Form 10-K

Large accelerated filer

Accelerated filer

Non-accelerated filer

¨ (Do not check if a smaller reporting company)

Smaller reporting company

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes ¨ No x

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act. Yes ¨ No x

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act during the preceding 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. Yes x 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 Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes x No ¨

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K 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. ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer or a smaller reporting company. See definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one.)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.): Yes ¨ No x

The aggregate market value of the registrant’s common stock, $0.001 par value, held by non-affiliates of the registrant as of June 30, 2012, the last business day of our second fiscal quarter, was approximately $506.0 million based on the closing sale price as reported on the Nasdaq Global Select Market.

As of February 28, 2013, there were 61,758,684 shares of the registrant’s common stock, par value $0.001 per share, outstanding.

Portions of the registrant’s definitive proxy statement for its 2013 Annual Meeting of Stockholders are incorporated by reference into Part III hereof.

Our registered trademarks include Solazyme^®, Soladiesel^®, Algenist^®, Alguronic Acid^® and Golden Chlorella^®. This Annual Report on Form 10-K also contains trademarks, service marks and trade names owned by us as well as others.

The following discussion and analysis should be read together with our audited consolidated financial statements and the related notes and other financial information appearing elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements reflecting our current expectations and involves risks and uncertainties. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terminology such as “may,” “will,” “should,” “expect,” “plan,” “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “predict,” “intend,” “potential” or “continue” or the negative of these terms or other comparable terminology. For example, statements regarding our expectations as to future financial performance, expense levels, future manufacturing capacity, addressable market size, target average selling prices and liquidity sources are forward-looking statements. Our actual results and the timing of events may differ materially from those discussed in our forward-looking statements as a result of various factors, including those discussed below and those discussed in the section entitled “Risk Factors” included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K and in our other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

We make oils. Our proprietary technology transforms a range of low-cost plant-based sugars into high-value oils. Our renewable products can replace or enhance oils derived from the world’s three existing sources—petroleum, plants, and animal fats. We tailor the composition of our oils to address specific customer requirements, offering superior performance characteristics and value. Our oils can address the major markets served by conventional oils, which represented an opportunity of over $3 trillion in 2011. Initially, we are commercializing our products into three target markets: (1) chemicals and fuels, (2) nutrition and (3) skin and personal care.

We create oils that mirror or enhance the chemical composition of conventional oils used today. Until now, the physical and chemical characteristics of conventional oils have been dictated by oils found in nature or blends derived from them. We have created a new paradigm that enables us to design and produce novel tailored oils that cannot be achieved through blending of existing oils alone. These tailored oils offer enhanced value as compared to conventional oils. For example, our tailored, renewable oils can enable our customers to enhance product performance, reduce processing costs and/or enhance their products’ sustainability profile. Our oils are drop-in replacements such that they are compatible with existing production, refining, finishing and distribution infrastructure in all of our target markets.

We have pioneered an industrial biotechnology platform that harnesses the prolific oil-producing capability of microalgae. Our technology allows us to optimize oil profiles with different carbon chain lengths, saturation levels and functional groups to modify important characteristics. We use standard industrial fermentation equipment to efficiently scale and accelerate microalgae’s natural oil production time to a few days. By feeding our proprietary oil-producing microalgae plant sugars in dark fermentation tanks, we are in effect utilizing “indirect photosynthesis,” in contrast to traditional open-pond approaches. Our platform is feedstock flexible and can utilize a wide variety of renewable plant-based sugars, such as sugarcane-based sucrose, corn-based dextrose, and sugar from other sustainable biomass sources including cellulosics, which we believe will represent an important alternative feedstock in the longer term. Furthermore, our platform allows us to produce and sell specialty bioproducts from the protein, fiber and other compounds produced by microalgae.

We expect our products to generate attractive margins in our target markets. We anticipate that the average selling prices (ASPs) of our products will capture the enhanced value of our tailored oils. Based on the technology milestones we have demonstrated, we believe the conversion cost profile we have achieved to date will, when implemented at scale, enable us to profitably engage in our target markets. For example, our lead microalgae strains producing oil for the chemicals and fuels markets have achieved key performance metrics that we believe would allow us to generate attractive margins on the manufacture of oils today assuming the use of a

larger-scale, built-for-purpose commercial plant (inclusive of the anticipated cost of financing and facility depreciation). The following table depicts our target markets, our expected average selling prices and our target margins for oils and specialty bioproducts in those markets when our plants reach full name-plate capacity.

We anticipate scaling up our manufacturing capacity to sell our oils and specialty bioproducts in the following three target markets:

Chemicals and Fuels. Our renewable oils can be sold as replacements for chemicals that are traditionally derived from petroleum or other conventional oils, or refined and sold as drop-in replacements for marine, motor vehicle and jet fuels. In the chemicals market, we expect to sell our oils to chemical companies that either use our oils directly as a functional fluid or as a raw material to convert into replacements and enhancements for their existing petrochemical and oleochemical products. In the fuels market, we can either manufacture the end product by contracting with refiners to produce fuels of targeted specifications, or sell our unrefined oils to refiners. We tailor our oils to meet industry specifications and customer demands and believe that we can achieve premium pricing as a result of the higher value products we can deliver without affecting our conversion costs.

Nutrition. We have developed microalgae-based food ingredients including oils and powders that enhance the nutritional profile and functionality of food products while reducing costs for consumer packaged goods (CPG) companies. Solazyme Roquette Nutritionals, our joint venture with Roquette Frères, S.A. (Roquette), is working to commercialize these food products in conjunction with major CPG companies. In addition to greater health benefits, including reduced calories, saturated fat and cholesterol, these nutrition products offer a variety of functional benefits such as enhanced taste and texture for low-fat formulations and lower cost handling and processing requirements as a result of being shelf-stable powdered alternatives to traditional liquid or refrigerated ingredients. We are also pursuing markets for a range of tailored food oils (Solazyme Specialty Food Ingredients) that have the potential to increase availability or improve upon conventionally utilized specialty fats and oils.

Skin and Personal Care. We have developed a portfolio of innovative and branded microalgae-based products. Our first major ingredient is Alguronic Acid^®, which we have formulated into a full range of skin care products with significant anti-aging benefits. For example, since March of 2011, we have commercialized our brand Algenist^®, which is an anti-aging skincare line and available at Sephora S.A. and its affiliates (Sephora), QVC and SpaceNK. We are also developing algal oils as replacements for the essential oils currently used in skin and personal care products

Rapidly growing demand coupled with limited supply, energy security concerns and environmental considerations are driving the need to find alternative sources of oil. In addition to global population growth of over 80 million people per year, developing economies such as India and China are expanding rapidly. The resulting higher industrial output, rapid urbanization, higher living standards, and changing diets are driving

increasing demand for food, transportation, personal care items, plastics and other oil-based products. While demand for oil is rapidly growing, global petroleum reserves are finite, and new sources of petroleum oil often contain heavier, lower quality oil. Similarly, due to climate constraints, the supply of plant oils is limited as the vast majority of global arable land is better suited to cultivation of high-density, carbohydrate-based crops such as corn and sugarcane. The ability to grow and convert such carbohydrate-rich plants into oil offers a potential solution to the insatiable global demand for oil.

Price increases and volatility in the markets for petroleum and other conventional oils create significant economic risk to global business and trade. According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), worldwide petroleum prices have fluctuated substantially and have risen more than 200% over the past decade. In 2012, Brent crude averaged $112 per barrel and ended the year at $111 per barrel. The price of Brent crude peaked at $145 per barrel in July 2008. The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) forecasts the price of Brent oil could reach $237 per barrel by 2040.

Government mandates around the world increasingly require the blending of biofuels into transportation fuels. For example, in the US, legislation such as the renewable fuel standards (RFS2) under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 requires the use of 36 billion gallons of renewable transportation fuel by 2022, which includes 21 billion gallons of advanced biofuels. Similarly, in the European Union, policies such as the Fuel Quality Directive require greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions for all transportation fuels of 6% by 2020.

Companies are aggressively seeking new sources of oils that have greater price stability than petroleum and other conventional oils. Companies are also looking for new sources of oils with improved characteristics versus conventional oils. Finally, initiatives focused on fulfillment of corporate sustainability objectives and government mandates support an increased use of renewable oils.

Our solution combines a highly efficient and productive oil-producing organism, microalgae, for the creation of oils with scalable and cost-effective standard industrial fermentation processes in order to deliver high value, low-cost, tailored oils. We use microalgae as a biocatalyst to produce oil from a wide variety of low-cost plant-based sugar feedstocks—such as cane-based sucrose or corn-based dextrose (which are the lowest cost and most widely available today) as well as sugar from other sustainable biomass sources, including cellulosics. Our microalgae are grown in the dark and use “indirect photosynthesis,” receiving their energy from the photosynthetically grown plant sugars fed to them in large steel tanks. The controlled environment of the standard industrial fermentation tanks minimizes contamination and allows us to tightly regulate acidity, temperature and other key parameters. Our core competency is the ability to (1) identify, isolate and further optimize strains of microalgae to achieve high cell densities, high yield converting sugar to product and high productivity rates compared to other alternatives, and (2) tailor the oil outputs to meet specific market needs. Our technology offers a renewable alternative source of oil that is environmentally sustainable. Life Cycle Associates (an independent GHG measurement firm) determined that when used for transportation, our biofuels reduce lifecycle GHG emissions by 66-93% compared to conventional petroleum based fuels, depending on the plant sugar source, type of fuel and regional measurement methodology.

We believe that the following advantages of our platform allow us to offer a new source of renewable oils to address the major markets served by conventional oils:

We harness the power of microalgae to yield substantial volumes of oil and specialty bioproducts. Our key competitive advantages are:


	Target ASP Range ($/MT)	Market Size (MT)	End Markets
Oleic Platform	$1,800-$3,000	>1M	Lubricants Functional fluids Oleochemicals Food Services Retail food oils
Lauric Platform	$1,500-$2,500	>3M	Surfactants Oleochemicals Personal Care
Myristic	$3,000+	>150k	Surfactants Oleochemicals Personal Care

We intend to be the global market leader in the design and production of renewable oils and specialty bioproducts. Our oils supplement, replace or enhance conventional oils from petroleum, plant or animal sources. The principal elements of our strategy are:

Our process is compatible with commercial-scale and widely-available fermentation equipment. We operate our lab and pilot fermentation and recovery equipment as scaled-down versions of our large commercial engineering designs, such as those we are using to supply large quantities of oil and fuel for our testing and certification programs with the US Department of Defense (DoD). This allows us to more easily scale up to larger fermentation vessels. We have scaled up our technology platform and have successfully operated at lab (5-15 liter), pilot (600-1,000 liter), demonstration (20,000 liter) and commercial (approximately 500,000 liter) fermenter scale. The commercial scale achieved at ADM’s Clinton facility is comparable to the fermentation equipment currently under construction at the Solazyme Bunge Renewable Oils facility in Brazil. The Solazyme Bunge Renewable Oils facility in Brazil has a 100,000 metric ton annual nameplate capacity facility and is on schedule to begin operations in the fourth quarter of 2013.

Solazyme Roquette Nutritionals’ products Almagine^® HL, Almagine^® HP, and Golden Chlorella^® are produced at the flagship manufacturing location of our partner Roquette, in Lestrem, France. Solazyme Roquette Nutritionals has been producing microalgae-derived food ingredients from the Phase 1 facility. In addition, the Phase 2 facility, which is being built by our partner Roquette, is under construction and is also located in Lestrem.

We also utilize contract manufacturing to assist in the production of our products, including 18 consumer products made with Alguronic Acid^® for skin and personal care applications. We closely monitor and advise these contract manufacturers to ensure that our products meet stringent quality standards. The Peoria Facility, which we acquired in May 2011, commenced fermentation operations in the fourth quarter of 2011. In 2012 we began commercial fermentation of our Alguronic Acid production at the Peoria Facility, and have now

transferred most fermentation production of Alguronic Acid from contract manufacturers to the Peoria Facility. We have contracted with third parties to formulate and manufacture our branded skin care products using our oils and specialty bioproducts and to ship these finished products directly to our distribution partners.

We are pursuing capital efficient access to manufacturing capacity and have formulated specific production and feedstock strategies for each of our target markets as follows:

In addition, in November 2012, we entered a joint venture expansion framework agreement for Solazyme Bunge Renewable Oils. The agreement sets forth the intent of the partners to expand joint venture-owned oil production capacity at Solazyme Bunge Renewable Oils from the current 100,000 metric tons under construction in Brazil to 300,000 metric tons by 2016 at select Bunge owned and operated processing facilities worldwide. Also, we and Bunge intend to expand the portfolio of oils to be produced out of the Solazyme Bunge JV facility in Brazil. The expanded field and portfolio of oils would include certain tailored food oils for sale in Brazil, where Bunge is the largest supplier of edible oils through several of its retail brands. The parties intend to work together through joint market development to bring new healthy and nutritious edible oils to the Brazilian market.

Also in November 2012, we and ADM entered into a Strategic Collaboration Agreement (Collaboration Agreement), establishing a collaboration for the production of tailored triglyceride oil products at ADM’s facility in Clinton, Iowa. We are utilizing ADM’s existing manufacturing facility in a capital-efficient expansion of our renewable oil production platform in North America. Feedstock for the facility will be provided from ADM’s adjacent wet mill. Under the terms of the Collaboration Agreement, we will pay ADM annual fees for use and operation of the Clinton facility, a portion of which may be paid in our common stock. In addition, we granted to ADM a warrant covering 500,000 shares of Common Stock, which will vest in equal monthly installments over five years, commencing from the start of commercial production. We currently anticipate that commercial production at the Clinton facility will begin by early 2014. The initial target nameplate capacity of the facility is expected to be 20,000 metric tons per year of tailored triglyceride oil products. We have an option to expand the capacity to 40,000 metric tons per year with the goal to further expand production to 100,000 metric tons per year. We will also work together to develop markets for the products produced at the Clinton facility.

We intend to continue to expand our manufacturing capacity by entering into additional agreements with feedstock producers that require them to invest some or all of the capital needed to build new production facilities to produce our oils. In return, we expect to share in profits anticipated to be realized from the sale of these products. We are currently developing and assessing projects with additional potential feedstock partners in Europe, Latin America and the United States.

Our technology platform allows us to develop tailored oils that offer our customers cost competitive performance benefits relative to petroleum and other conventional oils. We are focused on producing oils and bioproducts that we intend to sell into three target markets: chemicals and fuels, nutrition, and skin and personal care which represent a total addressable market greater than $1.6 trillion.

To date, we have generated revenues primarily from research and development programs, license fees and product sales. Our platform also allows us to produce and sell bioproducts that may be used in the specialty ingredients markets. We currently rely, and expect to rely, on a limited number of partners for a significant portion of our revenues. In 2012, five of our largest partners, Bunge and its affiliates, the DOE, Chevron, QVC and Sephora each accounted for more than 10% of our total revenue, and collectively accounted for 79% of our total revenue. We also consider Unilever to be a significant partner.

In the chemicals and fuels markets, products derived from our oils offer drop-in replacements for marine, motor vehicle and jet fuels, as well as replacements for petrochemicals, oleochemicals and functional fluids. We tailor our oils and fuels to meet industry specifications and unique customer demands, and we believe we will be able to charge premium pricing as a result of the higher value products we can deliver.

We believe our tailored oils will become the basis for a next generation of high performance bio-based chemicals and functional fluids. Our tailored oils platform enables replacement and enhancement of petroleum-, plant-, or animal-derived oils that are used as raw materials for the chemicals industry. In many cases, we expect to create novel oils, and uniquely high-performing end products that do not exist in nature or are prohibitively expensive to synthesize. Our technology allows us to optimize oil profiles with different carbon chain lengths, saturation levels and functional groups. This powerful tool kit allows us to modify important functional characteristics such as melting points, oxidative stability and viscosity. We anticipate that in some markets, our tailored oils will be the first renewable chemicals and functional fluids that will be competitive with petroleum and conventional oil-derived incumbents; this will reduce our customers’ exposure to price volatility of

petroleum and other conventional oils. We are focusing our initial tailored oils for the chemicals markets in three distinct targets:

We plan to sell our oils to industry partners that will either incorporate our oils directly, or use them as raw materials to replace and/or enhance existing products. Examples of the customers we intend to sell our products to include Mitsui, Dow and Unilever.

In February 2013, we entered into a $20 million multi-year agreement with Mitsui & Co. to jointly develop a suite of triglyceride oils for use primarily in the oleochemical industry. The agreement includes further development of our high myristic algal oil, a valuable raw material in the oleochemical industry, as well as additional oils that we are developing for the oleochemical and industrial sectors.

In May 2012, we and Dow entered into a Phase 2 Joint Development Agreement (Phase 2 JDA), an extension of the original exclusive joint development agreement related to dielectric insulating fluids. The Phase 2 JDA includes accelerated commercialization timelines and enables Dow to conduct additional application development work.

In addition, we are currently in the second year of a multi-year joint development agreement with Unilever (our fourth agreement together), which also incorporates initial terms of a commercial supply agreement. We have expanded the agreement from soap and personal care to also include food products.

We have identified many novel applications for our tailored oils that have been validated with our customer and partner relationships. As manufacturing capacity becomes available in 2013 and beyond, we expect to sell our oils into the sample applications listed in the table below, as well as a wide array of other opportunities. We have produced oils suitable for all of these applications, and expect to build on our initial library of oils in the future to augment our product offering in both the Oleochemicals and Functional Fluids target markets.

We intend to focus on diesel and jet fuel markets. According to the EIA and Wood Mackenzie, in 2010, the global diesel and jet fuel markets were over $600 billion and $200 billion, respectively, and are both growing relative to other fuels, such as gasoline. Our initial commercial focus is to sell our oils to refiners that will process and blend our oils to meet specifications for the desired fuel. Our oils are tailored to meet refiner requirements and can be optimized according to refining processes. For example, refining of our oils tailored to make diesel fuel yields a substantially higher percentage of finished diesel by volume (over 85%) than conventional petroleum. In addition to improving yields to high-value fuels, our oils can also be used by refiners to fulfill GHG requirements and government mandates such as RFS2 in the US.

Our fuels provide significant reductions in GHG emissions as compared to fossil fuels, which qualifies these products for government mandated emission reduction programs, such as those in the US and EU. For example, according to Life Cycle Associates, our biofuels reduce lifecycle GHG emissions by 66%-93% compared to conventional petroleum based fuels, depending on the plant sugar source, type of fuel and regional measurement methodologies. Testing undertaken by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) ReFUEL laboratory shows that in a 20% blend Soladiesel_BD significantly outperforms ultralow sulfur diesel in total hydrocarbons (THC), carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate matter tailpipe emissions. This includes an approximate 30% reduction in particulates, an approximate 20% reduction in CO and an approximate 10% reduction in THC.

In addition to selling our oils to refiners, we can manufacture the fuel end product directly by contracting or partnering with refiners. For example, we currently work with our refining partners Honeywell UOP and Dynamic Fuels, LLC to produce Soladiesel_RD (renewable diesel), HRF-76 renewable diesel for US Naval vessels, and Solajet renewable jet fuel for both military testing and commercial application demonstrations.

We began working with the US Navy in 2008. In 2009 we entered into our first contract with the DoD to provide over 80,000 liters of HRF-76 Naval marine diesel fuel (HRF-76 is renewable F-76, the military’s marine diesel standard) and HRJ-5 Naval jet fuel (HRJ-5 is renewable JP-5, the Navy’s jet fuel standard). Subsequent to the successful delivery of this in-spec fuel in the summer of 2010, we entered into a third contract to produce

HRF-76 Naval marine diesel in order to complete the testing and certification program for that fuel necessary to establish appropriate status for future commercial procurements. This contract was divided into two phases. In September 2011, we delivered the 75,000 gallons (283,906 liters) of fuel due under Phase 1 of the agreement. In August 2011, the DoD exercised its option to pursue Phase 2 of the agreement, which called for the additional delivery of 75,000 gallons (283,906 liters) of marine diesel fuel which was delivered in the first half of 2012.

Driven by national security and other concerns, in 2009 the US Navy established an objective that it would source greater than 50% of its aggregate fuel and energy demands from clean renewable sources by 2020. In 2009, the US Navy used over 128 million barrels (19 million metric tons) of fuel. As such, we believe that the DoD presents a large opportunity for sales of renewable fuels for well-positioned, qualified suppliers.

In November 2011, Dynamic Fuels, LLC (Dynamic) was awarded a contract to supply the US Navy with 450,000 gallons (1,703,000 liters) of renewable fuels. The contract involves supplying the US Navy with 100,000 gallons (379,000 liters) of jet fuel (Hydro-treated Renewable JP-5 or HRJ-5) and 350,000 gallons (1,325,000 liters) of marine distillate fuel (Hydro-Treated Renewable F-76 or HRD-76). We were named the sole subcontractor and we entered into a subcontractor agreement with Dynamic effective as of January 2012 to supply Dynamic with algal oil to partly fulfill Dynamic’s contract with the US Navy to deliver fuel by May 2012. We delivered our commitment of algal oil pursuant to this subcontract in February 2012. The fuel was used as part of the US Navy’s Green Strike Group demonstration at Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) 2012. The Great Green Fleet was powered by a 50/50 blend of biofuel and conventional petroleum-based fuel.

Also in 2011, we partnered with United Airlines to provide renewable jet fuel for the first US commercial flight utilizing biofuel. United Airlines and Solazyme also signed a non-binding letter of intent for us to provide United Airlines with up to 20 million gallons of our fuel per year starting in 2014. We have developed and tested the following branded fuels over the last four years. In addition to maintaining a significant improvement in GHG reduction over seed oils and petroleum-derived fuels, these fuels meet industry specifications:

Fuels derived from our oils are compatible with existing refining and distribution infrastructure, meet industry specifications, and can be used with factory-standard engines without modifications. They are the first microalgae-based fuels to have been road tested, in both blended and unblended forms. The tests were successful, and performed over thousands of miles in unmodified vehicles. In addition, the US Navy has tested our fuels in numerous unmodified platforms including Riverine Command Boat (RCB-X), Seahawk Helicopter (MH 60S and

SH-60),F/A-18 Hornets and Super Hornets, Hawkeyes (E-2), Prowler (EA-6), Landing Craft Utility (LCU-1663), Yard Patrol (YP-692), Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC-91), USS Paul H Foster Destroyer (DD-964), USS Ford (FFG-54), USS Nimitz (CVN 68), USS Chafee (DDG 90), USS Chung Hoon (DDG 93), USS Princeton (CG 59), USNS Henry J Kaiser (T-AO 187), US Coast Guard Henry Blake and a commercial cargo vessel, the Maersk Kalmar. Results from these tests have been successful.

In March 2012, Volkswagen of America announced a partnership with us to evaluate emissions reductions and demonstrate the performance of TDI Clean Diesel technology when powered by Soladiesel_RD_,our renewable diesel. Under the agreement, Volkswagen provided us with two products—the new 2012 Passat TDI and 2012 Jetta TDI—in order to closely examine the effects that the fuel has on Volkswagen clean diesel technology and the environment. The 12-month evaluation period equips Volkswagen engineers with valuable data that will aid in the ongoing enhancement of TDI Clean Diesel technology and help the brand to develop more efficient, cleaner burning diesel powertrains for future products.

In August 2012, we announced that we were granted registration for Soladiesel_RD fuel by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This registration enables Soladiesel_RD to be sold commercially either in blended and unblended (R100) forms. To our knowledge, Soladiesel_RD is the first 100% microbially based fuel in history to receive an EPA fuel registration for use as a “neat” or unblended product. In tests conducted for the EPA registration, Soladiesel_RD met or exceeded the ASTM D975 specification for conventional diesel fuel. Soladiesel_RD performed substantially similar to petroleum diesel and even reduced NOX emissions by approximately 10% when tested in modern diesel engines. In a measurement of ignition quality, Soladiesel_RD exhibited a Cetane Number greater than 78, which is more than 60 percent above standard US diesel fuel.

In November 2012, we and Propel Fuels, a leading retailer of renewable fuels and clean mobility solutions, collaborated to bring our algae-derived fuel to retail pumps for what we believe to be the first time in history. Our algae-based Soladiesel^®_BD was offered to drivers through Propel Fuels’ Bay Area network of retail renewable fuel locations.

The global food ingredient market that Solazyme Roquette Nutritionals is focused on is approximately 83 million MT as of 2011. The market includes products that can enhance or replace emulsifiers, fats and oils, polysaccharides, oligosaccharides and proteins. Our microalgae-based food ingredients enhance the nutritional profile and functionality of food products. When used as a partial or complete replacement for ingredients such as eggs, butter, cream and oil, our products enable consumer product goods (CPG) companies, and other food processors, to offer products with significantly better nutrition taste and texture parity and/or enhancement. As a result, our products align with current consumer trends, which include demands for products that are more nutritious without taste compromise, contain natural, sustainable ingredients, and simpler ingredient panels. In addition to greater health benefits, our products offer a variety of functional benefits such as enhanced taste and texture, natural emulsification, and robust industrial processibility.

Within our Solazyme Roquette Nutritionals joint venture, we continue to develop the market for our Almagine^® HL, Almagine^® HP, and Golden Chlorella^® products as the Solazyme Roquette JV builds commercial-scale capacity. Almagine^® is a dry and naturally processed microalgae-based product made through specific fermentation and downstream processing to yield either an oil or protein-rich powder. Both powder products contain healthy oils, protein, natural emulsifiers and dietary fiber. Supply from the Phase 1 plant has been used for Golden Chlorella sales and Almagine^® HL and Almagine^® HP market samples. Product from the Phase 2 plant will enable larger market development samples and commercial sales. Additionally, the Golden Chlorella^® line represents a unique source of protein and omega fatty acids. Through our Solazyme Roquette JV, we have commercialized the whole algal cell protein (Golden Chlorella^® High Protein) formulation with sales of products incorporating Golden Chlorella^® at retailers including Whole Foods. Target markets for our growing line of products include food and beverage CPG companies, food service, and nutraceutical markets.

In addition to the work being carried out in the Solazyme Roquette Nutritionals joint venture, we are also developing market opportunities for a range of tailored food oils (Solazyme Specialty Food Ingredients) that have the potential to increase availability or improve upon conventionally utilized specialty fats and oils. In the fourth quarter of 2011, we entered into an expanded JDA with Unilever that includes multi-year funding for specific research and development in tailored nutritional oil. We have active market development activities or joint development agreements for our Specialty Food Ingredients products with a number of partners including Unilever, Bunge and ADM.

According to Euromonitor, the size of the global skin and personal care market was approximately $273 billion in 2010. Within this market, we target (1) toiletries, makeup, and hair care, estimated at $189 billion, and (2) skin care, estimated at $84 billion. In contrast to our other commercial areas, in skin and personal care our strategy includes the development of branded consumer products. We employ this strategy because the financial returns in the skin care market accrue more strongly to branded finished products than to ingredients or raw materials suppliers.

During our algal strain screening process, we discovered and isolated key compounds that microalgae synthesize to protect themselves against environmental hazards, such as UV exposure, changes in extremes of temperature, and dehydration. Our first major ingredient is Alguronic Acid^®, which we have formulated into a range of creams and serums. Alguronic Acid^® is a proprietary family of polysaccharides extracted from microalgae via a process we have developed. Third party in vitro studies suggest that Alguronic Acid^® promotes cell proliferation (cell regeneration) and elastin synthesis (skin elasticity). The charts below illustrate the results of these studies in which Alguronic Acid^® demonstrated significant anti-aging benefits and outperformed some of the most well-known anti-aging ingredients on the market including hyaluronic acid, retinol and vitamins C and E.

We have developed a portfolio of innovative Alguronic Acid^® based skin care products, which have been available internationally in the luxury market since March 2011. Our products are currently sold to consumers via distribution arrangements with Sephora, QVC Inc., Space NK and others. These arrangements provide marketing support and access to more than 1,350 retail stores worldwide. We expect to continue expanding distribution throughout 2013. The Algenist^® line currently consists of 18 SKUs and is sold in 14 countries worldwide. In 2012, Algenist^® was ranked the #3 skin care brand on QVC and was awarded the QVC Customer Choice Beauty Award.

We have created an industrial biotechnology platform that is able to cost-effectively produce tailored, high-value oils. Our platform exploits the prolific oil production capabilities of microalgae as a biocatalyst while leveraging standard fermentation processes and existing industrial equipment to transform renewable biomass such as plant-based sugars into tailored oils.

Microalgae have long been recognized as organisms capable of rapid and efficient oil production under certain conditions. Oleaginous microalgae evolved over billions of years, synthesizing large amounts of oil rapidly when cultivated in the right environment. Our proprietary microalgae are heterotrophic. They grow in the dark by consuming sugars derived from plants that have already harnessed the sun’s energy. Our process is therefore a form of “indirect photosynthesis.” When grown in the absence of light, our microalgae are highly efficient at converting the sun’s energy embedded within the plant sugars (feedstocks) into oil and specialty bioproducts. Our proprietary, highly productive microalgae produce and accumulate oil that constitutes over 80% of the dry cell weight. Typical wild microalgae, in contrast, usually have only 5-20% oil content.

We rely on a multitude of microalgae strains including natural, classically improved, and/or targeted recombinant strains. The key components of our industrial biotechnology platform are strain screening, classical strain improvement, strain optimization through targeted gene recombination, fermentation process development, and downstream process development. As strains progress through the classical strain improvement and targeted recombinant strain optimization pipelines described below, they feed back into the strain screening program, re-emerging for additional rounds of strain improvement, strain optimization, and process development.

One of our core philosophies is to identify robust, high-oil-producing natural strains and use these as a foundation for subsequent strain improvement and optimization efforts. Our strain screening capabilities allow us to analyze thousands of strains per week, providing a detailed inventory of each strain’s outputs under controlled conditions. We can then improve the performance of the selected strains, alter their outputs or further extend their feedstock flexibility by employing: classical strain improvement and/or targeted recombinant strain optimization approaches.

Classical strain improvement is a process that involves: (1) subjecting natural or optimized strains to specific environmental conditions for prolonged periods of time to promote strain evolution; and (2) brief exposure to mutagens (chemicals and/or ultraviolet light) in an effort to generate strains possessing desired traits such as increased oil synthesis, yield on carbon, or an ability to tolerate higher temperatures. We have improved strains utilized in our chemicals and fuels and nutrition business areas by applying this approach. We have also improved the ability of our strains to utilize a variety of less-refined and lower cost feedstocks, such as sugar derived from cellulose, which may be employed at future manufacturing sites depending on geographical, economic and agricultural factors.

Our advanced molecular biology capability includes an optimization toolkit able to precisely target genes (knock-out, re-regulate, and insert genes) and specific gene products (such as proteins/enzymes) while maintaining the stability of strains. We have optimized some of our lead strains to metabolize sucrose (the sugar present in sugarcane, beets, and sweet sorghum), xylose (a sugar present in many cellulosic feedstocks) and other sugars present in cellulosic feedstocks.

We can control the composition of the oils to suit particular target market needs. For example, we can modify the number of carbon atoms in the carbon chain, tune the level of saturation (number and location of double bonds between carbon atoms in the chain), or add functional groups, such as hydroxyl groups. We believe our ability to modify these characteristics is transformative, as it enables us to address a diverse array of high value market opportunities. Until now, the physical and chemical characteristics of conventional oils have primarily been dictated by oils found in nature or blends derived from them. Our biotechnology platform has created a new paradigm that allows for the production of tailored oils containing fatty acid profiles that are not found in plant oils or animal fats and cannot be achieved through blending alone. Such oils offer tremendous opportunities throughout the food, chemicals, and renewable fuels industries where fatty acid chain lengths and saturation levels are critical determinants of the physical characteristics of a particular oil, its potential uses, and, most importantly, its value.

For example, we are able to produce oils composed of greater than 85% of valuable individual fatty acids. As a demonstration of our chain length optimization, we can produce individual oils with high caprylic (C8:0), capric (C10:0), lauric (C12:0), myristic (C14:0), palmitic (C16:0), stearic (C18:0), and oleic (C18:1) fatty acids. Furthermore, we can produce oils with specific combinations of fatty acids (e.g., C10:0, C12:0, and C14:0) that are greater than 80% of the total oil produced, values considerably greater than coconut oil or PKO. In regard to saturation, we can either decrease or increase saturation in a targeted manner.

Using the same host organism, we have been able to tailor the oil profile to exhibit high levels (85%) of C10-C14 fatty acids, high levels (91%) of oleic acid (C18:1), and modified saturation levels (88% from just over 30% in the natural host). Additionally, we are able to target high concentrations of multiple fatty acids in the same organism versus separately controlling each one.

We use standard industrial fermentation equipment to efficiently scale and accelerate microalgae’s natural oil production time from weeks to just a few days. Although the core microalgae fermentation process is mature, process development continues to focus on reducing costs as well as developing optimized processes for newer strains that address specific customer needs. Downstream processing (the recovery of our oils and specialty bioproducts following fermentation) encompasses a sequence of operations including oil recovery and purification. As with fermentation development, recovery development is focused on establishing robust, cost-effective and scalable processes using standard industrial processing operations and equipment. We have developed an efficient and scalable recovery process based on standard industrial plant oil recovery equipment readily available in the sizes needed for large commercial-scale operations.

A significant focus of our strain optimization and process development efforts has been aimed at reducing the cost of oil production. Key technology drivers of conversion costs include:

Conversion yield is a key driver of process economics due to its direct impact on operational expenses. Productivity is a key efficiency metric because it determines the number and size of fermentation vessels required for a specified production capacity.

The conversion cost profile we have achieved to date can provide attractive margins utilizing partner and contract manufacturing for the nutrition and personal care markets, in which we currently sell our products. We

believe that based on the technology milestones we have already demonstrated, we can profitably enter the markets for commercial chemicals, fuels and other tailored food oil products when we commence production in larger-scale, built-for-purpose commercial manufacturing facilities utilizing sugarcane feedstock. We believe that our future conversion costs will benefit from further process optimization.

US Department of Energy Integrated Biorefinery, Cellulosic-Derived Oil and Other Governmental Awards

We have designed our biotechnology platform to be feedstock flexible, meaning that we are able to utilize a wide variety of plant sugars, including sugars from cellulosics. We believe that sugars from cellulosics will represent an important alternative feedstock in the long-term. Over the last three years, we have demonstrated that our lead microalgae strains can grow on cellulosic feedstocks. We have engineered xylose metabolism into our parent strain. Xylose is a plant sugar abundant in many cellulosics. We believe we have produced the first and only cellulosic-derived diesel fuel to meet ASTM specifications to date and have used this fuel in what we believe is the first vehicle demonstration of in-spec cellulosic-derived diesel fuel.

Our work with the DOE is helping to advance our efforts in the cellulosics area. In December 2009, we were awarded approximately $22 million in funding from the DOE as part of its Integrated Bio-Refinery Program, which has allowed us to develop integrated US-based production capabilities for renewable fuels derived from microalgae at the Peoria Facility. We have collaborated with companies such as BlueFire Ethanol and Old Towne Fuel and Fiber, who are engaged in the development of isolating fermentable sugars from cellulosic feedstocks. We have produced oil using sugar from cellulosics such as switchgrass, miscanthus, sugar beet pulp, corn stover and sugarcane bagasse.

In August 2009, we were awarded approximately $0.8 million in funding from the California Energy Commission (CEC), as part of their Public Interest Energy Research program, to further our research and development of a clean, renewable fuel from cellulosic feedstocks with associated economic benefits and local employment opportunities. Furthermore, in October 2011, we were awarded approximately $1.5 million in funding from the CEC, as part of the its Alternative & Renewable Fuel & Vehicle Technology Program, to further equip our South San Francisco pilot plant for continuing research and development activity.

Our tailored oils and specialty bioproducts compete with commodity markets supplying petroleum and other oils for use in the chemicals and fuels, nutrition, skin and personal care markets as well as for finished products into those markets. The markets in which we compete are influenced by the following competitive factors:

In addition to the competitive factors that apply to all of the markets we target, infrastructure compatibility is a key factor in the chemicals and fuels markets. We believe that we compete favorably because we provide drop-in replacements that are compatible with the existing production, refining and distribution infrastructure in the chemicals and fuels markets.

In chemicals markets, as we introduce our next generation oils, we expect our products to compete with highly refined petrochemicals, oleochemicals, polymers, and other oil-based fluids and lubricants. Chemicals markets, due to their high margins, are receiving increased attention from renewable fuels companies. In addition, we could face competition from large integrated chemical companies such as BASF SE and Dow Chemical. Our products may also compete with agricultural products such as palm oil, PKO, castor bean oil and linseed oil, which are produced and marketed by companies such as Sime Darby Berhad and Wilmar International Limited.

We believe that our ability to produce oils tailored to provide the product features most important to customers in chemical markets positions us well to compete in such markets. We also believe the flexibility of our manufacturing process, which allows us to switch the output of a factory between oils, provides a unique advantage versus plant oils that are geographically constrained and take months to produce and harvest.

Another unique advantage is the shorter development time for us to produce tailored oils compared to competing biotechnological platforms such as genetically modified plant crops. Genetic modification of seed crops can be a decade-long development process that has historically achieved relatively small shifts in oil profile. In contrast, our development timelines for new traits are far more rapid, and achieve dramatic changes in the fatty acid composition of our triglycerides.

We compete in the fuels market with large oil and gas companies such as BP p.l.c., Royal Dutch Shell plc, and Exxon Mobil Corporation, that have resources and name recognition far in excess of ours. While we anticipate competition from these large, established companies, our oils may provide value as blend stocks to these types of companies as partners or collaborators as they seek to achieve mandated renewable fuel targets. We anticipate that these companies will more aggressively seek economically viable petroleum alternatives as legislation, such as RFS2, promotes additional renewable fuel demand.

In certain fuels markets, we will also compete with other advanced biofuels companies and with other oils such as jatropha and camelina. We believe that our proven ability to produce in-spec products at commercial scale for the jet and diesel fuel markets provides us a competitive advantage.

The food industry is large and mature, and we expect to compete with well-established competitors such as Cargill, Incorporated, Monsanto and Syngenta. Whole algalin flour, as a conventional ingredient replacement, will compete with a broad array of products such as powdered eggs, dairy alternatives and vegetable cooking oils. Additional potential competitors include DSM Food Specialties and Du Pont Health & Nutrition, who use fermentation-based platforms similar to ours in the nutrition food space. While we anticipate competition from these large, established companies, we may also partner or collaborate with these types of companies. We also believe that our partnership with Roquette and our development of tailored food oils will allow us to compete effectively in the nutrition market.

The skin and personal care market is highly fragmented and competitive. In addition to the competitive factors that apply to all of the markets in which we compete, advertising, promotion and branding are keys to success and act as potential barriers to entry in the skin and personal care market.

We compete primarily in the luxury skin and personal care market. We compete with companies with well-known brands such as Kinerase^®, Perricone MD^®, StriVectin^®, some of which have substantially greater sales and marketing resources. We compete in this market through arrangements with global distributors.

Our success depends in part upon our ability to obtain and maintain intellectual property protection for our products and technologies, and to operate without infringing the proprietary rights of others. With respect to the former, our policy is to protect our proprietary position through filing for patent applications on inventions, filing for trademark protection on our product names and related materials and methods, and through trade secret protection when and where appropriate. We seek to avoid infringing the proprietary rights of others by: (1) monitoring patents and publications in our product areas; (2) monitoring the technological developments of others; and (3) evaluating and taking appropriate courses of action whenever we identify such developments.

As of December 31, 2012, we own eleven issued US patents, six issued foreign patents and over 175 pending patent applications filed in the United States and in various foreign jurisdictions. The expiration dates of the patents are between 2023 and 2029. Patents that issue, if any, from our currently pending patent applications will expire between 2026 and 2032, twenty years from the date of filing. Our patents and patent applications claim and are directed to compositions such as custom oils, fuel products, chemicals, food products, cosmetics, strains of microbes, and gene sequences; methods of manufacturing finished goods and raw materials; and methods of using our raw materials and products. We also protect our proprietary information by requiring our employees, consultants, contractors and other advisors to execute nondisclosure and assignment of invention agreements upon commencement of their respective employments or engagements. Agreements with our employees also prohibit them from bringing the proprietary rights of third parties to us. In addition, we protect our proprietary information through creating written obligations of confidentiality with outside parties who are exposed to confidential information. Where appropriate we also employ material transfer agreements governing the use, intellectual property rights, and transfer of materials such as custom oils when sending them to third parties for purposes such as conversion into fuels, chemicals and consumer products.

We believe that the creation, when possible and appropriate, of multiple, overlapping mechanisms and forms of protection will offer the possibility of broadest and longest proprietary positions for our products and technologies. It is possible that our current and future patents may be successfully challenged or invalidated in whole or in part. It is also possible that we may not obtain issued patents from our filed applications, and may not be able to obtain patents covering other inventions we seek to protect. Due to uncertainties inherent in prosecuting patent applications, sometimes patent applications are rejected and we may subsequently abandon them. We may also abandon applications when we determine that a product or method is no longer of interest. It is also possible that we may develop products or technologies that will not be patentable or that the patents of others will limit or preclude our ability to do business. In addition, any patent issued to us may provide us with little or no competitive advantage, in which case we may abandon such patent or license it to another entity.

Our development and production processes involve the use, generation, handling, storage, transportation and disposal of hazardous chemicals and radioactive and biological materials. We are subject to a variety of environmental, health and safety, federal, state, local and international laws, regulations and permit requirements governing, among other matters, the use, generation, manufacture, transportation, storage, handling and disposal of these materials, in the US, Brazil and other countries where we intend to operate or may operate or sell our products in the future. These laws, regulations and permits can require expensive fees, pollution control equipment, capital expenditures or operational changes to limit actual or potential impact of our operations on the environment and violation of these laws, regulations or permits could result in significant fines, civil sanctions, permit revocation or costs for environmental remediation. Future developments including the commercial manufacturing of more of our products, more stringent environmental regulation, policies or enforcement, the implementation of new laws and regulations or the discovery of unknown environmental conditions may require significant expenditures that could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition. See “Risk Factors—Risks Relating to Our Business—We may incur significant costs complying with environmental laws and regulations, and failure to comply with these laws and regulations could expose us to significant liabilities.”

We are also subject to regulation by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or OSHA, the California and federal Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, and to regulation under TSCA and REACH. OSHA or the California or federal EPA or other government agencies may adopt regulations that affect our research and development programs. In particular, our renewable chemical products may be subject to regulation by government agencies in our target markets. The EPA administers the requirements of the TSCA, which regulates the commercial use of chemicals. Before an entity can manufacture a chemical, it needs to determine whether that chemical is listed in the TSCA inventory. If the substance is listed, then manufacture can commence immediately. If not, then a pre-manufacture notice must be filed with the EPA, which has 90 days to review it. Some of the products we produce or plan to produce are already in the TSCA inventory. Others are not yet listed. A similar program exists under the European Commission called REACH. Under REACH, we are required to register some of our products with the European Commission, and this process could cause delays or significant costs.

The use of engineered microbes like many of our microbial strains is subject to laws and regulations in many countries. In the US, the EPA regulates the commercial use of engineered microbes as well as potential products from engineered microbes. When used in an industrial process, our microalgae strains designed using recombinant technology may be considered new chemicals under TSCA, administered by the EPA. We will be required to comply with the EPA’s Microbial Commercial Activity Notice process and have filed a Microbial Commercial Activity Notice for a strain of engineered microalgae that we use for our chemicals and fuels businesses. In Brazil, engineered microbes are regulated by CTNBio under its Biosafety Law No. 11.105-2005. We have filed an application, and in the future may file additional applications, for approval from CTNBio to import and use engineered microbes in our Brazilian facilities for research and development purposes. In addition, we have applied for commercial approval from CTNBio for one of our current microbial strains prior to commercial production in Brazil. We expect to encounter regulations concerning engineered microbes in most if not all of the countries in which we may seek to make our fuel and chemical products, however, the scope and nature of these regulations will likely be different from country to country. If we cannot meet the applicable requirements in countries in which we intend to produce our products using our microbial strains, our business will be adversely affected. See “Risk Factors—Risks Relating to Our Business—We may face risks relating to the use of our recombinant microalgae strains, and if we are not able to secure regulatory approval for the use of these strains or if we face material ethical, legal and social concerns about our use of targeted recombinant technology, our business could be adversely affected.”

Our diesel fuel is subject to regulation by various government agencies, including the EPA and the California Air Resources Board in the US and Agencia Nacional do Petroleo, or ANP, in Brazil. We are currently preparing to seek EPA registration and preparing to secure ANP approval for use of our diesel in Brazil. In addition, we may decide to register our fuel with the California Air Resources Board and the European Commission. Registration with each of these bodies is required for the sale and use of our fuels within their respective jurisdictions. Our jet fuels meet the standards set by ASTM D7566 and may therefore be used in commercial aviation.

The manufacture, sale and use of our nutrition products are regulated as food ingredients in the United States by the U.S Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Food ingredients are broadly defined as any substance that may become a component, or otherwise affect the characteristics, of food. Food ingredients and ingredients used in animal feed are regulated as food additives and must be approved through a formal Food Additive Petition (FAP) process or affirmed as substances generally recognized as safe, or GRAS. A substance can be listed or affirmed as GRAS by the FDA or self-affirmed by its manufacturer upon determination that independent qualified experts would generally agree that the substance is GRAS for a particular use. Although the FDA does not officially affirm the GRAS status of ingredients, it does review, at the notifier’s request, the notifier’s determination of ingredients’ GRAS status. FDA endeavors to respond to GRAS notices within 180 days by issuing a letter that either does not question the basis of the notifier’s determination of GRAS status or concludes that the notice does not provide a sufficient basis for a GRAS determination. Self-affirmation of GRAS status without FDA notification allows the marketing and sale

of the ingredient, but reliance on self-affirmation alone may limit its marketability, as many food manufacturers require that the FDA issue a letter confirming that it does not question the notifier’s determination of GRAS status before such manufacturers will purchase food ingredients from third parties. We notified the FDA of our GRAS self-affirmations for algal oil in June 2011, and received a “No Questions” letter from FDA in June of 2012, completing the GRAS process for one type of algal oil. We submitted our GRAS self-affirmations for whole algalin flour in the third quarter of 2012 and expect a determination in the third quarter of 2013. We and our consultants believe that our nutrition products are GRAS, but there can be no assurance the FDA will not question the basis of our determination. If the FDA were to disagree with our determination of the GRAS status of our products, they could ask us to voluntarily withdraw the products from the market or could initiate legal action to halt their sale. Such actions by the FDA could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of our operations.

Food ingredients that are not suitable for the GRAS affirmation process are regulated as food additives and require the submission of a FAP to the FDA and the FDA’s approval prior to commercialization. The food additive petition process is generally expensive and time consuming, with approval, if secured, taking years. The petition must establish with reasonable certainty that the food additive is safe for its intended use at the level specified in the petition. If a food additive petition is submitted, the FDA may choose to reject the petition or deny any desired labeling claims. Furthermore, the FDA may require the establishment of regulations that necessitate costly and time-consuming compliance procedures. All products may also fall under the jurisdiction of the US Department of Agriculture if the intended applications are for meat, dairy, organic or other specialty food areas.

Countries other than the United States also regulate the manufacture and sale of food ingredients. Regulations vary substantially from country to country, and we will be required to comply with applicable regulations in each country in which we choose to market our food ingredients.

Our skin and personal care products are also subject to regulation by various government agencies in the countries in which our products are sold. We completed several rounds of testing in connection with launching the Algenist^® product line, including Human Repeat Insult Patch Testing. We have obtained the necessary approvals for our Algenist^® product line to date. We will continue to evaluate regulatory requirements as we launch new skin and personal care products.

We are unable to predict whether any agency will adopt any laws or regulations that could have a material adverse effect on our operations. We have incurred, and will continue to incur, capital and operating expenditures and other costs in the ordinary course of our business in complying with these laws and regulations.

For more information, see “Risk Factors—Risks Relating to Our Business—We may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for the sale of our renewable products and, even if approvals are obtained, complying on an ongoing basis with the numerous regulatory requirements applicable to our various product categories will be time-consuming and costly.”

As of December 31, 2012, we had 229 full-time employees, excluding the employees of our joint ventures. Our employees’ roles include research, process development, manufacturing, regulatory affairs, program management, finance, human resources, administration, sales and marketing and business development. None of our employees are covered by collective bargaining agreements and we consider relations with our employees to be good.

Our Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and any amendments to those reports are available free of charge on the Investor Relations section of our website at http://investors.solazyme.com/sec.cfm as soon as reasonably practicable after they are electronically filed with or

furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The public may read and copy any materials filed us with the SEC at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, NE, Room 1580, Washington, DC 20549. The public may obtain information on the operation of the Public Reference Room by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330. The SEC maintains an Internet site that contains reports, proxy and information statements and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC at http://www.sec.gov. Except as expressly set forth in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, the contents of these websites are not incorporated into, or otherwise to be regarded as part of this report.

You should carefully consider the risks described below before investing in our publicly-traded securities. Additional risks not presently known to us or that our management currently deems immaterial also may impair our business operations. If any of the risks described below were to occur, our business, financial condition, operating results, and cash flows could be materially adversely affected. In such an event, the trading price of our common stock could decline and you could lose all or part of your investment. In assessing these risks, you should also refer to the other information contained in this Report, including our consolidated financial statements and related notes. The risks discussed below also include forward-looking statements and our actual results may differ substantially from those discussed in these forward looking statements. See Item 7—Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Forward Looking Statements.

We have a limited operating history and have incurred significant losses to date, anticipate continuing to incur losses and may never achieve or sustain profitability.

We are an early stage company with a limited operating history. We only recently began commercializing our products. A substantial portion of our revenues consists of funding from third party collaborative research agreements and government grants. We have only generated limited revenues from commercial sales, which have been principally derived from sales of our nutrition and skin and personal care products. Although we expect a significant portion of our future revenues to come from commercial sales in the chemicals and fuels markets, only a small portion of our revenues to date has been generated from market development activities. We have not yet commercialized any of our oils in the chemicals market.

We have incurred substantial net losses since our inception, including net loss attributable to our common stockholders of $83.1 million during the year ended December 31, 2012. We expect these losses may continue as we expand our manufacturing capacity and build out our product pipeline. As of December 31, 2012, we had an accumulated deficit of $189.9 million. For the foreseeable future, we expect to incur additional costs and expenses related to the continued development and expansion of our business, including research and development, the build-out and operation of our Peoria Facility, the construction and operation of the Solazyme Bunge JV production facility (described below), the retrofitting of the Clinton Facility (described below) and other commercial facilities. As a result, our annual operating losses may continue in the short term.

We, along with our development and commercialization partners, will need to develop products successfully, produce them in large quantities cost effectively, and market and sell them profitably. If our products do not achieve market acceptance, we will not become profitable on a quarterly or annual basis. If we fail to become profitable, or if we are unable to fund our continuing losses, we may be unable to continue our business operations. There can be no assurance that we will ever achieve or sustain profitability.

We have generated limited revenues from the sale of our products, and our business may fail if we are not able to successfully commercialize these products.

We have had only limited product sales to date. If we are not successful in further advancing our existing commercial arrangements with strategic partners, developing new arrangements, or otherwise increasing our

manufacturing capacity and securing reliable access to sufficient volumes of low-cost, feedstock, we will be unable to generate meaningful revenues from our products. We are subject to the substantial risk of failure facing businesses seeking to develop products based on a new technology. Certain factors that could, alone or in combination, prevent us from successfully commercializing our products include:

The production of our microalgae-based oils and bioproducts requires fermentable feedstock. The inability to obtain feedstock in sufficient quantities or in a timely and cost-effective manner may limit our ability to produce our products.

A critical component of the production of our oils and bioproducts is access to feedstock in sufficient quantities and at an acceptable price to enable commercial production and sale. Other than as described below, we currently purchase feedstock, such as sugarcane-based sucrose and corn-based dextrose, for the production of our products at prevailing market prices. We are currently in discussions with additional potential feedstock partners.

Except for the supply of feedstock to Solazyme Roquette Nutritionals, LLC (Solazyme Roquette Nutritionals, or the Solazyme Roquette JV) for nutrition products by our partner, Roquette Frères, S.A. (Roquette), to Solazyme Bunge Produtos Renováveis Ltda. (Solazyme Bunge Renewable Oils or the Solazyme Bunge JV) for triglyceride oil products for sale and use in Brazil by our partner, Bunge Global Innovation, LLC and certain of its affiliates (Bunge), pursuant to joint venture arrangements, and to our strategic collaboration with Archer-Daniels-Midland Company (ADM) (Solazyme/ADM Collaboration) at the ADM fermentation facility in Clinton, Iowa (Clinton Facility), we do not have any long-term supply agreements or other guaranteed access to feedstock. As we scale our production, we anticipate that the production of our oils for the chemicals and fuels markets will require large volumes of feedstock and we may not be able to contract with feedstock producers to secure sufficient quantities of feedstock at reasonable costs or at all. For example, corn-based dextrose feedstock for the Clinton Facility will be provided from ADM’s adjacent wet mill and sugarcane-based sucrose for the Solazyme Bunge JV facility in Moema, Brazil will be provided by Bunge. Corn and sugar are traded as commodities and are subject to price volatility. While we will seek to manage our exposure to fluctuations in the price of sugar and corn-based dextrose by entering into hedging transactions, we may not be successful in doing so. If we cannot access feedstock in the quantities we need at acceptable prices, we may not be able to successfully commercialize our chemicals and fuels products, and our business will suffer. We are currently negotiating with additional potential feedstock partners in Latin America and the United States. We cannot be sure that we will successfully execute additional long-term feedstock contracts on terms favorable to us, or at all. If we do not succeed in entering into long-term supply contracts, successfully hedge against our

exposure to fluctuations in the price of feedstock or otherwise procure feedstock as and when needed, our revenues and profit margins may fluctuate from period to period as we will remain subject to prevailing market prices.

Although our plan is to enter into partnerships, such as the Solazyme Bunge JV and the Solazyme/ADM Collaboration, with feedstock providers to supply the feedstock necessary to produce our products, we cannot predict the future availability or price of such feedstock or be sure that our feedstock partners will be able to supply such feedstock in sufficient quantities or in a timely manner. The prices of feedstock depend on numerous factors outside of our or our partners’ control, including weather conditions, government programs and regulations, changes in global demand resulting from population growth and changes in standards of living, rising or falling commodities and equities markets, and availability of credit to producers. Crop yields and sugar content depend on weather conditions such as rainfall and temperature. Variable weather conditions have historically caused volatility in feedstock crop prices due to crop failures or reduced harvests. For example, excessive rainfall can adversely affect the supply of feedstock available for the production of our products by reducing the sucrose content of feedstock and limiting growers’ ability to harvest. Crop disease and pestilence can also occur from time to time and can adversely affect feedstock crop growth, potentially rendering useless or unusable all or a substantial portion of affected harvests. The limited amount of time during which feedstock crops keep their sugar content after harvest poses a risk of spoilage. Also, the fact that many feedstock crops are not themselves traded commodities limits our ability to substitute supply in the event of such an occurrence. If our ability to obtain feedstock crops is adversely affected by these or other conditions, our ability to produce our products will be impaired, and our business will be adversely affected.

In the near term we believe Brazilian sugarcane-based sucrose will be an important feedstock for us. Along with the risks described above, Brazilian sugarcane prices may also increase due to, among other things, changes in the criteria set by the Conselho dos Produtores de Cana, Açúcar e Álcool (Council of Sugarcane, Sugar and Ethanol Producers), known as Consecana. Consecana is an industry association of producers of sugarcane, sugar and ethanol that sets market terms and prices for general supply, lease and partnership agreements and may change such prices and terms from time to time. Moreover, Brazil has a developed industry for producing ethanol from sugarcane, and if we have manufacturing operations in Brazil that do not have a partner providing the sugarcane feedstock, such as Bunge as part of the Solazyme Bunge JV, we will need to compete for sugarcane feedstock with ethanol producers. Such changes and competition could result in higher sugarcane prices and/or a significant decrease in the volume of sugarcane available for the production of our products, which could adversely affect our business and results of operations.

We have entered into, and plan to enter into other, arrangements with feedstock producers to co-locate oil production at their existing mills, and if we are not able to complete and execute on these arrangements in a timely manner and on terms favorable to us, our business will be adversely affected.

In April 2012, we entered into a Joint Venture Agreement with Bunge, forming the Solazyme Bunge JV which is doing business as Solazyme Bunge Renewable Oils. The Solazyme Bunge JV intends to produce triglyceride oils in Brazil for sale into the Brazilian market using our proprietary technology and sugarcane feedstock provided by Bunge. The Solazyme Bunge JV production facility will be located adjacent to a sugarcane processing mill in Brazil that is owned by Bunge. The acquisition of the facility site by the Solazyme Bunge JV is in process. The construction of the Solazyme Bunge JV’s production facility began in June 2012 and we are targeting start-up of the facility in the fourth quarter of 2013. In addition, in May 2011, we entered a joint development agreement with Bunge that advances our work on Brazilian sugarcane feedstocks and extends through May 2013. In May 2011, we entered into a Warrant Agreement, amended in August 2011, with Bunge Limited that vests upon the successful completion of milestones that ultimately target the completion of construction of the Solazyme Bunge JV facility in 2013 with a nameplate capacity of 100,000 metric tons of output oil in 2013. We intend to continue to expand our manufacturing capacity by entering into additional agreements with feedstock producers that require them to invest some or all of the capital needed to build new production facilities to produce our oils. In return, we expect to share in profits anticipated to be realized from the sale of these products. We are currently negotiating with additional potential feedstock partners in Latin America and the United States.

In November 2012, we and ADM entered into a Strategic Collaboration Agreement (Collaboration Agreement), establishing the Solazyme/ADM Collaboration for the production of tailored triglyceride oil products at the Clinton Facility. The Clinton Facility will produce tailored triglyceride oil products using our proprietary microbe-based catalysis technology. Feedstock for the facility will be provided from ADM’s adjacent wet mill. Under the terms of the Collaboration Agreement, we agreed to pay ADM annual fees for use and operation of the Clinton Facility, a portion of which may be paid in our common stock. In addition, we have granted to ADM a warrant covering 500,000 shares of our common stock, which vests in equal monthly installments over five years, commencing from the start of commercial production. We currently anticipate that commercial production at the Clinton Facility will begin by early 2014. The initial target nameplate capacity of the facility is expected to be 20,000 metric tons per year of tailored triglyceride oil products. We have an option to expand the capacity to 40,000 metric tons per year, with the goal to further expand production to 100,000 metric tons per year. There can be no assurance that commercial production at the Clinton Facility will commence on the anticipated timeline or that we will expand the capacity of the facility. The parties will also work together to develop markets for the products produced at the Clinton Facility.

There can be no assurance that a sufficient number of other sugar or other feedstock mill owners will accept the opportunity to partner with us for the production of our oils. Reluctance on the part of mill owners may be caused, for example, by their failure to understand our technology or product opportunities or their belief that greater economic benefits can be achieved from partnering with others. Mill owners may also be reluctant or unable to obtain needed capital; alternatively, if mill owners are able to obtain debt financing, we may be required to provide a guarantee. Limitations in the credit markets, such as those experienced in the recent economic downturn or historically in developing nations as a result of government monetary policies designed in response to very high rates of inflation, would impede or prevent this kind of financing and could adversely affect our ability to develop the production capacity needed to allow us to grow our business. Mill owners may also be limited by existing contractual obligations with other third parties, liability, health and safety concerns and additional maintenance, training, operating and other ongoing expenses.

Even if additional feedstock partners are willing to co-locate our oil production at their mills, they may do so only on economic terms that place more of the cost, or confer less of the economic return, on us than we currently anticipate. If we are not successful in negotiations with mill owners, our cost of securing additional manufacturing capacity may be higher than anticipated in terms of up-front costs, capital expenditure or lost future returns, and we may not gain the manufacturing capacity that we need to grow our business.

Our pursuit of new product opportunities may not be technologically feasible or cost effective, which would limit our ability to expand our product line and sources of revenues.

We intend to commit substantial resources, alone or with collaboration partners, to the development and analysis of new tailored oils by applying recombinant technology to our microalgae strains. There is no guarantee that we will be successful in creating new tailored oil profiles that we, our partners or their customers desire. There are significant technological hurdles in successfully applying recombinant technology to microalgae, and if we are unsuccessful at engineering microalgae strains that produce desirable tailored oils, the number and size of the markets we will be able to address will be limited, our expected profit margins could be reduced and the potential profitability of our business could be compromised.

The successful development of our business depends on our ability to efficiently and cost-effectively produce microalgae-based oils at large commercial scale.

Two of the significant drivers of our production costs are the level of productivity and conversion yield of our microalgae strains. Productivity is principally a function of the amount of oil that can be obtained from a given volume over a particular time period. Conversion yield refers to the amount of the desired oil that can be produced from a fixed amount of feedstock. We may not be able to meet our currently expected production cost profile as we bring large commercial manufacturing capacity online. If we cannot do so, our business would be materially and adversely affected.

Production of both current and future oils will require that our technology and processes be scalable from laboratory, pilot and demonstration projects to large commercial-scale production. We do not have experience constructing or managing large, commercial-scale manufacturing facilities. We may not have identified all of the factors that could affect our manufacturing processes. Our technology may not perform as expected when applied at large commercial scale, or we may encounter operational challenges for which we are unable to identify a workable solution. For example, contamination in the production process, problems with plant utilities, human error, issues arising from process modifications to reduce costs and adjust product specifications, and other similar challenges could decrease process efficiency, create delays and increase our costs. To date we have employed our technology using fermenters with a capacity of up to 128,000 liters, and recently achieved scaled yields at fermenters with a capacity of approximately 500,000 liters. However, we still need to reproduce our commercial productivity at fermenters with a capacity of 500,000 liters, and our commercial productivity and yields using fermenters with a capacity of approximately 625,000 liters. We may not be able to scale up our production in a timely manner, on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. If we are unable to manufacture products at a large commercial scale, our ability to commercialize our technology will be adversely affected, and, with respect to any products that we do bring to market, we may not be able to achieve and maintain an acceptable production cost profile, which would adversely affect our ability to reach, maintain and increase the profitability of our business.

We rely in part on third parties for the production and processing of our products. If these parties do not produce and process our products at a satisfactory quality, in a timely manner, in sufficient quantities or at an acceptable cost, our development and commercialization efforts could be delayed or otherwise negatively impacted.

Other than our Peoria Facility, we do not own facilities that can produce and process our products other than at small scale. As such, we rely, and we expect to continue to rely, at least partially, on third parties (including partners and contract manufacturers) for the production and processing of our products. To date, we have entered into three manufacturing arrangements for industrial fermentation: the manufacture of nutrition products for Solazyme Roquette Nutritionals by our partner Roquette, the future manufacture of certain triglyceride oil products by the Solazyme Bunge JV, in each case pursuant to joint venture arrangements, and the future manufacture of tailored triglyceride oil products at the Clinton Facility. We also have manufacturing agreements relating to other aspects of our production process. Our current and anticipated future dependence upon our partners and contract manufacturers for the production and processing of our products may adversely affect our ability to develop products on a timely and competitive basis. The failure of any of our counterparties to provide acceptable products could delay the development and commercialization of our products. We or our partners will need to enter into additional agreements for the commercial development, manufacturing and sale of our products. There can be no assurance that we or our partners can do so on favorable terms, if at all. Even if we reach agreements with manufacturing partners to produce and process our products, initially the partners will be unfamiliar with our technology and production processes. We cannot be sure that the partners will have or develop the operational expertise needed to run the additional equipment and processes required to manufacture our products. Further, we may have limited control over the amount or timing of resources that any partner is able or willing to devote to production and processing of our products.

To date, our products have been produced and processed in quantities sufficient for our development work. For example, we delivered more than 400,000 liters (373 metric tons) of microalgae-derived military marine diesel and jet fuel to the US Navy in 2011. Even if there is demand for our products at a commercial scale, we or our partners may not be able to successfully increase the production capacity for any of our products in a timely or economic manner or at all. In addition, to the extent we are relying on contract manufacturers to produce and process our products, we cannot be sure that such contract manufacturers will have capacity available when we need their services, that they will be willing to dedicate a portion of their production and/or processing capacity to our products or that we will be able to reach acceptable price and other terms with them for the provision of their production and/or processing services. If we, our partners or our contract manufacturers are unable to increase the production capacity for a product when and as needed, the commercial launch of that product may be delayed, or there may be a shortage of supply, which could limit sales, cause us to lose customers and sales opportunities and impair the growth of our business.

In addition, if a facility or the equipment in a facility that produces and/or processes our products is significantly damaged, destroyed or otherwise becomes unavailable, we or our partners may be unable to replace the manufacturing capacity quickly or cost effectively. The inability to obtain manufacturing agreements, the damage or destruction of a facility upon which we or our partners rely for manufacturing or any other delays in obtaining supply would delay or prevent us and/or our partners from further developing and commercializing our products.

We may experience significant delays in financing, designing and constructing large commercial manufacturing facilities, which could result in harm to our business and prospects.

Our business plan contemplates bringing significant commercial manufacturing capacity online over the next several years. In order to meet our capital requirements for those facilities, we may have to raise additional funds and may be unable to do so in a timely manner, in sufficient amounts and on terms that are favorable to us, if at all. If we fail to raise sufficient funds, our ability to finance and construct additional manufacturing facilities could be significantly limited. If this happens, we may be forced to delay the commercialization of our products and we will not be able to successfully execute our business plan, which would harm our business.

The Solazyme Bunge JV is currently constructing an oil production facility adjacent to Bunge’s Moema sugarcane mill in Brazil. We are targeting start-up of the facility in the fourth quarter of 2013. The acquisition of the facility site is in process. The production facility is expected to have a name plate capacity of 100,000 metric tons per year of oil. In February 2013, the Solazyme Bunge JV entered a loan agreement with the Brazilian Development Bank (BNDES) for project financing. Funds borrowed under the loan agreement will support the production facility in Brazil, including a portion of the construction costs of the facility. As a condition of the Solazyme Bunge JV drawing funds under the loan, we will be required to guarantee a portion of the loan (in an amount not to exceed our ownership percentage in the Solazyme Bunge JV). Negotiating the terms of the loan documentation (including the required guarantee) may take longer than anticipated and may contain terms that are not favorable to us. If we are unable to negotiate our loan documents on acceptable terms, the Solazyme Bunge JV will be unable to draw down amounts under the loan, will have to seek additional financing and may not be able to raise sufficient additional funds on favorable terms, if at all. If the Solazyme Bunge JV is unable to secure additional financing, we will be required to fund our portion of the Solazyme Bunge JV’s capital requirements either from existing sources or seek additional financing. If the Solazyme Bunge JV is unable to acquire the facility site on reasonable terms, or at all, it may not be able to operate the oil production facility and may lose all or part of its investment in such facility.

Furthermore, we will need to construct, or otherwise secure access to, and fund, additional capacity significantly greater than what we are in the process of building as we continue to commercialize our products. We aim to commence production of oils for the chemicals and fuels markets at the Solazyme Bunge JV facility in the fourth quarter of 2013, we anticipate commercial production at the Clinton Facility to begin by early 2014 and we expect to bring online additional facilities thereafter. Although we intend to enter into arrangements with third parties to meet our capacity targets, it is possible that we will need to construct our own facility or facilities to meet a portion or all of these targets. We have limited experience in the construction of commercial production facilities and, if we decide to construct our own facility, we will need to secure necessary funding, complete design and other plans needed for the construction of such facility and secure the requisite permits, licenses and other governmental approvals, and we may not be successful in doing so. The construction of any such facility would have to be completed on a timely basis and within an acceptable budget. In addition, there may be delays related to the acquisition of facility sites, which would delay the development and commercialization of our products.

Any facility, whether owned by a third party or by us, must perform as designed once it is operational. If we encounter significant delays, cost overruns, engineering problems, equipment supply constraints or other serious challenges in bringing any of these facilities online, we may be unable to meet our production goals in the time frame we have planned. In addition, we have limited experience in the management of manufacturing operations at large scale. We may not be successful in producing the amount and quality of oil or bioproduct we anticipate

in such plant and our results of operations may suffer as a result. We have limited experience producing our products at commercial scale, and we will not succeed if we cannot maintain or decrease our production costs and effectively scale our technology and manufacturing processes.

If we fail to maintain and successfully manage our existing, or enter into new, strategic collaborations, we may not be able to develop and commercialize many of our products and achieve or sustain profitability.

Our ability to enter into, maintain and manage collaborations in our target markets is fundamental to the success of our business. We currently have joint venture agreements, collaboration agreements, research and development agreements, supply agreements and/or distribution agreements with various strategic partners. We currently rely on our partners, in part, for manufacturing and sales or marketing services and intend to continue to do so for the foreseeable future, and we intend to enter into other strategic collaborations to produce, market and sell other products we develop. However, we may not be successful in entering into collaborative arrangements with third parties for the production and sale and marketing of other products. Any failure to enter into collaborative arrangements on favorable terms could delay or hinder our ability to develop and commercialize our products and could increase our costs of development and commercialization.

In the chemicals and fuels markets, we have entered into a joint venture arrangement with Bunge that will focus on the production of triglyceride oils in Brazil for sale in the Brazilian market, and development agreements with Bunge, Unilever and The Dow Chemical Company (Dow). We have entered into a joint venture with Roquette in connection with our nutrition business. In addition, we have entered into a strategic collaboration with ADM for the production of tailored triglyceride oil products to be sold primarily to the industrial and nutritionals markets in North America. In the skin and personal care market, we have entered into arrangements with Sephora S.A. and its affiliates (Sephora), QVC, Inc. and others. There can be no guarantee that we can successfully manage these strategic collaborations. Under our agreement with Sephora, we bear a significant portion of the costs and risk of marketing the products, but do not exercise sole control of marketing strategy. In some cases, we will need to meet certain milestones to continue our activities with these partners. The exclusivity provisions of certain strategic arrangements limit our ability to otherwise commercialize our products.

Pursuant to the agreements listed above and similar arrangements that we may enter into in the future, we may have limited or no control over the amount or timing of resources that any partner is able or willing to devote to our products or collaborative efforts. Any of our partners may fail to perform their obligations as expected. These partners may breach or terminate their agreements with us or otherwise fail to conduct their collaborative activities successfully and in a timely manner. Further, our partners may not develop products arising out of our arrangements or devote sufficient resources to the development, manufacture, marketing, or sale of our products. Dependence on collaborative arrangements will also subject us to other risks, including:

Moreover, disagreements with a partner could develop, and any conflict with a partner could reduce our ability to enter into future collaboration agreements and negatively impact our relationships with one or more existing partners. In addition, disagreements with a partner could result in disputes or litigation and could require substantial time and money to resolve. If any of these events occur, or if we fail to maintain our agreements with our partners, we may not be able to commercialize our existing and potential products, grow our business or generate sufficient revenues to support our operations.

Additionally, our business could be negatively impacted if any of our partners undergoes a change of control or were to otherwise assign the rights or obligations under any of our agreements to a competitor of ours or to a third party who is not willing to work with us on the same terms or commit the same resources as the current partner.

We have entered into the Solazyme/ADM Collaboration, which will focus on the production of tailored triglyceride oil products at the Clinton Facility. The Clinton Facility will produce tailored triglyceride oil products using our proprietary microbe-based catalysis technology. Feedstock for the facility will be provided from ADM’s adjacent wet mill. Under the terms of the Collaboration Agreement, we will pay ADM annual fees for use and operation of the Clinton Facility, a portion of which may be paid in our common stock.

Our ability to generate value from the Solazyme/ADM Collaboration will depend, among other things, on our ability to work cooperatively with ADM for the production of tailored triglyceride oil products at the Clinton Facility. We may not be able to do so. For example, under the Solazyme/ADM Collaboration, ADM has agreed to provide feedstock and utility services to the Clinton Facility as well as operating services. ADM does not have previous experience working with our technology, and we cannot be sure that ADM will be successful in producing our tailored triglyceride oil products in amounts we may require, at a satisfactory quality and/or in a cost-effective manner. Subject to limited exceptions and adjustments, we will be responsible for annual fees regardless of ADM’s success in producing our tailored triglyceride oil products in acceptable quantities, at satisfactory quality and at acceptable costs. In addition, there may be delays related to the retrofitting and permitting of the Clinton Facility, which would delay the production and commercialization of our tailored triglyceride oil products. Furthermore, the agreements governing our Solazyme/ADM Collaboration are complex and cover a range of future activities, and disputes may arise between us and ADM that could delay the production and commercialization of our tailored triglyceride oil products or cause the termination of the Solazyme/ADM Collaboration.

Our relationship with our strategic partner Bunge may not prove successful.

We have entered into a joint venture with Bunge that will focus on the production of certain triglyceride oils in Brazil for sale into Brazilian markets. In connection with the establishment of the Solazyme Bunge JV, we entered into a development agreement and other agreements with Bunge and the Solazyme Bunge JV.

Our ability to generate value from the Solazyme Bunge JV will depend, among other things, on our ability to work cooperatively with Bunge and the Solazyme Bunge JV for the commercialization of the Solazyme Bunge JV’s products. We may not be able to do so. For example, under the joint venture, Bunge has agreed to provide feedstock as well as utility services to the production facility. We and Bunge have both agreed to provide various administrative services to the Solazyme Bunge JV, and Bunge will also provide working capital to the Solazyme Bunge JV through a revolving loan facility, with a portion of the repayment for start-up expenses to be guaranteed by us. Bunge does not have previous experience working with our technology, and we cannot be sure that the Solazyme Bunge JV will be successful in commercializing its products. In addition, there may be delays related to the acquisition of the facility site and construction of the Solazyme Bunge JV production facility. There may also be delays in our negotiation of the loan guarantee to be entered into as a condition of the Solazyme Bunge JV drawing down amounts under the loan agreement with BNDES. Any of these events would delay the development and commercialization of the Solazyme Bunge JV products. Furthermore, the agreements

governing our partnership are complex and cover a range of future activities, and disputes may arise between us and Bunge that could delay completion of the Solazyme Bunge JV facility and/or the expansion of the Solazyme Bunge JV’s capacity and the development and commercialization of the Solazyme Bunge JV’s products or cause the dissolution of the Solazyme Bunge JV.

Our relationship with our strategic partner Roquette may not prove successful.

We have entered into a 50/50 joint venture with Roquette, one of the world’s largest starch and starch-derivatives companies. As part of this relationship, we and Roquette formed Solazyme Roquette Nutritionals, through which both we and Roquette will conduct a substantial portion of our business in connection with microalgae-based oils and bioproducts for the food, nutraceuticals and animal feed markets. In connection with the establishment of the Solazyme Roquette JV, we have entered into services, manufacturing and license agreements with Roquette and Solazyme Roquette Nutritionals.

Our ability to generate value from the Solazyme Roquette JV will depend on, among other things, our ability to work cooperatively with Roquette and Solazyme Roquette Nutritionals for the commercialization of the Solazyme Roquette JV’s products. We may not be able to do so. For example, under the joint venture, Roquette personnel and facilities will be used to produce nutrition products using our licensed technology. Roquette does not have previous experience working with our technology, and we cannot be sure that the Solazyme Roquette JV will be successful in commercializing its products. In addition, the agreements governing our partnership are complex and cover a range of future activities, and disputes may arise between us and Roquette that could delay the development and commercialization of the Solazyme Roquette JV’s products or cause the dissolution of the Solazyme Roquette JV. For example, the joint venture agreement contemplates that Roquette will construct and own two Solazyme Roquette JV-dedicated facilities that are expected to have aggregate capacity of approximately 5,000 metric tons per year. In addition, subject to approval of the board of directors of the Solazyme Roquette JV to enter into Phase 3, Roquette has committed to fund a Solazyme Roquette JV-owned facility in Phase 3 that is expected to have capacity of approximately 50,000 metric tons per year. However, because the four-person board of directors of the Solazyme Roquette JV includes two Roquette designees, the decision to proceed with Phase 3 will functionally require Roquette’s approval. If we are unable to obtain the approval of the board of directors of the Solazyme Roquette JV, our ability to commercialize the Solazyme Roquette JV’s nutrition products and the financial performance of the Solazyme Roquette JV will suffer.

We cannot be sure that our products will meet necessary standards or be approved or accepted by customers in our target markets.

If we are unable to convince our potential customers or end users of our products that we are a reliable supplier, that our products are comparable or superior to the products that they currently use, or that the use of our products is otherwise beneficial to them, we will not be successful in entering our target markets and our business will be adversely affected.

In the chemicals market, the potential customers for our or the Solazyme Bunge JV’s oils are generally companies that have well-developed manufacturing processes and arrangements with suppliers for the chemical components of their products and may resist changing these processes and components. These potential customers frequently impose lengthy and complex product qualification procedures on their suppliers, influenced by consumer preference, manufacturing considerations, supplier operating history, regulatory issues, product liability and other factors, many of which are unknown to, or not well understood by, us. Satisfying these processes may take many months or years.

Although we produce products for the fuels market that comply with industry specifications, potential fuels customers may be reluctant to adopt new products due to a lack of familiarity with our oils. In addition, our fuels may need to satisfy product certification requirements of equipment manufacturers. For example, diesel engine manufacturers may need to certify that the use of diesel fuels produced from our oils in their equipment will not invalidate product warranties.

In the nutrition market, our Solazyme Roquette JV’s products will compete with oils and other food ingredients currently in use. Potential customers may not perceive a benefit to microalgae-based products as compared to existing ingredients or may be otherwise unwilling to adopt their use. If consumer packaged goods (CPG) companies do not accept the Solazyme Roquette JV’s products as ingredients for their widely distributed finished products, or if end customers are unwilling to purchase finished products made using the Solazyme Roquette JV’s oils or bioproducts, the Solazyme Roquette JV will not be successful in competing in the nutrition market and our business will be adversely affected.

In the skin and personal care market, our branded products are marketed directly to potential consumers, but we cannot be sure that consumers will continue to be attracted to our brand or purchase our products on an ongoing basis. As a result, our distribution partners may decide to discontinue marketing our products.

We have entered into contingent offtake agreements and non-binding letters of intent with third parties regarding purchase of our products, but these agreements do not unconditionally obligate the other party to purchase any quantities of any products at this time. There can be no assurance that our contingent offtake agreements and non-binding letters of intent will lead to unconditional definitive agreements to purchase our products.

We have limited experience in structuring arrangements with customers for the purchase of our microalgae-based products, and we may not be successful in this essential aspect of our business.

We expect that our customers will include large companies that sell skin and personal care products, food products and chemical products, as well as large users of oils for fuels. Because we have only recently begun to commercialize our skin and personal care products and, through Solazyme Roquette Nutritionals, nutrition products, and are still in the process of developing our products for the chemicals and fuels markets, we have limited experience operating in our customers’ industries and interacting with the customers that we intend to target. Developing the necessary expertise may take longer than we expect and will require that we expand and improve our marketing capability, which could be costly. These activities could delay our ability to capitalize on the opportunities that we believe our technology and products present, and may prevent us from successfully commercializing our products. Further, we ultimately aim to sell large amounts of our oils and bioproducts to certain customers, and this will require that we effectively negotiate and manage contracts for these purchase and sale relationships. The companies with which we aim to have arrangements are generally much larger than we are and have substantially longer operating histories and more experience in their industries than we have. As a result, we may not succeed in establishing relationships with these companies and, if we do, we may not be effective in negotiating or managing the terms of such relationships, which could adversely affect our future results of operations.

We may be subject to product liability claims and other claims of our customers and partners.

The design, development, production and sale of our oils and bioproducts involve an inherent risk of product liability claims and the associated adverse publicity. Because some of our ultimate products in each of our target markets are used by consumers, and because use of those ultimate products may cause injury to those consumers and damage to property, we are subject to a risk of claims for such injuries and damages. In addition, we may be named directly in product liability suits relating to our oils, bioproducts or the ultimate products, even for defects resulting from errors of our partners, contract manufacturers or other third parties working with our products. These claims could be brought by various parties, including customers who are purchasing products directly from us or other users who purchase products from our customers or partners. We could also be named as co-parties in product liability suits that are brought against manufacturing partners that produce our products.

In addition, our customers and partners may bring suits against us alleging damages for the failure of our products to meet specifications or other requirements. Any such suits, even if not successful, could be costly, disrupt the attention of our management and damage our negotiations with other partners and/or customers.

Although we often seek to limit our product liability in our contracts, such limits may not be enforceable or may be subject to exceptions. Our current product liability and umbrella insurance for our business may be inadequate to cover all potential liability claims. Insurance coverage is expensive and may be difficult to obtain. Also, insurance coverage may not be available in the future on acceptable terms and may not be sufficient to cover potential claims. We cannot be sure that our contract manufacturers or manufacturing partners who produce our ultimate products will have adequate insurance coverage to cover against potential claims. If we experience a large insured loss, it might exceed our coverage limits, or our insurance carrier may decline to further cover us or may raise our insurance rates to unacceptable levels, any of which could impair our financial position and potentially cause us to go out of business.

We will face risks associated with our international business in developing countries and elsewhere.

For the foreseeable future, our business plan will likely subject us to risks associated with essential manufacturing, sales and operations in developing countries. We have limited experience to date manufacturing and selling internationally and such expansion would require us to make significant expenditures, including the hiring of local employees and establishing facilities, in advance of generating any revenue. The economies of many of the countries in which we will operate have been characterized by frequent and occasionally extensive government intervention and unstable economic cycles.

In addition, in Brazil, where the Solazyme Bunge JV is located, there are restrictions on the foreign ownership of land. As a result, the process for the acquisition by the Solazyme Bunge JV of the facility site may be long, complicated and is subject to government approvals.

International business operations are subject to local legal, political, regulatory and social requirements and economic conditions and our business, financial performance and prospects may be adversely affected by, among others, the following factors:

These and other factors could have a material adverse impact on our results of operations and financial condition.

Our international operations may expose us to the risk of fluctuation in currency exchange rates and rates of foreign inflation, which could adversely affect our results of operations.

We currently incur some costs and expenses in Euros and Brazilian Reais and expect in the future to incur additional expenses in these and other foreign currencies, and also derive a portion of our revenues in the local currencies of customers throughout the world. As a result, our revenues and results of operations are subject to foreign exchange fluctuations, which we may not be able to manage successfully. During the past few decades, the Brazilian currency in particular has faced frequent and substantial exchange rate fluctuations in relation to the US dollar and other foreign currencies. In 2011, the Real depreciated 11% against the US dollar, and in 2012, the Real depreciated 10% against the US dollar. The Euro depreciated 3% against the US dollar in 2011 and appreciated 2% against the US dollar in 2012. There can be no assurance that the Real or the Euro will not significantly appreciate or depreciate against the US dollar in the future. We bear the risk that the rate of inflation in the foreign countries where we incur costs and expenses or the decline in value of the US dollar compared to those foreign currencies will increase our costs as expressed in US dollars. Future measures by foreign governments to control inflation, including interest rate adjustments, intervention in the foreign exchange market and changes to the fixed value of their currencies, may trigger increases in inflation. We may not be able to adjust the prices of our products to offset the effects of inflation on our cost structure, which could increase our costs and reduce our net operating margins. If we do not successfully manage these risks through hedging or other mechanisms, our revenues and results of operations could be adversely affected.

We may encounter difficulties managing our growth, and we will need to properly prioritize our efforts in three distinct target markets as our business grows. If we are unable to do so, our business, financial condition and results of operations may be adversely affected.

Our business has grown rapidly. Continued growth may place a strain on our human and capital resources. Furthermore, we intend to conduct our business internationally and anticipate business operations in the United States, Europe, Latin America and elsewhere. These diversified, global operations place increased demands on our limited resources and may require us to substantially expand the capabilities of our administrative and operational resources and will require us to attract, train, manage and retain qualified management, technicians, scientists and other personnel. As our operations expand domestically and internationally, we will need to continue to manage multiple locations and additional relationships with various customers, partners, suppliers and other third parties across several product categories and markets.

Our growth is taking place across three distinct target markets: chemicals and fuels, nutrition, and skin and personal care. We will be required to prioritize our limited financial and managerial resources as we pursue particular development and commercialization efforts in each target market. Any resources we expend on one or more of these efforts could be at the expense of other potentially profitable opportunities. If we focus our efforts and resources on one or more of these areas and they do not lead to commercially viable products, our revenues, financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected. Furthermore, as our operations continue to grow, the simultaneous management of development, production and commercialization across all three target markets will become increasingly complex and may result in less than optimal allocation of management and other administrative resources, increase our operating expenses and harm our operating results.

Our ability to effectively manage our operations, growth and various projects across our target markets will require us to make additional investments in our infrastructure to continue to improve our operational, financial and management controls and our reporting systems and procedures and to attract and retain sufficient numbers of talented employees, which we may be unable to do effectively. We may be unable to successfully manage our expenses in the future, which may negatively impact our gross margins or operating margins in any particular quarter.

In addition, we may not be able to improve our management information and control systems, including our internal control over financial reporting, to a level necessary to manage our growth and we may discover deficiencies in existing systems and controls that we may not be able to remediate in an efficient or timely manner.

Our success depends in part on recruiting and retaining key personnel and, if we fail to do so, it may be more difficult for us to execute our business strategy. We are currently a small organization and will need to hire additional personnel to execute our business strategy successfully.

Our success depends on our continued ability to attract, retain and motivate highly qualified management, business development, manufacturing and scientific personnel and on our ability to develop and maintain important relationships with leading academic institutions and scientists. We are highly dependent upon a number of key members of our senior management, including manufacturing, business development and scientific personnel. If any of such persons left, our business could be harmed. All of our employees are “at-will” employees. The loss of the services of one or more of our key employees could delay or have an impact on the successful commercialization of our products. We do not maintain any key man insurance. Competition for qualified personnel in the biotechnology field is intense, particularly in the San Francisco Bay Area. We may not be able to attract and retain qualified personnel on acceptable terms given the competition for such personnel. If we are unsuccessful in our recruitment efforts, we may be unable to execute our strategy.

We may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for the sale of our microalgae-based products and, even if approvals are obtained, complying on an ongoing basis with the numerous regulatory requirements applicable to our various product categories will be time-consuming and costly.

The sale and/or use of diesel and jet fuels produced from our oils are subject to regulation by various government agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board in the United States. To date, we have registered only our Soladiesel_RD^® fuel in the United States. We or our refining or commercialization partners or customers may be required to register our fuel in the United States, with the European Commission and elsewhere before selling our products.

Our chemical products may be subject to government regulation in our target markets. In the United States, the EPA administers the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which regulates the commercial registration, distribution, and use of chemicals. TSCA will require us to obtain and comply with the Microbial Commercial Activity Notice (MCAN) process to manufacture and distribute products made from our recombinant microalgae strains. To date, we have filed an MCAN for one of our recombinant microalgae strains. Before we can manufacture or distribute significant volumes of a chemical, we need to determine whether that chemical is listed in the TSCA inventory. If the substance is listed, then manufacture or distribution can commence immediately. If not, then a pre-manufacture notice (PMN) must be filed with the EPA for a review period of up to 90 days excluding extensions. We filed a PMN for oil derived from one of our recombinant microalgae strains, the review of which was completed by the EPA in July 2012. We filed a PMN for oil derived from one of our non-recombinant microalgae strains, the review of which was completed by the EPA in December 2012. We also filed a PMN for algal biomass in December 2012. An MCAN is not required for non-recombinant microalgal strains. Some of the products we produce or plan to produce are already in the TSCA inventory. Others are not yet listed. We may not be able to expediently receive approval from the EPA to list the chemicals we would like to make on the TSCA registry, resulting in delays or significant increases in testing requirements. A similar program exists in the European Union, called REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorization, and Restriction of Chemical Substances). We are required to register some of our products with the European Commission, and this process could cause delays or significant costs. We have determined that some of our algal oils are exempt from REACH registration requirements. To the extent that other geographies, such as Brazil, may rely on the TSCA or REACH for chemical registration in their geographies, delays with the US or European authorities may subsequently delay entry into these markets as well. Furthermore, other geographies may have their own chemical inventory requirements, which may delay entry into these markets, irrespective of US or European approval.

Our nutrition products are subject to regulation by various government agencies, including the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), state and local agencies and similar agencies outside the United States. Food ingredients and ingredients used in animal feed are regulated either as food additives or as substances generally recognized as safe, or GRAS. A substance can be listed or affirmed as GRAS by the FDA or self-affirmed by its manufacturer upon determination that independent qualified experts would generally agree that the substance is GRAS for a particular use. We have submitted to the FDA our GRAS Notice of Determination for algal oil and received notification from the FDA in June 2012 that it had no further questions. Our GRAS Notice of Determination for algal flour has been submitted to the FDA. We do not expect any objections upon their review. However, there can be no assurance that we will not receive any objections from the FDA to our Notices of Determination. If the FDA were to disagree with our determination, they could ask us to voluntarily withdraw the products from the market or could initiate legal action to halt their sale. Such actions by the FDA could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of our operations. Food ingredients that are not GRAS are regulated as food additives and require FDA approval prior to commercialization. The food additive petition process is generally expensive and time consuming, with approval, if secured, taking years.

Our skin and personal care products are subject to regulation by various government agencies both within and outside the United States. Such regulations principally relate to the ingredients, labeling, packaging and marketing of our skin and personal care products.

Changes in regulatory requirements, laws and policies, or evolving interpretations of existing regulatory requirements, laws and policies, may result in increased compliance costs, delays, capital expenditures and other financial obligations that could adversely affect our business or financial results.

We expect to encounter regulations in most if not all of the countries in which we may seek to sell our products, and we cannot be sure that we will be able to obtain necessary approvals in a timely manner or at all. If our microalgae-based oils and bioproducts do not meet applicable regulatory requirements in a particular country or at all, then we may not be able to commercialize them and our business will be adversely affected. The various regulatory schemes applicable to our products will continue to apply following initial approval for sale. Monitoring regulatory changes and ensuring our ongoing compliance with applicable requirements will be time-consuming and may affect our results of operations. If we fail to comply with such requirements on an ongoing basis, we may be subject to fines or other penalties, or may be prevented from selling our oils and bioproducts, and our business may be harmed.

We may incur significant costs complying with environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, and failure to comply with these laws and regulations could expose us to significant liabilities.

We use hazardous chemicals and radioactive and biological materials in our business and are subject to a variety of federal, state, local and international laws and regulations governing, among other matters, the use, generation, manufacture, transportation, storage, handling, disposal of, and human exposure to, these materials both in the US and outside the US, including regulation by governmental regulatory agencies, such as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the EPA. We have incurred, and will continue to incur, capital and operating expenditures and other costs in the ordinary course of our business in complying with these laws and regulations.

Although we have implemented safety procedures for handling and disposing of these materials and waste products in an effort to comply with these laws and regulations, we cannot be sure that our safety measures will be compliant or capable of eliminating the risk of injury or contamination from the generation, manufacturing, use, storage, transportation, handling, disposal of, and human exposure to, hazardous materials. Failure to comply with environmental, health and safety laws could subject us to liability and resulting damages. There can be no assurance that violations of environmental, health and safety laws will not occur as a result of human error, accident, equipment failure or other causes. Compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations may be expensive, and the failure to comply with past, present, or future laws could result in the imposition of fines,

regulatory oversight costs, third party property damage, product liability and personal injury claims, investigation and remediation costs, the suspension of production, or a cessation of operations, and our liability may exceed our total assets. Liability under environmental laws, such as the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act in the United States, can impose liability for the full amount of damages, without regard to comparative fault for the investigation and cleanup of contamination and impacts to human health and for damages to natural resources. Contamination at properties we own and operate, and at properties to which we send hazardous materials, may result in liability for us under environmental laws and regulations.

Our business and operations will be affected by other new environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, which may affect our research and development and manufacturing programs, and environmental laws could become more stringent over time, requiring us to change our operations, or resulting in greater compliance costs and increasing risks and penalties associated with violations, which could impair our research, development or production efforts and harm our business. The costs of complying with environmental, health and safety laws and regulations, and any claims concerning noncompliance, or liability with respect to contamination in the future could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or operating results.

Changes in government regulations, including subsidies and economic incentives, could have a material adverse effect on demand for our oils, business and results of operations.

The market for renewable fuels is heavily influenced by foreign, federal, state and local government regulations and policies. Changes to existing, or adoption of new, domestic or foreign federal, state or local legislative initiatives that impact the production, distribution, sale or import and export of renewable fuels may harm our business. For example, in 2007, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 set targets for alternative sourced liquid transportation fuels (approximately 14 billion gallons in 2011, increasing to 36 billion gallons by 2022). Of the 2022 target amount, a minimum of 21 billion gallons must be advanced biofuels. In the US and in a number of other countries, these regulations and policies have been modified in the past and may be modified again in the future. The elimination of, or any reduction in, mandated requirements for fuel alternatives and additives to gasoline may cause demand for biofuels to decline and deter investment in the research and development of renewable fuels. In addition, the US Congress has passed legislation that extends tax credits to blenders of certain renewable fuel products. However, there is no assurance that this or any other favorable legislation will remain in place. For example, the biodiesel tax credit expired in December 2009, and its extension was not approved until March 2010. Any reduction in, phasing out or elimination of existing tax credits, subsidies and other incentives in the US and foreign markets for renewable fuels, or any inability of our customers to access such credits, subsidies and incentives, may adversely affect demand for our products and increase the overall cost of commercialization of our renewable fuels, which would adversely affect our business. In addition, market uncertainty regarding future policies may also affect our ability to develop new renewable products or to license our technologies to third parties and to sell products to end customers. Any inability to address these requirements and any regulatory or policy changes could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Conversely, government programs could increase investment and competition in the markets for our oils. For example, various governments have announced a number of spending programs focused on the development of clean technology, including alternatives to petroleum-based fuels and the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, which could lead to increased funding for us or our competitors, or the rapid increase in the number of competitors within our markets.

Concerns associated with renewable fuels, including land usage, national security interests and food crop usage, are receiving legislative, industry and public attention. This could result in future legislation, regulation and/or administrative action that could adversely affect our business. Any inability to address these requirements and any regulatory or policy changes could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Future government policies may adversely affect the supply of sugarcane, corn or cellulosic sugars, restricting our ability to use these feedstocks to produce our oils, and negatively impact our revenues and results of operations.

We may face risks relating to the use of our targeted recombinant microalgae strains, and if we are not able to secure regulatory approval for the use of these strains or if we face material ethical, legal and social concerns about our use of targeted recombinant technology, our business could be adversely affected.

The use of microorganisms designed using targeted recombinant technology, such as some of our microalgae strains, is subject to laws and regulations in many states and countries, some of which are new and still evolving and interpreted by fact specific application. In the United States, the EPA regulates the commercial use of microorganisms designed using targeted recombinant technology as well as potential products derived from them.

We expect to encounter regulations of microorganisms designed using targeted recombinant technology in most if not all of the countries in which we may seek to establish manufacturing operations, and the scope and nature of these regulations will likely be different from country to country. For example, in the US, when used in an industrial process, our microalgae strains designed using targeted recombinant technology may be considered new chemicals under the TSCA, administered by the EPA. We will be required to comply with the EPA’s Microbial Commercial Activity Notice process and are preparing to file a Microbial Commercial Activity Notice for the strain of optimized microalgae that we use for our chemicals and fuels businesses. In Brazil, microorganisms designed using targeted recombinant technology are regulated by the National Biosafety Technical Commission, or CTNBio. In March 2013, we submitted an application for approval from CTNBio to use microalgae designed using targeted recombinant technology in a contained environment in order to use these microalgae for research and development and commercial production purposes in any facilities we establish in Brazil. If we cannot meet the applicable requirements in Brazil and other countries in which we intend to produce microalgae-based products, or if it takes longer than anticipated to obtain such approvals, our business could be adversely affected.

The subject of organisms designed using targeted recombinant technology has received negative publicity, which has aroused public debate. Public attitudes about the safety and environmental hazards of, and ethical concerns over, genetic research and microorganisms designed using targeted recombinant technology could influence public acceptance of our technology and products. In addition, shifting public attitudes regarding, and potential changes to laws governing, ownership of genetic material could harm our intellectual property rights with respect to our genetic material and discourage collaborators from supporting, developing, or commercializing our products, processes and technologies. Governmental reaction to negative publicity concerning organisms designed using targeted recombinant technology could result in greater government regulation of or trade restrictions on imports of genetic research and derivative products. If we and/or our collaborators are not able to overcome the ethical, legal, and social concerns relating to the use of targeted recombinant technology, our products and processes may not be accepted or we could face increased expenses, delays or other impediments to their commercialization.

We expect to face competition for our oils in the chemicals and fuels markets from providers of products based on petroleum, plant oils and animal fats and from other companies seeking to provide alternatives to these products, many of whom have greater resources and experience than we do. If we cannot compete effectively against these companies or products, we may not be successful in bringing our products to market or further growing our business.

In the chemical markets, we will compete with the established providers of oils currently used in chemical products. Producers of these incumbent products include global oil companies, including those selling agricultural products such as palm oil, palm kernel oil, castor bean oil and sunflower oil, large international chemical companies and other companies specializing in specific products or essential oils. We may also compete in one or more of these markets with manufacturers of other products such as highly refined petrochemicals, synthetic polymers and other petroleum-based fluids and lubricants as well as new market entrants offering renewable products.

In the transportation fuels market, we expect to compete with independent and integrated oil refiners, large oil and gas companies and, in certain fuels markets, with other companies producing advanced biofuels. The refiners compete with us by selling conventional fuel products, and some are also pursuing hydrocarbon fuel production using non-renewable feedstocks, such as natural gas and coal, as well as production using renewable feedstocks, such as vegetable oil and biomass. We also expect to compete with companies that are developing the capacity to produce diesel and other transportation fuels from renewable resources in other ways. These include advanced biofuels companies using specific engineered enzymes that they have developed to convert cellulosic biomass, which is non-food plant material such as wood chips, corn stalks and sugarcane bagasse, into fermentable sugars and ultimately, renewable diesel and other fuels. Biodiesel companies convert vegetable oils and animal oils into diesel fuel and some are seeking to produce diesel and other transportation fuels using thermochemical methods to convert biomass into renewable fuels.

We believe the primary competitive factors in both the chemicals and fuels markets are product price, product performance, sustainability, availability of supply and compatibility of products with existing infrastructure.

The oil companies, large chemical companies and well-established agricultural products companies with whom we expect to compete are much larger than we are, have, in many cases, well-developed distribution systems and networks for their products, have valuable historical relationships with the potential customers we are seeking to serve and have much more extensive sales and marketing programs in place to promote their products. Some of our competitors may use their influence to impede the development and acceptance of our products. Our limited resources relative to many of our competitors may cause us to fail to anticipate or respond adequately to new developments and other competitive pressures. In the nascent markets for renewable chemicals and fuels, it is difficult to predict which, if any, market entrants will be successful, and we may lose market share to competitors producing new or existing renewable products.

We expect to face competition for our nutrition and skin and personal care products from other companies in these fields, many of whom have greater resources and experience than we do. If we cannot compete effectively against these companies or their products, we may not be successful in selling our products or further growing our business.

We expect that our nutrition products will compete with providers in both the specialty and mass food ingredient markets. Many of these companies, such as Cargill, Incorporated, Monsanto Company and Syngenta AG, are larger than we are, have well-developed distribution systems and networks for their products and have valuable historical relationships with the potential customers and distributors we hope to serve. We may also compete with companies seeking to produce nutrition products based on renewable oils, including DSM Food Specialties and DuPont Nutrition & Health. We plan to develop nutrition products both within and independent of our joint venture with Roquette, but our success will depend on our ability to effectively compete with established companies and successfully commercialize our products.

In the skin and personal care market, we expect to compete with established companies and brands with loyal customer followings. The market for skin and personal care products is characterized by strong established brands, loyal brand following and heavy brand marketing. We will compete with companies with well-known brands such as Kinerase^®, Perricone MD^®, and StriVectin^®. These companies have greater sales and marketing resources. We will also compete in the mass consumer market. Some of our competitors in this market have well-known brands such as Meaningful Beauty^® and Principal Secret^® and have substantially greater sales and marketing resources. We have limited experience in the skin and personal care market. We will need to continue to devote substantial resources to the marketing of our products and there can be no assurance that we will be successful.

A decline in the price of petroleum and petroleum-based products, plant oils or other commodities may reduce demand for our oils and may otherwise adversely affect our business.

We believe that some of the present and projected demand for renewable fuels results from relatively recent increases in the cost of petroleum and certain plant oils. We anticipate that most of our oils, and in particular those used to produce fuels, will be marketed as alternatives to corresponding products based on petroleum and plant oils. If the price of any of these oils falls, we may be unable to produce tailored oils that are cost-effective alternatives to their petroleum or plant oil-based counterparts. Declining oil prices, or the perception of a future decline in oil prices, may adversely affect the prices we can obtain from our potential customers or prevent potential customers from entering into agreements with us to buy our oils. During sustained periods of lower oil prices we may be unable to sell our oils, which could materially and adversely affect our operating results.

Petroleum prices have been extremely volatile, and this volatility is expected to persist. Lower petroleum prices over extended periods of time may change the perceptions in government and the private sector that cheaper, more readily available energy alternatives should be developed and produced. If petroleum prices were to decline from present levels and remain at lower levels for extended periods of time, the demand for renewable fuels could be reduced, and our business and revenue may be harmed.

Prices of plant oils have also experienced significant volatility. If prices for oils such as palm kernel were to materially decrease in the future, there may be less demand for oil alternatives, which could reduce demand for our products and harm our business. The prices of commodities that serve as food ingredients have also been volatile. To the extent that the prices of these commodities decline and remain at lower levels for extended periods of time, the demand for our nutrition products may be reduced, and our ability to successfully compete in this market may be harmed.

Our facilities in California are located near an earthquake fault, and an earthquake or other natural disaster or resource shortage could disrupt our operations.

Important documents and records, such as hard copies of our laboratory books and records for our products and some of our manufacturing operations, are located in our corporate headquarters in South San Francisco, California, near active earthquake zones. In the event of a natural disaster, such as an earthquake, drought or flood, or localized extended outages of critical utilities or transportation systems, we do not have a formal business continuity or disaster recovery plan, and could therefore experience a significant business interruption. In addition, California from time to time has experienced shortages of water, electric power and natural gas. Future shortages and conservation measures could disrupt our operations and could result in additional expense. Although we maintain business interruption insurance coverage, we do not maintain earthquake or flood coverage.

Our competitive position depends on our ability to effectively obtain and enforce patents related to our products, manufacturing components and manufacturing processes. If we or our licensors fail to adequately protect this intellectual property, our ability and/or our partners’ ability to commercialize products could suffer.

Our success depends in part on our ability to obtain and maintain patent protection sufficient to prevent others from utilizing our manufacturing components, manufacturing processes or marketing our products, as well as to successfully defend and enforce our patents against infringement by others. In order to protect our products, manufacturing components and manufacturing processes from unauthorized use by third parties, we must hold patent rights that cover our products, manufacturing components and manufacturing processes.

The patent position of biotechnology and bio-industrial companies can be highly uncertain because obtaining and determining the scope of patent rights involves complex legal and factual questions. The standards applied by the US Patent and Trademark Office and foreign patent offices in granting patents are not always

applied uniformly or predictably. There is no uniform worldwide policy regarding patentable subject matter, the scope of claims allowable in biotechnology and bio-industrial patents, or the formal requirements to obtain such patents. Consequently, patents may not issue from our pending patent applications. Furthermore, in the process of seeking patent protection or even after a patent is granted, we could become subject to expensive and protracted proceedings, including patent interference, opposition and re-examination proceedings, which could invalidate or narrow the scope of our patent rights. As such, we do not know nor can we predict the scope and/or breadth of patent protection that we might obtain on our products and technology.

Changes either in patent laws or in interpretations of patent laws in the United States and other countries may diminish the value of our intellectual property rights. Depending on the decisions and actions taken by the US Congress, the federal courts, and the US Patent and Trademark Office, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that would weaken our ability to obtain new patents or to enforce our existing patents and patents that we might obtain in the future.

The America Invents Act, which was signed into law on September 16, 2011, brings a number of changes to the US patent system and affects the way patents are prosecuted, challenged and litigated. Among the changes that went into effect September 16, 2012, one of the most significant involves the implementation of a reformed post-grant review system. Other changes, which will go into effect on March 16, 2013, include the transition from a “first-to-invent” to “first-to-file” system, which harmonizes the US with most of the world. Together, these changes may increase the costs of prosecution and enforcement of US patents. Lack of precedential interpretation of the new provisions of the America Invents Act in specific cases by the US Patent and Trademark Office and the courts increases the uncertainty surrounding the effect of these changes. While it is currently unclear what impact these changes will have on the operation of our business, they may favor companies able to dedicate more resources to patent filings and challenges.

Risks associated with enforcing our intellectual property rights in the United States.

If we were to initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent claiming one of our technologies, the defendant could counterclaim that our patent is invalid and/or unenforceable or assert that the patent does not cover its manufacturing processes, manufacturing components or products. Proving patent infringement may be difficult, especially where it is possible to manufacture a product by multiple processes or a patented process is performed by multiple parties. Furthermore, in patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging both invalidity and unenforceability are commonplace. Although we believe that we have conducted our patent prosecution in accordance with the duty of candor and in good faith, the outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability during patent litigation is unpredictable. With respect to the validity of our patent rights, we cannot be certain, for example, that there is no invalidating prior art, of which we and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity and/or unenforceability, we would not be able to exclude others from practicing the inventions claimed therein. Such a loss of patent protection could have a material adverse effect on our business. Defendant counterclaims of antitrust or other anti-competitive conduct are also commonplace.

Even if our patent rights are found to be valid and enforceable, patent claims that survive litigation may not cover commercially viable products or prevent competitors from importing or marketing products similar to our own, or using manufacturing processes or manufacturing components similar to our own.

Although we believe we have obtained assignments of patent rights from all inventors, if an inventor did not adequately assign their patent rights to us, a third party could obtain a license to the patent from such inventor. This could preclude us from enforcing the patent against such third party.

We may not be able to enforce our intellectual property rights throughout the world.

The laws of some foreign countries where we intend to produce and use our proprietary strains in collaboration with sugar mills or other feedstock suppliers do not protect intellectual property rights to the same

extent as the laws of the United States. Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in certain foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, including Brazil and developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to biotechnology and/or bio-industrial technologies. This could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or misappropriation of our intellectual property rights in these countries. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in certain foreign jurisdictions are unpredictable and could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business. Accordingly, our efforts to protect our intellectual property rights in such countries may be inadequate.

Third parties may misappropriate our proprietary strains, information, or trade secrets despite a contractual obligation not to do so.

Third parties (including joint venture, collaboration, development and feedstock partners, contract manufacturers, and other contractors and shipping agents) often have custody or control of our proprietary microbe strains. If our proprietary microbe strains were stolen, misappropriated or reverse engineered, they could be used by other parties who may be able to use our strains for their own commercial gain. It is difficult to prevent misappropriation and subsequent reverse engineering. In the event that our proprietary microbe strains are misappropriated, it could be difficult for us to challenge the misappropriation and prevent reverse engineering, especially in countries with limited legal and intellectual property protection.

Confidentiality agreements with employees and third parties may not prevent unauthorized disclosure of proprietary information and trade secrets.

In addition to patents, we rely on confidentiality agreements to protect our technical know-how and other proprietary information. Confidentiality agreements are used, for example, when we talk to potential strategic partners. In addition, each of our employees signed a confidentiality agreement upon joining our company. Nevertheless, there can be no guarantee that an employee or an outside party will not make an unauthorized disclosure or use of our proprietary confidential information. This might happen intentionally or inadvertently. It is possible that a competitor will make use of such information, and that our competitive position will be compromised, in spite of any legal action we might take against persons making such unauthorized disclosures.

We also keep as trade secrets certain technical and proprietary information where we do not believe patent protection is appropriate or obtainable. However, trade secrets are difficult to protect. Although we use reasonable efforts to protect our trade secrets, our employees, consultants, contractors, outside scientific collaborators and other advisors may unintentionally or willfully disclose our trade secrets to competitors or otherwise use misappropriated trade secrets to compete with us. It can be expensive and time consuming to enforce a claim that a third party illegally obtained and is using our trade secrets. Furthermore, the outcome of such claims is unpredictable. In addition, courts outside the US may be less willing to or may not protect trade secrets. Moreover, our competitors may independently develop equivalent knowledge, methods and know-how without misappropriating or otherwise violating our trade secret rights. Where a third party independently develops equivalent knowledge, methods and know-how without misappropriating or otherwise violating our trade secret rights, they may be able to seek patent protection for such equivalent knowledge, methods and know-how. This could prohibit us from practicing our trade secrets.

Claims by patent holders that our products or manufacturing processes infringe their patent rights could result in costly litigation or could require substantial time and money to resolve, whether or not we are successful, and an unfavorable outcome in these proceedings could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Our ability to commercialize our technology depends on our ability to develop, manufacture, market and sell our products without infringing the proprietary rights of patent holders or their authorized agents. An issued patent does not guarantee us the right to practice or utilize the patented inventions or commercialize the patented

product. Third parties may have blocking patents that may prevent us from commercializing our patented products and utilizing our patented manufacturing components and manufacturing processes. In the event that we are made aware of blocking third party patents, we cannot be sure that licenses to the blocking third-party patents would be available or obtainable on terms favorable to us or at all.

Numerous US and foreign issued patents and pending patent applications, which are owned by third parties, relate to (1) the production of bio-industrial products, including oils, chemicals and biofuels, and (2) the use of microalgae strains, such as microalgae strains containing genes to alter oil composition. As such, there could be existing valid patents that our manufacturing processes, manufacturing components, or products may inadvertently infringe. There could also be existing invalid or unenforceable patents that could nevertheless be asserted against us and would require expenditure of resources to defend. In addition, there are pending patent applications that are currently unpublished and therefore unknown to us that may later result in issued patents that are infringed by our products, manufacturing processes or other aspects of our business.

We may be exposed to future litigation based on claims that one of our products, manufacturing processes or manufacturing components infringes the intellectual property rights of others. There is inevitable uncertainty in any litigation, including patent litigation. Defending against claims of patent infringement is costly and time consuming, regardless of the outcome. Thus, even if we were to ultimately prevail, or to settle at an early stage, such litigation could burden us with substantial unanticipated costs. Some of our competitors are larger than we are and have substantially greater resources. They are, therefore, likely to be able to sustain the costs of complex patent litigation longer than we could. In addition, the costs and uncertainty associated with patent litigation could have a material adverse effect on our ability to continue our internal research and development programs, in-license needed technology, or enter into strategic partnerships that would help us commercialize our technologies. In addition, litigation or threatened litigation could result in significant demands on the time and attention of our management team, distracting them from the pursuit of other company business.

If a party successfully asserts a patent or other intellectual property rights against us, we might be barred from using certain of our manufacturing processes or manufacturing components, or from developing and commercializing related products. Injunctions against using specified processes or components, or prohibitions against commercializing specified products, could be imposed by a court or by a settlement agreement between us and a third party. In addition, we may be required to pay substantial damage awards to the third party, including treble or enhanced damages if we are found to have willfully infringed the third party’s intellectual property rights. We may also be required to obtain a license from the third party in order to continue manufacturing and/or marketing the products that were found to infringe. It is possible that the necessary license will not be available to us on commercially acceptable terms, or at all. This could limit our ability to competitively commercialize some or all of our products.

During the course of any patent litigation, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, rulings on motions, and other interim proceedings in the litigation. If securities analysts or investors regard these announcements as negative, the perceived value of our products, technology or intellectual property could be diminished. Accordingly, the market price of our common stock may decline.

We have received government funding in connection with the development of certain of our proprietary technologies, which could negatively affect our intellectual property rights in such technologies.

Some of our proprietary technology was developed with US federal government funding. When new technologies are developed with US government funding, the government obtains certain rights in any resulting patents, including a nonexclusive license authorizing the government to use the invention for non-commercial purposes. These rights may permit the government to disclose our confidential information to third parties and to exercise “march-in” rights to use or allow third parties to use our patented technology. The government can exercise its march-in rights if it determines that action is necessary because we fail to achieve practical application of the US government-funded technology, because action is necessary to alleviate health or safety

needs, to meet requirements of federal regulations, or to give preference to US industry. In addition, US government-funded inventions must be reported to the government and US government funding must be disclosed in any resulting patent applications. In addition, our rights in such inventions are subject to government license rights and foreign manufacturing restrictions. Any exercise by the government of such rights could harm our competitive position or impact our operating results.

In addition, some of our technology was funded by a grant from the state of California. Inventions funded by this grant may be subject to forfeiture if we do not seek to patent or practically apply them. Any such forfeiture could have a materially adverse effect on our business.

Our financial results could vary significantly from quarter to quarter and are difficult to predict.

Our revenues and results of operations could vary significantly from quarter to quarter because of a variety of factors, many of which are outside of our control. As a result, comparing our results of operations on a period-to-period basis may not be meaningful. Factors that could cause our quarterly results of operations to fluctuate include:

Due to these factors and others the results of any quarterly or annual period may not meet our expectations or the expectations of our investors and may not be meaningful indications of our future performance.

We may require additional financing in the future and may not be able to obtain such financing on favorable terms, if at all, which could force us to delay, reduce or eliminate our research and development or commercialization activities.

To date, we have financed our operations primarily through our initial public offering, completed in June 2011, private placements of our equity securities, government grants and funding from strategic partners. In January 2013 we issued $125 million aggregate principal amount of convertible notes due 2018, which bear interest at a rate of 6% per year, payable in cash semi-annually commencing in August 2013. In May 2011, we entered into a loan and security agreement with Silicon Valley Bank that provided for a $20.0 million credit facility consisting of (i) a $15.0 million term loan and (ii) a $5.0 million revolving facility. While we plan to enter into relationships with partners or collaborators for them to provide some portion or all of the capital needed to build production facilities, we may determine that it is more advantageous for us to provide some portion or all of the financing for new production facilities. Some of our previous funding has come from government grants; however, our future ability to obtain government grants is uncertain due to the competitive bid process and other factors.

We may have to raise additional funds through public or private debt or equity financings to meet our capital requirements, including our portion of joint venture funding requirements. For example, although the Solazyme Bunge JV recently entered a loan agreement with BNDES for project financing funding under which will support the joint venture’s production facility in Brazil, including a portion of the construction costs of the facility, if we are unable to finalize the loan documentation (including the required guarantee) on acceptable terms, the Solazyme Bunge JV will be unable to draw down amounts under the loan and will have to seek additional financing. If the Solazyme Bunge JV is unable to secure additional financing, we will be required to fund our portion of the Solazyme Bunge JV’s capital requirements either from existing sources or seek additional financing. We may not be able to raise sufficient additional funds on terms that are favorable to us, if at all. If we fail to raise sufficient funds and continue to incur losses, our ability to fund our operations, take advantage of strategic opportunities, develop and commercialize products or technologies, or otherwise respond to competitive pressures could be significantly limited. If this happens, we may be forced to delay or terminate research and development programs or the commercialization of products resulting from our technologies, curtail or cease operations or obtain funds through collaborative and licensing arrangements that may require us to relinquish commercial rights, or grant licenses on terms that are not favorable to us. If adequate funds are not available, we will not be able to successfully execute our business plan or continue our business.

Servicing our debt will require a significant amount of cash, and we may not have sufficient cash flow from our business to pay amounts due under our indebtedness, including our convertible notes.

Our ability to make scheduled payments of the principal of, to pay interest on or to refinance our indebtedness, including our convertible notes, depends on our future performance, which is subject to economic, financial, competitive and other factors beyond our control. Our business may not generate cash flow from operations in the future sufficient to service our debt and make necessary capital expenditures. If we are unable to generate such cash flow, we may be required to adopt one or more alternatives, such as selling assets, restructuring debt or obtaining additional equity capital on terms that may be onerous or highly dilutive. Our ability to refinance our indebtedness will depend on the capital markets and our financial condition at such time. We may not be able to engage in any of these activities or engage in these activities on desirable terms, which could result in a default on our debt obligations.

Despite our current debt levels, we may still incur substantially more debt or take other actions that would intensify the risks discussed above.

Despite our current consolidated debt levels, we and our subsidiaries may be able to incur substantial additional debt in the future, subject to the restrictions contained in our debt instruments, some of which may be secured debt. We are not restricted under the terms of the indenture governing the convertible notes from incurring additional debt, securing existing or future debt, recapitalizing our debt or taking a number of other

actions that are not limited by the terms governing the notes. Our existing credit facility with Silicon Valley Bank restricts our ability to incur additional indebtedness, including secured indebtedness, but if the facility matures or is repaid, we may not be subject to such restrictions under the terms of any subsequent indebtedness.

We have received government grant funding and may pursue government funding in the future. Loss of our government grant funding could adversely impact our future plans.

We have been awarded an approximately $21.8 million “Integrated Bio-Refinery” grant from the US Department of Energy (DOE). The terms of this grant make the funds available to us to develop US-based production capabilities for renewable fuels derived from microalgae at the Peoria Facility. Government grant agreements generally have fixed terms and may be terminated, modified or recovered by the granting agency under certain conditions. We are in the process of obtaining reimbursement under the grant for funds spent by us in connection with the Integrated Bio-Refinery. If we were unable to obtain reimbursement under the grant, our financial results would be negatively impacted.

Activities funded by a government grant are subject to audits by government agencies. As part of an audit, these agencies may review our performance, cost structures and compliance with applicable laws, regulations and standards. Grant funds must be applied by us toward the research and development programs specified by the granting agency, rather than for all of our programs generally. If any of our costs are found to be allocated improperly, the costs may not be reimbursed and any costs already reimbursed may have to be refunded. Accordingly, an audit could result in an adjustment to our revenues and results of operations. We are also subject to additional regulations based on our receipt of government grant funding and entry into government contracts. If we fail to comply with these requirements, we may face penalties and may not be awarded government funding or contracts in the future.

If we engage in any acquisitions, we will incur a variety of costs and may potentially face numerous risks that could adversely affect our business and operations.

If appropriate opportunities become available, we may seek to acquire additional businesses, assets, technologies or products to enhance our business. In connection with any acquisitions, we could issue additional equity or equity-linked securities such as our convertible notes, which would dilute our stockholders, incur substantial debt to fund the acquisitions, or assume significant liabilities.

Acquisitions involve numerous risks, including problems integrating the purchased operations, technologies or products, unanticipated costs and other liabilities, diversion of management’s attention from our core businesses, adverse effects on existing business relationships with current and/or prospective collaborators, customers and/or suppliers, risks associated with entering markets in which we have no or limited prior experience and potential loss of key employees. Acquisitions may also require us to record goodwill and non-amortizable intangible assets that will be subject to impairment testing on a regular basis and potential periodic impairment charges, incur amortization expenses related to certain intangible assets, and incur write offs and restructuring and other related expenses, any of which could harm our operating results and financial condition. If we fail in our integration efforts with respect to any of our acquisitions and are unable to efficiently operate as a combined organization, our business and financial condition may be adversely affected.

Raising additional funds may cause dilution to our stockholders or require us to relinquish valuable rights.

If we elect to raise additional funds through equity offerings or offerings of equity-linked securities, our stockholders would likely experience dilution. Debt financing, if available, may subject us to restrictive covenants that could limit our flexibility in conducting future business activities. For example, the loan and security agreement we entered into with Silicon Valley Bank in May 2011 contains financial covenants that, if breached, would require us to secure our obligations thereunder. To the extent that we raise additional funds through collaboration and licensing arrangements, it may be necessary for us to share a portion of the margin from the sale of our products. We may also be required to relinquish or license on unfavorable terms our rights to technologies or products that we otherwise would seek to develop or commercialize ourselves.

If we fail to maintain an effective system of internal controls, we might not be able to report our financial results accurately or prevent fraud; in that case, our stockholders could lose confidence in our financial reporting, which would harm our business and could negatively impact the price of our stock.

Effective internal controls are necessary for us to provide reliable financial reports and prevent fraud. In addition, Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 requires us and our independent registered public accounting firm to evaluate and report on our internal control over financial reporting, and have our chief executive officer and chief financial officer certify as to the accuracy and completeness of our financial reports. The process of implementing our internal controls and complying with Section 404 is expensive and time consuming, and requires significant attention from management. We cannot be certain that these measures will ensure that we implement and maintain adequate controls over our financial processes and reporting in the future.

Our management has concluded that there are no material weaknesses in our internal controls over financial reporting as of December 31, 2012. However, there can be no assurance that our controls over financial processes and reporting will be effective in the future or that material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in our internal controls will not be discovered in the future. Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect fraud or misstatements. Failure to implement required new or improved controls, or difficulties encountered in their implementation, could harm our results of operations or cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations. If we or our independent registered public accounting firm discover a material weakness, the disclosure of that fact, even if quickly remedied, could reduce the market’s confidence in our financial statements and harm our stock price.

The volatility of our common stock may affect the price of our common stock, and the sale of substantial amounts of our common stock could adversely affect the price of our common stock. Stock markets have experienced extreme volatility that has often been unrelated to the operating performance of particular companies. These broad market fluctuations may adversely affect the trading price of our common stock. In addition, the average daily trading volume of the securities of small companies, particularly small technology companies, can be very low. Limited trading volume of our stock may contribute to its future volatility. Price declines in our common stock could result from general market and economic conditions and a variety of other factors, including any of the risk factors described in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

These broad market and industry factors may seriously harm the market price of our common stock, regardless of our operating performance. The market price of our common stock could also be affected by possible sales of the common stock by investors who view our convertible notes as a more attractive means of equity participation in us and by hedging or arbitrage trading activity that we expect to develop involving the common stock.

If our executive officers, directors and largest stockholders choose to act together, they may be able to control our management and operations, acting in their own best interests and not necessarily those of other stockholders.

As of December 31, 2012 our executive officers, directors and beneficial holders of 5% or more of our outstanding stock beneficially owned approximately 41.4% of our common stock, including shares subject to repurchase. As a result, these stockholders, acting together, would be able to significantly influence all matters requiring approval by our stockholders, including the election of directors and the approval of mergers or other business combination transactions. The interests of this group of stockholders may not always coincide with the interests of other stockholders, and they may act in a manner that advances their best interests and not necessarily those of other stockholders.

Our certificate of incorporation, our bylaws and Delaware law contain provisions that could discourage another company from acquiring us and may prevent attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management.

Provisions of Delaware law (where we are incorporated), our certificate of incorporation and bylaws may discourage, delay or prevent a merger or acquisition that stockholders may consider favorable, including transactions in which you might otherwise receive a premium for your shares. In addition, these provisions may frustrate or prevent any attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management by making it more difficult for stockholders to replace or remove our board of directors. These provisions include:

In addition, we are subject to Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, which, under certain circumstances, may make it more difficult for a person who would be an “interested stockholder,” as defined in Section 203, to effect various business combinations with us for a three-year period. Our certificate of incorporation and bylaws do not exclude us from the restrictions imposed under Section 203. These provisions could impede a merger, takeover or other business combination involving us or discourage a potential acquirer from making a tender offer for our common stock, which, under certain circumstances, could reduce the market price of our common stock.

As a public company, we incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses. For example, as a public company, we have adopted internal and disclosure controls and procedures and bear all of the internal and external costs of preparing and distributing periodic public reports in compliance with our obligations under applicable securities laws.

In addition, changing laws, regulations and standards relating to corporate governance and public disclosure, including the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and related regulations implemented by the SEC and the NASDAQ Global Select Market, create uncertainty for public companies, increasing legal and financial compliance costs and making some activities more time consuming. We are currently evaluating and monitoring developments with respect to new and proposed rules and cannot predict or estimate the amount of additional costs we may incur or the timing of such costs. These laws, regulations and standards are subject to varying interpretations, in many cases due to their lack of specificity, and, as a result, their application in practice may evolve over time as new guidance is provided by regulatory and governing bodies. This could result in continuing uncertainty regarding compliance matters and higher costs necessitated by ongoing revisions to disclosure and governance practices. We intend to invest resources to comply with evolving laws, regulations and standards, and this investment may result in increased general and administrative expenses and a diversion of management’s time and attention from revenue-generating activities to compliance activities. If our efforts to comply with new laws, regulations and standards differ from the activities intended by regulatory or governing bodies due to ambiguities related to practice, regulatory authorities may initiate legal proceedings against us and our business may be harmed. These factors could also make it more difficult for us to attract and retain qualified members of our

board of directors, particularly to serve on our audit committee and compensation committee, and attract and retain qualified executive officers. If these requirements divert our management’s attention from other business concerns, they could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

If securities or industry analysts do not continue to publish research or publish inaccurate or unfavorable research about our business, our stock price and trading volume could decline.

The trading market for our common stock depends in part on the research and reports that securities or industry analysts publish about us or our business. If securities or industry analysts do not continue coverage of our company, the trading price for our stock would be negatively impacted. If one or more of the analysts who cover us downgrade our stock or publish inaccurate or unfavorable research about our business, our stock price would likely decline. If one or more of these analysts cease coverage of our company or fail to publish reports on us regularly, demand for our stock could decrease, which might cause our stock price and trading volume to decline.

We do not anticipate paying cash dividends, and accordingly, stockholders must rely on stock appreciation for any return on their investment.

We do not anticipate paying cash dividends in the foreseeable future. As a result, only appreciation of the price of our common stock, which may never occur, would provide a return to stockholders. Investors seeking cash dividends should not invest in our common stock.

We currently lease an aggregate of approximately 96,000 square feet of office and laboratory facilities, including a pilot plant, in South San Francisco, California. The South San Francisco location is comprised of two buildings and is covered by a single amended sublease agreement that expires in February 2015.

In May 2011, we purchased the Peoria Facility in Peoria, Illinois. Solazyme Brasil Óleos Renováveis e Bioprodutos Ltda. leases approximately 14,100 square feet of space in Campinas, Brazil that is used as general office and lab space pursuant to a lease that expires in April 2016.

We believe that our current facilities are suitable and adequate to meet our current needs. As our needs change and as our business grows, we intend to build additional manufacturing capacity on our own and with partners. We believe that additional space and facilities will be available.

From time to time, we may be involved in litigation relating to claims arising out of our operations. We are not currently involved in any material legal proceedings.

Our common stock is quoted on The NASDAQ Global Select Market, or NASDAQ, under the symbol “SZYM.” The following table sets forth the high and low sales prices per share of the common stock as reported on NASDAQ. Such quotations represent inter dealer prices without retail markup, markdown or commission and may not necessarily represent actual transactions.

As of February 28, 2013 there were 118 stockholders of record of our common stock. A substantially greater number of stockholders may be “street name” or beneficial holders, whose shares are held of record by banks, brokers and other financial institutions.

We have never declared or paid any dividends on our common stock or any other securities. We currently intend to retain our future earnings, if any, for use in the expansion and operation of our business and therefore do not anticipate paying cash dividends on our common stock in the foreseeable future. Any future determination relating to our dividend policy will be made at the discretion of our board of directors, based upon our financial condition, results of operations, contractual restrictions, capital requirements, business prospects and other factors our board of directors may deem relevant.

On June 2, 2011, we closed our initial public offering. We sold 12,621,250 shares of common stock at a price to the public of $18.00 per share, which included 600,000 shares offered by selling stockholders and 1,646,250 shares that the underwriters had the option to purchase to cover over-allotments. This offer and sale of our common stock in the initial public offering were registered under the Securities Act pursuant to a registration statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-172790), which was declared effective by the SEC on May 26, 2011. The principal underwriters of the initial public offering were Morgan Stanley and Co. Incorporated, Goldman, Sachs & Co., Jefferies, Pacific Crest Securities and Lazard Capital Markets. We raised approximately $201.2 million in net proceeds after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions of $15.1 million and other offering costs of $4.3 million. No offering costs were paid directly or indirectly to any of our directors or officers (or their associates) or persons owning ten percent or more of any class of our equity securities or to any other affiliates, other than payments in the ordinary course of business to officers for salaries and to non-employee directors as compensation for board or board committee service. There has been no material change in the planned use of proceeds from our initial public offering as described in our final prospectus filed with the SEC pursuant to Rule 424(b).

The following graph compares our total common stock return with the total return for (i) the S&P SmallCap 600 Index and (ii) the NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index for the period from May 27, 2011 (the date our common stock commenced trading on the NASDAQ) through December 31, 2012. The figures represented below assume an investment of $100 in our common stock at the closing price of $20.71 on May 27, 2011 and in the S&P SmallCap Index and the NASDAQ Clean Edge Green Energy Index on May 27, 2011 and the reinvestment of dividends into shares of common stock. The comparisons in the table are required by the SEC and are not intended to forecast or be indicative of possible future performance of our common stock. This graph shall not be deemed “soliciting material” or to be “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to the liabilities under that Section, and shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any of our filings under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act.

In the tables below, we provide you with our selected historical financial data. We derived the selected statement of operations data for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010 and the selected balance sheet data as of December 31, 2012 and 2011 from our audited consolidated financial statements and related notes included in Item 8 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We derived the selected statement of operations data for the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008 and the selected balance sheet data as of December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008 from our audited consolidated financial statements and related notes not included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. You should read this data together with our consolidated financial statements and related notes in Item 8 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Our historical results are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected in the future.

The following discussion and analysis should be read together with our audited consolidated financial statements and the other financial information appearing elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. This discussion contains forward-looking statements reflecting our current expectations and involves risks and uncertainties. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terminology such as “may,” “will,” “should,” “expect,” “plan,” “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “predict,” “intend,” “potential” or “continue” or the negative of these terms or other comparable terminology. For example, statements regarding our expectations as to future financial performance, expense levels and liquidity sources are forward-looking statements. Our actual results and the timing of events may differ materially from those discussed in our forward-looking statements as a result of various factors, including those discussed below and those discussed in the section entitled “Risk Factors” included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K and in our other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

We make oils. Our proprietary technology transforms a range of low-cost, plant-based sugars into high-value oils. Our renewable products can replace or enhance oils derived from the world’s three existing sources—petroleum, plants and animal fats. We tailor the composition of our oils to address specific customer requirements, offering superior performance characteristics and value. Our oils can address the major markets served by conventional oils, which represented an opportunity of over $3 trillion in 2011. Initially, we are commercializing our products into three target markets: (1) chemicals and fuels, (2) nutrition and (3) skin and personal care.

We expect our products to generate attractive margins in our target markets. We anticipate that the average selling prices of our products will capture the enhanced value of our tailored oils. Based on the technology milestones we have demonstrated, we believe the conversion cost profile we have achieved to date will, when implemented at scale, enable us to profitably engage in our target markets. For example, our lead microalgae strains producing oil for the chemicals and fuels markets have achieved key performance metrics that we believe would allow us to generate attractive margins on the manufacture of oils today assuming the use of a larger-scale, built-for-purpose commercial plant (inclusive of the anticipated cost of financing and facility depreciation).

We have scaled up our technology platform and have successfully operated at lab (3-15 liter), pilot (600-1,000 liter), demonstration (20,000 liter) and commercial (approximately 500,000 liter) fermenter scale. Our achievement of the following milestones demonstrates the ongoing development of our platform:

To date, our revenues have been generated from research and development programs and commercial sale of our skin and personal care products. Our research and development programs have been conducted primarily from key agreements with government agencies and commercial partners. We have developed a portfolio of innovative skin care products based on our proprietary active ingredient, Alguronic Acid^®. These products have been available internationally in the luxury market since March 2011 and are currently sold to consumers via distribution arrangements with Sephora, QVC Inc., Space NK and others. These arrangements provide marketing support and access to more than 1,350 retail stores worldwide. We expect to continue expanding distribution throughout 2013.

Our total revenues have increased in each of the last three fiscal years, growing from $38.0 million in 2010, to $39.0 million in 2011 to $44.1 million in 2012. We expect a larger percentage of our total revenues to be generated from product sales as we scale up our manufacturing capacity.

We incurred net losses attributable to our common stockholders of $16.4 million, $54.0 million and $83.1 million in 2010, 2011 and 2012, respectively. In the near term, we anticipate that we will continue to incur net losses as we continue our research and development activities to further build on our library of oils that address the Chemicals & Fuels, Nutrition and Skin & Personal Care markets, continue work on feedstock flexibility and scaling of new tailored oils into the marketplace and support commercialization activities for our products. In addition, as we continue to scale our capacity by entering into manufacturing capacity and joint venture agreements with other feedstock producers, we may incur additional net losses associated with the build-out and initial operations of those production facilities.

Through a combination of partnerships and internal development, we plan to scale rapidly. In 2013, we expect to utilize the manufacturing capacity of our joint venture entities Solazyme Roquette Nutritionals, LLC (Solazyme Roquette JV) and the Solazyme Bunge JV, along with our existing capacity at the Peoria Facility. By early 2014 we plan to launch additional capacity in North America at ADM’s Clinton Facility. In addition, we are currently negotiating supply agreements with multiple potential feedstock partners in Europe, Latin America and the United States.

We currently have joint venture, joint development, supply and distribution arrangements with various strategic partners. We expect to enter into additional partnerships in each of our three target markets to advance commercialization of our products and to expand our upstream and downstream capabilities. Upstream, we expect partners to provide research and development funding, capital for commercial manufacturing capacity and/or secure access to feedstock. Downstream, we expect partners to provide expanded distribution channels, product application testing, marketing expertise and/or long-term purchase agreements (sales agreements). Our current principal partnerships and strategic arrangements include:

Bunge. In May 2011, we entered into a Joint Development Agreement (the JDA) with Bunge that extends through May 2013. Pursuant to the JDA, we and Bunge are jointly developing microbe-derived oils, and exploring the production of such oils from Brazilian sugarcane feedstock. The JDA also provides that Bunge will provide research funding to us through May 2013, payable quarterly in advance throughout the research term.

In April 2012, we and Bunge formed a joint venture (the Solazyme Bunge JV) to build, own and operate a commercial-scale renewable tailored oils production facility (the Solazyme Bunge JV Plant) adjacent to Bunge’s Moema sugarcane mill in Brazil. The Solazyme Bunge JV Plant, which will leverage our technology and Bunge’s sugarcane milling and natural oil processing capabilities, will produce our tailored triglyceride oils primarily for chemical applications. In addition, the Solazyme Bunge JV Plant has been designed to be expanded for further production in line with market demand. We expect this production facility to have annual production capacity of 100,000 metric tons of oil. Construction of the Solazyme Bunge JV Plant commenced in the second quarter of 2012 and is targeted for start-up in the fourth quarter of 2013. The Solazyme Bunge JV is jointly financed by us and Bunge. In February 2013, the Solazyme Bunge JV entered a loan agreement with the Brazilian Development Bank (BNDES), funding under which will support the production facility in Brazil, including a portion of the construction costs of the Solazyme Bunge JV Plant. As a condition of the Solazyme Bunge JV drawing funds under the loan, we will be required to guarantee a portion of the loan (in an amount not to exceed our ownership percentage in the Solazyme Bunge JV).

In addition to forming the Solazyme Bunge JV in April 2012, we entered into a Development Agreement with Solazyme Bunge JV to continue research and development activities that are intended to benefit Solazyme Bunge JV, including activities in the areas of strain development, molecular biology and process development.

The Development Agreement provides that Solazyme Bunge JV will pay us a technology maintenance fee in recognition of our ongoing research investment in technology that would benefit Solazyme Bunge JV. We also entered into a Technology Service Agreement with the Solazyme Bunge JV under which Solazyme Bunge JV will pay us for technical services related to the operations of the Plant, including, but not limited to, engineering support for Plant operations, operation procedure consultation, product analysis and microbe performance monitoring and assessment.

In anticipation of Solazyme Bunge JV’s formation, in May 2011, we granted Bunge Limited a warrant (the Warrant) to purchase 1,000,000 shares of our common stock at an exercise price of $13.50 per share. The Warrant vests as follows: (i) 25% of the warrant shares vest on such date that we and Bunge Limited (or one of its affiliates) enter into a joint venture agreement to construct and operate a commercial-scale renewable oil production facility sited at a sugar mill of Bunge Limited or its affiliate; (ii) 50% of the warrant shares vest on the earlier of the following: (a) execution of the engineering, procurement and construction contract covering the construction of the Joint Venture Plant and (b) execution of a contract for the purchase of a production fermentation vessel for the Joint Venture Plant; provided, however, that such date occurs on or prior to ten weeks after certain technical milestones set forth in the JDA are achieved; and (iii) 25% of the warrant shares vest on the date upon which aggregate output of triglyceride oil at the Joint Venture Plant reaches 1,000 metric tons. The number of warrant shares issuable upon exercise is subject to downward adjustment for failure to achieve the performance milestones on a timely basis as well as adjustments for certain changes to capital structure and corporate transactions. The first tranche of the Warrant shares (25%) vested in April 2012. The second tranche of the Warrant shares (50%) vested in June 2012. The Warrant expires in May 2021.

In November 2012, we entered into a joint venture expansion framework agreement with Bunge. This framework agreement sets forth the intent of the partners to expand joint venture-owned oil production capacity from the current 100,000 metric tons under construction in Brazil to 300,000 metric tons by 2016 at select Bunge owned and operated processing facilities worldwide. We and Bunge also intend to expand the portfolio of oils to be produced out of the Solazyme Bunge JV facility in Brazil. The expanded field and portfolio of oils would include certain tailored food oils for sale in Brazil, where Bunge is the largest supplier of edible oils through several of its retail brands. We and Bunge intend to work together through joint market development to bring new, healthy, edible oils to the Brazilian market.

Refer to Note 7 and Note 10 in the accompanying notes to our consolidated financial statements for further discussion of the Bunge JDA, Joint Venture Agreement and Warrant.

ADM. In November 2012, we entered into a strategic collaboration agreement with ADM, establishing a collaboration for the production of tailored triglyceride oil products at ADM’s Clinton Facility. The Clinton Facility will produce tailored triglyceride oil products using our proprietary microbe-based catalysis technology. Feedstock for the facility will be provided from ADM’s adjacent wet mill. Under the terms of the strategic collaboration agreement, we will pay ADM annual fees for use and operation of the Clinton Facility, a portion of which may be paid in our common stock. In addition, we granted to ADM a warrant to purchase 500,000 shares of our common stock in January 2013, which will vest in equal monthly installments over five years, commencing from the start of commercial production. We currently anticipate that commercial production at the Clinton Facility will begin by early 2014. The initial target nameplate capacity of the facility is expected to be 20,000 metric tons per year of tailored triglyceride oil products. We have an option to expand the capacity to 40,000 metric tons per year with the goal to further expand production to 100,000 metric tons per year. We will also work together to develop markets for the products produced at the Clinton Facility.

Mitsui. In February 2013, we entered into a multi-year agreement with Mitsui & Co., Ltd. (Mitsui) to jointly develop triglyceride oils for use primarily in the oleochemical industry. The agreement includes further development of our myristic oil, a valuable raw material in the oleochemical industry, and additional oils that we are developing for the oleochemical and industrial sectors. End use applications may include renewable, high-performance polymer additives for plastic applications, aviation lubricants, and toiletry and household products.

Chevron. We have entered into multiple research and development agreements with Chevron to conduct research related to algal technology in the fields of diesel fuel, lubes and additives and coproducts. Under the terms of the most recent agreement, we successfully completed all defined deliverables against the active Chevron research program which was funded through June 30, 2012.

US Navy. In September 2010, we entered into a firm fixed price research and development contract with the Department of Defense (DoD), through the Defense Logistics Agency, Fort Belvoir, VA (DLA), to provide marine diesel fuel. We agreed to produce up to 567,812 liters of HRF-76 marine diesel for the US Navy’s testing and certification program. This contract is the third contract that we have entered into with the DoD and the largest of the three. We completed two earlier contracts to research, develop and demonstrate commercial-scale production of microalgae-based advanced biofuels to establish appropriate status for future commercial procurements. We completed the first phase of our 567,812 liter contract in July 2011, with the delivery of 283,906 liters of HRF-76 marine diesel to the US Navy for their testing and certification program. In August 2011, the DoD exercised its option to pursue the second phase of the current DoD contract, which calls for the delivery of the remainder of the 283,906 liters of HRF-76 marine diesel for the US Navy’s testing and certification program. We completed the second phase of our contract in June 2012, with the delivery of 283,906 liters of HRF-76 marine diesel to the US Navy.

In November 2011, Dynamic Fuels, LLC (Dynamic) was awarded a contract to supply the US Navy with 450,000 gallons (1,703,000 liters) of renewable fuels. The contract involves supplying the US Navy with 100,000 gallons (379,000 liters) of jet fuel (Hydro-treated Renewable JP-5 or HRJ-5) and 350,000 gallons (1,325,000 liters) of marine distillate fuel (Hydro-Treated Renewable F-76 or HRD-76). We were named a subcontractor and we entered into a subcontractor agreement with Dynamic effective January 2012 to supply Dynamic with algal oil to fulfill Dynamic’s contract with the US Navy to deliver fuel by May 2012. We delivered our commitment of algal oil pursuant to this subcontract in February 2012. The fuel was used as part of the US Navy’s Green Strike Group demonstration at the 2012 Rim of the Pacific Exercise, the world’s largest international maritime warfare exercise. The Great Green Fleet was powered by a 50/50 blend of biofuel and conventional petroleum-based fuel.

Dow. In May 2012, we and Dow entered into a Phase 2 Joint Development Agreement (Phase 2 JDA), an extension of the original exclusive joint development agreement related to dielectric insulating fluids. The Phase 2 JDA includes accelerated commercialization timelines and enables Dow to conduct additional application development work.

Roquette. In November 2010, we entered into a joint venture agreement with Roquette. The purpose of the Solazyme Roquette JV is to engage in manufacturing, distribution, sales, marketing and support of products and services related to the use of microalgae to which we have not applied our targeted recombinant technology in a fermentation production process to produce materials for use in the following fields: (1) human foods and beverages; (2) animal feed; and (3) nutraceuticals. Solazyme Roquette Nutritionals is 50% owned by us and 50% by Roquette. While the Solazyme Roquette JV will establish a manufacturing platform for the products, Roquette has committed to provide expertise and resources with respect to manufacturing, including such volumes of corn-based dextrose feedstock as the Solazyme Roquette JV may request subject to the terms of a manufacturing agreement. Roquette has also agreed to provide (1) a full capital commitment for two Solazyme Roquette JV-dedicated, Roquette-owned facilities that are expected to have aggregate capacity of approximately 5,000 metric tons per year, (2) subject to the approval of the board of directors of the Solazyme Roquette JV, debt and equity financing for a larger Solazyme Roquette JV-owned facility that is expected to have capacity of approximately 50,000 metric tons per year, and (3) working capital financing during various scale-up phases. The commercialization of our nutrition products through the Solazyme Roquette JV will take place in three phases. As part of Phase I, Roquette financed and built a 300 metric ton per year facility in Lestrem, France, and production began on its microalgae-derived food ingredients in the first quarter of 2012. The plant is owned by Roquette, but is for the dedicated use of the Solazyme Roquette JV. In 2012, Roquette began construction of the Phase 2 facility with a capacity of approximately 5,000 metric tons per year, at the same location. The Phase 2

facility will also be financed and owned by Roquette but will be used for the Solazyme Roquette JV. In addition, subject to approval of the board of directors of the Solazyme Roquette JV to enter into Phase 3, Roquette has also agreed to provide debt and equity financing and build a commercial plant to be owned by the Solazyme Roquette JV that is expected to be sited at a Roquette wet mill with a capacity of approximately 50,000 metric tons per year. In November 2011, we and Roquette amended the joint venture agreement to provide that Roquette would make available to the Solazyme Roquette JV during Phase 1 and Phase 2 additional working capital in the form of debt financing (Roquette Loan). We agreed to guarantee payment of a portion, up to a maximum amount, of 50% of the aggregate draw-downs from the additional Roquette Loan, if and when drawn, plus a portion of the associated fees, interest and expenses.

Algenist^® Distribution Partners. In December 2010, we entered into an exclusive distribution contract with Sephora EMEA to distribute our Algenist^® product line in Sephora EMEA stores in certain countries in Europe and select countries in the Middle East and Asia. In January 2011, we also made arrangements with Sephora Americas to sell our Algenist^® product line in Sephora Americas stores (which currently includes locations in the United States and Canada). In October 2011, we launched our Algenist^® product line at Sephora inside jcpenney stores in the United States. In March 2011, we entered into an agreement with QVC, Inc. (QVC) and launched the sale of our Algenist^® product line through QVC’s multimedia platform.

Unilever. In October 2011, we entered into a joint development agreement with Unilever (our fourth agreement together) which expands our current research and development efforts. Upon successful completion of the development agreement and related activities, we have agreed with Unilever to the terms of a multi-year supply agreement in which Unilever would purchase commercial quantities of our renewable oils.

To date, we have focused on building our corporate infrastructure, developing our core technology and designing a manufacturing process to scale up our biotechnology platform to position us in our target markets. Prior to our agreement with Roquette, which generated license fees, our revenues were primarily from collaborative research and government grants. We expect to sell our products in the future into three target markets: chemicals and fuels; nutrition; and skin and personal care. The products that we sell and intend to sell into our target markets have significantly different selling prices, volumes and expected contribution margins. We expect our product revenues in the near term to be comprised almost entirely from the sale of products into the skin and personal care market. We expect that this market will provide us with the highest gross margin of our three target markets. In the longer term, we expect that a significant portion of our revenues will come from the chemicals and fuels markets, which have lower, but still attractive, margins and higher volumes.

To date our revenues have consisted of research and development program revenues and license fees, and beginning in the first quarter of 2011, included product revenues.

Revenues from research and development (R&D) programs are recognized in the period during which the related costs are incurred, provided that the conditions under which the government grants and agreements were provided have been met and only perfunctory obligations are outstanding. We currently have active R&D programs with governmental agencies and commercial partners. These R&D programs are entered into pursuant to grants and agreements that generally provide payment for certain types of expenditures in return for research and development activities over a contractually defined period. Revenues related to R&D programs include reimbursable expenses and payments received for full-time equivalent employee services recognized over the related performance periods for each of the contracts. We are required to perform research and development activities as specified in each respective agreement based on

the terms and performance periods set forth in the agreements as outlined above. R&D program revenues represented 63%, 69% and 60% of our total revenues for 2012, 2011 and 2010 respectively. Revenues from government grants and agreements represented 52%, 46%, and 43% of total R&D revenues in 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively. Revenues from commercial and strategic partner development agreements represented 48%, 54%, and 57% of total R&D revenues in 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively.

Product revenues consist of revenues from products sold commercially into each of our target markets.

Starting in 2011, we recognized revenues from the sale of our first commercial product line, Algenist^®, which we distributed to the skin and personal care end market through arrangements with Sephora S.A. and its affiliates (Sephora), QVC, Space NK. We may also launch the Algenist^® product line in additional geographies and/or through additional distribution channels. Product revenues represented 37% and 18% of our total revenues for 2012 and 2011, respectively.

Recognition of license fees is dependent on the specific terms of the license agreement. To date, license fee revenue consists of up-front, one-time, non-refundable fees for licensing our technology for commercialization in Solazyme Roquette Nutritionals and these fees have been recognized when cash is received. License fees represented 0%, 13% and 40% of our total revenues in 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively.

Costs and operating expenses consist of cost of product revenue, research and development expenses and sales, general and administrative expenses. Personnel-related expenses including non-cash stock-based compensation, third-party contract manufacturing, reimbursable equipment and costs associated with government contracts, consultants and facility costs comprise the significant components of these expenses. We expect to continue to hire additional employees, primarily in research and development, manufacturing and commercialization, as we scale our manufacturing capacity and commercialize our technology in target markets.

In the first quarter of 2011, we launched our first commercial product line, Algenist^®. Cost of product revenue consists primarily of third-party contractor costs associated with packaging, distribution and production of Algenist^® products, internal labor, shipping, supplies and other overhead costs associated with production of Alguronic Acid^®, a microalgae-based active ingredient used in our Algenist^® product line. We expect our third-party contractor costs related to the distribution and production of Algenist^®, as well as our other costs of product revenue, to increase as the demand for our Algenist^® product line grows.

Research and development expenses consist of costs incurred for internal projects as well as partner-funded collaborative research and development activities with commercial and strategic partners and governmental entities (partners). Research and development expenses consist primarily of personnel and related costs including non-cash stock-based compensation, third-party contract manufacturing, reimbursable equipment and costs associated with government contracts, consultants, facility costs and overhead, depreciation and amortization of property and equipment used in development, and laboratory supplies. We expense our research and development costs as they are incurred. Our research and development programs are undertaken to advance our overall industrial biotechnology platform that enables

us to produce tailored, high-value oils. Although our partners fund certain development activities, they benefit from advances in our technology platform as a whole, including costs funded by other development programs. Therefore, costs for such activities have not been separated as these costs have all been determined to be part of our total research and development related activity. Our research and development efforts are devoted to both internal and external product and process development projects. Our external research and development projects include research and development activities as specified in our government grants and contracts and development agreements with commercial and strategic partners. Internal research activities and projects focus on (1) strain screening, improvement and optimization in order to provide a detailed inventory of individual strain outputs under precisely controlled conditions; (2) process development aimed at reducing the cost of oil production; and (3) scale-up of commercial scale production. Our Peoria Facility, which we acquired in May 2011, commenced fermentation operations in the fourth quarter of 2011, and we successfully commissioned our first integrated biorefinery in June 2012 under our DOE program. We intend to use our Peoria Facility for joint development activities as well as commercial production for certain high-value products. In November 2012 we also entered into an agreement with ADM to utilize ADM’s existing commercial-scale production facility. We expect that our research and development expenses will continue to increase in the near term as we scale up to commercial production.

Sales, general and administrative expenses consist primarily of personnel and related costs including non-cash stock-based compensation related to our executive management, corporate administration, sales and marketing functions, professional and legal services, administrative and facility overhead expenses. These expenses also include costs related to our business development and sales functions, including marketing programs. Professional services consist primarily of consulting, external legal, accounting and temporary help. We expect sales, general and administrative expenses to increase as we incur additional costs related to commercializing our business, including our growth and expansion in Brazil, and operating as a publicly-traded company, including increased legal fees, accounting fees, costs of compliance with securities, corporate governance and other regulations, investor relations expenses and higher insurance premiums. In addition, we expect to incur additional costs as we hire personnel and enhance our infrastructure to support the anticipated growth of our business.

Interest and other income consist primarily of interest income earned on marketable securities and cash balances. Our interest income will vary for each reporting period depending on our average investment balances during the period and market interest rates.

Interest expense consists primarily of interest related to our debt. As of December 31, 2012 and 2011, our outstanding debt was approximately $15.0 million and $20.3 million, respectively. We expect interest expense to fluctuate with changes in our debt obligations.

Loss from change in fair value of warrant liability consists primarily of the change in the fair value of redeemable convertible preferred stock warrants and a common stock warrant issued to Bunge Limited. The warrant liability is remeasured to fair value at each balance sheet date and/or upon vesting, and the change in the then-current aggregate fair value of the warrants is recorded as a gain or loss from the change in the fair value in

our consolidated statement of operations. The warrant liability is reclassified to additional paid-in capital upon conversion of redeemable preferred stock, or vesting of common warrant shares. The redeemable convertible stock warrants were converted into common stock or common stock warrants upon the close of our initial public offering in June 2011, and the related preferred stock warrant liability of $6.6 million was reclassified to additional paid-in capital and was no longer adjusted to fair value. In April 2012, the first and second tranches of the common stock warrant issued to Bunge Limited had vested, and the related warrant liability of $4.6 million was reclassified to additional paid-in capital and was no longer adjusted to fair value. The third tranche of the common stock warrant issued to Bunge Limited was unvested as of December 31, 2012, and will be remeasured to fair value at each balance sheet date until the warrant shares have vested.

Revenues generated from the sale of products by Solazyme Roquette Nutritionals will be recognized by the Solazyme Roquette JV, while income (loss) from the equity method investment in the Solazyme Roquette JV will be recorded in our income statement as “Income (Loss) from Equity Method Investments, Net.” We do not expect to record any Solazyme Roquette JV income (loss) in the near future.

Income (loss) from the equity method investment in Solazyme Bunge JV is recorded in our income statement as “Income (Loss) from Equity Method Investments, Net”.

Since inception, we have incurred net losses and have not recorded any US federal, state or non-US income tax provisions. Accordingly, we have recorded a full valuation allowance against deferred tax assets as it is more likely than not that they will not be realized.

Our discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations is based upon our consolidated financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. The preparation of our consolidated financial statements requires us to make estimates, assumptions and judgments that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenues, expenses and related disclosures. The results of our analysis form the basis for making assumptions about the carrying values of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. Our actual results may differ from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions. We evaluate our estimates, assumptions and judgments on an ongoing basis.

We believe the following critical accounting policies involve significant areas of management’s judgments and estimates in the preparation of our consolidated financial statements.

We currently recognize revenues from R&D programs that consist of government programs and collaborative research and development agreements with commercial and strategic partners and from commercial sales of our skin care products. Revenues are recognized when all of the following criteria are met: persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists, delivery has occurred or services have been rendered, the fee is fixed or determinable and collectability is reasonably assured.

If collaborative research and development or sales agreements contain multiple elements, we evaluate whether the components of each arrangement represent separate units of accounting. We have determined that all of our revenue arrangements should be accounted for as a single unit of accounting. Application of revenue

recognition standards requires subjective determination and requires management to make judgments about the fair values of each individual element and whether it is separable from other aspects of the contractual relationship.

For each source of revenue, we apply the above revenue recognition criteria in the following manner:

Revenues from government programs are recognized in the period during which the related costs are incurred, provided that the conditions under which the government program activities were provided have been met and only perfunctory obligations are outstanding.

Revenues from collaborative research and development are recognized as the services are performed consistent with the performance requirements of the agreement. In cases where the planned levels of research and development fluctuate over the research term, we recognize revenues using the proportionate performance method based upon actual efforts to date relative to the amount of expected effort to be incurred by us. When up-front payments are received and the planned levels of research and development do not fluctuate over the research term, revenues are recorded on a ratable basis over the arrangement term, up to the amount of cash received. When up-front payments are received and the planned levels of research and development fluctuate over the research term, revenues are recorded using the proportionate performance method, up to the amount of cash received. Where arrangements include milestones that are determined to be substantive and at risk at the inception of the arrangement, revenues are recognized upon achievement of the milestone and are limited to those amounts for which collectability is reasonably assured. If these conditions are not met, we defer the milestone payment and recognize it as revenue over the estimated period of performance under the contract as we complete our performance obligations.

Recognition of license fees is dependent on the specific terms of the license agreement. To date, up-front one-time non-refundable fees for licensing our technology for commercialization in a joint venture have been recognized when cash is received.

Product revenue is recognized when all of the following criteria are satisfied: persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists; risk of loss and title transfers to the customer; the price is fixed or determinable; and collectability is reasonably assured. Algenist^® products are sold with a right of return for expired, discontinued, damaged or non-compliant products. In addition, one customer has a right of return for excess inventory beyond 120 days of consumer demand. Algenist^® products have an approximate three year shelf life from their manufacture date. We give credit for returns by issuing a credit memo at the time of product return or, in certain cases, by allowing a customer to decrease the amount of subsequent payments to us for the amount of the return. We reserve for estimated returns of products at the time revenues are recognized. To estimate our return reserve, we analyze our own actual product return data, data from our customers regarding their inventory levels and historical return rates of our products, and other known factors, such as our customers’ return policies to their end consumers, which is typically 30 to 90 days. We monitor our actual performance by comparing our actual return rates against estimated rates, and adjust our estimated return rates as necessary. In addition, we estimate a reserve for products that do not meet internal quality standards. Actual returns of Algenist^® products may differ from estimates that we used to calculate such reserves.

We continually evaluate collectability of our accounts receivable related to product sales, and to date our customers have remitted full payments in a timely manner. Accordingly, we expect full collection of our accounts receivable balance related to product sales and therefore have not established any reserves for uncollectible accounts receivable.

Prior to our initial public offering, the freestanding warrants to purchase shares of our convertible preferred stock were classified as liabilities on our consolidated balance sheets at fair value because the warrants could conditionally obligate us to redeem the underlying convertible preferred stock at some point in the future. The warrants were subject to remeasurement at each balance sheet date, and any change in fair value was recognized as a component of Other Income (Expense), in the consolidated statement of operations. We estimated the fair value of these warrants at the respective balance sheet dates utilizing an option-based model to allocate an estimated business enterprise value to the various classes of our equity stock and related warrants. Prior to our initial public offering, the assumptions used to estimate the business enterprise value and allocation of value to the classes of equity stock and related warrants were highly judgmental. We used our initial public offering price for the final measurement of these freestanding warrants.

In 2012 and 2011, we recorded a gain of $2.3 million and charges of $3.6 million, respectively, in Other Income (Expense), to reflect the change in the fair value of the warrants. Upon the close of our initial public offering in June 2011, the then-aggregate fair value of the related preferred stock warrant liability of $6.6 million was reclassified to additional paid-in capital and we no longer record any related period fair value adjustments.

We recognize compensation expense related to stock-based compensation, including the awarding of employee and non-employee stock options, based on the grant date estimated fair value. We amortize the fair value of the employee stock options on a straight-line basis over the requisite service period of the award, which is generally the vesting period. Options and restricted stock units granted to non-employees are re-measured as the services are performed and the options and restricted stock units vest, and the resulting increase in value, if any, is recognized as expense during the period the related services are rendered. We account for restricted stock units issued to employees based on the fair market value of our common stock.

We estimate the fair value of stock-based compensation awards using the Black-Scholes option pricing model, which requires the following inputs: expected life, expected volatility, risk-free interest rate, expected dividend yield rate, exercise price and closing price of our common stock on the date of grant. Due to our limited history of grant activity, we calculate our expected term utilizing the “simplified method” permitted by the SEC, which is the average of the total contractual term of the option and its vesting period. We calculate our expected volatility rate from the historical volatilities of selected comparable public companies within our industry, due to a lack of historical information regarding the volatility of our stock price. We will continue to analyze the historical stock price volatility assumption as more historical data for our common stock becomes available. The risk-free interest rate is based on the US Treasury yield curve in effect at the time of grant for zero coupon US Treasury notes with maturities similar to the option’s expected term. The expected dividend yield was assumed to be zero, as we have not paid, nor do we anticipate paying, cash dividends on shares of our common stock. We estimate our forfeiture rate based on an analysis of our actual forfeitures and will continue to evaluate the appropriateness of the forfeiture rate based on actual forfeiture experience, analysis of employee turnover and other factors.

Our stock-based compensation expense is expected to increase in the future as we recognize expense related to unvested stock-based awards and we issue additional stock-based awards to attract and retain employees and nonemployee consultants.

We are subject to income taxes in both the U.S. and a foreign jurisdiction, and we use estimates in determining our provisions for income taxes. We use the asset and liability method of accounting for income taxes, whereby deferred tax asset or liability account balances are calculated at the balance sheet date using current tax laws and rates in effect for the year in which the differences are expected to affect taxable income.

Recognition of deferred tax assets is appropriate when realization of such assets is more likely than not. We record a valuation allowance against our net deferred tax assets if it is more likely than not that some portion of the deferred tax assets will not be fully realizable. This assessment requires judgment as to the likelihood and amounts of future taxable income by tax jurisdiction. At December 31, 2012 and 2011, we had a full valuation allowance against all of our net deferred tax assets.

Effective January 1, 2007, we adopted Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) ASC 740-10, Income Taxes, to account for uncertain tax positions. As of December 31, 2012 and 2011, we had no significant uncertain tax positions requiring recognition in our consolidated financial statements. We do not expect the total amount of unrecognized income tax benefits will significantly increase or decrease in the next 12 months.

We assess all material positions taken in any income tax return, including all significant uncertain positions, in all tax years that are still subject to assessment or challenge by relevant taxing authorities. Assessing an uncertain tax position begins with the initial determination of the position’s sustainability and is measured at the largest amount of benefit that is greater than 50 percent likely of being realized upon ultimate settlement. As of each balance sheet date, unresolved uncertain tax positions must be reassessed, and we will determine whether (1) the factors underlying the sustainability assertion have changed and (2) the amount of the recognized tax benefit is still appropriate. The recognition and measurement of tax benefits requires significant judgment. Judgments concerning the recognition and measurement of a tax benefit might change as new information becomes available.

Our total revenues increased by $5.1 million in 2012 compared to 2011, due primarily to a $9.3 million increase in Algenist^® product revenue (which launched in March 2011) and $0.9 million increase in R&D program revenue, offset in part by a $5.0 million decrease in license fees related to an up-front non-refundable fee for licensing our technology to Solazyme Roquette Nutritionals. The decrease in license fee revenue was expected per the terms of the Solazyme Roquette Nutritionals joint venture agreement. Net Algenist^® product sales increased due to increased consumer demand, as well as additional product offerings.

R&D program revenues increased by $0.9 million, due to a $2.1 million increase in revenues from government program revenues, offset by a $1.2 million decrease in revenues from our development agreements with strategic partners.

Our government program revenues increased in 2012 compared to the same period in 2011, primarily due to increased activities associated with our DOE and CEC grants in 2012, partially offset by the successful completion of the second phase of our 2011 DoD fuels testing and certification contract in June 2012. The grant awarded by the DOE is funding up to $21.8 million of the build-out, equipment costs and certain research and development costs associated with our integrated biorefinery program at our Peoria Facility. We successfully commissioned the integrated biorefinery in our Peoria Facility in the second quarter of 2012 and anticipate that the remaining objectives under the program will be completed as outlined in the program by the end of 2013. Remaining costs to complete the objectives of the DOE award are expected to be fully funded by us. In October 2011, the CEC agreed to fund up to $1.5 million for continuing research and development at our South San Francisco pilot plant facility through early 2015.

Our revenues from development agreements with strategic partners decreased in 2012 due to timing of agreements that ended offset by new agreements entered into since the second half of 2011. In general, we expect that our R&D program revenues will continue to be a meaningful part of revenues as work with our strategic partners in our existing and new R&D agreements enable important market development activities.

As we enter into new agreements with strategic partners and/or government programs, we expect that quarterly trends may fluctuate based on the timing of program activities. In the near term, we expect lower government program revenues offset by increased product revenues primarily from sales of our Algenist^® brand. We expect our product revenue to further increase as we ramp initial commercial manufacturing of tailored oils toward nameplate capacity at each facility and sell our tailored oils to industry partners and customers.

Cost of product revenue increased in 2012 compared to 2011 primarily due to increased sales of Algenist^® products, which launched in March 2011. Gross margin percentage on product sales increased slightly from 66.0% in 2011 to 68.0% in 2012.

We expect Algenist^® gross profit percentages will continue to exceed 60%. As we ramp initial commercial manufacturing of tailored oils toward nameplate capacity at each facility, we expect our overall product gross profit percentage to decrease.

Our research and development expenses increased by $20.8 million in 2012 compared to 2011, due primarily to increased personnel-related and facilities-related costs of $9.2 million and $3.9 million, respectively, and increased R&D program and third-party contractor costs of approximately $7.6 million. Personnel-related and facilities-related costs increased as a result of headcount growth to support Peoria manufacturing and collaborative research activities. Personnel-related costs include non-cash stock-based compensation expense of $3.9 million in 2012 compared to $2.3 million in 2011. R&D program and third-party contractor costs increased primarily due to increased costs to complete the construction of the integrated biorefinery pursuant to the DOE grant, increased costs related to R&D programs with our commercial partners and operating costs related to the Peoria Facility. We plan to continue to make significant investments in research and development for the foreseeable future as we continue to develop our algal strain screening and optimization process, continue to validate and scale up our industrial fermentation manufacturing processes at ADM’s Clinton Facility, pursue process development improvements and continue to maximize production efficiencies at our Peoria Facility.

Our sales, general and administrative expenses increased by $16.1 million in 2012 compared to 2011, primarily due to increased personnel-related and facilities-related costs of $7.4 million and $2.0 million, respectively, associated with headcount growth, increased marketing and promotional costs of $5.0 million and increased consulting costs of $1.7 million. Personnel-related costs include non-cash stock-based compensation of $11.5 million in 2012 compared to $8.6 million in 2011. We expect our sales, general and administrative expenses to increase as we hire additional personnel to support the anticipated growth of our business domestically and in Brazil.

Interest and other income, net increased by $1.2 million in 2012 compared to 2011, primarily due to $0.8 million of increased interest income earned as a result of higher average investment balances resulting from the proceeds we received upon the closing of our initial public offering in June 2011 and the $15.0 million term loan drawn down from our Silicon Valley Bank credit facility, net of cash used for operations, and $0.2 million of increased gains on sales of marketable securities. We expect our interest and other income to fluctuate with changes in our investment balances.

Interest expense decreased by $0.1 million in 2012, primarily due to the lower outstanding balance on our debt during the year. We expect interest expense and amortization of debt issue costs to increase due to the issuance of $125.0 million 6.00% Convertible Senior Subordinated Notes in January 2013 (see Note 18 to our consolidated financial statements).

Loss from equity method investment increased by $1.8 million, which represents our proportionate share of the net loss from the Solazyme Bunge JV. We expect our loss from our equity method investment to increase as the Solazyme Bunge JV continues to construct a commercial-scale production facility in Brazil.

Loss from the change in fair value of warrant liability decreased by $5.9 million in 2012 compared to 2011. The $3.6 million loss from change in fair value of warrant liabilities in 2011 represents the non-cash loss from the change in fair value of warrants as we remeasured the warrants through the closing date of our initial public offering. Upon the close of our initial public offering in June 2011, all outstanding warrants to purchase shares of preferred stock were converted into shares of our common stock or common stock warrants and are no longer measured to fair value. In the second quarter of 2011, we granted Bunge Limited a warrant to purchase 1,000,000 shares of our common stock at an exercise price of $13.50 per share. The warrant vests in three separate tranches, each contingent upon the achievement of specific performance-based milestones related to the formation and operations of Solazyme Bunge JV. The unvested warrant shares are classified as a liability on our consolidated balance sheet beginning in the second quarter of 2012, and remeasured to fair value at each balance sheet date and reclassified to additional paid-in capital upon vesting. In 2012, 750,000 warrant shares vested and were reclassified to additional paid-in capital. The value of the remaining unvested warrant shares decreased since the initial recording of the warrant liability in the second quarter of 2012, resulting in a $2.3 million non-cash gain related to the change in the fair value of the warrant liability. We expect that gain (loss) from the change in fair value of the warrant liability will fluctuate with the change in our stock price and other factors.

Our total revenues increased by $1.0 million in 2011 compared to 2010, due primarily to a $3.8 million increase in R&D program revenue and $7.2 million of product revenue from our Algenist^® product sales, which launched in March 2011, offset in part by a $10.0 million decrease in license fees related to an up-front non-refundable fee for licensing our technology to Solazyme Roquette Nutritionals. The decrease in license fee revenue was expected per the terms of the Solazyme Roquette Nutritionals joint venture agreement.

R&D program revenues increased by $3.8 million primarily due to a $7.8 million increase in revenues from our development agreements with our strategic partners, partially offset by a decrease of $4.0 million in government program revenues. Our collaborative research revenues were primarily related to funding from agreements including Chevron, Bunge and Unilever to develop microalgae-based oils. Our government program revenues decreased in 2011 compared to 2010, primarily due to the timing of our Naval marine diesel and jet fuel program activities associated with our DoD contracts, partially offset by increase in revenues associated with our DOE grant awarded in the second quarter of 2010. We completed our first two DoD contracts for the production

of marine diesel fuel in July 2010 as well as commenced manufacturing activities for the first phase of our current DoD HRF-76 contract in September 2010, which was completed in July 2011 when we delivered 283,906 liters of HRF-76 fuel to the US Navy for their testing and certification program. In August 2011, we commenced manufacturing activities for the second phase of our current DoD contract, which called for the delivery of the remaining 283,906 liters of HRF-76 marine diesel to the US Navy in May 2012. The grant awarded by the DOE is funding up to $21.8 million of the build-out, equipment costs and certain research and development costs associated with our integrated biorefinery program in our Peoria Facility.

Our cost of product revenue in 2011 is generated from our Algenist^® products, which launched in March 2011.

Our research and development expenses increased by $11.4 million in 2011 compared to 2010, due primarily to an increase in personnel-related expenses of $5.6 million associated with headcount growth to support our growth in collaborative research activities, which includes non-cash stock-based compensation expense, program and third party contractor costs of approximately $4.1 million primarily associated with the DOE grant, and facilities costs of $1.4 million. Program and third party contractor expenses were higher in 2011 compared to 2010 due primarily to equipment, design and engineering costs associated with construction of the integrated biorefinery program pursuant to the DOE grant. Research and development expenses include non-cash stock-based compensation expense of $2.3 million in 2011 compared to $0.5 million in 2010.

Our sales, general and administrative expenses increased by $24.0 million in 2011 compared to 2010, primarily due to increased personnel-related costs of $15.5 million associated with headcount growth, which includes non-cash stock-based compensation expense, increased marketing and promotional costs of $5.0 million primarily related to the Algenist^® product launches and increased legal, consultant and audit expenses of $3.0 million. Sales, general and administrative expenses include non-cash stock-based compensation of $8.6 million in 2011 compared to $1.4 million in 2010.

Interest and other income, net increased by $0.6 million in 2011, primarily due to interest income earned as a result of higher average investment balances resulting from the proceeds we received upon the closing of our initial public offering in June 2011 and the $15.0 million term loan drawn down from our Silicon Valley Bank credit facility.

Interest expense increased by $0.4 million in 2011, primarily due to interest expense recognized under our $15.0 million term loan outstanding with Silicon Valley Bank since May 2011.

Loss from the change in fair value of warrant liability increased by $1.0 million in 2011 compared to 2010, due to the fair value increase of warrants issued in connection with our redeemable convertible preferred stock. We recorded a non-cash loss from the change in fair value of the warrants as we remeasured the warrants through the closing date of our initial public offering. Upon close of our initial public offering in June 2011, all outstanding warrants to purchase shares of preferred stock had been converted into shares of our common stock or common stock warrants, and are no longer remeasured to fair value.

Cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities decreased by $94.7 million in 2012, primarily due to cash used in operating activities of $67.6 million, $12.6 million of property and equipment purchases, $10.0 million of capital contributed to the Solazyme Bunge JV and $5.4 million of repayments under loan agreements, partially offset by $2.9 million of proceeds received from the issuance of common stock pursuant to our equity plans.

The following table shows a summary of our cash flows for the periods indicated:

Since our inception, we have incurred significant net losses, and, as of December 31, 2012, we had an accumulated deficit of $189.9 million. We anticipate that we will continue to incur net losses as we continue our scale-up activities, support commercialization activities for our products and expand our research and development activities. In addition, we may acquire additional manufacturing facilities, expand or build-out our current manufacturing facilities and/or build additional manufacturing facilities. We are unable to predict the extent of any future losses or when we will become profitable, if at all. We expect to continue making significant investments in research and development and manufacturing, and expect selling, general and administrative expenses to increase as a result of operating as a publicly-traded company. As a result, we will need to generate significant revenues from product sales, collaborative research and joint development activities, licensing fees and other revenue arrangements to achieve profitability.

In January 2010, we obtained a grant from the DOE to receive up to $21.8 million for reimbursement of expenses incurred towards building, operating, and optimizing a pilot-scale integrated biorefinery, which has allowed us to develop integrated US-based production capabilities for renewable fuels derived from microalgae at the Peoria Facility. Under the terms of the grant, we are responsible for funding an additional $8.4 million.

We purchased the Peoria Facility in May 2011. We began fermentation operations in the fourth quarter of 2011 and successfully commissioned our integrated biorefinery in June 2012, funded in part by the DOE grant described above. In connection with the closing of the Peoria Facility acquisition, we entered into a promissory note, mortgage and security agreement with the seller in the initial amount of $5.5 million. The promissory note is interest free with two lump sum payments, the first of which was paid in March 2012, and the second payment was made in February 2013. The note is secured by the real and personal property acquired from the seller. The purchase agreement does not contain financial ratio covenants, nor any affirmative or negative financial covenants, other than a prohibition on creating any liens against the collateral as defined in the agreement.

In April 2012, we entered into the Solazyme Bunge JV, which is jointly capitalized by us and Bunge, to construct and operate an oil production facility in Brazil that will utilize our proprietary technology to produce tailored oils from sugar feedstock provided by Bunge. Through February 2013, we contributed $12.5 million in capital to the Solazyme Bunge JV, and we may need to contribute additional capital to this project. In February 2013, the Solazyme Bunge JV entered a loan agreement with the Brazilian Development Bank (BNDES) under which it may borrow up to R$245.7 million (approximately USD $120 million based on the current exchange rate). As a condition of the Solazyme Bunge JV drawing funds under the loan, we will be required to guarantee a portion of the loan (in an amount not to exceed our ownership percentage in the Solazyme Bunge JV). The BNDES funding will support the Solazyme Bunge JV’s first commercial-scale production facility in Brazil, which will reduce the capital requirements funded directly by us and Bunge. We expect to scale up additional manufacturing capacity in a capital-efficient manner by signing additional agreements whereby our partners will invest capital and operational resources in building manufacturing capacity, while also providing access to feedstock. We are currently negotiating with additional potential feedstock partners in Latin America and the United States to co-locate oil production at their mills. Depending on the specifics of each partner discussion, we may choose to deploy some portion of the equity capital required to construct additional production facilities, as such capital contribution may influence the scope and timing of our relationship. We expect to evaluate the optimal amount of capital expenditures that we agree to fund on a case-by-case basis. These events may require us to access additional capital through equity or debt offerings. If we are unable to access additional capital, our growth may be limited due to the inability to build out additional manufacturing capacity.

In November 2012, we entered into a strategic collaboration agreement with ADM, whereby we have agreed to pay ADM annual fees for use and operation of its commercial scale facility in Clinton, Iowa, a portion of which may be paid in our common stock. In January 2013, we made the first payment to ADM in common stock and cash.

On May 11, 2011, we entered into a loan and security agreement with Silicon Valley Bank (the bank) that provided for a $20.0 million credit facility (the facility) consisting of (i) a $15.0 million term loan (the term loan) that was accessible in one or more increments prior to November 30, 2011 and (ii) a $5.0 million revolving facility (the revolving facility). A portion of the revolving facility is available for letters of credit and foreign exchange contracts with the bank. The facility will be used for working capital and other general corporate purposes. The facility is unsecured unless we breach financial covenants that require us to maintain a minimum of $30.0 million in unrestricted cash and investments, of which at least $25.0 million are to be maintained in accounts with the bank and its affiliates. This minimum balance requirement is considered a compensating balance arrangement, and is classified in the consolidated balance sheet as cash and cash equivalents and/or marketable securities as this minimum balance is not restricted as to withdrawal. Interest is charged under the facility at (i) a fixed rate of 5.0% per annum with respect to the term loan and (ii) a floating rate per annum equal to the most recently quoted “Prime Rate” in the Wall Street Journal Western Edition with respect to revolving loans. Upon an event of default or financial covenant default, outstanding obligations under the facility shall bear interest at a rate up to three percentage points (3.00%) above the rates described in (i) and (ii) above. The term loan is payable in 48 equal monthly payments of principal and interest, with the first payment due on December 1, 2011. The maturity date is (i) November 1, 2015 for the term loan and (ii) May 10, 2013 for the revolving loans. We have the option to prepay all, but not less than all, of the amounts advanced under the term loan, provided that we provide written notice to the bank at least ten days prior to such prepayment, and pay all outstanding principal and accrued interest, plus all other sums, if any, that shall have become due and payable, on the date of such prepayment. In addition to the financial covenant referenced above, we are subject to financial covenants and customary affirmative and negative covenants and events of default under the facility including certain restrictions on borrowing. If an event of default occurs and continues, the bank may declare all outstanding obligations under the facility immediately due and payable. The outstanding obligations would become immediately due if we become insolvent. We were in compliance with our loan covenants under this facility as of December 31, 2012 and 2011. On May 11, 2011, we borrowed $15.0 million under the term loan portion of the facility and in December 2011 we began to repay principal payments on this loan.

In January 2013, we issued $125.0 million aggregate principal amount of 6.00% Convertible Senior Subordinated Notes (Notes) due 2018 in a private offering to qualified institutional buyers pursuant to Rule 144A under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The Notes bear interest at a fixed rate of 6.00% per year, payable semiannually in arrears on August 1 and February 1 of each year, beginning on August 1, 2013. The Notes are convertible into our common stock and will mature on February 1, 2018, unless earlier repurchased or converted. The Company may not redeem the Notes prior to maturity. The initial conversion price will be approximately $8.26 per share of common stock and, under certain circumstances, the Note holders will be entitled to additional payments upon conversion. The Notes are convertible at the option of the holders at any time prior to February 1, 2018 into shares of our common stock at the then-applicable conversion rate. The conversion rate is initially 121.1240 shares of common stock per $1,000 principal amount of Notes. In the event the Notes are converted prior to February 1, 2018, the holders are entitled to receive an early conversion payment of $83.33 per $1,000 principal amount of Notes surrendered for conversion that may be settled, at the Company’s election, in cash or, subject to satisfaction of certain conditions, in shares of our common stock. If we undergo a fundamental change (as defined in the indenture entered into with the trustee), Note holders may require that we repurchase for cash all or part of their Notes at a purchase price equal to 100% of the principal amount of the Notes to be repurchased, plus accrued and unpaid interest to, but excluding, the fundamental change repurchase date. In addition, if fundamental changes occur, we may be required in certain circumstances to increase the conversion rate for any Notes converted in connection with such fundamental changes by a specified number of shares of our common stock.

We believe that our current cash, cash equivalents, marketable securities, revenue from product sales and net proceeds from the Notes issued in January 2013 will be sufficient to fund our current operations for at least the next 12 months. However, our liquidity assumptions may prove to be wrong, and we could utilize our available financial resources sooner than we currently expect. We may elect to raise additional funds within this period of time through public or private debt or equity financings and/or additional collaborations.

Our future capital requirements and the adequacy of available funds will depend on many factors, including those set forth under “Risk Factors” elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We may not be able to secure additional financing to meet our funding requirements on acceptable terms, if at all. If we raise additional funds by issuing equity securities, dilution to our existing stockholders may result. If we are unable to obtain additional funds, we will have to reduce our operating costs and delay our manufacturing and research and development programs.

Cash used in operating activities of $67.6 million in 2012 reflect a loss of $83.1 million, and a net change of $5.5 million in our net operating assets and liabilities, partially offset by aggregate non-cash charges of $21.1 million. Non-cash charges primarily included $15.4 million of stock-based compensation, $3.5 million of depreciation and amortization, $2.5 million of net amortization of premiums on marketable securities, $2.3 million gain on revaluation of warrant liability and $1.8 million of loss from an equity method investment. The net change in our operating assets and liabilities was primarily a result of increases in inventories of $3.8 million, decreased deferred revenue of $2.7 million, a net decrease in accounts payable and accrued liabilities of $1.4 million, decrease in accounts receivable of $0.7 million, decrease in unbilled revenue of $0.7 million and a $0.6 million decrease in prepaid expenses and other current assets. Inventories increased due to increased production of Algenist^® product to meet higher customer demand. Deferred revenue decreased primarily due to timing of payments received on R&D programs. Accounts payable and accrued liabilities decreased primarily due to payments made to third-party contract manufacturers that we no longer use as a result of the operations at our Peoria facility. Accounts receivable and unbilled revenues decreased due primarily to the completion of government programs during 2012. Prepaid expenses decreased primarily due to payments received from our Solazyme Roquette JV to settle other receivables due to us.

Cash used in operating activities of $34.9 million in 2011 reflect a loss of $53.9 million, partially offset by aggregate non-cash charges of $18.3 million and a net change of $0.7 million in our net operating assets and liabilities. Non-cash charges primarily included $10.9 million of stock-based compensation, $3.6 million related to the change in fair value of our warrant liability, $1.9 million of net accretion of premiums on marketable securities and $1.7 million of depreciation and amortization. The net change in our operating assets and liabilities was primarily a result of increases in our accounts payable and accrued liabilities of $8.2 million and an increase in deferred revenue of $1.7 million, offset by the increase in inventories of $3.1 million, an increase in accounts receivable of $3.4 million, an increase in prepaid expenses and other current assets of $2.3 million and an increase of $0.4 million in unbilled revenue. Accounts payable and accrued liabilities increased primarily due to vendor liabilities associated with the DOE program, payroll related liabilities associated with increased headcount, vendor liabilities associated with third-party manufacturing contracts, and vendor liabilities for engineering work related to the Solazyme Bunge JV. Deferred revenue increased due primarily to timing of payments received on research and development programs. Inventory increased primarily due to the manufacture of Algenist^® products. Accounts receivable and unbilled revenues increased due to revenue earned on our research and development programs and Algenist^® product sales in the fourth quarter of 2011. Prepaid expenses and other current assets increased primarily due to a receivable from our Solazyme Roquette JV and increased interest receivables.

Cash used in operating activities of $8.3 million in 2010 reflected a net loss of $16.3 million, partially offset by aggregate non-cash charges of $6.0 million and a net change of $2.0 million in our net operating assets and liabilities. Non-cash charges primarily included $2.6 million of a non-cash related expense related to the change in fair value of our warrant liability, $2.0 million of stock-based compensation, $0.8 million of depreciation and amortization and $0.6 million of net accretion of premiums on marketable securities. The net change in our operating assets and liabilities was primarily a result of the $4.2 million increase in accounts payable and accrued expenses, net against the $1.1 million decrease in deferred revenues, a $1.0 million increase in prepaid expenses and other current assets and a $0.6 million increase in accounts receivable and unbilled revenues. The increase in accounts payable and accrued liabilities was due to the increase in research and development program activities

in the fourth quarter of 2010 and increased headcount in 2010. Deferred revenues decreased in 2010 due to revenues earned on research and development programs in 2010. The increase in prepaid expenses was due to deposits for inventory related to our launch of Algenist^® in March 2011, increase in prepaid rent related to our new lease in South San Francisco and other prepayments incurred in the ordinary course of our business. The increase in accounts receivable and unbilled revenues was due to revenue earned on our research and development programs in the fourth quarter of 2010.

In 2012, cash provided by investing activities was $72.2 million, primarily as a result of $94.8 million of net marketable securities maturities, partially offset by $12.6 million of capital expenditures related primarily to the construction of our Peoria Facility and $10.0 million of capital contributed to the Solazyme Bunge JV.

In 2011, cash used in investing activities was $182.8 million, primarily as a result of $167.6 million of net marketable securities purchases, $15.2 million of net capital expenditures related primarily to the purchase of the Peoria Facility and property and equipment.

In 2010, cash used in investing activities was $37.7 million as a result of $35.0 million in net marketable securities purchases, $2.5 million of capital expenditures and a $0.2 million decrease in restricted cash.

In 2012, cash used in financing activities was $2.6 million, primarily due to $5.4 million of repayments under loan agreements, partially offset by proceeds of $2.9 million received from common stock issuances pursuant to our equity plans.

In 2011, cash provided by financing activities was $214.3 million, primarily due to the net proceeds of $197.4 million received from our initial public offering, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and other offering costs paid in 2011, a $15.0 million term loan received from Silicon Valley Bank, $1.6 million received on promissory notes to stockholders and $0.9 million of proceeds from the exercise of stock options, partially offset by $0.3 million of debt repayments.

In 2010, cash provided by financing activities was $58.6 million, primarily as a result of the net receipt of $59.7 million from our sale of Series D preferred stock and $0.6 million of proceeds received from the issuance of common stock from stock option exercises, partially offset by $1.9 million of debt repayments.

The following is a summary of our contractual obligations and commitments as of December 31, 2012:

This table does not reflect (1) a lease agreement entered into in May 2011 for facility space in Brazil; the lease term is five years, commencing on April 1, 2011 and expiring on April 1, 2016; the rent is 30,500 Brazilian Real (approximately $15,000 based on the exchange rate at December 31, 2012) per month and is subject to an

annual inflation adjustment; this lease is cancelable at any time, subject to a maximum three month rent penalty, (2) that portion of the expenses that we expect to incur, up to $2.2 million from January through December 2013, in connection with research activities under the DOE program for which we will not be reimbursed, (3) our agreement to guarantee repayment of a portion, up to a maximum amount, of 50% of the aggregate draw-downs from the Roquette Loan, if and when drawn down, plus a portion of the associated fees, interest and expenses and (4) the principal and interest payments due on our Notes (issued in January 2013) that are payable in 2018.

We currently lease approximately 96,000 square feet of office and laboratory space in South San Francisco, California. Operating leases also include our annual fees paid to ADM in 2013 to use and operate the Clinton facility, a portion of which may be paid in our common stock.

We did not have during the periods presented, and we do not currently have, any off-balance sheet arrangements, as defined in Item 303(a)(4)(ii) of SEC Regulation S-K, such as relationships with unconsolidated entities or financial partnerships, which are often referred to as structured finance or special purpose entities, established for the purpose of facilitating financing transactions that are not required to be reflected on our consolidated balance sheets.

Refer to Note 2 in the accompanying notes to our consolidated financial statements for a discussion of recent accounting pronouncements.

We are exposed to financial market risks, primarily changes in interest rates, currency exchange rates and commodity prices. All of the potential changes noted below are based on sensitivity analyses performed on our financial positions as of December 31, 2012. Actual results may differ materially.

Our exposure to market risk for changes in interest rates relates primarily to our investment portfolio and our outstanding debt obligations. We generally invest our cash in investments with short maturities or with frequent interest reset terms. Accordingly, our interest income fluctuates with short-term market conditions. As of December 31, 2012, our investment portfolio consisted primarily of corporate debt obligations, US government agency securities, asset-backed and mortgaged-backed securities, municipal bonds and money market funds, which are held for working capital purposes. We believe we do not have material exposure to changes in fair value as a result of changes in interest rates. Our marketable securities were comprised primarily of fixed-term securities as of December 31, 2012. Due to the short-term nature of these instruments, we do not believe that there would be a significant negative impact to our consolidated financial position or results of operations as a result of interest rate fluctuations in the financial markets. Our outstanding debt as of December 31, 2012 consists of fixed-rate debt, and therefore is not subject to fluctuations in market interest rates.

Our operations include manufacturing and sales activities primarily in the United States, as well as research activities primarily in the United States. We are actively expanding outside the United States, in particular in Europe and Brazil through our Solazyme Roquette JV and Solazyme Bunge JV, respectively. We also launched the Algenist^® product line in Europe in March 2011 and conduct operations in Brazil. As we expand internationally, our results of operations and cash flows will become increasingly subject to fluctuations due to changes in foreign currency exchange rates. For example, our operations in Brazil and / or potential expansion elsewhere in Latin America or increasing Euro denominated product sales to European distributors, will result in our use of currencies other than the US dollar. In addition, the local currency is the functional currency of our Brazil subsidiary, and therefore the assets and liabilities are translated from its functional currency to U.S. dollars at the exchange rate in effect at the balance sheet date, with resulting foreign currency translation adjustments recorded in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) in the consolidated statements of comprehensive loss. As a result, our comprehensive income (loss), cash flows and expenses are subject to fluctuations due to changes in foreign currency exchange rates. In periods when the US dollar declines in value as compared to the foreign currencies in which we incur expenses, our foreign-currency based expenses increase when translated into US dollars. We have not hedged our foreign currency since the exposure has not been material to our historical operating results. Although substantially all of our sales are currently denominated in US dollars, future fluctuations in the value of the US dollar may affect the price competitiveness of our products outside the United States. We may consider hedging our foreign currency risk as we continue to expand internationally.

Our exposure to market risk for changes in commodity prices currently relates primarily to our purchases of plant sugar feedstock. We have not historically hedged the price volatility of plant sugar feedstock. In the future, we may manage our exposure to this risk by hedging the price volatility of feedstock, principally through futures contracts, and entering into joint venture agreements that would enable us to obtain secure access to feedstock.

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Solazyme, Inc. and subsidiaries (the “Company”) as of December 31, 2012 and 2011, and the related consolidated statements of operations, comprehensive loss, redeemable convertible preferred stock and stockholders’ equity (deficit) and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2012. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the consolidated 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 also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, 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, such consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Solazyme, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2012 and 2011, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2012, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

We have also audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2012, based on the criteria established in Internal Control—Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission and our report dated March 13, 2013 expressed an unqualified opinion on the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.

We have audited the internal control over financial reporting of Solazyme, Inc. and subsidiaries (the “Company”) as of December 31, 2012, based on criteria established in Internal Control—Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. The Company’s management is responsible for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company’s internal control over financial reporting based on our audit.

We conducted our audit 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 effective internal control over financial reporting was maintained in all material respects. Our audit included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of internal control based on the assessed risk, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

A company’s internal control over financial reporting is 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. A company’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of the company; (2) 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 (3) 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.

Because of the inherent limitations of internal control over financial reporting, including the possibility of collusion or improper management override of controls, material misstatements due to error or fraud may not be prevented or detected on a timely basis. Also, projections of any evaluation of the effectiveness of the internal control over financial reporting to future periods are subject to the risk that the controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

In our opinion, the Company maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2012, based on the criteria established in Internal Control—Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission.

We have also audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated financial statements as of and for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012 of the Company and our report dated March 13, 2013 expressed an unqualified opinion on those financial statements.

Solazyme, Inc. (the “Company”) was incorporated in the State of Delaware on March 31, 2003. The Company’s proprietary technology transforms a range of low-cost plant-based sugars into high-value oils. The Company’s renewable products can replace or enhance oils derived from the world’s three existing sources-petroleum, plants, and animal fats. The Company tailors the composition of its oils to address specific customer requirements, offering superior performance characteristics and value. The Company has pioneered an industrial biotechnology platform that harnesses the prolific oil-producing capability of microalgae. The Company uses standard industrial fermentation equipment to efficiently scale and accelerate microalgae’s natural oil production time to a few days. By feeding the Company’s proprietary oil-producing microalgae plant sugars in dark fermentation tanks, the Company is in effect utilizing “indirect photosynthesis” in contrast to the traditional open-pond approaches. The Company’s platform is feedstock flexible and can utilize a wide variety of renewable plant-based sugars, such as sugarcane-based sucrose, corn-based dextrose, and sugar from other sustainable biomass sources including cellulosics, which the Company believes will represent an important alternative feedstock in the longer term. Furthermore, the Company’s platform allows it to produce and sell specialty bioproducts from the protein, fiber and other compounds produced by microalgae.

On June 2, 2011, the Company completed its initial public offering, issuing 12,021,250 shares of common stock at an offering price of $18.00 per share, resulting in net proceeds to the Company of $201.2 million, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions of $15.1 million. Additionally, the Company incurred offering costs of $4.3 million related to the initial public offering. Upon the closing of the initial public offering, the Company’s outstanding shares of redeemable convertible preferred stock were automatically converted on a one for one basis into 34,534,125 shares of common stock, and the outstanding Series B redeemable convertible preferred stock warrants were automatically converted into 303,855 shares of common stock.

The Company expects ongoing losses as it continues its scale-up activities, expands its research and development activities and supports commercialization activities for its products. The Company plans to meet its capital requirements primarily through equity financing, collaborative agreements and the issuance of debt securities.

The industry in which the Company is involved is highly competitive and is characterized by the risks of changing technologies, market conditions, and regulatory requirements. Penetration into markets requires investment of considerable resources and continuous development efforts. The Company’s future success depends upon several factors, including the technological quality, price, and performance of its products and services relative to those of its competitors, scaling up of production for commercial sale, ability to secure adequate project financing at appropriate terms, and the nature of regulation in its target markets.

Basis of Presentation—The accompanying consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) and include all adjustments necessary for the fair presentation of the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows for the periods presented. The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of the Company and its wholly-owned subsidiaries, Solazyme Brazil Renewable Oils and Bioproducts Limitada (“Solazyme Brazil”), which had operations beginning in the first quarter of 2011, and Solazyme Manufacturing 1, L.L.C, which was formed to own the Peoria Facility assets (Note 6) and related promissory note in the second quarter of 2011. All intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation.

On December 16, 2010, the Company entered into a joint venture agreement with Roquette Frères, S.A. (“Roquette”). The Solazyme Roquette JV is a variable interest entity (“VIE”) and is 50% owned by the Company and 50% by Roquette. The Company has determined that it is not required to consolidate the 50% ownership in the joint venture and is therefore accounting for the joint venture under the equity method of accounting (see Note 7).

On April 2, 2012, the Company entered into a joint venture agreement with Bunge Global Innovation, LLC (together with its affiliates, “Bunge”). The Company’s joint venture with Bunge (“Solazyme Bunge JV”) is a VIE and is 50.1% owned by the Company and 49.9% owned by Bunge. The Company determined that it is not required to consolidate the 50.1% ownership in the joint venture and is therefore accounting for the joint venture under the equity method of accounting (see Note 7).

Use of Estimates—Financial statements prepared in conformity with GAAP require management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, the disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities as of the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ materially from those estimates.

Significant Risks and Uncertainties—The Company’s failure to generate sufficient revenues, achieve planned gross margins, control operating costs or raise sufficient additional funds may require it to modify, delay or abandon the Company’s planned future expansion or expenditures, which could have a material adverse effect on the business, operating results, financial condition and ability to achieve intended business objectives. The Company may be required to seek additional funds through collaborations, government programs or public or private debt or equity financings, and may also seek to reduce expenses related to the Company’s operations. There can be no assurance that any financing will be available or on terms acceptable to management.

Foreign Currency Translation—The assets and liabilities of the Company’s foreign subsidiary, where the local currency is the functional currency, are translated from its respective functional currency into U.S. dollars at the exchange rate in effect at the balance sheet date, with resulting foreign currency translation adjustments recorded in accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) in the consolidated statements of comprehensive loss. Revenues and expense amounts are translated at average rates during the period.

Cash Equivalents—All highly liquid investments with original or remaining maturities of three months or less at the time of purchase are classified as cash equivalents. Cash equivalents primarily consist of money market funds and commercial paper.

Marketable Securities—Investments with original maturities greater than three months at the time of purchase and mature less than one year from the consolidated balance sheet date are classified as marketable securities. The Company classifies marketable securities as short-term based upon whether such assets are reasonably expected to be used in current operations. The Company invests its excess cash balances primarily in corporate bonds, United States Government and Agency securities, asset-backed securities, mortgage-backed securities, commercial paper, municipal bonds, certificates of deposit and floating rate notes. The Company classifies its marketable securities as available-for-sale, and is recorded at estimated fair value in the consolidated balance sheets, with unrealized gains and losses, if any, reported as a component of accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) in the consolidated statements of comprehensive loss. Marketable securities classified as available-for-sale are adjusted for amortization of premiums and accretion of discounts and such amortization and accretion are reported as components of interest and other income. Realized gains and losses and declines in value that are considered to be other-than-temporary are recognized in interest and other income. The cost of all securities sold is based on the specific identification method.

Restricted Certificates of Deposit—The Company maintained certificates of deposits in the amount of $0.3 million, classified in other long-term assets as of December 31, 2012 and 2011. These certificates of deposits were pledged as collateral for a $0.3 million letter of credit related to the Company’s facility lease.

Deferred Offering Costs—Deferred offering costs include costs directly attributable to the Company’s offering of its equity securities. These costs were charged against the proceeds received from the Company’s initial public offering that closed in June 2011.

Accounts Receivable—Accounts receivable represents amounts owed to the Company under our government programs, collaborative research and development agreements and for product revenues. The Company had no amounts reserved for doubtful accounts as of December 31, 2012 and 2011, as the Company expected full collection of its accounts receivable balances. The Company’s customer payment terms related to sales of Algenist^® products are thirty days from invoice date or thirty or forty-five days from the end of the month in which a customer is invoiced. Certain customer invoices are denominated in Euros and British Pounds. The Company reserves for estimated product returns as reductions of accounts receivable and product revenues. As of December 31, 2012 and 2011, the reserve for product returns was $1.1 million and $0.7 million, respectively. The Company monitors actual return history and reassesses its return reserve as return experience develops.

Unbilled Revenues—Unbilled revenues represent fees earned but not yet billed under certain research and development programs.

Fair Value of Financial Instruments—The Company measures certain financial assets and liabilities at fair value based on the exchange price that would be received for an asset or paid to transfer a liability (an exit price) in the principal or most advantageous market for the asset or liability in an orderly transaction between market participants. Where available, fair value is based on, or derived from, observable market prices or other observable inputs. Where observable prices or inputs are not available, valuation models are applied. These valuation techniques involve some level of management estimation and judgment, the degree of which is dependent on the price transparency for the instruments or market and the instruments’ complexity. While the Company believes that its valuation methods are appropriate and consistent with other market participants, it recognizes that the use of different methodologies or assumptions to determine the fair value of certain financial instruments could result in a different estimate of fair value at the reporting date.

The carrying amount of certain of the Company’s financial instruments, including cash and cash equivalents, restricted cash, accounts receivable, prepaid expenses, accounts payable and accrued liabilities, approximates fair value due to their relatively short maturities. The fair value of the Company’s debt obligations was determined using unobservable inputs (Level 3 inputs), as defined in the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 820, Fair Value Measurement (see Note 4).

Concentration of Credit Risk—Financial instruments that potentially subject the Company to a concentration of credit risk consist of cash and cash equivalents, marketable securities, accounts receivables and restricted certificates of deposit. The Company places its cash equivalents and investments with high credit quality financial institutions and by policy, limits the amounts invested with any one financial institution or issuer. Deposits held with banks may exceed the amount of insurance provided on such deposits. The Company has not experienced any losses on its deposits of cash and cash equivalents.

Credit risk with respect to accounts receivable exists to the full extent of amounts presented in the consolidated financial statements. The Company estimates an allowance for doubtful accounts, if any, through specific identification of potentially uncollectible accounts receivable based on an analysis of its accounts receivable aging. Uncollectible accounts receivable are written off against the allowance for doubtful accounts when all efforts to collect them have been exhausted. Recoveries are recognized when they are received. Actual collection losses may differ from the Company’s estimates and could be material to the consolidated balance sheet, statements of operations and cash flows. The Company had 5 customers accounting for 96% of the receivable balance as of December 31, 2012. The Company had 8 customers accounting for 97% of the receivable balance as of December 31, 2011. The Company does not believe the accounts receivable from these customers represent a significant credit risk based on past collection experiences and the general creditworthiness of these customers. As of December 31, 2012, $2.3 million of the Company’s gross accounts receivable balance related to product sales.

Inventories—Inventories are stated at the lower of cost or market. Cost is determined using the first-in, first-out basis. Inventory cost consists of third-party contractor costs associated with packaging, distribution and production of Algenist^® products, supplies, shipping costs and other overhead costs associated with manufacturing. If inventory costs exceed expected market value due to obsolescence or lack of demand, inventory write-downs may be recorded as deemed necessary by management for the difference between the cost and the market value in the period that impairment is first recognized.

Property, Plant and Equipment—Property, plant and equipment are recorded at cost, less accumulated depreciation. Depreciation is calculated on a straight-line basis over the following estimated ranges of useful lives:

Long-Lived Assets—The Company periodically reviews long-lived assets, including property, plant and equipment, for impairment whenever events or changes in business circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of an asset is impaired or the estimated useful lives are no longer appropriate. If indicators of impairment exist and the undiscounted projected cash flows associated with such assets are less than the carrying amount of the asset, an impairment loss is recorded to write the asset down to its estimated fair values. Fair value is estimated based on discounted future cash flows. There were no asset impairment charges incurred for the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011.

Redeemable Convertible Preferred Stock—As redemption of the convertible preferred stock through liquidation was outside the Company’s control, all shares of convertible preferred stock have been presented outside of stockholders’ deficit in the Company’s consolidated balance sheets. All series of convertible preferred stock are collectively referred to in the consolidated financial statements as convertible preferred stock. All outstanding shares of redeemable convertible preferred stock were converted on a one for one basis to common stock upon the closing of the Company’s initial public offering on June 2, 2011.

Warrant Liability—Prior to the Company’s initial public offering, outstanding warrants to purchase shares of the Company’s Series A and Series B redeemable convertible preferred stock were freestanding warrants that were exercisable into convertible preferred stock that was subject to redemption and were therefore classified as liabilities on the consolidated balance sheet at fair value. The Company estimated the fair value of these warrants at the respective balance sheet dates utilizing an option-based model to allocate an estimated business enterprise value to the various classes of the Company’s equity stock and related warrants. The assumptions used to estimate the business enterprise value and allocation of value to the classes of equity stock and related warrants were highly judgmental. The initial liability recorded was adjusted for changes in fair value at each reporting date with an offsetting entry recorded for the loss from the change in fair value of warrant liability in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations. The liability was adjusted for changes in fair value until the conversion of the underlying redeemable convertible preferred stock into common stock and common stock warrants prior to the close of Company’s initial public offering in June 2011, at which time the redeemable convertible preferred stock warrants were reclassified to additional paid-in capital.

In May 2011, the Company granted to Bunge Limited a warrant to purchase 1,000,000 shares of its common stock at an exercise price of $13.50 per share (see Note 7). The warrant vests in three separate tranches, based

upon Bunge Limited achieving three specific performance milestones. The first tranche of shares vested on the measurement date, April 2, 2012, and was recorded as an investment in the unconsolidated joint venture and additional paid-in capital, based on the fair value of the first tranche of warrants that vested upon the measurement date. The remaining unvested second and third tranches of the warrant (on the measurement date) were classified as a liability on the consolidated balance sheet at fair value on the measurement date, due to performance-based vesting terms. The initial liability for the second vesting tranche was adjusted for changes in fair value until the performance-based milestones were met and the tranche vested on June 20, 2012, at which time the fair value of the second vested tranche was reclassified to additional paid-in-capital. The third tranche of the warrant was unvested as of December 31, 2012, and will be adjusted for changes in fair value at each balance sheet date until the warrant shares vest.

Segment Reporting—Operating segments are defined as components of an enterprise that engage in business activities from which it may earn revenues and incur expenses for which separate financial information is available that is evaluated regularly by the chief operating decision maker, in deciding how to allocate resources and in assessing performance. The Company’s chief operating decision maker is the Chief Executive Officer. The Chief Executive Officer reviews financial information presented on a consolidated basis. The Company has one business activity and there are no segment managers who are held accountable for operations, operating results beyond revenue goals or gross margins, or plans for levels or components below the consolidated unit level. Accordingly, the Company has a single reporting segment through December 31, 2012.

Geographic revenues are identified by the location in which the research and development program revenue and product sales were originated. Total revenues of $44.1 million, $39.0 million and $38.0 million, for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively, originated in the United States.

Revenue Recognition—Revenues are recognized when the following criteria are met: (1) persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists; (2) transfer of technology has been completed or services have been rendered; (3) the fee is fixed or determinable; and (4) collectability is reasonably assured. The Company’s primary sources of revenues are revenues from research and development programs and product sales. If sales arrangements contain multiple elements, the Company evaluates whether the components of each arrangement represent separate units of accounting. To date, the Company has determined that all revenue arrangements should be accounted for as a single unit of accounting.

License Fees—Recognition of license fees is dependent on the specific terms of the license agreement. To date, up-front one time non-refundable fees for licensing our technology for commercialization in a joint venture have been recognized when cash is received.

Product Revenue—Product revenue is recognized from the sale of Algenist^® products. Algenist^® products are sold with a right of return for expired, discontinued, damaged or non-compliant products. In addition, one customer has a right of return for excess inventory beyond 120 days of consumer demand. Algenist^® products have an approximate three year shelf life from their manufacture date. The Company gives credit for returns, either by issuing a credit memo at the time of product return or, in certain cases, by allowing a customer to decrease the amount of subsequent payments for the amount of the return. The Company reserves for estimated returns of products at the time revenues are recognized. To estimate the return reserve, the Company analyzes its own actual product return data, as well as data from its customers regarding their historical return rates of well-established similar products to other manufacturers, and also uses other known factors, such as its customers’ return policies to their end consumers, which is typically 30 to 90 days. The Company monitors its actual performance to estimated rates, and adjusts the estimated return rates as necessary. In addition, the Company estimates a reserve for products that do not meet internal quality standards. As of December 31, 2012 and 2011, the Company had a product revenue reserve of $1.1 million and $0.7 million, respectively. Actual returns of Algenist^® products may differ from these estimates that the Company used to calculate such reserves. Product revenue is recorded net of taxes collected from customers that are remitted to governmental authorities, with the collected taxes recorded as current liabilities until remitted to the relevant government authority.

Research and Development—Research and development costs associated with research performed pursuant to research and development programs with government entities and commercial and strategic partners (“partners”) are expensed as incurred, and include, but are not limited to, personnel and related expenses, facility costs and overhead, depreciation and amortization of plant, property and equipment used in development, laboratory supplies, and scale-up research manufacturing and consulting costs. The Company’s research and development programs are undertaken to advance its overall industrial biotechnology platform that enables the Company to produce cost-effective, tailored, high-value oils. Although the Company’s partners fund certain development activities, the partners benefit from advances in the Company’s technology platform as a whole, including costs funded by other development programs. Therefore, costs for such activities have not been separated as these costs have all been determined to be part of the Company’s total research and development related activities.

Advertising Costs—Advertising costs are expensed as incurred. Advertising expense was $2.6 million, $1.4 million and $0 for 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively.

Patent Costs—All costs related to filing and pursuing patent applications are expensed as incurred as recoverability of such expenditures is uncertain and the underlying technologies are under development. Patent-related legal costs incurred are recorded in selling, general and administrative expenses.

Income Taxes—The Company accounts for income taxes under the asset and liability method, which requires, among other things, that deferred income taxes be provided for temporary differences between the tax basis of the Company’s assets and liabilities and their financial statement reported amounts. A valuation allowance is provided against deferred tax assets when it is more likely than not that they will not be realized.

The Company provides for reserves necessary for uncertain tax positions taken or expected to be taken on tax filings. First, the Company determines if the weight of available evidence indicates that a tax position is more likely than not to be sustained upon audit. Second, based on the largest amount of benefit that is more likely than not to be realized on ultimate settlement, the Company recognizes any such differences as a liability. Because the Company’s unrecognized tax benefits offset deferred tax assets for which the Company has not realized benefit in the financial statements, none of the unrecognized tax benefits through December 31, 2012, if recognized, would affect the Company’s effective tax rate.

Stock-Based Compensation—The Company recognizes stock-based compensation for awards to employees based on the estimated fair value of the awards granted. The fair value method requires the Company to estimate the fair value of stock-based awards on the date of grant using an option pricing model. The Company uses the Black-Scholes option-pricing model to estimate the fair value of awards granted to employees, and the requisite fair value is recognized as expense on a straight-line basis over the service period of the award.

The Company estimates the fair value of stock-based compensation awards using the Black-Scholes option pricing model, which requires the following inputs: expected life, expected volatility, risk-free interest rate, expected dividend yield rate, exercise price and closing price of the Company’s common stock on the date of grant. Due to the Company’s limited history of grant activity, the Company calculates its expected term utilizing the “simplified method” permitted by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), which is the average of the total contractual term of the option and its vesting period. The Company calculates its expected volatility rate from the historical volatilities of selected comparable public companies within its industry, due to a lack of historical information regarding the volatility of the Company’s stock price. The Company will continue to analyze the historical stock price volatility assumption as more historical data for its common stock becomes available. The risk-free interest rate is based on the US Treasury yield curve in effect at the time of grant for zero coupon US Treasury notes with maturities similar to the option’s expected term. The expected dividend yield was assumed to be zero, as the Company has not paid, nor does it anticipate paying, cash dividends on shares of its common stock. The Company estimates its forfeiture rate based on an analysis of its actual forfeitures and will continue to evaluate the appropriateness of the forfeiture rate based on actual forfeiture experience, analysis of employee turnover and other factors.

The Company accounts for restricted stock units and restricted stock awards based on the quoted market price of the Company’s common stock on the date of grant that are expensed on a straight-line basis over the service period.

The Company uses the Black-Scholes option-pricing model to estimate the fair value of awards granted to nonemployees. The Company accounts for restricted stock awards issued to nonemployees based on the estimated fair value of the Company’s common stock. The measurement of stock-based compensation for nonemployees is subject to periodic adjustments as the underlying equity instruments vest, and the resulting change in value, if any, is recognized in the Company’s consolidated statements of operations during the period the related services are rendered

Net Loss per Share Attributable to Solazyme, Inc. Common Stockholders—Basic net loss per share attributable to Solazyme, Inc. common stockholders is computed by dividing the Company’s net loss attributable

to Solazyme, Inc. common stockholders by the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding during the period. Diluted net loss per share attributable to Solazyme, Inc. common stockholders is computed by giving effect to all potentially dilutive securities, including stock options, common stock issuable pursuant to the 2011 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, restricted stock, restricted stock units, warrants and convertible preferred stock. Basic and diluted net loss per share attributable to Solazyme, Inc. common stockholders was the same for all periods presented as the inclusion of all potentially dilutive securities outstanding was anti-dilutive.

The following table summarizes the Company’s calculation of basic and diluted net loss per share attributable to Solazyme, Inc. common stockholders (in thousands, except share and per share amounts):

The following outstanding shares of potentially dilutive securities were excluded from the calculation of diluted net loss per share attributable to Solazyme, Inc. common stockholders for the periods presented as the effect was anti-dilutive:

Recent Accounting Pronouncements—In May 2011, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2011-04, Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”) of Fair Value Measurement—Topic 820. ASU No. 2011-04 is intended to provide a consistent definition of fair value and improve the comparability of fair value measurements presented and disclosed in financial statements prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP and IFRS. The amendments include those that clarify the FASB’s intent about the application of existing fair value measurement and disclosure requirements, as well as those that change a particular principle or

requirement for measuring fair value or for disclosing information about fair value measurements. The update is effective for annual periods beginning after December 15, 2011. The adoption did not have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

In June 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-05, Comprehensive Income (Topic 220): Presentation of Comprehensive Income as amended by ASU No. 2011-12, Comprehensive Income (Topic 220): Deferral of the Effective Date for Amendments to the Presentation of Reclassifications of Items Out of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income in Accounting Standards Update No. 2011-05. This ASU eliminates the option to present the components of other comprehensive income as part of the statement of changes in stockholders’ equity. Rather, it gives an entity the choice to present the components of net income and other comprehensive income in either a single continuous statement or two separate but consecutive statements. Companies will continue to present reclassification adjustments from other comprehensive income to net income on the face of the financial statements. The components of comprehensive income and timing of reclassification of an item to net income do not change with this update. ASU No. 2011-05 requires retrospective application and is effective for annual and interim periods beginning after December 15, 2011. The Company adopted this standard in the first quarter of 2012 by including a separate statement of comprehensive income to its consolidated financial statements.

In December 2011, the FASB issued ASU 2011-11, Balance Sheet (Topic 210): Disclosures about Offsetting Assets and Liabilities. ASU 2011-11 enhances disclosures regarding financial instruments and derivative instruments. Entities are required to provide both net information and gross information for these assets and liabilities in order to enhance comparability between those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of U.S. GAAP and those entities that prepare their financial statements on the basis of IFRS. The requirements of ASU 2011-11 are effective for interim and annual periods beginning on or after January 1, 2013 and are to be applied retrospectively. The Company does not expect the adoption of this guidance to have a material impact on its consolidated financial statements.

In February 2013, the FASB issued ASU 2013-02, Comprehensive Income (Topic 220): Reporting of Amounts Reclassified Out of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income. ASU 2013-02 finalizes the requirements of ASU 2011-05 that ASU 2011-12 deferred, clarifying how to report the effect of significant reclassifications out of accumulated other comprehensive income. ASU 2013-02 is effective for reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2012 and is to be applied prospectively. The Company does not anticipate that the adoption of this ASU will materially change the presentation of its consolidated financial statements.

Marketable securities classified as available-for-sale consisted of the following (in thousands):

The following table summarizes the amortized cost and fair value of the Company’s marketable securities, classified by stated maturity as of December 31, 2012 and 2011 (in thousands):

Marketable securities classified as available-for-sale are carried at fair value as of December 31, 2012 and 2011. Realized gains and losses from sales and maturities of marketable securities were not significant in the periods presented.

The aggregate fair value of available-for-sale securities with unrealized losses as of December 31, 2012 was $12.5 million. Gross unrealized losses on available-for-sale securities as of December 31, 2012 were insignificant and the Company believes the gross unrealized losses are temporary. In determining that the decline in fair value of these securities was temporary, the Company considered the length of time each security was in an unrealized loss position and the extent to which the fair value was less than cost. The aggregate fair value and unrealized loss of available-for-sale securities which had been in a continuous loss position for more than 12 months was $1.5 million and $28,000, respectively, as of December 31, 2012. In addition, the Company does not intend to sell these securities and it is more likely than not that the Company will not be required to sell these securities before the recovery of their amortized cost basis.

Assets and liabilities recorded at fair value in the consolidated financial statements are categorized based upon the level of judgment associated with the inputs used to measure their fair value. Hierarchical levels that are directly related to the amount of subjectivity associated with the inputs to the valuation of these assets or liabilities are as follows:

Cash equivalents and marketable securities classified within Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy are valued based on other observable inputs, including broker or dealer quotations or alternative pricing sources. When quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities are not available, the Company relies on non-binding quotes, which are based on proprietary valuation models of independent pricing services. These models generally use inputs such as observable market data, quoted market prices for similar instruments, historical pricing trends of a security as relative to its peers and internal assumptions of the independent pricing services. The Company corroborates the reasonableness of non-binding quotes received from the independent pricing services by comparing them to quotes of identical or similar instruments from other pricing sources. During the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010, the Company did not record impairment charges related to its cash equivalents and marketable securities, and the Company did not have any transfers between Level 1, Level 2 and Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy.

The following table presents the Company’s financial instruments that were measured at fair value on a recurring basis as of December 31, 2012 by level within the fair value hierarchy (in thousands):

The change in the value of the warrant liability is summarized below (in thousands):

The following table presents the Company’s financial instruments that were measured at fair value on a recurring basis as of December 31, 2011 by level within the fair value hierarchy (in thousands):

The change in the value of the warrant liability is summarized below (in thousands):

The Company has estimated the fair value of its secured and unsecured debt obligations based upon discounted cash flows with Level 3 inputs, such as the terms that management believes would currently be available to the Company for similar issues of debt, taking into account the current credit risk of the Company and other factors. As of December 31, 2012 and 2011, the carrying values of the Company’s secured and unsecured debt obligations approximated their fair values.

The Company had no transactions measured at fair value on a nonrecurring basis as of December 31, 2012 and 2011.

Construction in progress as of December 31, 2012 and 2011 related primarily to the Peoria manufacturing facility and plant equipment not yet placed in service as of those dates.

The Company capitalized $0.3 million of interest costs associated with plant equipment at its Peoria manufacturing facility for the year ended December 31, 2012. There were no interest costs associated with plant equipment that were capitalized for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010.

Depreciation and amortization expense was $3.5 million, $1.7 million and $0.8 million for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively.

In March 2011, the Company entered into an agreement to purchase a development and commercial production facility with multiple 128,000-liter fermenters, and an annual oil production capacity of over 2,000,000 liters (1,820 metric tons) located in Peoria, Illinois for $11.5 million. Concurrent with the purchase transaction, the Company sold back certain equipment to the seller for $0.3 million. This transaction closed in May 2011, and the Company paid for the aggregate purchase price with available cash and borrowed $5.5 million under a promissory note, mortgage and security agreement from the seller. See promissory note terms in Note 11. The Company began initial fermentation operations in the facility in the fourth quarter of 2011 and commissioned its first integrated biorefinery in June 2012 under its DOE program. The fair value of the assets on the purchase date was $10.9 million, which was allocated to plant equipment, building and improvements and land based on their relative fair values. These assets are classified in the table above under plant equipment, building and improvements and land as of December 31, 2012, and in construction in progress, building and improvements and land as of December 31, 2011.

In April 2012, the Company and Bunge entered into a Joint Venture Agreement forming a joint venture (“Solazyme Bunge JV”) to build, own and operate a commercial-scale renewable tailored oils production facility (the “Plant”) adjacent to Bunge’s Moema sugarcane mill in Brazil. The Company expects this production facility to have annual production capacity of 100,000 metric tons of oil. Construction of the Plant commenced in the second quarter of 2012, with a targeted start-up in the fourth quarter of 2013. The Plant, which will leverage the Company’s technology and Bunge’s sugarcane milling and natural oil processing capabilities, will produce tailored triglyceride oils primarily for chemical applications. The capital contributions for this venture are being provided jointly by Solazyme and Bunge, and the agreement includes a value sharing mechanism that provides additional compensation to the Company for its technology contributions. The Company committed to make an initial capital contribution of up to $36.3 million in fiscal 2012 and, additional capital contributions of up to an additional $36.3 million beginning after December 31, 2012, primarily to fund the construction of the Plant. In July 2012 and February 2013, the Company contributed $10.0 million and $2.5 million, respectively, in capital to the Solazyme Bunge JV. These capital contributions were recorded as an increase to investment in unconsolidated joint ventures and a corresponding decrease to cash and cash equivalents.

The Company has determined that the Solazyme Bunge JV is a VIE based on the insufficiency of each party’s equity investment at risk to absorb losses and the Company’s share of the respective expected losses of the Solazyme Bunge JV. However, the Company determined that it is not the primary beneficiary of the Solazyme Bunge JV and therefore will not consolidate the financial results of the Solazyme Bunge JV. The Company accounts for its interests in the Solazyme Bunge JV under the equity method of accounting. This consolidation status could change in the future due to changes in events and circumstances impacting the power to direct the activities that most significantly affect the Solazyme Bunge JV’s economic performance. The Company will continue to reassess its potential designation as the primary beneficiary of the Solazyme Bunge JV. During the year ended December 31, 2012, the Company recognized $1.8 million of losses related to its equity method investment in the Solazyme Bunge JV.

In anticipation of the Solazyme Bunge JV’s formation, in May 2011, the Company granted Bunge Limited a warrant (“the Warrant”) to purchase 1,000,000 shares of its common stock at an exercise price of $13.50 per

share. The Warrant vests (i) 25% on the date that Solazyme and Bunge enter into a joint venture agreement to construct and operate a commercial-scale renewable oil production facility; (ii) 50% upon the commencement of construction of the Plant; and (iii) 25% on the date upon which the aggregate output of triglyceride oil at the Plant reaches 1,000 metric tons. The number of warrant shares issuable is subject to adjustment for failure to achieve the performance milestones on a timely basis as well as certain changes to the capital structure of Solazyme Bunge JV and corporate transactions. The Warrant expires in May 2021.

The Company accounts for the Warrant pursuant to ASC 505-50, Equity-Based Payments to Non-Employees, which establishes that share-based payment transactions with nonemployees shall be measured at the fair value of the consideration received or the fair value of the equity instruments issued (whichever is more reliably measurable), and the measurement date of such instruments shall be the earlier of the date at which a commitment for performance by the counterparty is reached or the date at which the counterparty’s performance is complete. A performance commitment is a commitment under which performance by the counterparty to earn the equity instruments is probable because of sufficiently large disincentives for nonperformance. The measurement date of the Warrant was April 2, 2012, the formation date of Solazyme Bunge JV, as it was determined that the future performance to earn the Warrant shares was probable.

On April 2, 2012, the Company recorded an investment in the Solazyme Bunge JV of $10.4 million, equal to the fair value of the Warrant, and recorded a corresponding $2.7 million of additional paid-in-capital for the vested Warrant shares and $7.7 million of warrant liability for the unvested Warrant shares as of that date. The fair value of the Warrant was determined using the Black-Scholes option pricing model. The warrant liability is remeasured to fair value at each balance sheet date and/or upon vesting, and the warrant liability is reclassified to additional-paid in capital upon vesting. On June 20, 2012, the second tranche of the Warrant shares vested, resulting in a reclassification of $4.6 million, which represented the fair value as of that date, to additional paid-in capital. The Company had a $0.8 million warrant liability associated with the unvested Warrant shares as of December 31, 2012. The fair value of the warrant liability was determined using the Black-Scholes option pricing model based upon the following assumptions: volatility of 55%, risk-free interest rate of 1.48%, exercise price of $13.50 and an expected life of 8.3 years. During the year ended December 31, 2012, the Company recorded an unrealized gain of $2.3 million related to the change in the fair value of the warrant liability. As of December 31, 2012, 750,000 of the Warrant shares had vested.

In addition to forming the Solazyme Bunge JV in April 2012, the Company entered into a Development Agreement with the Solazyme Bunge JV to continue to conduct research and development activities that are intended to benefit the Solazyme Bunge JV, including activities in the areas of strain development, molecular biology and process development. The Development Agreement provides that the Solazyme Bunge JV will pay the Company a technology maintenance fee in recognition of the Company’s ongoing research investment in technology that would benefit the Solazyme Bunge JV. The Company also entered into a Technology Service Agreement with the Solazyme Bunge JV under which the Solazyme Bunge JV will pay the Company for technical services related to the operations of the production facility.

In November 2012, the Company entered into a joint venture expansion framework agreement with the Solazyme Bunge JV. This framework agreement sets forth the intent of the partners to expand joint venture-owned oil production capacity from the current 100,000 metric tons under construction in Brazil to 300,000 metric tons by 2016 at select Bunge owned and operated processing facilities worldwide. The Company and Bunge also intend to expand the portfolio of oils to be produced out of the Solazyme Bunge JV facility in Brazil. The expanded field and portfolio of oils would include certain tailored food oils for sale in Brazil, where Bunge is the largest supplier of edible oils through several of its retail brands. The Company and Bunge intend to work together through joint market development to bring new, healthy and nutritious edible oils to the Brazilian market.

In February 2013, the Solazyme Bunge JV entered a loan agreement with the Brazilian Development Bank (BNDES) under which it may borrow up to R$245.7 million (approximately USD $120 million based on the

exchange rate as of December 31, 2012). As a condition of the Solazyme Bunge JV drawing funds under the loan, the Company will be required to guarantee a portion of the loan (in an amount not to exceed the Company’s ownership percentage in the Solazyme Bunge JV). The BNDES funding will support the Solazyme Bunge JV’s first commercial-scale production facility in Brazil, which will reduce the capital requirements funded directly by the Company and Bunge. The term of the loan is eight years and will have an average interest rate of approximately 4% per annum.

In November 2010, the Company entered into a joint venture agreement with Roquette, one of the largest global starch and starch-derivatives companies. The purpose of the joint venture, Solazyme Roquette Nutritionals, LLC (“Solazyme Roquette Nutritionals” or the “Solazyme Roquette JV”) is to engage in manufacturing, distribution, sales, marketing and support of products and services related to the use of microalgae to which the Company has not applied its targeted recombinant technology, in a fermentation production process to produce materials for use in the following fields: (i) human foods and beverages, (ii) animal feed and (iii) nutraceuticals. The Solazyme Roquette JV is 50% owned by the Company and 50% by Roquette and is governed by a four member board of directors, two from each investor. Solazyme Roquette Nutritionals will determine the approach to research, development, marketing, sales, distribution and manufacture of products in such fields. While Solazyme Roquette Nutritionals will establish a manufacturing platform for the products, Roquette has committed to provide expertise and resources with respect to manufacturing, including such volumes of corn-based dextrose feedstock as the Solazyme Roquette JV may request subject to the terms of a manufacturing agreement.

The Solazyme Roquette JV agreement contemplates three development stages. In Phase 1, Roquette built and owns a pilot plant with a capacity of approximately 300 metric tons per year for the dedicated use of Solazyme Roquette Nutritionals. In Phase 2, Roquette will build and own a commercial plant with a capacity of approximately 5,000 metric tons per year for the dedicated use of Solazyme Roquette Nutritionals. Solazyme Roquette Nutritionals will have the right, but not the obligation, to purchase and acquire the commercial plant built during Phase 2. Subject to the approval of the board of directors of Solazyme Roquette Nutritionals to enter into Phase 3, Roquette will provide debt and equity financing to build a commercial plant, expected to be sited at a Roquette wet mill with a capacity of approximately 50,000 metric tons per year to be owned by Solazyme Roquette Nutritionals.

The Company has determined that the Solazyme Roquette JV is a VIE based on the insufficiency of each party’s equity investment at risk to absorb losses and the Company’s share of the respective expected losses of the Solazyme Roquette JV. However, the Company determined that it is not the primary beneficiary of the Solazyme Roquette JV and therefore will not consolidate the financial results of the Solazyme Roquette JV. The Company accounts for its interests in the Solazyme Roquette JV under the equity method of accounting. This consolidation status could change in the future due to changes in events and circumstances impacting the power to direct the activities that most significantly affect the Solazyme Roquette JV’s economic performance. The Company will continue to reassess its potential designation as the primary beneficiary of the Solazyme Roquette JV. The Company has not recorded any income (loss) in the Solazyme Roquette JV through December 31, 2012, and does not expect to record any income (loss) at this time.

The Company’s initial contribution is the licensing of certain intellectual property (the “IP”) to the Solazyme Roquette JV. In September 2012, the Company contributed approximately $0.5 million to the Solazyme Roquette JV and correspondingly, reduced the Company’s receivable due from the Solazyme Roquette JV by approximately $0.5 million. Roquette is required to provide funds to Solazyme Roquette Nutritionals for working capital, lend additional funds to the Solazyme Roquette JV to provide working capital during Phase 1 and Phase 2 and lend additional funds to the Solazyme Roquette JV to provide working capital during Phase 3. Roquette has also agreed to provide funds to Solazyme Roquette Nutritionals to be used as equity in construction

of the Phase 3 facility and to provide debt financing to Solazyme Roquette Nutritionals for construction of the Phase 3 facility, subject to the approval to proceed with construction. In September 2012, the Solazyme Roquette JV entered into a loan facility with Roquette that provided for a $10.0 million loan facility. This facility will be used for working capital purposes and expires on September 15, 2017, unless terminated earlier with three months notice. In October 2012, the Solazyme Roquette JV borrowed $5.0 million under this facility. As of December 31, 2012, $5.0 million remained outstanding under this facility. This $10.0 million loan facility is not guaranteed by the Company.

In November 2011, the Company and Roquette amended the joint venture agreement to provide that Roquette would make available to the Solazyme Roquette JV during Phase 1 and Phase 2, additional working capital in the form of debt financing (“Roquette Loan”). The Company agreed to guarantee repayment of a portion, up to a maximum amount, of 50% of the aggregate draw-downs from the Roquette Loan, if and when drawn, plus a portion of the associated fees, interest and expenses. The Solazyme Roquette JV did not draw down on the Roquette Loan as of December 31, 2012.

During the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010, the Company recognized revenues of $2.2 million, $0 and $0, respectively, related to its research and development arrangements with its joint venture companies. At December 31, 2012 and 2011, the Company had receivables of $2.2 million and $0.9 million, respectively, due from the joint venture companies. At December 31, 2012 and 2011, the Company had unbilled revenues of $0.8 million and $0, respectively, related to the joint venture companies.

The Company’s Series A redeemable preferred stock warrants were exercised in June 2011. The Company’s Series B redeemable preferred stock warrants converted on a one for one basis to common stock upon the closing of the Company’s initial public offering in June 2011.

Upon the closing of the Company’s initial public offering on June 2, 2011, the Series A and Series B redeemable preferred stock warrants that were previously recorded as liabilities on the Company’s consolidated balance sheet were automatically converted to common stock warrants or common stock. Upon this conversion, the related preferred stock warrant liability of $6.6 million was reclassified to additional paid-in capital.

The preferred stock warrants were marked to fair value from January 1, 2009 through May 27, 2011, and the change in fair value was recognized in the Company’s consolidated statements of operations as gain or loss from change in fair value of warrant liability. The fair value of the preferred stock warrant liability increased by $3.6 million and $2.6 million in the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. The Company recorded these changes in fair value as an adjustment to loss from the change in fair value of warrant liability in the consolidated statements of operations.

10. COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS, GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS AND LICENSES

Chevron—The Company entered into multiple research and development agreements with Chevron over the research funding period of January 2009 through June 2012 to conduct research, develop, manufacture and sell licensed products related to algal technology in the fields of diesel fuel, lubes and additives and coproducts.

These agreements with Chevron contain multiple element arrangements and the Company evaluated and concluded that there were two deliverables, research and development activities and licenses, which are considered one unit of accounting. Revenues related to these services are recognized as research services are performed over the related performance period. The payments received are not refundable and are based on a contractual reimbursement of costs incurred.

Unilever—Effective November 2009, the Company entered into a collaborative research and development agreement with Conopco, Inc. (doing business as Unilever) to develop oil for use in soap and other products. The Company completed the research and development under this agreement in the year ended December 31, 2010. In the first quarter of 2011, the Company and Unilever agreed to extend their research and development agreement through June 30, 2011. The Company received an initial payment of $750,000 in March 2011 related to work performed on this contract. The second payment of $750,000, against the total contract extension of $1.5 million, was received from Unilever in July 2011.

In October 2011, the Company entered into a joint development agreement with Unilever (the Company’s fourth agreement with Unilever), which expands its current research and development efforts.

Department of Defense—In September 2010, the Company entered into an agreement with the U.S. Department of Defense (“DoD”) for research and development services to provide marine diesel fuel. This is a firm fixed price contract divided into two phases, with Phase 1 and Phase 2 fees of $5.6 million and $4.6 million, respectively. Phase 1 of the contract was completed in September 2011 when 75,000 gallons (283,906 liters) of fuel was delivered. In August 2011, the DoD exercised its option to pursue Phase 2 of the agreement, which calls for the additional delivery of 75,000 gallons (283,906 liters) of marine diesel fuel.

The Company evaluated the multiple elements of both DoD agreements (Phase 1 and Phase 2) and concluded that the two deliverables (research and development activities and fuel) were one unit of accounting. Revenues related to these services are recognized as research services that are performed over the related performance period for each phase of the contract. The payments received as installments are not refundable and are based on a contractual reimbursement of costs incurred.

With respect to Phase 1 of the current DoD contract, the Company recognized $0 and $ 1.1 million of revenues in the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively. The Company had no unbilled revenue or deferred revenue balances related to Phase 1 of the agreement as of December 31, 2012 and 2011.

With respect to Phase 2 of the current DoD contract, the Company recognized $0.7 million and $3.9 million of revenues in the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively. Unbilled revenues were $0 and $2.2 million as of December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively. The Company had no deferred revenue balances related to Phase 2 of the agreement as of December 31, 2012 and 2011.

Department of Energy—In December 2009, the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) awarded the Company approximately $21.8 million to partially fund the construction, operation, and optimization of an integrated biorefinery. The project term is January 2010 through March 2014. The payments received are not refundable and are based on a contractual reimbursement of costs incurred. During the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011, the Company recognized revenues of $9.2 million and $7.0 million, respectively. The Company had no deferred revenue balance related to this award as of December 31, 2012 and 2011. Unbilled revenues related to this award were $2.1 million and $1.7 million as of December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively.

Dynamic Fuels—In November 2011, Dynamic Fuels, LLC (“Dynamic”) was awarded a contract to supply the US Navy with 450,000 gallons (1,703,000 liters) of renewable fuels. The contract involves supplying the US Navy with 100,000 gallons (379,000 liters) of jet fuel (Hydro-treated Renewable JP-5 and HRJ-5) and 350,000 gallons (1,325,000 liters) of marine distillate fuel (Hydro-treated Renewable F-76 and HRD-76). The Company was named a subcontractor and entered into a subcontractor agreement effective as of January 2012 to supply Dynamic with algal oil to fulfill Dynamic’s contract with the US Navy to deliver fuel by May 2012. The Company delivered its commitment of algal oil pursuant to this subcontract in February 2012. The fuel was used by the US Navy in July 2012, as part of its efforts to demonstrate a Green Strike Group composed of vessels and ships powered by biofuels.

Algenist^® Distribution Partners—The Company entered into an exclusive distribution contract with Sephora S.A. (Sephora EMEA) in December 2010 to distribute the Algenist^® product line in Sephora stores in certain countries in Europe and select countries in the Middle East and Asia. In January 2011, the Company also entered into a distribution arrangement with Sephora USA, Inc. (Sephora Americas) to sell the Algenist^® product line in the United States. Under both arrangements, the Company pays the majority of the costs associated with marketing the products, although both Sephora EMEA and Sephora Americas contribute in the areas of public relations, training and marketing to support the brand. Sephora EMEA creates the marketing material, but the Company has an approval right over the materials and ultimately the Company has control over the marketing budget. With Sephora Americas, the Company is responsible for creating certain marketing and training materials. The Company is obligated to fund minimum marketing expenditures under the agreement with Sephora EMEA. The Company has also granted a license to Sephora Americas and Sephora EMEA to use the Algenist^® trademarks and logos to advertise and promote the product line. In March 2011, the Company entered into an agreement with QVC, Inc. (QVC) and launched the sale of its Algenist^® product line through QVC’s multimedia platform.

Dow—In February 2011, the Company entered into a joint development agreement with The Dow Chemical Company (“Dow”) to jointly develop microalgae-based oils for use in dielectric insulating fluids. This initial research program was completed in September 30, 2011. In March 2012, the Company and Dow entered into a Phase 2 Joint Development Agreement (Phase 2 JDA), an extension of the original exclusive joint development agreement related to dielectric insulating fluids. The Phase 2 JDA includes accelerated commercialization timelines and enables Dow to conduct additional application development work.

Bunge—In May 2011, the Company entered into a joint development agreement (“JDA”) with Bunge, a global agribusiness and food company, that extends through May 2013. Pursuant to the joint development agreement, the Company and Bunge will jointly develop microbe-derived oils, and explore the production of such oils from Brazilian sugarcane feedstock. The joint development agreement also provides that Bunge will provide research funding to the Company through May 2013, payable quarterly in advance throughout the research term. The Company accounts for the JDA as an obligation to perform research and development services for others in accordance with ASC 730-20, Research and Development Arrangements, and records the payments for the performance of these services as revenue in its consolidated statement of operations. The Company recognizes revenue on the JDA based on proportionate performance of actual efforts to date relative to the amount of expected effort to be incurred. The cumulative amount of revenue recognized under the JDA is limited by the amounts the Company is contractually obligated to receive as cash reimbursements.

In April 2012, the Company and Bunge entered into a Joint Venture Agreement forming a joint venture to build, own and operate a commercial-scale renewable tailored oils production facility adjacent to Bunge’s Moema sugarcane mill in Brazil (see Note 7).

ADM—In November 2012, the Company and Archer-Daniels-Midland Company (“ADM”) entered into a Strategic Collaboration Agreement (the “Collaboration Agreement”), establishing a collaboration for the production of tailored triglyceride oil products at the ADM fermentation facility in Clinton, Iowa (the “Clinton Facility”). The Clinton Facility will produce tailored triglyceride oil products using the Company’s proprietary

microbe-based catalysis technology. Feedstock for the facility will be provided from ADM’s adjacent wet mill. Under the terms of the Collaboration Agreement, the Company will pay ADM annual fees for use and operation of the Clinton Facility, a portion of which may be paid in Company common stock. In addition, in January 2013, the Company granted to ADM a warrant to purchase 500,000 shares of the Company’s common stock, which will vest in equal monthly installments over five years, commencing from the start of commercial production. The Company currently anticipates that commercial production at the Clinton Facility will begin by early 2014. The initial target nameplate capacity of the Clinton facility is expected to be 20,000 metric tons per year of tailored triglyceride oil products. Solazyme has an option to expand the capacity to 40,000 metric tons per year with the goal to further expand production to 100,000 metric tons per year. The parties will also work together to develop markets for the products produced at the Clinton Facility.

In June 2010, the Company entered into a secured promissory note agreement with the lessor of its headquarters under which $265,000 was borrowed to purchase equipment owned by the lessor. The loan is payable in monthly installments of principal and interest with final payment due in January 2015. Interest accrues at 9.0% and the promissory note is collateralized by the purchased equipment. As of December 31, 2012 and 2011, a principal amount of $129,000 and $179,000, respectively, was outstanding under this note agreement.

On May 11, 2011, the Company entered into a loan and security agreement with Silicon Valley Bank (“the bank”) that provided for a $20.0 million credit facility (the “facility”) consisting of (i) a $15.0 million term loan (the “term loan”) that was eligible to be borrowed in one or more increments prior to November 30, 2011 and (ii) a $5.0 million revolving facility (the “revolving facility”). A portion of the revolving facility is available for letters of credit and foreign exchange contracts with the bank. The facility will be used for working capital and other general corporate purposes. The facility is unsecured unless the Company breaches financial covenants that require the Company to maintain a minimum of $30.0 million in unrestricted cash and investments, of which at least $25.0 million are to be maintained in accounts with the bank and its affiliates. This minimum balance requirement is considered a compensating balance arrangement, and is classified in the consolidated balance sheet as cash and cash equivalents and/or marketable securities as this minimum balance is not restricted as to withdrawal. Interest is charged under the facility at (i) a fixed rate of 5.0% per annum with respect to the term loan and (ii) a floating rate per annum equal to the most recently quoted “Prime Rate” in the Wall Street Journal Western Edition with respect to revolving loans. Upon the event of default or financial covenant default, outstanding obligations under the facility shall bear interest at a rate up to three percentage points (3.00%) above the rates described in (i) and (ii) above. The term loan is payable in 48 equal monthly payments of principal and interest, with the first payment due on December 1, 2011. The maturity date is (i) November 1, 2015 for the term loan and (ii) May 10, 2013 for the revolving loans. The Company has the option to prepay all, but not less than all, of the amounts advanced under the term loan, provided that the Company provides written notice to the bank at least ten days prior to such prepayment, and pays all outstanding principal and accrued interest, plus all other sums, if any, that shall have become due and payable, on the date of such prepayment. In addition to the financial covenant referenced above, the Company is subject to financial covenants and customary affirmative and negative covenants and events of default under the facility including certain restrictions on borrowing. If an event of default occurs and continues, the bank may declare all outstanding obligations under the facility to become immediately due and payable. The outstanding obligations would become immediately due if the Company becomes insolvent. The Company was in compliance with its loan covenants under the facility as of December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011. On May 11, 2011, the Company borrowed $15.0 million under the facility. As of December 31, 2012 and 2011, $11.2 million and $14.7 million, respectively, were outstanding under this facility.

under a promissory note, mortgage and security agreement from the seller. The Company began initial fermentation operations in the facility in the fourth quarter of 2011 and commissioned its first integrated biorefinery in June 2012 under its DOE program. The principal is payable in two lump sum payments, the first of which was paid in March 2012 and the second payment was made in February 2013. The note is interest-free and secured by the real and personal property acquired from the seller. The assets acquired and the related note payable were recorded based upon the present value of the future payments assuming an imputed interest rate of 3.25%, resulting in a discount of $0.3 million. The $0.3 million loan discount is being recognized as interest expense over the loan term utilizing the effective interest method.

The weighted average interest rate for total debt outstanding was 4.6% as of December 31, 2012 and 2011.

Total interest costs related to the Company’s total debt was $0.8 million, $0.6 million and $0.1 million for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively.

The Company currently leases 96,000 square feet of office and laboratory space located in two buildings on adjacent properties in South San Francisco (“SSF”), California. The term of the lease will end in February 2015.

The Company records rent expense under its lease agreements on a straight-line basis. Differences between actual lease payments and rent expense recognized under these subleases resulted in a deferred liability of $0.7 million and $0.5 million as of December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively.

The Company also leases office and laboratory space in Brazil. The term of the lease is five years, and commenced on April 1, 2011 and expires on April 1, 2016. The rent is 29,500 Brazilian Real per month and is subject to an annual inflation adjustment. The Company pays its proportionate share of operating expenses. The

Company may cancel this lease agreement at any time, but would be subject to paying the lessor the maximum of a three month rent penalty. This cancelable lease is excluded from the future minimum lease payments table below. Effective April 2012, the rent increased from 29,500 Brazilian Real per month to 30,500 Brazilian Real (approximately $15,000 based on the exchange rate at December 31, 2012) per month as a result of the annual inflation adjustment.

The Company entered into an auto lease agreement in February 2012. This lease agreement contains an early cancellation penalty equal to 50% of the remaining lease value. The remaining lease value as of December 31, 2012 was 350,000 Brazilian Real (approximately $170,000 based on the exchange rate at December 31, 2012). This cancelable lease is excluded from the future minimum lease payments table below.

The Company entered into a Strategic Collaborative Agreement with ADM in November 2012 (See Note 10). The Company will pay ADM annual fees for the use and operation of the Clinton Facility, a portion which may be paid in the Company’s common stock. In January 2013, the Company made the first payment to ADM in cash and by issuing 347,483 shares of its common stock. In addition, the Company granted to ADM a warrant to purchase 500,000 shares of the Company’s common stock in January 2013, which will vest in equal monthly installments over five years, commencing from the start of commercial production. The exercise price is $7.17 per share and the warrant expires in January 2019. The payments under the Strategic Collaboration Agreement, excluding the warrant issued to ADM, are accounted for as an operating lease and are included in the future minimum lease payment schedule below.

Future minimum lease payments under noncancelable operating leases are as follows as of December 31, 2012 (in thousands):

Rent expense was $2.8 million, $2.0 million and $1.9 million for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively.

Contractual Obligations—As of December 31, 2012, the Company had $0.4 million of non-cancelable purchase obligations.

The Company has various manufacturing, research, and other contracts with vendors in the conduct of the normal course of its business. All contracts are terminable with varying provisions regarding termination. If a contract with a specific vendor were to be terminated, the Company would only be obligated for the products or services that the Company had received at the time the termination became effective.

Guarantees and Indemnifications—The Company makes certain indemnities, commitments, and guarantees under which it may be required to make payments in relation to certain transactions. The Company, as permitted under Delaware law and in accordance with its amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws, indemnifies its officers and directors for certain events or occurrences, subject to certain limits, while the officer or director is or was serving at the Company’s request in such capacity. The duration of these indemnifications, commitments, and guarantees varies and, in certain cases, is indefinite. The maximum amount of potential future indemnification is unlimited; however, the Company has a director and officer insurance policy that may enable it to recover all or a portion of any future amounts paid. The Company believes the fair value of these indemnification agreements is minimal. The Company has not recorded any

liability for these indemnities in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. However, the Company accrues for losses for any known contingent liability, including those that may arise from indemnification provisions, when future payment is probable. No such losses have been recorded to date.

In November 2011, the Company agreed to guarantee repayment of a portion, up to a maximum amount, of 50% of the aggregate draw-downs from the Roquette Loan, if and when drawn down, including a portion of the associated fees, interest and expenses (Note 7). The Solazyme Roquette JV did not draw down on the Roquette Loan as of December 31, 2012, and therefore the Company has not recorded any liability for this guarantee in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets.

In February 2013, the Solazyme Bunge JV entered a loan agreement with BNDES, funding under which will support the production facility in Brazil, including a portion of the construction costs of the facility. As a condition of the Solazyme Bunge JV drawing funds under the loan, the Company will be required to guarantee a portion of the loan (in an amount not to exceed its ownership percentage in the Solazyme Bunge JV). See also Note 7.

Other Matters—The Company may be involved, from time to time, in legal proceedings and claims arising in the ordinary course of its business. Such matters are subject to many uncertainties and outcomes are not predictable with assurance. The Company accrues amounts, to the extent they can be reasonably estimated, that it believes are adequate to address any liabilities related to legal proceedings and other loss contingencies that the Company believes will result in a probable loss that is reasonably estimable. As of December 31, 2012, the Company was not involved in any material legal proceedings. While there can be no assurances as to the ultimate outcome of any legal proceeding or other loss contingencies involving the Company, management does not believe any pending matters will be resolved in a manner that would have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Initial Public Offering—On June 2, 2011, the Company completed its initial public offering issuing 12,021,250 shares of common stock at an offering price of $18.00 per share, resulting in net proceeds to the Company of $201.2 million, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions of $15.1 million. Additionally, the Company incurred offering costs of $4.3 million related to the initial public offering. Upon the closing of the initial public offering, the Company’s outstanding shares of redeemable convertible preferred stock were automatically converted on a one for one basis into 34,534,125 shares of common stock and the outstanding Series B redeemable convertible preferred stock warrants were automatically converted into 303,855 shares of common stock.

Common Stock—As of December 31, 2010, under the Company’s Certificate of Incorporation, as amended, the Company was authorized to issue 60 million shares of common stock with a par value of $0.001 per share. In connection with the closing of the initial public offering, on June 2, 2011, the Company amended and restated its certificate of incorporation to increase its authorized number of shares of common stock to 150 million and authorize the issuance of 5 million shares of preferred stock. The holder of each share of common stock is entitled to one vote. The board of directors has the authority, without action by its stockholders, to designate and issue shares of preferred stock in one or more series and to fix the rights, preferences, privileges and restrictions thereof. The Company’s amended and restated certificate of incorporation provides that the Company’s board of directors will be divided into three classes, with staggered three-year terms and provides that all stockholder actions must be effected at a duly called meeting of the stockholders and not by consent in writing. The amended and restated certificate of incorporation also provides that only the board of directors may call a special meeting of the stockholders and requires a 66 2/3% stockholder vote for the adoption, amendment or repeal of any provision of the Company’s amended and restated bylaws and for the amendment or repeal of certain provisions of the Company’s amended and restated certificate of incorporation.

On January 23, 2013, the Company issued 347,483 shares of its common stock to ADM pursuant to the Company’s Collaboration Agreement with ADM (see Note 10). The common stock issued to ADM was registered pursuant to the Company’s registration statement on Form S-3, which was declared effective on January 23, 2013.

Second Amended and Restated 2004 Equity Incentive Plan—The Company’s Second Amended and Restated Equity Incentive Plan (the “2004 EIP”) was adopted by the Board of Directors in February 2008 (termination date of January 4, 2014). Pursuant to the 2004 EIP, the Company may grant options, restricted stock and stock purchase rights to employees, directors, or consultants of the Company. Options granted may be either incentive stock options or nonstatutory stock options. Incentive stock options may be granted to employees (including offices and directors, who are also employees). Nonstatutory stock options may be granted to employees, directors or consultants. In March 2011, the Company’s Board of Directors approved a 2,000,000 increase in the options reserved for issuance under the Company’s 2004 EIP. On May 25, 2011, in conjunction with the Company’s initial public offering, the 2004 EIP terminated so that no further awards may be granted under the 2004 EIP. Although the 2004 EIP terminated, all outstanding awards will continue to be governed by their existing terms.

2011 Equity Incentive Plan—On May 26, 2011, the Company’s 2011 Equity Incentive Plan (the “2011 EIP”, and together with the 2004 EIP (the “Plans”)) became effective. The Company initially reserved 7,000,000 shares of common stock for issuance under the 2011 EIP. Starting on May 26, 2011, any shares subject to outstanding awards granted under the 2004 EIP that expire or terminate for any reason prior to the issuance of shares shall become available for issuance under the 2011 EIP. The 2011 EIP also provides for automatic annual increases in the number of shares reserved for future issuance, and during the first quarter of 2012, an additional 3,000,362 shares were reserved under the 2011 EIP as a result of this provision. As of December 31, 2012 there were 5,826,327 shares available for issuance under the 2011 EIP.

Options under the Plans may be granted for periods up to ten years. All options issued to date have had up to a ten year life. The exercise price of incentive and nonstatutory stock options shall not be less than 100% of the estimated fair value of the shares on the date of grant, as determined by the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors also determine the vesting period of stock-based awards. The Company’s stock options generally vest over four years. Restricted stock awards are subject to forfeiture if certain vesting requirements are not met. The Company issues new common stock from authorized shares upon the exercise of stock options.

2011 Employee Stock Purchase Plan—On May 26, 2011, the Company’s 2011 Employee Stock Purchase Plan (the “2011 ESPP”) became effective. The Company initially reserved 750,000 shares of common stock for issuance under the 2011 ESPP. The purchase price of the common stock under the Employee Stock Purchase Plan is 85% of the lower of the fair market value of a share of common stock on the first day of the offering period or the last day of the purchase period. The 2011 ESPP also provides for automatic annual increases in the number of shares reserved for future issuance, and during the first quarter of 2012, an additional 600,072 shares were reserved under the 2011 ESPP as a result of this provision. As of December 31, 2012 there were 1,234,092 shares available for issuance under the 2011 ESPP.

The Company recognized stock-based compensation expense related to its 2011 ESPP of $0.3 million, $0.4 million and $0 for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively.

Common Stock Subject to Repurchase—The Company allows employees and non-employees to exercise options prior to vesting. The Company has the right, but not the obligation, to repurchase any unvested (but issued) common shares upon termination of employment or service at the original purchase price per share. The consideration received for an exercise of an option is considered to be a deposit of the exercise price and the related dollar amount is recorded as a liability. The unvested shares and liability are reclassified to equity on a

ratable basis as the award vests. There were 34,832 and 99,110 shares of common stock subject to repurchase as of December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively. The Company’s liability related to common stock subject to repurchase was $39,000 and $99,000 as of December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively, and was recorded in other liabilities.

A summary of the Company’s stock option activity under the Plans and related information is as follows:

The weighted-average grant date fair value of options granted was $6.46, $6.15 and $2.35 for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively. The total intrinsic value of options exercised was $7.4 million, $6.5 million and $2.0 million for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively.

The total fair value of options vested was $11.1 million, $3.3 million and $0.4 million for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively.

The following table presents the composition of options outstanding and vested and exercisable as of December 31, 2012:

Stock-based compensation expense related to stock-based awards granted to employees and nonemployees were allocated to research and development and sales, general and administrative expense as follows (in thousands):

No income tax benefits have been recognized related to stock-based compensation expense for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010.

Employee Stock-Based Compensation—Stock-based compensation expense was $13.2 million, $6.5 million and $0.7 million for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively, for stock-based awards granted to employees. There was unrecognized stock-based compensation cost of $22.0 million related to nonvested stock options granted to employees as of December 31, 2012, and the Company expects to recognize this cost over a weighted-average period of 1.9 years as of December 31, 2012. The grant date fair value of employee stock-based awards was estimated using the following weighted-average assumptions:

Nonemployee Stock-Based Compensation—Stock-based compensation expense was $2.2 million, $4.4 million and $1.2 million for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively, for stock-based awards granted to nonemployees. There was unrecognized stock-based compensation cost of $1.1 million related to nonvested stock options granted to nonemployees as of December 31, 2012, and the Company expects to recognize this cost over a weighted-average period of 2.1 years as of December 31, 2012. The fair value of non-employee stock-based awards was estimated using the following weighted-average assumptions:

Restricted Stock Awards—A summary of the Company’s restricted stock award activity is summarized as follows:

There was unrecognized stock-based compensation costs of $0.1 million related to nonvested restricted stock as of December 31, 2012. The Company expects to recognize those costs over a weighted-average period of 0.7 years as of December 31, 2012.

Restricted Stock Units—The Company awarded 82,000 and 140,000 restricted stock units (“RSUs”) to employees in the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively. The RSUs have vesting terms between 6 to 48 months. The weighted-average grant date fair value of RSUs granted was $10.66 and $23.56 for the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively. As of December 31, 2012, 84,833 shares of RSUs were vested and 137,167 shares of RSUs were unvested. Stock-based compensation expense was $1.5 million and $0.6 million for the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively, for RSUs. The Company had not issued RSUs prior to 2011, and therefore, there was no stock-based compensation expense recognized for RSUs in prior periods.

Performance-Based Restricted Stock Units—The Company granted 100,000 and 60,000 performance-based restricted stock units (“PSUs”) to employees in the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively. These PSUs vest contingent upon the achievement of pre-determined performance-based milestones. If the performance-based milestones are not met, the restricted stock units will not vest, in which case, any stock-based compensation expense recognized to date will be reversed. The weighted-average grant date fair value of performance-based restricted stock units granted in the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011 was $9.46 and $23.56, respectively. As of December 31, 2012, 45,000 shares of PSUs had vested and 115,000 shares of PSUs were unvested. Stock-based compensation expense related to PSUs was $0.8 million and $0.4 million for the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively. The Company had not issued PSUs prior to 2011, and therefore, there was no stock-based compensation expense recognized for PSUs in prior periods.

Stock Option Modification—In August 2011, the Company modified an employee’s stock options by accelerating the vesting of options and increasing the period to exercise options post-termination date. This modification resulted in the Company recording an additional $0.3 million of additional stock-based compensation expense in the year ended December 31, 2011.

In June 2010, the Company entered into a transaction with an executive placement group to provide recruiting services. As partial compensation for services rendered, the Company granted a warrant to purchase 5,000 shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $2.35 per share, the estimated fair value of the Company’s common stock at the time the warrant was granted. Prior to our initial public offering, this warrant was fully exercised in May 2011.

In May 2011, the Company granted Bunge Limited a warrant to purchase 1,000,000 shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $13.50 per share. During the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011, 750,000 and 0 of warrant shares, respectively, had vested. Refer to Note 7 and Note 10 for a description of the vesting terms and a discussion of the accounting for the warrant.

In January 2013, the Company granted ADM a warrant to purchase 500,000 shares of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $7.17 per share. The warrant will vest in equal monthly installments over five years, commencing from the start of commercial production. The warrant expires in January 2019. See Note 10 and Note 12.

In November 2008, the Company issued secured recourse Promissory Notes (“promissory notes”) totaling $1.5 million to the Company’s founders. These promissory notes, secured by 1,536,000 shares of the Company’s common stock under separate stock pledge agreements executed by the Company’s founders, bear interest at

2.97% per year over a period of five years. The number of shares held as collateral may be adjusted from time to time due to changes in the value of the Company’s common stock. As of December 31, 2010, amounts owed under these promissory notes, including accrued interest, totaled $1.6 million, was classified as notes receivable from stockholders, a reduction to stockholder’s equity (deficit). The principal amount of the notes and accrued interest of $1.6 million was fully repaid by the Company’s founders in March 2011.

The Company has incurred net operating losses for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010, and therefore has no provision for income taxes recorded for such years. The Company had federal and state net operating loss carryforwards of $128.0 million and $111.3 million as of December 31, 2012, respectively. Federal net operating loss carryforwards expire beginning in 2024 and state net operating loss carryforwards expire beginning in 2014, if not utilized. The Company had federal and state research and development tax credit carryforwards of $1.2 million and $1.3 million, respectively, as of December 31, 2012. The federal research and development tax credit carryforwards will expire starting in 2028 if not utilized. The state research and development tax credit carryforwards can be carried forward indefinitely.

Utilization of the net operating loss and research and development credit carryforwards may be subject to an annual limitation due to the ownership percentage change limitations provided by Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code and similar state provisions. The annual limitation may result in the expiration of the net operating losses and research and development credit carryforwards before utilization.

The components of loss before income taxes are as follows for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010 (in thousands):

The tax effects of temporary differences and carry forwards that give rise to significant portions of the deferred tax assets are as follows (in thousands):

The Company is tracking the portion of its deferred tax assets attributable to excess stock option benefits in accordance with FASB ASC 718-740-45, Other Presentation Matters, and therefore, these amounts are not included in the Company’s deferred tax assets. The deferred tax assets attributable to excess stock option benefits total $4.2 million at December 31, 2012, and the benefit related thereto will only be recognized when it reduces cash taxes payable.

The Company’s deferred tax assets represent an unrecognized future tax benefit. The Company has provided a full valuation allowance on its deferred tax assets as of December 31, 2012, as management believes it is more likely than not that the related deferred tax asset will not be realized. The net valuation allowance increased by $30.9 million and $18.5 million during the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively. At such time as it is determined that it is more likely than not that the deferred tax assets are realizable, the valuation allowance will be reduced. The reported amount of income tax expense differs from the amount that would result from applying the domestic federal statutory tax rate to pretax losses primarily because of changes in the valuation allowance.

Reconciling items from income tax computed at the statutory federal rate for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010, were as follows:

The Company adopted the provisions of FASB ASC 740, Income Taxes (“ASC 740”) on January 1, 2007. ASC 740 clarifies the accounting for uncertainty in income taxes recognized in an enterprise’s financial statements and prescribes a recognition threshold and measurement process for financial statement recognition and measurement of a tax position taken or expected to be taken in a tax return. ASC 740 also provides guidance on derecognition, classification, interest and penalties, accounting in interim periods, disclosure and transition. The Company did not have any gross unrecognized tax benefits upon adoption of this provision on January 1, 2007.

A reconciliation of the beginning and ending amount of unrecognized tax benefits is as follows (in thousands):

The Company’s policy is to include interest and penalties related to unrecognized tax benefits within the provision for income taxes. Management has determined that no accrual for interest and penalties was required as of December 31, 2012. The Company does not anticipate the total amounts of unrecognized tax benefits will significantly increase or decrease in the next twelve months.

The Company is subject to taxation in the U.S., various states and a foreign jurisdiction. As of December 31, 2012, the Company’s tax years 2004 and thereafter remain subject to examination by the tax authorities.

In January 2007, the Company adopted a 401(k) plan for its employees whereby eligible employees may contribute up to 90% of their compensation, on a pretax basis, subject to the maximum amount permitted by the Internal Revenue Code. The Company has not contributed to, nor is it required to contribute to, the 401(k) plan since its inception.

On January 24, 2013 the Company issued $125.0 million aggregate principal amount of 6.00% Convertible Senior Subordinated Notes due 2018 (the “Notes”), which amount includes the exercise in full of the over-allotment option granted to the initial purchaser of the Notes, in a private offering (the “Note Offering”) to qualified institutional buyers pursuant to Rule 144A under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”). The Notes bear interest at a fixed rate of 6.00% per year, payable semiannually in arrears on August 1 and February 1 of each year, beginning on August 1, 2013. The Notes are convertible into the Company’s common stock and may be settled as described below. The Notes will mature on February 1, 2018, unless earlier repurchased or converted. The Company may not redeem the Notes prior to maturity.

The net proceeds from the Note Offering were approximately $119.4 million, after deducting discounts to the initial purchaser and estimated offering expenses payable by the Company. The Company intends to use the net proceeds of the offering to fund project related costs and capital expenditures and for general corporate purposes.

The Notes are convertible at the option of the holders at any time prior to the close of business on the scheduled trading day immediately preceding February 1, 2018 into shares of the Company’s common stock at the then-applicable conversion rate. The conversion rate is initially 121.1240 shares of common stock per $1,000 principal amount of Notes (equivalent to an initial conversion price of approximately $8.26 per share of common stock). With respect to any conversion prior to November 1, 2016 (other than conversions in connection with certain fundamental changes where the Company may be required to increase the conversion rate as described below), in addition to the shares deliverable upon conversion, holders are entitled to receive an early conversion payment equal to $83.33 per $1,000 principal amount of Notes surrendered for conversion that may be settled, at the Company’s election, in cash or, subject to satisfaction of certain conditions, in shares of the Company’s common stock.

The Company issued the Notes pursuant to an indenture dated as of January 24, 2013 (the “Indenture”) by and between the Company and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as trustee. The Indenture provides for customary events of default, including cross acceleration to certain other indebtedness of the Company and its significant subsidiaries.

If the Company undergoes a fundamental change, holders may require the Company to repurchase for cash all or part of their Notes at a purchase price equal to 100% of the principal amount of the Notes to be repurchased, plus accrued and unpaid interest to, but excluding, the fundamental change repurchase date. In addition, if certain fundamental changes occur, the Company may be required in certain circumstances to increase the conversion rate for any Notes converted in connection with such fundamental changes by a specified number of shares of its common stock.

The Notes are the general unsecured obligations of the Company and will be subordinated in right of payment to its Senior Debt. The Notes will effectively rank junior in right of payment to any of the Company’s secured indebtedness to the extent of the value of the assets securing such indebtedness and be structurally junior to all indebtedness and other liabilities of the Company’s subsidiaries, including trade payables.

On February 6, 2013 the Company entered into a $20.0 million multi-year agreement with Mitsui & Co., Ltd to jointly develop a suite of triglyceride oils for use primarily in the oleochemical industry. Product development is expected to span a multi-year period, with periodic product introductions throughout the term of the joint development alliance. End use applications may include renewable, high-performance polymer additives for plastic applications, aviation lubricants, and toiletry and household products.

The following table provides the selected quarterly financial data for 2012 and 2011 (in thousands, except per share amounts):

Our management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, evaluated the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures as of December 31, 2012. The term “disclosure controls and procedures,” as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Exchange Act, means controls and other procedures of a company that are designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by us in the reports that we file or submit under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the SEC’s rules and forms. Disclosure controls and procedures include, without limitation, controls and procedures designed to ensure that information required to be disclosed by us in the reports that we file or submit under the Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated to our management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure. In designing and evaluating the disclosure controls and procedures, management recognizes that any controls and procedures, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable, and not absolute, assurance of achieving the desired objectives. In reaching a reasonable level of assurance, management necessarily applies its judgment in evaluating the cost-benefit relationship of possible controls and procedures. Based on this evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective as of December 31, 2012 at the reasonable assurance level.

Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting, as such term is defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f). Under the supervision and with the participation of our management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, we conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2012 based on the guidelines established in Internal Control—Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Our internal control over financial reporting includes policies and procedures that provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external reporting purposes in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

Based on the results of our evaluation, our management concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was effective as of December 31, 2012. We reviewed the results of management’s assessment with our Audit Committee.

There was no change in our internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) under the Exchange Act) that occurred during the quarterly period ended December 31, 2012 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

Our management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, believes that our disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting are designed to provide reasonable assurance of achieving their objectives and are effective at the reasonable assurance level. However, our management does not expect that our disclosure controls and procedures or our internal control over financial reporting will prevent all errors and all fraud. A control system, no matter how well conceived and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of the control system are met. Further, the

design of a control system must reflect the fact that there are resource constraints, and the benefits of controls must be considered relative to their costs. Because of the inherent limitations in all control systems, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that all control issues and instances of fraud, if any, have been detected. These inherent limitations include the realities that judgments in decision making can be faulty, and that breakdowns can occur because of a simple error or mistake. Additionally, controls can be circumvented by the individual acts of some persons, by collusion of two or more people or by management override of the controls. The design of any system of controls also is based in part upon certain assumptions about the likelihood of future events, and there can be no assurance that any design will succeed in achieving its stated goals under all potential future conditions; over time, controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or the degree of compliance with policies or procedures may deteriorate. Because of the inherent limitations in a cost effective control system, misstatements due to error or fraud may occur and not be detected.

The information required by this item concerning our directors, executive officers, compliance with Section 16 of the Exchange Act, our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee and Audit Committee is incorporated by reference from the information set forth in the sections under the headings “Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance” and “Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance” in our Definitive Proxy Statement to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Regulation 14A within 120 days after our fiscal year end of December 31, 2012 in connection with the Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be held in 2013 (the “2013 Proxy Statement”).

The information required by this item concerning executive compensation is incorporated by reference from the information in the 2012 Proxy Statement under the headings “Executive Compensation” and “Compensation Discussion and Analysis.”

The information required by this item concerning securities authorized for issuance under equity compensation plans and security ownership of certain beneficial owners and management is incorporated by reference from the information in the 2013 Proxy Statement under the headings “Equity Compensation Plan Information” and “Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Officers and Directors.”

The information required by this item concerning transactions with related persons and director independence is incorporated by reference from the information in the 2013 Proxy Statement under the headings “Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions” and “Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance.”

The information required by this item is incorporated by reference from the information in the 2013 Proxy Statement under the heading “Ratification of Appointment of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm—Fees Paid to Auditors.”

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.


		SOLAZYME, INC.

By:		/S/ JONATHAN S. WOLFSON
		Name: Jonathan S. Wolfson
		Title: Chief Executive Officer
		Date: March 13, 2013

Each person whose individual signature appears below hereby authorizes and appoints Jonathan S. Wolfson and Tyler W. Painter, and each of them, with full power of substitution and resubstitution and full power to act without the other, as his or her true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent to act in his or her name, place and stead and to execute in the name and on behalf of each person, individually and in each capacity stated below, and to file any and all amendments to this annual report on Form 10-K and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of them, full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing, ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and agents or any of them or their or his substitute or substitutes may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue thereof.

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed by the following persons on behalf of the registrant in the capacities and on the dates indicated.


Title of Each Class:		Name of Each Exchange on which Registered:
Common Stock, par value $0.001 per share		The NASDAQ Global Select Market


PART I
Item 1	–	Business	3
Item 1A	–	Risk Factors	23
Item 1B	–	Unresolved Staff Comments	50
Item 2	–	Properties	50
Item 3	–	Legal Proceedings	50
Item 4	–	Mine Safety Disclosures	50

PART II
Item 5	–	Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities	51
Item 6	–	Selected Financial Data	53
Item 7	–	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operation	54
Item 7A	–	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk	76
Item 8	–	Financial Statements and Supplementary Data	77
Item 9	–	Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosures	118
Item 9A	–	Controls and Procedures	118
Item 9B	–	Other Information	119

PART III
Item 10	–	Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance	120
Item 11	–	Executive Compensation	120
Item 12	–	Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters	120
Item 13	–	Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence	120
Item 14	–	Principal Accounting Fees and Services	120

PART IV
Item 15	–	Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules	121
Signatures			122


Markets	Total Addressable Market*	Examples of Solazyme Tailored Oils & Products
Chemicals & Fuels	$1.4T	Laurics, Oleics, Myristics, Soladiesel, Solajet
Nutrition	$100B	Oleics, Cocoa Butter Substitute, Myristics, Golden Chlorella, Almagine HP, Almagine HL
Skin & Personal Care	$50B	Algenist^®


Market Segment	Sample Application	Value Proposition
Oleochemicals	Surfactants	• Novel surfactants from natural sources • Improved margins to fatty alcohol producers • Logistically advantaged • Reduced processing steps • Sustainable source of renewable oil
Functional Fluids	Lubricants	• Enhanced oxidative stability • Meets food-grade standards with performance of mineral oil equivalents • Biodegradable • Sustainable source of renewable oil
Functional Fluids	Dielectric Fluids	• High flash point (>350°C) • High oxidative stability • Longer equipment protection (transformers) • Reduced clean-up and hazard risks • Sustainable source of renewable oil
Home and Personal Care	Bar and Liquid Soaps	• Enhances bar soap performance (reduced skin sensitivity, enhanced foaming, etc.) • Sustainable source of renewable oil


End Product	Industry Specifications Met	Solazyme’s Value Proposition versus Incumbent Fuels
Soladiesel_BD (fatty acid methyl ester (FAME))	• ASTM D6751 • EN 14214	• Better cold temperature properties than commercially available biodiesel based on planted seed crops
Soladiesel_RD (hydro-treated renewable diesel)	• ASTM D975 • EN 590	• Higher cetane ratings than petroleum based diesel, delivering more energy per liter
Soladiesel _HRD-76	• HRD76 (Hydroprocessed Renewable F-76 Marine Diesel)	• Largest supplier to the US Navy of in-spec, microbially-derived HRD76
Solajet_D7566 Solajet_HRJ-5	• ASTM D7566 • HRJ5 (Hydroprocessed Renewable JP-5 Navy Jet)	• First microbially-derived jet fuel to meet key specifications • First Turbine Fuel Containing Synthesized Hydrocarbons to be used in a commercial flight in the US. • Oil can be refined to meet other jet fuel specifications (HRJ8, JET A, JET A-1)


Fiscal 2011	High		Low
First Quarter	$	N/A	$	N/A
Second Quarter(1)		24.18		19.60
Third Quarter		27.47		9.22
Fourth Quarter		13.47		7.68

Fiscal 2012	High		Low
First Quarter	$	16.00	$	10.16
Second Quarter		16.31		9.40
Third Quarter		14.34		10.92
Fourth Quarter		11.59		6.45


	Year Ended December 31,
	2012			2011			2010			2009			2008
	(In thousands, except share and per share data)
Statement of Operations Data:
Total revenues	$	44,108		$	38,966		$	37,970		$	9,161		$	923

Cost of product revenue		5,311			2,420			—			—			—
Research and development		66,384			45,613			34,227			12,580			7,506
Sales, general and administrative		57,516			41,426			17,422			9,890			7,029

Total costs and operating expenses⁽¹⁾		129,211			89,459			51,649			22,470			14,535

Loss from operations		(85,103	)		(50,493	)		(13,679	)		(13,309	)		(13,612	)
Total other income (expense), net		1,971			(3,408	)		(2,601	)		(361	)		(1,181	)

Net loss		(83,132	)		(53,901	)		(16,280	)		(13,670	)		(14,793	)
Accretion of redeemable convertible preferred stock		—			(60	)		(140	)		(145	)		(60	)

Net loss attributable to Solazyme, Inc. common stockholders	$	(83,132	)	$	(53,961	)	$	(16,420	)	$	(13,815	)	$	(14,853	)

Basic and diluted net loss per share attributable to Solazyme, Inc. common stockholders⁽²⁾	$	(1.37	)	$	(1.35	)	$	(1.42	)	$	(1.38	)	$	(1.66	)

Shares used in computation of basic and diluted net loss per share⁽²⁾		60,509,048			39,934,013			11,540,494			10,030,495			8,938,145


	As of December 31,
	2012			2011			2010			2009			2008
	(In thousands)
Balance Sheet Data:
Cash and cash equivalents	$	30,818		$	28,780		$	32,497		$	19,845		$	29,046
Marketable securities		118,187			214,944			49,533			15,043			19,943
Working capital		140,341			229,681			73,152			29,693			42,979
Total assets		217,024			285,224			93,984			41,891			50,840
Indebtedness		14,968			20,252			229			—			3,881
Redeemable convertible preferred stock		—			—			128,313			68,459			65,322
Accumulated deficit		(189,928	)		(106,796	)		(52,835	)		(36,415	)		(22,599	)
Total stockholders’ equity (deficit)		183,311			240,558			(50,067	)		(36,164	)		(22,865	)


	December 31, 2012		December 31, 2011
	(In thousands)
Cash and cash equivalents	$	30,818	$	28,780
Marketable securities		118,187		214,944


	Total		2013		2014		2015		2016 and beyond
Principal payments on long term debt	$	14,987	$	7,350	$	3,921	$	3,716	$	—
Interest payments on long-term debt, fixed rate		888		494		299		95		—
Non-cancellable operating leases		8,006		5,101		2,681		224		—
Purchase obligations		393		393		—		—		—

Total	$	24,274	$	13,338	$	6,901	$	4,035	$	—


REPORTS OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM			78
Consolidated Balance Sheets			80
Consolidated Statements of Operations			81
Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Loss			82
Consolidated Statements of Redeemable Convertible Preferred Stock and Stockholders’ Equity (Deficit)			83
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows			86
Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements			87


	December 31,
	2012			2011
ASSETS
Current assets:
Cash and cash equivalents	$	30,818		$	28,780
Marketable securities		118,187			214,944
Accounts receivable		3,280			4,029
Unbilled revenues		3,150			3,889
Inventories		6,890			3,129
Prepaid expenses and other current assets		2,954			4,122

Total current assets		165,279			258,893
Property, plant and equipment, net		32,225			25,985
Investments in unconsolidated joint ventures		19,047			—
Other assets		473			346

Total assets	$	217,024		$	285,224

LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY
Current liabilities:
Accounts payable	$	7,552		$	11,525
Accrued liabilities		9,320			9,288
Current portion of long-term debt		7,331			5,289
Deferred revenue		292			3,014
Other current liabilities		443			96

Total current liabilities		24,938			29,212
Other liabilities		303			491
Warrant liability		835			—
Long-term debt		7,637			14,963

Total liabilities		33,713			44,666

Commitments and contingencies (Note 12)

Stockholders’ equity:
Preferred stock, par value $0.001—5,000,000 shares authorized at December 31, 2012 and 2011; 0 shares issued and outstanding at December 31, 2012 and 2011		—			—
Common stock, par value $0.001—150,000,000 shares authorized at December 31, 2012 and 2011; 61,000,724 and 59,908,138 shares issued and outstanding at December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively		61			60
Additional paid-in capital		373,577			348,083
Accumulated other comprehensive loss		(399	)		(789	)
Accumulated deficit		(189,928	)		(106,796	)

Total stockholders’ equity		183,311			240,558

Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity	$	217,024		$	285,224


	Redeemable Convertible Preferred Stock				Common Stock				Additional Paid-In Capital		Notes Receivable From Stockholders			Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss			Accumulated Deficit			Total Stockholders’ Equity (Deficit)
	Shares		Amount		Shares		Amount		Additional Paid-In Capital		Notes Receivable From Stockholders			Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss			Accumulated Deficit			Total Stockholders’ Equity (Deficit)
December 31, 2009		27,758,465	$	68,459		10,551,819	$	11	$	1,792	$	(1,552	)	$	—		$	(36,415	)	$	(36,164	)
Issuance of Series D redeemable convertible preferred stock at $8.86 per share, net of issuance costs of $286		6,775,660		59,714																	—
Issuance of common stock warrant for services rendered										6											6
Issuance of common stock upon exercise of stock options						1,354,021		1		643											644
Restricted stock issued related to employee bonus compensation						22,000				52											52
Restricted stock issued to nonemployees related to services performed						139,250				351											351
Stock-based compensation expense related to employees										690											690
Stock-based compensation expense related to nonemployees										859											859
Interest earned on shareholder promissory notes												(45	)								(45	)
Accretion of redeemable convertible preferred stock				140														(140	)		(140	)
Change in unrealized loss on available-for-sale securities															(40	)					(40	)
Net loss																		(16,280	)		(16,280	)

December 31, 2010		34,534,125		128,313		12,067,090		12		4,393		(1,597	)		(40	)		(52,835	)		(50,067	)


	Redeemable Convertible Preferred Stock						Common Stock				Additional Paid-In Capital		Notes Receivable From Stockholders			Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss			Accumulated Deficit			Total Stockholders’ Equity (Deficit)
	Shares			Amount			Shares		Amount		Additional Paid-In Capital		Notes Receivable From Stockholders			Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss			Accumulated Deficit			Total Stockholders’ Equity (Deficit)
December 31, 2010		34,534,125			128,313			12,067,090		12		4,393		(1,597	)		(40	)		(52,835	)		(50,067	)
Issuance of common stock to nonemployee for services rendered								2,000				16											16
Issuance of common stock upon exercise of stock options								844,800		1		865											866
Restricted stock issued to nonemployees related to services performed								42,583				547											547
Common stock issued pursuant to vesting of restricted stock units								23,332				318											318
Stock-based compensation expense related to employees												6,188											6,188
Stock-based compensation expense related to nonemployees												3,854											3,854
Interest earned on stockholder promissory notes														(4	)								(4	)
Accretion of redeemable convertible preferred stock					60															(60	)		(60	)
Payments received on notes receivable from stockholders														1,601									1,601
Stock issued for initial public offering, net of offering costs								12,021,250		12		196,928											196,940
Conversion of redeemable convertible preferred stock at initial public offering		(34,534,125	)		(128,373	)		34,534,125		35		128,339											128,374
Conversion of preferred stock warrant to redeemable convertible preferred stock at initial public offering		303,855																					—
Conversion of redeemable convertible preferred stock to common stock at initial public offering		(303,855	)					303,855															—
Exercise of preferred stock warrant and conversion to common stock								64,103				25											25
Conversion of convertible preferred stock warrant to common stock and common stock warrants												6,598											6,598
Exercise of common stock warrants								5,000				12											12
Change in unrealized loss on available-for-sale securities																	(276	)					(276	)
Foreign currency translation adjustment																	(473)						(473)
Net loss																				(53,901	)		(53,901	)

December 31, 2011		—			—			59,908,138		60		348,083		—			(789	)		(106,796	)		240,558


	Redeemable Convertible Preferred Stock				Common Stock				Additional Paid-In Capital		Notes Receivable From Stockholders		Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss			Accumulated Deficit			Total Stockholders’ Equity (Deficit)
	Shares		Amount		Shares		Amount		Additional Paid-In Capital		Notes Receivable From Stockholders		Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss			Accumulated Deficit			Total Stockholders’ Equity (Deficit)
December 31, 2011		—		—		59,908,138		60		348,083		—		(789	)		(106,796	)		240,558
Issuance of common stock to nonemployee for services rendered						20,000				221										221
Issuance of common stock upon exercise of stock options						846,608		1		1,736										1,737
Issuance of common stock pursuant to ESPP						115,980				1,161										1,161
Common stock issued pursuant to vesting of restricted stock units						64,998				1,561										1,561
Common stock issued pursuant to vesting of performance stock units						45,000														—
Stock-based compensation expense related to employees										11,629										11,629
Stock-based compensation expense related to nonemployees										1,944										1,944
Vesting of warrant shares issued for investment in unconsolidated joint venture										2,656										2,656
Reclassification of warrant liability to additional paid-in capital upon vesting of warrant shares issued for investment in unconsolidated joint venture										4,586										4,586
Change in unrealized loss on available-for-sale securities														642						642
Foreign currency translation adjustment														(252	)					(252	)
Net loss																	(83,132	)		(83,132	)

December 31, 2012		—	$	—		61,000,724	$	61	$	373,577	$	—	$	(399	)	$	(189,928	)	$	183,311


Asset classification		Estimated useful life
Plant equipment		5 – 20 years
Lab equipment		3 – 7 years
Leasehold improvements		Shorter of useful life or life of lease
Building and improvements		7 – 20 years
Computer equipment and software		3 – 7 years
Furniture and fixtures		5 – 7 years
Automobiles		5 years


	December 31, 2012
	Amortized Cost		Gross Unrealized Gain		Gross Unrealized Loss			Fair Value
Corporate bonds	$	49,545	$	203	$	(4	)	$	49,744
Government and agency securities		23,431		43		(27	)		23,447
Asset-backed securities		23,079		70		—			23,149
Mortgage-backed securities		12,064		40		(15	)		12,089
Commercial paper		1,200		—		—			1,200
Municipal bonds		6,273		13		—			6,286
Certificates of deposit		1,003		1		—			1,004
Floating rate notes		1,266		2		—			1,268

	$	117,861	$	372	$	(46	)	$	118,187


	December 31, 2011
	Amortized Cost		Gross Unrealized Gain		Gross Unrealized Loss			Fair Value
Corporate bonds	$	68,196	$	—	$	(209	)	$	67,987
Government and agency securities		60,602		—		(64	)		60,538
Asset-backed securities		37,130		—		(33	)		37,097
Commercial paper		22,266		5		—			22,271
Mortgage-backed securities		17,448		—		(24	)		17,424
Municipal bonds		7,200		14		—			7,214
Certificates of deposit		2,019		—		(3	)		2,016
Floating rate notes		327		—		(2	)		325
Collateralized mortgage obligations		72		—		—			72

	$	215,260	$	19	$	(335	)	$	214,944


	December 31, 2012				December 31, 2011
	Amortized Cost		Fair Value		Amortized Cost		Fair Value
Marketable securities
Due in 1 year or less	$	53,761	$	53,852	$	70,871	$	70,794
Due in 1-2 years		36,510		36,694		64,902		64,754
Due in 2-3 years		11,847		11,856		37,493		37,500
Due in 3-4 years		744		746		14,459		14,387
Due in 4-9 years		5,158		5,179		12,759		12,748
Due in 9-20 years		1,032		1,040		2,957		2,958
Due in 20-32 years		8,809		8,820		11,819		11,803

	$	117,861	$	118,187	$	215,260	$	214,944


	December 31, 2012
	Level 1		Level 2		Level 3		Total
Financial Assets
Cash equivalents	$	25,781	$	2,829	$	—	$	28,610
Marketable securities—available-for-sale		1,997		116,190		—		118,187

Total	$	27,778	$	119,019	$	—	$	146,797

Financial Liability								—

Warrant liability	$	—	$	—	$	835	$	835


Fair value at December 31, 2011	$	—
Fair value of warrant on measurement date		7,705
Change in fair value recorded as a gain from change in fair value of warrant liability		(2,284	)
Reclassification to additional paid-in capital upon vesting of warrants		(4,586	)

Fair value at December 31, 2012	$	835


Fair value at December 31, 2010	$	2,961
Change in fair value recorded as a loss from change in fair value of warrant liability		3,637
Conversion of preferred stock warrants to common stock or common stock warrants		(6,598	)

Fair value at December 31, 2011	$	—


	December 31, 2012		December 31, 2011
Raw materials	$	1,044	$	512
Work in process		4,963		2,439
Finished goods		883		178

Total inventories	$	6,890	$	3,129


	December 31, 2012		December 31, 2011
Accrued compensation and related liabilities	$	7,503	$	6,481
Accrued professional fees		474		1,864
Accrued contract manufacturing expense		—		162
Other accrued liabilities		1,343		781

Total accrued liabilities	$	9,320	$	9,288


	December 31, 2012			December 31, 2011
Peoria Facility note, due 2013	$	3,606		$	5,357
Equipment note, due 2015		129			179
Silicon Valley Bank term loan, due 2015		11,233			14,716

Subtotal		14,968			20,252
Less: current portion of debt		(7,331	)		(5,289	)

Total long-term debt	$	7,637		$	14,963


	December 31, 2012
Principal due in 2013	$	7,350
Principal due in 2014		3,921
Principal due in 2015		3,716

Subtotal		14,987
Less: imputed interest discount		(19	)

Total debt	$	14,968


Year ending December 31,
2013	$	5,101
2014		2,681
2015		224
2016 and thereafter		—

Total minimum lease payments	$	8,006


	Number of Options			Weighted Average Exercise Price		Weighted Average Remaining Contractual Term (in years)		Aggregate Intrinsic Value⁽¹⁾
								(in thousands)
Balance at December 31, 2011		8,410,765		$	6.76
Granted		2,488,574			11.06
Exercised		(805,827	)		2.08
Forfeited, cancelled or expired		(571,542	)		9.17

Balance at December 31, 2012		9,521,970		$	8.13		8.0	$	17,704

Options vested and exercisable at December 31, 2012		4,367,013		$	6.30		7.2	$	14,026

Options vested and expected to vest as of December 31, 2012		9,326,658		$	7.76			$	19,887


	Options Outstanding						Options Vested and Exercisable
Range of Exercise Prices	Number of Options		Weighted Average Exercise Price		Weighted Average Remaining Contractual Term (in years)		Number of Vested and Exercisable Options		Weighted Average Exercise Price		Weighted Average Remaining Contractual Term (in years)
$0.001–1.01		1,381,244	$	0.58		4.7		1,272,281	$	0.54		4.6
$2.35		1,181,704		2.35		7.5		753,440		2.35		7.5
$6.79–8.92		2,703,723		7.87		8.2		1,249,747		7.83		8.1
$9.37–11.59		2,628,609		10.89		9.1		551,766		11.10		9.1
$11.61–27.03		1,626,690		14.75		8.9		539,779		16.93		8.6

Totals		9,521,970		8.13		8.0		4,367,013		6.30		7.2


	Number of Shares			Weighted Average Grant Date Fair Value
Unvested at December 31, 2011		36,167			14.89
Granted		—			—
Vested		(23,497	)		14.46
Forfeited or cancelled		—			—

Unvested at December 31, 2012		12,670		$	15.68


	Years Ending December 31,
	2012			2011			2010
United States	$	(76,755	)	$	(50,655	)	$	(16,420	)
Foreign		(6,377	)		(3,306	)		—

Loss before income taxes	$	(83,132	)	$	(53,961	)	$	(16,420	)


	Years Ending December 31,
	2012			2011			2010
Federal income tax statutory rate		34.0	%		34.0	%		34.0	%
State income taxes, net of federal benefits		4.5			6.0			5.8
Revalued preferred stock warrants		0.9			(2.3	)		(6.5	)
Incentive stock option compensation		(1.9	)		(2.4	)		(1.1	)
Research tax credits		—			0.4			3.4
Other		(0.1	)		(0.1	)		(0.2	)
Valuation allowance		(37.4	)		(35.6	)		(35.4	)

Effective income tax rate		0.0	%		0.0	%		0.0	%


Balance as of January 1, 2010	$	265
Addition based on tax positions related to current year		218

Balance as of December 31, 2010		483
Addition based on tax positions related to current year		94
Subtractions based on tax positions related to prior year		(142	)

Balance as of December 31, 2011		435
Addition based on tax positions related to current year		89
Additions based on tax positions related to prior year		95

Balance as of December 31, 2012	$	619


	Quarter Ended
	December 31, 2012			September 30, 2012			June 30, 2012			March 31, 2012			December 31, 2011			September 30, 2011			June 30, 2011			March 31, 2011
Revenues:
Research and development programs	$	3,811		$	4,810		$	9,468		$	9,560		$	8,251		$	7,051		$	6,092		$	5,399
Product revenue		4,613			3,773			4,077			3,996			1,638			1,886			1,306			2,343
License fees		—			—			—			—			5,000			—			—			—

Total revenues		8,424			8,583			13,545			13,556			14,889			8,937			7,398			7,742

Costs and operating expenses:
Cost of product revenue		1,404			1,331			1,330			1,246			828			554			374			664
Research and development		16,108			16,534			18,381			15,361			16,921			10,866			9,676			8,150
Sales, general and administrative		15,888			13,849			13,723			14,056			12,835			11,527			10,955			6,109

Total costs and operating expenses		33,400			31,714			33,434			30,663			30,584			22,947			21,005			14,923

Loss from operations		(24,976	)		(23,131	)		(19,889	)		(17,107	)		(15,695	)		(14,010	)		(13,607	)		(7,181	)
Other income (expense):
Interest and other income (expense), net		249			626			309			327			114			(76	)		(184	)		375
Loss from equity method investment		(631	)		(683	)		(510	)		—			—			—			—			—
Gain (loss) from change in fair value of warrant liability		748			685			851			—			—			—			(3,154	)		(483	)

Total other income (expense)		366			628			650			327			114			(76	)		(3,338	)		(108	)

Net loss		(24,610	)		(22,503	)		(19,239	)		(16,780	)		(15,581	)		(14,086	)		(16,945	)		(7,289	)
Accretion of redeemable convertible preferred stock		—			—			—			—			—			—			(24	)		(36	)

Net loss attributable to Solazyme, Inc. common stockholders	$	(24,610	)	$	(22,503	)	$	(19,239	)	$	(16,780	)	$	(15,581	)	$	(14,086	)	$	(16,969	)	$	(7,325	)

Net loss per share attributable to Solazyme, Inc. common stockholders:
Basic and diluted	$	(0.40	)	$	(0.37	)	$	(0.32	)	$	(0.28	)	$	(0.26	)	$	(0.24	)	$	(0.61	)	$	(0.60	)

Weighted-average number of shares used in loss per share computation:
Basic and diluted		60,873			60,678			60,378			60,101			59,703			59,508			27,673			12,160