does not possess the necessary authority or competency to perform the control effectively. Our current chief financial officer is relatively new to the position. Thus, we had several adjustments to our financial statements during the period covered by this report which impacted our closing process and delayed the preparation of our financial statements, including all required disclosures. In addition to this material weakness, we noted significant deficiencies in our lack of segregation of duties, due to one person being primarily responsible for all of our accounting activities. We are compensating for this deficiency by close supervision and review by our board of directors.

 

63


Table of Contents

A “material weakness” is defined as a significant deficiency or combination of significant deficiencies that results in more than a remote likelihood that a material misstatement of the annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis. A “significant deficiency” is a deficiency or a combination of deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those responsible for oversight of our financial reporting.
We have taken the following steps to remediate the material weakness related to the operation of our controls:
   
We continue to provide training, oversight and guidance for our chief financial officer; and
   
We have hired external assistance with our financial reporting.
This annual report does not include an attestation report of the Company’s registered public accounting firm regarding internal control over financial reporting. Management’s report was not subject to attestation by the Company’s registered public accounting firm pursuant to temporary rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission that permit the Company to provide only management’s report in this annual report.
Changes in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
Our management, consisting our chief executive officer and our chief financial officer, have reviewed and evaluated any changes in our internal control over financial reporting that occurred as of September 30, 2009 and there has been no change that has materially affected or is reasonably likely to materially affect our internal control over financial reporting.
ITEM 9B. OTHER INFORMATION.
None.
PART III
ITEM 10. DIRECTORS, EXECUTIVE OFFICERS, AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE.
The information required by this Item is incorporated by reference to the definitive proxy statement for our 2010 annual Meeting of Members to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission within 120 days after the end of our 2009 fiscal year. This proxy statement is referred to in this report as the 2010 Proxy Statement.
ITEM 11. EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION.
The information required by this Item is incorporated by reference to the 2010 Proxy Statement.
ITEM 12. SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT AND RELATED MEMBER MATTERS.
The information required by this Item is incorporated by reference to the 2010 Proxy Statement.
ITEM 13. CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS AND DIRECTOR INDEPENDENCE.
The information required by this Item is incorporated by reference to the 2010 Proxy Statement.
ITEM 14. PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT FEES AND SERVICES.
The information required by this Item is incorporated by reference to the 2010 Proxy Statement.
ITEM 15. EXHIBITS, FINANCIAL STATEMENT SCHEDULES.
The following exhibits are filed as part of, or are incorporated by reference into, this report:
             
            Method of
Exhibit No.   Description   Filing
       
 
   
  31.1    
Certificate pursuant to 17 CFR 240 13a-14(a)
  *
       
 
   
  31.2    
Certificate pursuant to 17 CFR 240 13a-14(a)
  *
       
 
   
  32.1    
Certificate pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
  *
       
 
   
  32.2    
Certificate pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
  *
 
     
(*)  
Filed herewith.

 

64


Table of Contents

SIGNATURES
In accordance with Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, the registrant caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.
         
  IOWA RENEWABLE ENERGY, LLC
 
 
Date: December 29, 2009  /s/ Mike Bohannan    
  Mike Bohannan   
  Chairman and President   
     
Date: December 29, 2009  /s/ Todd Willson    
  Todd Willson   
  Chief Financial Officer   
In accordance with the Exchange Act, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.
         
Date: December 29, 2009  /s/ Mike Bohannan    
  Mike Bohannan   
  Chairman and President   
     
Date: December 29, 2009  /s/ Mark Cobb    
  Mark Cobb   
  Vice Chairman and Director   
     
Date: December 29, 2009  /s/ Dick Gallagher    
  Dick Gallagher   
  Secretary and Director   
     
Date: December 29, 2009  /s/ Warren L. Bush    
  Warren L. Bush, Director   
     
Date: December 29, 2009  /s/ William J. Horan    
  William J. Horan, Director   
     
Date: December 29, 2009  /s/ Edwin J. Hershberger    
  Edwin J. Hershberger, Director   
     
Date: December 29, 2009  /s/ John Heisdorffer    
  John Heisdorffer, Director   
     
Date: December 29, 2009  /s/ William J. Pim    
  William J. Pim, Director   
     
Date: December 29, 2009  /s/ Denny Mauser    
  Denny Mauser, Director   

 

65