Significant Accounting Policies

3 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2011

Accounting Policies

Significant Accounting Policies [Text Block]

NOTE 4 SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

SEGMENT INFORMATION

We determined our reporting units in accordance with FASB ASC 280, “Segment Reporting” (“ASC 280”). We evaluate a reporting unit by first identifying its operating segments under ASC 280. We then evaluate each operating segment to determine if it includes one or more components that constitute a business. If there are components within an operating segment that meet the definition of a business, we evaluate those components to determine if they must be aggregated into one or more reporting units. If applicable, when determining if it is appropriate to aggregate different operating segments, we determine if the segments are economically similar and, if so, the operating segments are aggregated. We have one operating segment and reporting unit. We operate in one reportable business segment; we provide technologies and related products and services to U.S.-based ethanol producers. We are organized and operated as one business. We exclusively sell our technologies, products and services to ethanol producers that have entered into license agreements with the Company. No sales of any kind occur, and no costs of sales of any kind are incurred, in the absence of a license agreement. A single management team that reports to the chief operating decision maker comprehensively manages the entire business. We do not operate any material separate lines of business or separate business entities with respect to our technologies, products and services. The Company does not accumulate discrete financial information according to the nature or structure of any specific technology, product and/or service provided to the Company’s licensees. Instead, management reviews its business as a single operating segment, using financial and other information rendered meaningful only by the fact that such information is presented and reviewed in the aggregate. Discrete financial information is not available by more than one operating segment, and disaggregation of our operating results would be impracticable.

REVENUE RECOGNITION

The Company recognizes revenue when persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists, delivery has occurred or services have been rendered, the price is fixed or determinable, and collection is reasonably assured. The Company recognizes revenue from licensing of the Company’s corn oil extraction technologies when corn oil sales occur. Licensing royalties are recognized as earned by calculating the royalty as a percentage of gross corn oil sales by the ethanol plants. For the purposes of assessing royalties, the sale of corn oil is deemed to occur when shipped, which is when four basic criteria have been met: (i) persuasive evidence of a customer arrangement; (ii) the price is fixed or determinable; (iii) collectability is reasonably assured, and (iv) product delivery has occurred, which is generally upon shipment to the buyer of the corn oil. Deposits from customers are not recognized as revenues, but as liabilities, until the following conditions are met: revenues are realized when cash or claims to cash (receivable) are received in exchange for goods or services, or when assets received in such exchange are readily convertible to cash or claim to cash, or when such goods or services are transferred. When an income item is earned, the related revenue item is recognized and any deferred revenue is reduced. To the extent revenues are generated from the Company’s licensing support services, the Company recognizes such revenues when the services are completed and billed.

The Company provides process engineering services on fixed price contracts.  These services are generally provided over a short period of less than three months.  Revenue from fixed price contracts is recognized on a pro rata basis over the life of the contract as they are generally performed evenly over the contract period.

The Company additionally performs under fixed-price contracts involving design, engineering, procurement, installation, and start-up of oil recovery and other production systems. Revenues and fees on these contracts are recognized using the percentage-of-completion method of accounting, and specifically the efforts-expended percentage-of-completion method using measures such as task duration and completion. The efforts-expended approach is used in situations where it is more representative of progress on a contract than the cost-to-cost or the labor-hours methods.

The asset, “costs and estimated earnings in excess of billings on uncompleted contracts,” represents revenues recognized in excess of amounts billed. The liability, “billings in excess of costs and estimated earnings on uncompleted contracts,” represents billings in excess of revenues recognized.

BASIC AND DILUTED INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE

The Company computes its net income or loss per common share under the provisions of ASC 260, “Earnings per Share,” whereby basic net income or loss per share is computed by dividing the net loss for the period by the weighted-average number of shares of common stock outstanding during the period. Dilutive net loss per share excludes potential common shares issuable upon conversion of all derivative securities if the effect is anti-dilutive. Thus, common stock issuable upon exercise or conversion of options, warrants, convertible preferred stock, or convertible debentures are excluded from computation of diluted net loss per share, but are included in computation of diluted net income per share. During the six months ended June 30, 2011, we reported net income and accordingly included potentially dilutive instruments in the fully diluted net income per share calculation. However, we reported net losses during the quarters ended June 30, 2011 and June 30, 2010, and the six months ended June 30, 2010, and, in accordance with ASC 260, dilutive instruments were excluded from the net loss per share calculation for such periods.

FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS

The carrying values of accounts receivable, other receivables, accounts payable, and accrued expenses approximate their fair values due to their short term maturities. The carrying values of the Company’s long-term debt approximate their fair values based upon a comparison of the interest rate and terms of such debt to the rates and terms of debt currently available to the Company. It was not practical to estimate the fair value of the convertible debt. In order to do so, it would be necessary to obtain an independent valuation of these unique instruments. The cost of that valuation would not be justified in light of the materiality of the instruments to the Company.

RECENT ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS

In May 2011, the Financial Accounting Standards Board ("FASB") issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) 2011-04, "Fair Value Measurement (Topic 820) Amendment to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and IFRSs."  ASU No. 2011-04 is intended to improve the comparability of fair value measurements presented and disclosed in financial statements prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP and IFRSs, by ensuring that fair value has the same meaning in U.S. GAAP and IFRSs and that their respective disclosure requirements are the same except for inconsequential differences in wording and style.  The amendments in ASU No 2011-04 apply to all reporting entities that are required or permitted to measure or disclose the fair value of an asset, a liability, or an instrument classified in a reporting entity's shareholders' equity in the financial statements.  Some of the disclosures required by ASU No. 2011-04 are not required for nonpublic entities.  These amendments change the wording used to describe many of the requirements in U.S. GAAP for measuring fair value and for disclosing information about fair value measurements.   For many of the requirements, the Board does not intend for the amendments to result in a change in the application of the requirements in ASC Topic 820.  Some of the amendments clarify the Board's intent about the application of existing fair value measurement requirements.  Other amendments change a particular principle or requirement for measuring fair value or for disclosing information about fair value measurements.  The adoption of ASU 2011-04 did not have a material impact on the Company's results of operations or financial condition.

In December 2010, the FASB issued ASU 2010-29, “Business Combinations (ASC Topic 805): Disclosure of Supplementary Pro Forma Information for Business Combinations.” The amendments in this ASU affect any public entity as defined by ASC Topic 805 that enters into business combinations that are material on an individual or aggregate basis. The amendments in this ASU specify that if a public entity presents comparative financial statements, the entity should disclose revenue and earnings of the combined entity as though the business combination(s) that occurred during the current year had occurred as of the beginning of the comparable prior annual reporting period only. The amendments also expand the supplemental pro forma disclosures to include a description of the nature and amount of material, nonrecurring pro forma adjustments directly attributable to the business combination included in the reported pro forma revenue and earnings. The amendments are effective prospectively for business combinations for which the acquisition date is on or after the beginning of the first annual reporting period beginning on or after December 15, 2010. The adoption of ASU 2010-29 did not have a material impact on the Company’s results of operations or financial condition.

In December 2010, the FASB issued ASU 2010-28, “Intangibles — Goodwill and Other (ASC Topic 350): When to Perform Step 2 of the Goodwill Impairment Test for Reporting Units with Zero or Negative Carrying Amounts.” The amendments in this ASU modify Step 1 of the goodwill impairment test for reporting units with zero or negative carrying amounts. For those reporting units, an entity is required to perform Step 2 of the goodwill impairment test if it is more likely than not that a goodwill impairment exists. In determining whether it is more likely than not that a goodwill impairment exists, an entity should consider whether there are any adverse qualitative factors indicating that an impairment may exist. The qualitative factors are consistent with the existing guidance and examples, which require that goodwill of a reporting unit be tested for impairment between annual tests if an event occurs or circumstances change that would more likely than not reduce the fair value of a reporting unit below its carrying amount. For public entities, the amendments in this ASU are effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those years, beginning after December 15, 2010. The adoption of ASU 2010-28 did not have a material impact on the Company’s results of operations or financial condition.

In April 2010, the FASB issued ASU 2010-17, Revenue Recognition — Milestone Method (“ASU 2010-17”). ASU 2010-17 provides guidance on the criteria that should be met for determining whether the milestone method of revenue recognition is appropriate. A vendor can recognize consideration that is contingent upon achievement of a milestone in its entirety as revenue in the period in which the milestone is achieved only if the milestone meets all criteria to be considered substantive. The following criteria must be met for a milestone to be considered substantive. The consideration earned by achieving the milestone should (i) be commensurate with either the level of effort required to achieve the milestone or the enhancement of the value of the item delivered as a result of a specific outcome resulting from the vendor’s performance to achieve the milestone; (ii) be related solely to past performance; and (iii) be reasonable relative to all deliverables and payment terms in the arrangement. No bifurcation of an individual milestone is allowed and there can be more than one milestone in an arrangement. Accordingly, an arrangement may contain both substantive and non-substantive milestones. ASU 2010-17 is effective on a prospective basis for milestones achieved in fiscal years, and interim periods within those years, beginning on or after June 15, 2010. The adoption of ASU 2010-17 did not have a material effect on the Company’s results of operations or financial condition.

In October 2009, the FASB issued ASU 2009-13, Multiple-Deliverable Revenue Arrangements, (amendments to FASB ASC Topic 605, Revenue Recognition ) (“ASU 2009-13”).  ASU 2009-13 requires entities to allocate revenue in an arrangement using estimated selling prices of the delivered goods and services based on a selling price hierarchy. The amendments eliminate the residual method of revenue allocation and require revenue to be allocated using the relative selling price method. ASU 2009-13 should be applied on a prospective basis for revenue arrangements entered into or materially modified in fiscal years beginning on or after June 15, 2010, with early adoption permitted. The adoption of ASU 2009-13 did not have a material impact on the Company’s results of operations or financial condition.

Management does not believe that any other recently issued, but not yet effective, accounting standards if currently adopted would have a material effect on the accompanying financial statements.