Form 10-Q

Large accelerated filer

Accelerated filer

Non-accelerated filer

x (Do not check if a smaller reporting company)

Smaller reporting company

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 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 (Section 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 whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act:

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

As of March 31, 2012, 26,758,924 shares of the registrant’s common stock were outstanding.

Nature of Business—Gevo, Inc. (together with its subsidiaries, “Gevo” or the “Company”) is a renewable chemicals and next generation biofuels company focused on the development and commercialization of alternatives to petroleum-based products based on isobutanol produced from renewable feedstocks. Gevo, Inc. was incorporated in Delaware on June 9, 2005 (“Inception”). Gevo, Inc. formed Gevo Development, LLC (“Gevo Development”) on September 18, 2009 to finance and develop biorefineries through joint venture, tolling arrangements or direct acquisition (Note 9). Gevo Development became a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company on September 22, 2010. Gevo Development purchased Agri-Energy, LLC (“Agri-Energy”) on September 22, 2010. Agri-Energy, a wholly owned subsidiary of Gevo Development, is currently engaged in the business of producing and selling ethanol and related products produced at its ethanol plant located in Luverne, Minnesota (the “Agri-Energy Facility”). The Company is currently retrofitting the Agri-Energy Facility to the production of isobutanol which is expected to be completed by June 30, 2012.

At March 31, 2012, the Company is considered to be in the development stage as its primary activities, since incorporation, have been conducting research and development, business development, business and financial planning, establishing its facilities, recruiting personnel and raising capital. Successful completion of the Company’s research and development programs, and ultimately, the attainment of profitable operations are dependent upon future events, including completion of its development activities resulting in sales of isobutanol or isobutanol-derived products and/or technology, obtaining adequate financing to complete its development activities, obtaining adequate financing to acquire access to and complete the retrofit of ethanol plants to isobutanol production, gaining market acceptance and demand for its products and services, and attracting and retaining qualified personnel.

Following the Company’s acquisition of Agri-Energy on September 22, 2010, the Company began recording revenue from the sale of ethanol and related products. Because the production of ethanol is not the Company’s intended business, the Company will continue to report as a development stage company until it begins to generate revenue from the sale of isobutanol or other products that are or will become the Company’s intended business.

Financial Condition—The Company’s unaudited consolidated financial statements have been prepared on a going concern basis, which contemplates the realization of assets and the satisfaction of liabilities in the normal course of business. For the three months ended March 31, 2012, the Company incurred a consolidated net loss of $19.3 million and had an accumulated deficit of $153.9 million. The Company expects to incur future net losses as it continues to fund the development and commercialization of its product candidates.

The Company has funded its activities since inception primarily through private placements of convertible preferred stock, the issuance of convertible and nonconvertible debt and proceeds raised through its initial public offering. The Company expects to obtain funding through additional equity offerings and issuance of debt until it achieves positive cash flow from operations. The Company’s cash and cash equivalents at March 31, 2012 totaled $73.6 million. Management expects that cash on hand at March 31, 2012, combined with anticipated funding from future financings, will provide the Company with adequate funding for at least the next 12 months. In anticipation of future financings, the Company has filed a Form S-3, as amended, with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) which is pending SEC approval. There are no assurances that the Company will be able to raise additional funds, or achieve or sustain profitability or positive cash flow from operations. The accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that may result from the Company’s inability to raise sufficient funds or achieve profitability.

Basis of Presentation—The unaudited consolidated financial statements of the Company (which includes the accounts of its wholly owned subsidiaries Gevo Development and Agri-Energy) have been prepared, without audit, pursuant to the rules and regulations of the SEC. Accordingly, they do not include all information and footnotes required by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America for complete financial statements. These statements reflect all normal and recurring adjustments which, in the opinion of management, are necessary to present fairly the financial position, results of operations and cash flows of the Company at March 31, 2012 and for all periods presented. These statements should be read in conjunction with the Company’s consolidated financial statements and notes thereto included under the heading “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data” in Part II, Item 8 of the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011, as amended (the “Annual Report”).

The consolidated statements of operations for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and consolidated statements of cash flows for the three months ended March 31, 2012 are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected for the full year. Refer to the economic conditions described under the heading “Risk Factors” in Part II, Item 1A of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q and “Risk Factors Relating to our Business and Strategy” in Part I, Item 1A of the Company’s Annual Report.

Basic net loss per share is computed by dividing the net loss attributable to Gevo, Inc. common stockholders for the period by the weighted-average number of common shares outstanding during the period. Diluted net loss per share is computed by dividing net loss attributable to Gevo, Inc. common stockholders for the period by the weighted-average number of dilutive common shares outstanding during the period. Dilutive shares outstanding are calculated by adding to the weighted shares outstanding any potential (unissued) shares of common stock and warrants based on the treasury stock method.

Diluted net loss per share is the same as basic net loss per share for all periods presented because any potentially dilutive common shares were anti-dilutive. Such potentially dilutive shares are excluded from the computation of diluted net loss per share when the effect would be to reduce net loss per share. Therefore, in periods when a loss is reported, the calculation of basic and dilutive net loss per share results in the same value.

The table below sets forth potentially dilutive securities that are excluded from the calculation of diluted net loss per share during each period as the effect was anti-dilutive.

The following table sets forth the components of the Company’s inventory balances (in thousands).

Included in cost of goods sold is depreciation of $0.5 million, $0.5 million and $3.1 million during the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011 and from Inception to March 31, 2012, respectively.

The following table sets forth the Company’s property, plant and equipment by classification (in thousands).

The Company is currently capitalizing interest incurred associated with the retrofit of the Agri-Energy Facility. The Company capitalized $0.3 million of incurred interest during the three months ended March 31, 2012. Incurred interest that was capitalized during the three months ended March 31, 2011 was not material.

Since the acquisition of Agri-Energy on September 22, 2010, the Company’s activities expose it to a variety of market risks, including the effects of changes in commodity prices. These financial exposures are monitored and managed by the Company as an integral part of its overall risk management program. The Company’s risk management program focuses on the unpredictability of financial and commodities markets and seeks to reduce the potentially adverse effects that the volatility of these markets may have on its operating results.

The Company periodically enters into forward purchase contracts for corn to ensure supply and manage the price of this commodity. These transactions are considered to be derivatives and during the year ended December 31, 2011 the Company designated all of its forward purchase contracts for corn under the normal purchase and normal sales scope exception and therefore they were not marked to market during the three months ended March 31, 2011. For new contracts entered into beginning January 1, 2012, the Company did not apply the normal purchase and normal sales scope exception to its forward purchase contracts. Accordingly at March 31, 2012 the Company recorded these contracts at their fair market value which has been included as a component of derivative asset or liability in the consolidated balance sheet. Changes in the fair market value during the three months ended March 31, 2012 have been recorded in cost of goods sold in the consolidated statements of operations.

The Company generally follows a policy of using exchange-traded futures contracts to reduce its net position in agricultural commodity inventories and forward cash purchase contracts to reduce price risk. Exchange-traded futures contracts are valued at market price and are recorded as a derivative asset or liability in the consolidated balance sheet. Changes in market price are recorded in cost of goods sold.

The Company’s derivatives do not include any credit risk related contingent features. At March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the Company had $0.4 million and $0.5 million, respectively, in a margin deposit account for its exchange-traded futures contracts. The Company has not designated any of its derivatives as hedges for financial accounting purposes.

Realized losses on the Company’s exchange-traded futures contracts were not material during the three months ended March 31, 2012. The Company incurred realized losses of $0.8 million and $0.5 million on its exchange-traded futures contracts for the three months ended March 31, 2011 and from Inception to March 31, 2012, respectively, which have been recorded in cost of goods sold.

The following table summarizes the unrealized gains/(losses) of the Company’s derivative instruments that were recorded in cost of goods sold in the consolidated statements of operations (in thousands).

The following table represents the Company’s net short positions of the Company’s derivative instruments (in thousands).

Accounts payable and accrued liabilities in the consolidated balance sheets at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011 consisted of the following (in thousands).

In January 2012, the Company’s wholly owned subsidiary, Agri-Energy, borrowed $5.0 million under its amended and restated loan and security agreement (the “Amended Agri-Energy Loan Agreement”) with TriplePoint Capital LLC (“TriplePoint”). The loan, which matures in January 2016, bears an interest rate of 11%. The loan provides for interest-only payments through July 2012 and an additional interest-only period of six months may be elected in the event that the Company has received net offering proceeds of at least $75.0 million from one or more secondary equity offerings by June 30, 2012. The Amended Agri-Energy Loan Agreement includes customary affirmative and negative covenants for agreements of this type and events of default. At March 31, 2012, the Company was in compliance with the financial covenants under the Amended Agri-Energy Loan Agreement.

The following table sets forth the information pertaining to the Company’s secured long-term debt included in the Company’s consolidated balance sheets (in thousands).

International Off-Take and Distribution Agreement with Sasol—On July 29, 2011, the Company and Sasol Chemical Industries Limited (“Sasol”) entered into an international off-take agreement to market and distribute renewable isobutanol globally. The agreement has an initial term of three years and appoints Sasol as a non-exclusive distributor of high-purity isobutanol in North and South America and as the exclusive distributor for high-purity isobutanol for solvent and chemical intermediate applications in the rest of the world. Beginning upon the Company’s first commercial sale of high-purity isobutanol, if Sasol desires to maintain its exclusive distribution rights, Sasol is obligated to either purchase certain minimum quantities of high-purity isobutanol or pay the Company applicable shortfall fees and the Company is obligated to either supply Sasol with certain minimum quantities of high-purity isobutanol or pay Sasol applicable shortfall fees. No amounts have been recorded under this agreement as of March 31, 2012.

Exclusive Supply Agreement with LANXESS—On January 14, 2011, the Company entered into an exclusive supply agreement, as amended, with LANXESS Inc. (“LANXESS”) pursuant to which LANXESS has granted the Company an exclusive first right to supply LANXESS and its affiliates with certain of their requirements for biobased isobutanol during the term of the agreement. The Company’s exclusive first right to supply biobased isobutanol to LANXESS and its affiliates will be subject to the terms of a supply agreement to be mutually agreed upon by the parties at a later date. Additionally, pursuant to the terms of the exclusive supply agreement the Company has granted LANXESS, subject to certain exceptions and conditions, (i) an exclusive first right to acquire its biobased isobutanol to produce isobutylene and butenes for use and sale in the field of chemicals, and (ii) an exclusive right to use the Company’s isobutanol to produce butadiene and isobutylene for use in the production of polybutadiene and butyl rubber. The initial term of the mutual exclusivity is ten years, subject to mutual extension. No costs have been incurred under this agreement as of March 31, 2012.

Off-Take and Marketing Alliance Agreement and Renewable Fuels Supply Chain Agreement with Mansfield Oil Company—On August 12, 2011, the Company entered into a commercial off-take agreement with Mansfield Oil Company (“Mansfield”), to distribute isobutanol-based fuel into the petroleum market. The agreement allows Mansfield to blend the Company’s isobutanol for its own use, and to be a distributor of the Company’s isobutanol for a term of five years. The Company also entered into a three-year supply services agreement with C&N, a Mansfield subsidiary, which will provide supply chain services including logistics management, customer service support, invoicing and billing services. No amounts have been recorded under these agreements as of March 31, 2012.

Ethanol Marketing Agreement with C&N, a subsidiary of Mansfield Oil Company—Substantially all ethanol sold through Agri-Energy from the date of acquisition through March 31, 2012 was sold to C&N pursuant to an ethanol purchase and marketing agreement. The ethanol purchase and marketing agreement with C&N was entered into on April 1, 2009 and automatically renews for subsequent one-year terms unless either party terminates the agreement 60 days before the end of a term. Under the terms of the agreement, C&N will market substantially all of Agri-Energy’s ethanol production from the Agri-Energy Facility and will pay to Agri-Energy the gross sales price paid by the end customer less expenses and a marketing fee.

Jet Fuel Supply Agreement with the Defense Logistics Agency (U.S. Air Force)—During September 2011, the Company was awarded a contract for the procurement of up to 11,000 gallons of biojet fuel for the purposes of certification and testing by the U.S. Air Force. The total contract value may be up to $0.6 million. The term of the agreement is through December 30, 2012. Revenue is recognized upon the transfer of risk of loss and title to the U.S. Air Force. The Company recorded $0.2 million of revenue under this award during the three months ended March 31, 2012.

Development and Commercialization Agreements with ICM, Inc.—In October 2008, the Company signed development and commercialization agreements with ICM, Inc. (“ICM”).

Under the terms of the development agreement, the Company performs commercial-scale isobutanol production trials in ICM’s research plant and facility in St. Joseph, Missouri, the demonstration plant. The Company is required to pay for or reimburse ICM for engineering fees, equipment, plant modification costs, project fees and various operating expenses. The development agreement, as amended, was effective through December 31, 2011. In December 2011, the development agreement was amended a second time to extend the term indefinitely. The development agreement, as amended, may be cancelled by either party with 30 days’ written notice. The Company did not incur any capital expenditures with ICM relating to the demonstration plant during the three months ended March 31, 2012. During the three months ended March 31, 2011, the Company incurred $0.3 million in capital expenditures with ICM relating to the demonstration plant.

The commercialization agreement, as amended, is effective through October 15, 2018, and outlines the terms and fees under which ICM acts as the Company’s exclusive provider of certain engineering and construction services. Also, under the commercialization agreement, the Company is ICM’s exclusive technology partner for the production of butanols, pentanols and propanols from the fermentation of sugars.

In addition to amounts recorded under the development and commercialization agreements noted above, the Company has also engaged ICM to perform engineering studies, plant evaluations and other services. In August 2011, the Company entered into a work agreement with ICM whereby ICM will provide engineering, procurement and construction services for the retrofit of ethanol plants.

During the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011, the Company incurred $9.1 million and $0.3 million, respectively, in capital expenditures with ICM relating to the retrofit of the Agri-Energy Facility to future isobutanol production, which amounts are recorded within construction in progress on the Company’s consolidated balance sheets.

Joint Research, Development, License and Commercialization Agreement with The Coca-Cola Company —During November 2011, the Company entered into a joint research, development, license and commercialization agreement with The Coca-Cola Company (“Coca-Cola”). During the first two years of the agreement, Coca-Cola will pay the Company a fixed price fee for a research program as defined in the agreement. The Company recognizes these fees as revenue over the performance period. The payments received are not refundable. The Company recognized $0.3 million of revenue under this agreement during the three months ended March 31, 2012.

License Agreement with Cargill, Incorporated—During February 2009, the Company entered into a license agreement with Cargill, Incorporated (“Cargill”) to obtain certain biological materials and license patent rights to use a biocatalyst owned by Cargill. Under the license agreement, Cargill has granted the Company an exclusive, royalty-bearing license, with limited rights to sublicense, to use the patent rights in a certain field, as defined in the license agreement.

The license agreement contains five milestone payments totaling approximately $4.3 million that are payable after each milestone is completed. During 2009, two milestones were completed and the Company recorded the related milestone amounts, along with an up-front signing fee, totaling $0.9 million, to research and development expense. During March 2010, the Company completed milestone number three and recorded the related milestone amount of $2.0 million to research and development expense at its then-current present value of $1.6 million because the milestone payment will be paid over a period greater than 12 months from the date that it was incurred. Milestones number four and five included in the license agreement representing potential payments of up to $1.5 million have not been met as of March 31, 2012 and no amounts have been recorded as a liability for these milestones.

Upon commercialization of a product which uses Cargill’s biological material or is otherwise covered by the patent rights under the license agreement, a royalty based on net sales is payable by the Company, subject to a minimum royalty amount per year, as defined in the license agreement, and up to a maximum amount per year.

The license agreement provides an option for Cargill to purchase a nonexclusive, royalty-bearing license for the use of a Company biocatalyst that utilizes the Cargill biological material or licensed patents for a royalty rate equal to the lowest rate offered to any third party.

The Company may terminate the license agreement at any time upon 90 days’ written notice. Unless terminated earlier, the license agreement remains in effect until the later of December 31, 2025 and the date that no licensed patent rights remain.

Within its research and development activities, the Company routinely enters into research and license agreements with various entities. Future royalty payments may apply under these license agreements if the technologies are used in future commercial products. In addition, the Company may from time to time make gifts to universities and other organizations to expand research activities in its fields of interest. Any amounts paid under these agreements are generally recorded as research and development expenses as incurred.

The Company has been awarded grants or cooperative agreements from a number of government agencies, including the U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. National Science Foundation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Army Research Labs and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Revenues recorded related to these grants and cooperative agreements are recorded within grant and research and development program revenue on the Company’s statements of operations.

Gevo, Inc. formed Gevo Development on September 18, 2009 to finance and develop biorefineries through joint venture, tolling arrangements or direct acquisition. Biorefinery plants accessed through Gevo Development are intended to be retrofitted using Gevo, Inc.’s integrated fermentation technology to produce isobutanol.

Gevo, Inc. currently owns 100% of the outstanding equity interests of Gevo Development as a wholly owned subsidiary. Gevo Development has two classes of membership interests outstanding. Gevo, Inc. is the sole owner of the class A interests. Prior to September 22, 2010, CDP Gevo, LLC (“CDP”), was the sole owner of the class B interests, which comprise 10% of the outstanding equity interests of Gevo Development. In September 2010, Gevo, Inc. became the sole owner of Gevo Development by acquiring 100% of the class B interests in Gevo Development from CDP pursuant to an equity purchase agreement. In exchange for the class B interests, CDP received aggregate consideration of $1.1 million.

The original issuance of the class B interests was considered to be a grant of non-employee stock-based compensation. As vesting of the awards was dependent on counterparty performance conditions (the acquisition and retrofit of a biorefinery plant), no compensation expense had been recorded prior to September 22, 2010 because the lowest aggregate fair value of the awards was zero. Upon the purchase of the class B interests on September 22, 2010, the Company recorded stock-based compensation of $0.8 million, which reflected the amount paid during 2010 for the class B interests that were not dependent on counterparty performance. The Company paid $0.1 million during each of the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011. The final payment of $0.1 million made in January 2012 was dependent on the continued employment of the two co-managing directors of Gevo Development. The employment of the co-managing directors was terminated effective March 23, 2012 (refer to the Amended and Restated Warrant Agreement below).

For the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011 and for the period from September 18, 2009 (formation date of Gevo Development) to March 31, 2012, Gevo, Inc. made capital contributions of $0.2 million, $1.9 million and $24.5 million, respectively, to Gevo Development.

For the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011 and for the period from September 18, 2009 (formation date of Gevo Development) to March 31, 2012, Gevo Development (including Agri-Energy after September 22, 2010, the closing date of the acquisition) incurred a net loss of $1.8 million, $0.9 million and $5.6 million, respectively, which has been fully allocated to Gevo, Inc.’s capital contribution account based upon its capital contributions (for the period prior to September 22, 2010) and 100% ownership (for the period after September 22, 2010).

Amended and Restated Warrant Agreement— The warrant agreement, as amended, details the terms upon which the Company has granted a warrant to CDP to purchase 858,000 shares of Gevo, Inc. common stock. The warrant agreement has an exercise price of $2.70 per share which was the estimated fair value of a share of Gevo, Inc.’s common stock on the grant date. The warrant expires in September 2016, unless terminated earlier as provided in the agreement. The warrant shares were initially unvested and vested in increments upon the achievement of specific performance milestones.

On September 22, 2010, the beneficial owners of the equity interests of CDP became employees of Gevo, Inc. and the warrant agreement was amended and restated to provide that 50% of the warrant shares granted under such warrant agreement would vest on September 22, 2010. The remaining warrant shares vest over a two-year period beginning on September 22, 2010, subject to acceleration and termination in certain circumstances. The Company valued the warrant at $14.0 million. Effective March 23, 2012, the employment of the beneficial owners of CDP was terminated. Pursuant to the terms of the warrant agreement, all unvested warrant shares became immediately vested and, as such, the Company recorded $2.6 million of stock-based compensation expense during the three months ended March 31, 2012. During the three months ended March 31, 2011, the Company recorded $0.9 million of stock-based compensation associated with this warrant agreement.

Since its formation, Gevo Development has been and continues to be considered a variable interest entity. Gevo, Inc., the primary beneficiary of Gevo Development, has both (i) the power to direct the activities of Gevo Development that most significantly impact Gevo Development’s economic performance and (ii) the obligation to absorb losses of Gevo Development that could potentially be significant to Gevo Development or the right to receive benefits from Gevo Development that could potentially be significant to Gevo Development. As such, Gevo Development is consolidated. The accounts of Agri-Energy are consolidated within Gevo Development as a wholly owned subsidiary. As of March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, Gevo Development does not have any assets that can be used only to settle obligations of Gevo Development. However, under the terms of Agri-Energy’s loan and security agreement with TriplePoint, as amended, subject to certain limited exceptions, Agri-Energy is only permitted to pay dividends if certain conditions are satisfied. As of March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the creditors of Gevo Development have recourse to the general credit of Gevo, Inc. with the exception of $2.6 million and $4.5 million, respectively, which are recorded within current liabilities, which includes the liabilities of Agri-Energy. No gain or loss was recognized by the Company upon the initial consolidation of Gevo Development.

On June 15, 2011, Gevo Development entered into an isobutanol joint venture agreement (the “Joint Venture Agreement”) with Redfield Energy, LLC, a South Dakota limited liability company (“Redfield”), and executed the second amended and restated operating agreement of Redfield (together, the “Joint Venture Documents”). Under the terms of the Joint Venture Documents, Gevo Development and Redfield have agreed to work together to retrofit Redfield’s approximately 50 million gallon per year ethanol production facility located near Redfield, South Dakota (the “Redfield Facility”) for the commercial production of isobutanol. Under the terms of the Joint Venture Agreement, Redfield has issued 100 Class G membership units in Redfield (the “Class G Units”) to Gevo Development. Gevo Development is the sole holder of Class G units, which entitle Gevo Development to certain information and governance rights with respect to Redfield, including the right to appoint two members of Redfield’s 11-member board of managers. The Class G units currently carry no interest in the allocation of profits, losses or other distributions of Redfield and no voting rights. Such rights will vest upon the commencement of commercial isobutanol production at the Redfield Facility, at which time Gevo Development anticipates consolidating Redfield’s operations because Gevo anticipates it will control the activities that are most significant to the entity.

Gevo Development will be responsible for all costs associated with the retrofit of the Redfield Facility. Redfield will remain responsible for certain expenses incurred by the facility including certain repair and maintenance expenses and any costs necessary to ensure that the facility is in compliance with applicable environmental laws. The Company anticipates that the Redfield Facility will continue its current ethanol production activities during much of the retrofit. Once the retrofit assets have been installed, the ethanol production operations will be suspended to enable testing of the isobutanol production capabilities of the facility (the “Performance Testing Phase”). During the Performance Testing Phase, Gevo Development will be entitled to receive all revenue generated by the

Redfield Facility and will make payments to Redfield to cover the costs incurred by Redfield to operate the facility plus the profits, if any, that Redfield would have received if the facility had been producing ethanol during that period (the “Facility Payments”). Gevo Development has also agreed to maintain an escrow fund during the Performance Testing Phase as security for its obligation to make the Facility Payments.

If certain conditions are met, commercial production of isobutanol at the Redfield Facility will begin upon the earlier of the date upon which certain production targets have been met or the date upon which the parties mutually agree that commercial isobutanol production at the Redfield Facility will be commercially viable at the then-current production rate. At that time, (i) Gevo Development will have the right to appoint a total of four members of Redfield’s 11-member board of managers, and (ii) the voting and economic interests of the Class G units will vest and Gevo Development, as the sole holder of the Class G Units, will be entitled to a percentage of Redfield’s profits, losses and distributions, to be calculated based upon the demonstrated isobutanol production capabilities of the Redfield Facility.

Gevo Development, or one of its affiliates, will be the exclusive marketer of all products produced by the Redfield Facility once commercial production of isobutanol has begun. Additionally, Gevo, Inc. will license the technology necessary to produce isobutanol at the Redfield Facility to Redfield, subject to the continuation of the marketing arrangement described above. In the event that the isobutanol production technology fails or Redfield is permanently prohibited from using such technology, Gevo Development will forfeit the Class G Units and lose the value of its investment in Redfield.

Gevo, Inc. entered into a guaranty effective as of June 15, 2011, pursuant to which it has unconditionally and irrevocably guaranteed the payment by Gevo Development of any and all amounts owed by Gevo Development pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Joint Venture Agreement and certain other agreements that Gevo Development and Redfield expect to enter into in connection with the retrofit of the Redfield Facility.

The Company has begun the project engineering and permitting process of the Redfield retrofit. As of March 31, 2012, the Company has incurred $0.1 million in costs for the retrofit of the Redfield Facility which have been recorded on the Company’s consolidated balance sheet in deposits and other assets.

The Company records expense during the vesting period for share-based payment awards granted to employees and non-employees. The following table sets forth the Company’s stock-based compensation expense (in thousands).

The Company currently grants share-based payment awards under the Gevo, Inc. 2010 Stock Incentive Plan (“2010 Plan”) which was approved by its stockholders in February 2011. The Company has reserved 2,576,989 shares of common stock for issuance under the 2010 Plan and there were 1,080,870 shares and 1,665,802 shares available for grant as of March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively.

Legal Matters – On January 14, 2011, Butamax Advanced Biofuels LLC (“Butamax”), a joint venture between BP Biofuels North America LLC and E. I. DuPont de Nemours and Co. (“DuPont”), filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, as Case No. 1:11-cv-00054-SLR, alleging that the Company is infringing one or more claims made in U.S. Patent No. 7,851,188 (the “’188 Patent”), entitled “Fermentive Production of Four Carbon Alcohols.” The ’188 Patent, which has been assigned to Butamax, claims certain recombinant microbial host cells that produce isobutanol and methods for the production of isobutanol using such host cells. Butamax is seeking a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, damages and costs, including attorney’s fees and expenses. On March 25, 2011, the Company filed a response to the Complaint, denying Butamax’s allegations of infringement and raising affirmative defenses.

On August 11, 2011, Butamax amended the Complaint to include allegations that the Company is infringing one or more claims made in U.S. Patent No. 7,993,889 (the “’889 Patent”), also entitled “Fermentive Production of Four Carbon Alcohols” (the “Amended Complaint”). The ’889 Patent, which has been assigned to Butamax, claims methods for producing isobutanol using certain recombinant yeast microorganisms expressing an engineered isobutanol biosynthetic pathway. On September 22, 2011, Butamax filed a motion requesting a preliminary injunction with respect to the alleged infringement of the ’899 Patent. The Company believes that the Amended Complaint is without merit and will continue to aggressively defend its freedom to operate.

On September 13, 2011, the Company filed an answer to the Amended Complaint in which the Company asserted counterclaims against Butamax and DuPont for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,017,375, entitled “Yeast Organism Producing Isobutanol at a High Yield” and U.S. Patent No. 8,017,376, entitled “Methods of Increasing Dihydroxy Acid Dehydratase Activity to Improve Production of Fuels, Chemicals, and Amino Acids,” both of which were recently awarded to the Company by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The counterclaim seeks a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, damages and costs, including attorney’s fees and expenses.

On January 24, 2012, the Company filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, as Case No. 1:12-cv-00070-SLR, alleging that Butamax and DuPont are infringing one or more claims made in U.S. Patent No. 8,101,808 (the “’808 Patent”) entitled “Recovery of Higher Alcohols from Dilute Aqueous Solutions.” The ’808 Patent claims methods to produce a C3-C6 alcohol—for example, isobutanol—through fermentation and to recover that alcohol from the fermentation medium. The Company is seeking a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, damages and costs, including attorney’s fees and expenses.

On March 12, 2012, Butamax filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, as Case No. 1:12-cv-00298-SLR, alleging that the Company is infringing one or more claims made in U.S. Patent No. 8,129,162, entitled “Ketol-Acid Reductoisomerase Using NADH.” This complaint is in addition to the Amended Complaint discussed above. Butamax is seeking a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, damages, interest, costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to these claims and intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit.

On March 13, 2012, the Company filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, as Case No. 1:12-cv-00301-SLR, alleging that Butamax and DuPont are infringing U.S. Patent No. 8,133,715, entitled “Reduced By-Product Accumulation for Improved Production of Isobutanol” (the “’715 Patent”). The ’715 Patent claims recombinant microorganisms, including yeast, with modifications for the improved production of isobutanol. The Company is seeking a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, damages and costs, including attorney’s fees and expenses.

On April 10, 2012, the Company filed a complaint (the “Gevo Complaint”) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, as Case No. 1:12-cv-00448-SLR, alleging that Butamax and DuPont are infringing one or more claims made in U.S. Patent No. 8,153,415 (the “’415 Patent”) entitled “Reduced By-Product Accumulation for Improved Production of Isobutanol.” The ’415 Patent claims technology which eliminates two pathways that compete for isobutanol pathway intermediates in yeast. The Company is seeking a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, damages and costs, including attorney’s fees and expenses.

On April 17, 2012, the Company amended the Gevo Complaint to include allegations that Butamax and DuPont are infringing one or more claims made in U.S. Patent No. 8,158,404 (the “’404 Patent”) entitled “Reduced By-Product Accumulation for Improved Production of Isobutanol.” The ’404 Patent claims the elimination of an important enzyme pathway in isobutanol-producing yeast. The Company is seeking a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, damages and costs, including attorney’s fees and expenses.

Due to the very early stage of this litigation, the Company has determined that the possible loss or range of loss related to this litigation cannot be reasonably estimated at this time.

Guarantees and Indemnifications – In the ordinary course of its business, the Company makes certain indemnities, commitments, and guarantees under which it may be required to make payments in relation to certain transactions. The Company believes the fair value of these indemnification agreements is minimal and, as such, has not recorded any liability for these indemnities in the consolidated balance sheets.

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 a portion of any future amounts paid. 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.

Accounting standards define fair value, outline a framework for measuring fair value, and detail the required disclosures about fair value measurements. Under these standards, fair value is defined as the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date in the principal or most advantageous market. Standards establish a hierarchy in determining the fair market value of an asset or liability. The fair value hierarchy has three levels of inputs, both observable and unobservable. Standards require the utilization of the highest possible level of input to determine fair value.

Level 1 – inputs include quoted market prices in an active market for identical assets or liabilities.

Level 2 – inputs are market data, other than Level 1, that are observable either directly or indirectly. Level 2 inputs include quoted market prices for similar assets or liabilities, quoted market prices in an inactive market, and other observable information that can be corroborated by market data.

Level 3 – inputs are unobservable and corroborated by little or no market data.

The carrying value of cash and cash equivalents, receivables, and accounts payable approximate their respective fair values due to the short-term nature of these instruments.

Based on borrowing rates which 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 market factors, the carrying value of the Company’s debt obligations approximate their fair value. The fair value of the Company’s debt obligations was based upon Level 3 inputs.

The fair value of the Company’s derivative instruments are derived based upon a market approach. The fair value of exchange-traded derivative instruments was $0.1 million and $(0.2) million at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively, and is based on Level 1 inputs using quoted market prices. The fair value of forward purchase contracts for corn was $(47,000) and $(15,000) at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively, based upon Level 2 inputs being the price at the delivery location adjusted for basis differentials, counterparty credit quality, the effect of the Company’s own credit worthiness, the time value of money and/or the liquidity of the market.

At March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, there were no transactions measured at fair value on a nonrecurring basis.

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 Company’s chief operating decision maker is provided with and reviews the financial results of each of the Company’s consolidated legal entities, Gevo, Gevo Development, and Agri-Energy. The Company organizes its business segments based on the nature of the products and services offered through each of the Company’s consolidated legal entities. All revenue is earned, and all assets are held, in the U.S. The financial results of Gevo Development and Agri-Energy have been aggregated in the following table as this segment is currently responsible for the production of ethanol and related products and will be responsible for isobutanol and related products.

Item 2. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.

This report contains forward-looking statements. When used anywhere in this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (this “Report”), the words “expect,” “believe,” “anticipate,” “estimate,” “intend,” “plan” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. These statements relate to future events or our future financial or operational performance and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause our actual results, levels of activity, performance or achievement to differ materially from those expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements. These statements reflect our current views with respect to future events and are based on assumptions and subject to risks and uncertainties. Such statements are subject to certain risks and uncertainties including those related to the achievement of advances in our technology platform, the success of our retrofit production model, our ability to gain market acceptance for our products, additional competition, changes in economic conditions and those described in documents we have filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), including this Report in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” “Risk Factors” and subsequent reports on Form 10-Q. All forward-looking statements in this document are qualified entirely by the cautionary statements included in this document and such other filings. These risks and uncertainties could cause actual results to differ materially from results expressed or implied by forward-looking statements contained in this document. These forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this document. We disclaim any undertaking to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements contained herein to reflect any change in our expectations with regard thereto or any change in events, conditions or circumstances on which any such statement is based. Unless the context requires otherwise, in this Report the terms “we,” “us” and “our” refer to Gevo, Inc. and its wholly owned or indirect subsidiaries, and their predecessors.

The following discussion should be read in conjunction with our unaudited consolidated financial statements and the related notes and other financial information appearing elsewhere in this Report. Readers are also urged to carefully review and consider the various disclosures made by us which attempt to advise interested parties of the factors which affect our business, including without limitation our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011, as amended (our “Annual Report”), including the disclosures made in Part I, Item 1A “Risk Factors” and the audited consolidated financial statements and related notes included in Part II, Item 8 “Financial Statements and Supplementary Data”, and the disclosures made in Part II, Item 1A “Risk Factors” of this Report.

We are a renewable chemicals and next generation biofuels company focused on the development and commercialization of alternatives to petroleum-based products. Our initial commercialization and development efforts are focused on isobutanol, a four carbon alcohol produced from renewable sources. Without any modification, our isobutanol has applications as a specialty chemical and a fuel blendstock. Our isobutanol can also be converted into a wide variety of hydrocarbons which form the basis for the production of many products, including rubber, plastics, fibers, and other polymers and hydrocarbon fuels, including jet and diesel fuel.

In September 2009, Gevo, Inc. formed Gevo Development, LLC (“Gevo Development”) to develop isobutanol production assets using the Gevo Integrated Fermentation Technology^® (“GIFT^®”). Gevo Development has a flexible business model and aims to secure access to existing ethanol capacity either through joint venture, tolling arrangements or direct acquisition.

For financial reporting purposes, we have determined that we have two operating segments. Our Gevo, Inc. segment is responsible for all research and development activities related to the future production of isobutanol, maintaining and protecting our intellectual property portfolio, developing future markets for our isobutanol and providing corporate oversight services. Our second segment is comprised of Gevo Development and Agri-Energy, LLC (“Agri-Energy”) which is currently responsible for the production of ethanol and related products.

At March 31, 2012, we are considered to be in the development stage as our primary activities, since incorporation, have been conducting research and development, business development, business and financial planning, establishing our facilities, recruiting personnel and raising capital. Successful completion of our research and development program, and ultimately, the attainment of profitable operations are dependent upon future events, including completion of our development activities resulting in sales of isobutanol or isobutanol-derived products and/or technology, obtaining adequate financing to complete our development activities, obtaining adequate financing to acquire access to and complete the retrofit of ethanol plants to isobutanol production, gaining market acceptance and demand for our products and services, and attracting and retaining qualified personnel.

In September 2010, we acquired a 22 million gallon per year (“MGPY”) ethanol production facility in Luverne, Minnesota (the “Agri-Energy Facility”), that we are currently retrofitting to produce isobutanol. We project capital costs for the retrofit of the Agri-Energy Facility to be approximately $22 million, which includes equipment necessary in order to switch between ethanol and isobutanol production plus additional capital which will be used to increase the potential production capacity of the Agri-Energy Facility. In addition to the retrofit of the Agri-Energy Facility to produce isobutanol, in July 2011 we made the strategic decision to invest in an enhanced yeast seed train at the facility to accelerate the adoption of improved yeast at the Agri-Energy Facility and at future plants, maintain direct oversight over our yeast material and provide on-site yeast production. We estimate capital costs for the enhanced yeast seed train to be approximately $10 million. We expect to begin commercial production of isobutanol at the Agri-Energy Facility by June 30, 2012. However, if we encounter unexpected production challenges during start-up of isobutanol production, we have designed the retrofit such that we believe we will be able to switch between isobutanol and ethanol production. We believe the ability to switch between isobutanol and ethanol production mitigates, depending on market conditions, certain significant risks associated with start-up operations for isobutanol production.

We currently derive revenue from the sale of ethanol, distiller’s grains and other related products produced as part of the ethanol production process and we expect that we will continue to record revenue from these sources during the period of the retrofit of the Agri-Energy Facility to isobutanol production. Continued ethanol production during the retrofit will allow us to retain local staff for the future operation of the plant, maintain the equipment and generate cash flow. As the production of ethanol is not our intended business, we will continue reporting our operating results as a development stage company during the retrofit process and only intend to report revenue from the sale of ethanol on an interim basis until we begin to generate revenue from sales of isobutanol. Accordingly, the historical operating results of Agri-Energy and the operating results reported during the retrofit to isobutanol production will not be indicative of future operating results for Agri-Energy or Gevo, Inc. once isobutanol production commences.

Ethanol plant operations are highly dependent on commodity prices, especially prices for corn, ethanol, distiller’s grains and natural gas. Because the market prices of these commodities are not always correlated, at times ethanol production may be unprofitable. As commodity price volatility poses a significant threat to our margin structure, we have implemented a risk management strategy focused on securing favorable operating margins. We monitor market prices of corn, natural gas and other input costs relative to the prices for ethanol and distiller’s grains in Luverne, Minnesota, the location of the Agri-Energy Facility. We also seek to create offsetting positions by using derivative instruments, fixed-price purchases and sales contracts or a combination of strategies. Our primary focus is not to manage general price movements, such as seeking to minimize the cost of corn consumed, but rather to acquire corn, net of exchange-traded contracted amounts, at prices that reflect the then-current pricing for ethanol sold. By using a variety of risk management tools and hedging strategies we believe we will be able to maintain a disciplined approach to risk.

We currently derive revenue from the sale of ethanol, distiller’s grains and other products produced as part of the ethanol production process and we expect that we will continue to record revenue from these sources during the period of the retrofit of the Agri-Energy Facility to isobutanol production.

Our grant and research and development program revenue consists of the following: (i) revenues relating to government research grants and cooperative agreements; (ii) research services; and (iii) the procurement of our products for purposes of certification and testing.

Our cost of goods sold includes costs directly associated with our ethanol production process such as costs for direct materials, direct labor and certain plant overhead costs. Direct materials consist of corn feedstock, denaturant and process chemicals. Direct labor includes compensation of personnel directly involved in the operation of the Agri-Energy Facility. Plant overhead costs primarily consist of plant utilities and plant depreciation. Cost of goods sold is mainly affected by the cost of corn and natural gas. Corn is the most significant raw material cost. We purchase natural gas to power steam generation in the ethanol production process and to dry the distiller’s grains. We enter into forward purchase contracts and exchange-traded futures contracts associated with corn. Accordingly, our cost of goods sold also includes gains or losses and/or changes in fair value from our forward purchase contracts and exchange-traded futures contracts. See discussion of accounting for derivatives below under the heading “Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates.”

Our research and development costs consist of expenses incurred to identify, develop and test our technologies for the production of isobutanol and the development of downstream applications thereof. Research and development expense includes personnel costs (including stock-based compensation), consultants and related contract research, facility costs, supplies, depreciation and amortization expense on property, plant and equipment used in product development, license fees paid to third parties for use of their intellectual property and patent rights and other overhead expenses incurred to support our research and development programs. Research and development expenses also include upfront fees and milestone payments made under licensing agreements and payments for sponsored research and university research gifts to support research at academic institutions.

Selling, general and administrative expenses consist of personnel costs (including stock-based compensation), consulting and service provider expenses (including patent counsel-related costs), legal fees, marketing costs, corporate insurance costs, occupancy-related costs, depreciation and amortization expenses on property, plant and equipment not used in our product development programs or recorded in cost of goods sold, travel and relocation and hiring expenses. Following completion of our initial public offering in February 2011, we experienced a significant increase in certain selling, general and administrative expenses, such as additional compliance costs to operate as a public company. We expect to continue to incur these costs to comply with the corporate governance, internal control and similar requirements applicable to public companies, as well as increased costs for insurance, costs related to the hiring of additional personnel and payment to outside consultants, attorneys and accountants.

We also record selling, general and administrative expenses for the operations of the Agri-Energy Facility that include administrative and oversight, labor, insurance and other operating expenses.

Our unaudited consolidated financial statements have been prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“US GAAP”) and include our accounts and the accounts of our wholly owned subsidiaries, Gevo Development and Agri-Energy. The preparation of our unaudited consolidated financial statements requires us to make estimates, assumptions and judgments that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements, and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the applicable periods. Management bases its estimates, assumptions and judgments on historical experience and on various other factors that are believed to be reasonable under the circumstances. Different assumptions and judgments would change the estimates used in the preparation of our unaudited consolidated financial statements, which, in turn, could change the results from those reported. Our management evaluates its estimates, assumptions and judgments on an ongoing basis.

The accounting policies and estimates, which we believe are critical and require the use of complex judgment in their application, are those related to: (i) stock-based compensation; (ii) revenue recognition; (iii) cost of goods sold and derivatives; and (iv) impairment of long-lived assets. Except as noted below, our critical accounting estimates and policies have not changed from those reported under the heading “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in Part II, Item 7 of our Annual Report.

Our activities expose us to a variety of market risks, including the effects of changes in commodity prices. These financial exposures are monitored and managed by our management as an integral part of our overall risk-management program. Our risk management program focuses on the unpredictability of financial and commodities markets and seeks to reduce the potentially adverse effects that the volatility of these markets may have on our cost of goods sold and operating results.

We enter into forward purchase contracts for corn to be used in the production of ethanol. During 2011 we used the “normal purchases and normal sales scope exception” guidance of US GAAP for our forward purchase contracts and, as a result, they were not marked to market during 2011. To qualify for the normal purchases and normal sales scope exception, a contract must provide for the purchase or sale of commodities in quantities that are expected to be used or sold over a reasonable period of time in the normal course of operations. For new contracts entered into beginning January 1, 2012, we did not apply the “normal purchases and normal sale scope exception” to our forward purchase contracts and, as a result, we began to record forward purchase contracts at fair value. The changes in fair value associated with our forward purchase contracts which have been included as a component of cost of goods sold in our consolidated statements of operations were not material during the three months ended March 31, 2012.

We also enter into exchange-traded futures contracts for corn as a means of managing exposure to changes in corn prices. These contracts are recorded as a derivative asset or liability on our consolidated balance sheets at fair value. Changes in the fair value during a reporting period are recognized as cost of goods sold in our consolidated statements of operations.

Both our forward purchase and exchange-traded futures contracts are considered to be derivatives and they do not include any credit risk related contingent features. We have not entered into these derivative financial instruments for trading or speculative purposes, and we have not designated any of our derivatives as hedges for financial accounting purposes.

Comparison of the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011 (in thousands)

Revenues – The decrease in ethanol sales and related products during the three months ended March 31, 2012 primarily resulted from decreases in the market price of ethanol during the first quarter of 2012.

The increase in grant and research and development program revenue primarily resulted from an increase of $0.4 million in revenue from our agreements with the U.S. Air Force and The Coca-Cola Company.

Cost of goods sold and gross margin – Our cost of goods sold decreased $0.2 million during the first quarter of 2012 primarily as a result of changes in the fair value of our derivatives and lower prices of natural gas, partially offset by increases in the price of corn during the three months ended March 31, 2012 compared with the same period in 2011. Primarily as a result of the decreased revenue noted above, we reported a gross loss of $0.1 million for the first quarter of 2012 compared to a gross profit of $0.1 million for the first quarter of 2011.

Research and development – The increase in research and development expenses during the three months ended March 31, 2012 primarily resulted from the following increases: (i) $0.8 million in salary and compensation related expenses due to our increased headcount in support of retrofit activities for the initial production of isobutanol at our Agri-Energy Facility scheduled to

commence before June 30, 2012; (ii) $0.5 million in stock-based compensation expense which primarily resulted from restricted stock awards granted during the fourth quarter of 2011 that fully vest upon successful start-up of Agri-Energy Facility to isobutanol production by June 30, 2012; and (iii) $0.5 million in other research and development costs which includes lab supplies, consulting costs and operating expenses associated with our demonstration plant near Houston, Texas. These increases partially were offset by a decrease of $0.2 million in depreciation expense associated with our demonstration plant in St. Joseph, Missouri, which became fully depreciated during the fourth quarter of 2011.

Selling, general and administrative – The increase in selling, general and administrative expenses during the three months ended March 31, 2012 primarily resulted from the following increases: (i) $3.0 million in stock-based compensation due in part to a $2.6 million expense resulting from the accelerated vesting of warrants upon the departure of two of our Executive Vice Presidents, who were also the co-managing directors of Gevo Development; (ii) $2.6 million in legal-related expenses; (iii) $1.5 million in salary and compensation related expenses, including severance related expenses due to the departure of two of our Executive Vice Presidents and from our increased headcount; and (iv) $0.5 million in other general and administrative expenses which is primarily attributable to corporate development costs, relocation and recruiting fees and public relations expenses.

Interest and other expense – Interest expense increased during the three months ended March 31, 2012 primarily due to interest incurred on our debt that was issued in October 2011 and January 2012.

Deemed dividend—amortization of beneficial conversion feature on Series D-1 preferred stock – We incurred a deemed dividend—amortization of beneficial conversion feature on our Series D-1 preferred stock of $1.1 million during the three months ended March 31, 2011 related to our issuance of our Series D-1 preferred stock between March and May of 2010. Upon the closing of our initial public offering on February 14, 2011, all outstanding shares of our preferred stock, including our Series D-1 preferred stock, were automatically converted into shares of common stock. Following the closing of our initial public offering, no additional amortization of the beneficial conversion feature relating to our Series D-1 preferred stock has been recorded.

On February 14, 2011, we completed our initial public offering issuing 8,222,500 shares of common stock at an offering price of $15.00 per share, resulting in net proceeds of $110.4 million, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and other offering costs.

From inception to March 31, 2012, we have funded our operations primarily through the sale of preferred equity securities, borrowings under our secured debt financing arrangements, revenues earned and the net proceeds from our initial public offering. To date, we have not generated significant revenues from the sale of isobutanol.

As of March 31, 2012, our cash and cash equivalents totaled $73.6 million. Based on our current level of operations and anticipated growth, we believe that our existing cash and cash equivalents on hand at March 31, 2012, combined with anticipated funding from future financings, will provide funds for ongoing operations, planned capital expenditures and working capital requirements for at least the next 12 months. In anticipation of future financings, we have filed a Form S-3, as amended, with the SEC which is pending SEC approval.

Possible future joint ventures, tolling arrangements or acquisitions involving ethanol plant assets for retrofit to isobutanol production are subject to our raising additional capital through future equity or debt issuances. Successful completion of our research and development program and the attainment of profitable operations are dependent upon future events, including completion of our development activities resulting in sales of isobutanol or isobutanol-derived products and/or technology, achieving market acceptance and demand for our products and services and attracting and retaining qualified personnel.

We will require additional funding to achieve our goal of producing and selling approximately 350 million gallons of isobutanol in 2015.

The following table sets forth the major sources and uses of cash for each of the periods set forth below (in thousands):

Our primary uses for cash from operating activities are personnel-related expenses and research and development-related expenses including costs incurred under development agreements, for licensing of technology and for the operation of our demonstration production facilities.

During the three months ended March 31, 2012, we used $16.9 million in cash from operating activities primarily resulting from the following: (i) net loss of $14.2 million excluding the impact of $5.1 million in non-cash expenses; (ii) $1.6 million increase in inventory as we increased our corn levels from 389,000 bushels at December 31, 2011 to 639,000 bushels at March 31, 2012; and (iii) a $0.8 million reduction in our accounts payable and accrued liabilities. Non-cash expenses were comprised of $4.1 million in stock-based compensation, including $2.6 million related to the accelerated vesting of previously granted warrants to the co-managing directors of Gevo Development, who were also Executive Vice Presidents of Gevo whose employment with us was terminated on March 23, 2012; $0.8 million of depreciation and amortization expense and $0.2 million in non-cash interest expense and change in fair value of derivative instruments.

Cash used in operating activities of $10.6 million for the three months ended March 31, 2011 reflected our net loss of $9.3 million and changes in operating assets and liabilities of $3.8 million, partially offset by non-cash charges totaling $2.5 million. Non-cash charges primarily included depreciation and amortization of $1.0 million, stock-based compensation of $1.3 million and non-cash interest expense and amortization of debt discounts of $0.2 million, which were partially offset by a gain in derivative assets of $0.1 million. The net use of cash from our operating assets and liabilities of $3.8 million primarily reflected an increase in inventories at Agri-Energy due to increases in the cost of corn and bushels on hand and a decrease in the corn payable account at Agri-Energy as suppliers opted to defer payments for corn delivered in 2010 until the first quarter of 2011.

During the three months ended March 31, 2012, we used $8.1 million in cash from investing activities primarily due to the acquisition of $8.0 million in property and equipment, which includes $7.2 million associated with our ongoing retrofit of the Agri-Energy Facility to isobutanol production which is recorded as construction in progress.

During the three months ended March 31, 2011, cash used in investing activities was $0.8 million for capital expenditures, including $0.4 million relating to our retrofit of the Agri-Energy Facility to isobutanol production which is recorded as construction in progress.

During the three months ended March 31, 2012, we generated $4.4 million in cash from financing activities primarily resulting from the following: (i) $4.9 million borrowed under Agri-Energy’s amended and restated loan and security agreement (the “Amended Agri-Energy Loan Agreement”) with TriplePoint Capital LLC (“TriplePoint”), net of issue costs; and (ii) $0.1 million from the exercise of stock options. The proceeds from the Amended Agri-Energy Loan Agreement were directed to the continued retrofit of our Agri-Energy Facility. Partially offsetting these sources of cash was $0.5 million in principal payments on our secured debt and a $0.1 million deposit provided to TriplePoint.

During the three months ended March 31, 2011, cash provided by financing activities was $112.6 million, primarily due to the net proceeds from our initial public offering, after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions and other offering expenses paid during the three months ended March 31, 2011, less principal repayments of $0.5 million on our debt with Lighthouse Capital Partners V, LP. (“Lighthouse”).

In September 2010, we acquired the Agri-Energy Facility that we are currently retrofitting to produce isobutanol. We project capital costs for the retrofit of the Agri-Energy Facility to be $22.0 million, which includes equipment necessary in order to switch between ethanol and isobutanol production plus additional capital which will be used to increase the potential production capacity of the facility. In addition to the retrofit of the Agri-Energy Facility to produce isobutanol, in July 2011 we made the strategic decision to invest in an enhanced yeast seed train at the facility to accelerate the adoption of improved yeast at the Agri-Energy Facility and at future plants, maintain direct oversight over our yeast material and provide on-site yeast production. We estimate capital costs for the enhanced yeast seed train to be approximately $10.0 million. We expect to begin commercial production of isobutanol at the Agri-Energy Facility by June 30, 2012. While we believe we will have the ability to reverse the retrofit and switch between ethanol and isobutanol production, there is no guarantee that this will be the case and it is not our intent to do so.

On June 15, 2011, we entered into an isobutanol joint venture agreement (the “Joint Venture Agreement”) with Redfield Energy, LLC, a South Dakota limited liability company (“Redfield”) and executed the second amended and restated operating agreement of Redfield (together, the “Joint Venture Documents”). Under the terms of the Joint Venture Documents, we have agreed to work with Redfield to retrofit Redfield’s approximately 50 MGPY ethanol production facility located near Redfield, South Dakota (the “Redfield Facility”) for the commercial production of isobutanol. Under the terms of the Joint Venture Agreement, Redfield has issued 100 Class G membership units in Redfield (the “Class G Units”) to our wholly-owned subsidiary, Gevo Development. Gevo Development is the sole holder of Class G units, which entitle Gevo Development to certain information and governance rights with respect to Redfield, including the right to appoint two members of Redfield’s 11-member board of managers. The Class G units currently carry no interest in the allocation of profits, losses or other distributions of Redfield and no voting rights. Such rights will vest upon the commencement of commercial isobutanol production at the Redfield Facility, at which time we anticipate consolidating Redfield’s operations because we anticipate we will control the activities that are most significant to the entity.

We will be responsible for all costs associated with the retrofit of the Redfield Facility. Redfield will remain responsible for certain expenses incurred by the facility including certain repair and maintenance expenses and any costs necessary to ensure that the facility is in compliance with applicable environmental laws. We anticipate that the Redfield Facility will continue its current ethanol production activities during much of the retrofit. Once the retrofit assets have been installed, the ethanol production operations will be suspended to enable testing of the isobutanol production capabilities of the facility (the “Performance Testing Phase”). During the Performance Testing Phase, we will be entitled to receive all revenue generated by the Redfield Facility and will make payments to Redfield to cover the costs incurred by Redfield to operate the facility plus the profits, if any, that Redfield would have received if the facility had been producing ethanol during that period (the “Facility Payments”). We have also agreed to maintain an escrow fund during the Performance Testing Phase as security for our obligation to make the Facility Payments.

If certain conditions are met, commercial production of isobutanol at the Redfield Facility will begin upon the earlier of the date upon which certain production targets have been met or the date upon which the parties mutually agree that commercial isobutanol production at the Redfield Facility will be commercially viable at the then-current production rate. At that time, (i) we will have the right to appoint a total of four members of Redfield’s 11-member board of managers, and (ii) the voting and economic interests of the Class G units will vest and Gevo Development, as the sole holder of the Class G Units, will be entitled to a percentage of Redfield’s profits, losses and distributions, to be calculated based upon the demonstrated isobutanol production capabilities of the Redfield Facility.

Gevo Development, or one of its affiliates, will be the exclusive marketer of all products produced by the Redfield Facility once commercial production of isobutanol at the Redfield Facility has begun. Additionally, we will license the technology necessary to produce isobutanol at the Redfield Facility to Redfield, subject to the continuation of the marketing arrangement described above. In the event that the isobutanol production technology fails or Redfield is permanently prohibited from using such technology, we will forfeit the Class G Units and lose the value of our investment in Redfield.

We have begun the project engineering and permitting process of the retrofit of the Redfield Facility. As of March 31, 2012, we have incurred $0.1 million in planning-related costs for the retrofit of the Redfield Facility, which has been recorded on our balance sheet in deposits and other assets.

During February 2009, we entered into a license agreement with Cargill, Incorporated (“Cargill”) to obtain certain biological materials and license patent rights to use yeast biocatalyst owned by Cargill. Under the agreement, Cargill has granted us an exclusive, royalty-bearing license, with limited rights to sublicense, to use the patent rights in a certain field, as defined in the agreement. The agreement contains five milestone payments totaling approximately $4.3 million that are payable after each milestone is completed.

During 2009, two milestones were completed and we recorded the related milestone amounts, along with an up-front signing fee, totaling $0.9 million to research and development expense. During March 2010, we completed milestone number three and recorded the related milestone amount of $2.0 million to research and development expense at its then-current present value of $1.6 million because the milestone payment is being paid over a period greater than twelve months from the date that it was incurred. Milestones number four and five included in the license agreement representing potential payments of up to $1.5 million have not been met as of March 31, 2012 and no amount has been recorded as a liability for these milestones. Upon commercialization of a product which uses Cargill’s biological material or is otherwise covered by the patent rights under this agreement, a royalty based on net sales is payable by us, subject to a minimum royalty amount per year, as defined in the agreement, and up to a maximum amount per year. We may terminate this agreement at any time upon 90 days’ written notice. Unless terminated earlier, the agreement remains in effect until the later of December 31, 2025 and the date that no licensed patent rights remain.

On July 29, 2011, we entered into an international off-take and distribution agreement with Sasol Chemical Industries Limited (“Sasol”) to market and distribute renewable isobutanol globally. The agreement has an initial term of three years and appoints Sasol as a non-exclusive distributor of high-purity isobutanol in North and South America and as the exclusive distributor for high-purity isobutanol for solvent and chemical intermediate applications in the rest of the world. Beginning upon our first commercial sale of high-purity isobutanol, if Sasol desires to maintain its exclusive distribution rights, Sasol is obligated to either purchase certain minimum quantities of high-purity isobutanol or pay us applicable shortfall fees and we are obligated to either supply Sasol with certain minimum quantities of high-purity isobutanol or pay Sasol applicable shortfall fees. No amounts have been recorded under this agreement as of March 31, 2012.

Lighthouse Loan and Security Agreement. On December 18, 2006, we entered into a loan and security agreement, as amended, with Lighthouse. As of March 31, 2012, our outstanding principal balance on our loan with Lighthouse was $0.7 million. The promissory note bears interest at a rate of 12% per annum.

Under the terms of the loan agreement, we are prohibited from granting a security interest in our intellectual property assets to any other entity until Lighthouse is paid in full, and Lighthouse maintains a security interest in the assets, including equipment and fixtures, financed by the proceeds of each original loan advance made under the loan agreement until such time as the loan is paid in full. The Lighthouse agreement does not contain financial ratio covenants, but does impose certain affirmative and negative covenants, which include prohibiting us from paying any dividends or distributions or creating any liens against the collateral as defined in the agreement, as amended. We cannot borrow any further amounts under our agreement with Lighthouse. At March 31, 2012, we were in compliance with the Lighthouse debt covenants.

Gevo Loan Agreement. In August 2010, concurrent with the execution of the agreement to acquire Agri-Energy, we entered into a loan and security agreement with TriplePoint (the “Gevo Loan Agreement”), pursuant to which we borrowed $5.0 million. The Gevo Loan Agreement includes customary affirmative and negative covenants for agreements of this type and events of default, including, disposing of certain assets, granting or otherwise allowing the imposition of a lien against certain assets, incurring certain amounts of additional indebtedness, or acquiring or merging with another entity, excluding Agri-Energy, unless we receive the prior approval of TriplePoint. The aggregate amount outstanding under the Gevo Loan Agreement bears interest at a rate equal to 13%, is subject to an end-of-term payment equal to 8% of the amount borrowed and is secured by substantially all of the assets of Gevo, Inc., other than our intellectual property. This loan is also secured by substantially all of the assets of Agri-Energy. Additionally, under the terms of each of (i) the Gevo Loan Agreement and (ii) Gevo, Inc.’s guarantee of Agri-Energy’s obligations under the Original Agri-Energy Loan Agreement described below, we are prohibited from granting a security interest in our intellectual property assets to any other entity until both TriplePoint loans are paid in full. The loan matures on August 31, 2014, and provides for interest-only payments during the first 24 months. An additional interest-only period of six months may be elected in the event that we begin producing isobutanol at our Agri-Energy Facility by June 30, 2012. At March 31, 2012, we were in compliance with the debt covenants under the Gevo Loan Agreement.

Original Agri-Energy Loan Agreement. In August 2010, Gevo Development borrowed $12.5 million from TriplePoint to finance its acquisition of Agri-Energy. In September 2010, upon completion of the acquisition, the loan and security agreement was amended to make Agri-Energy the borrower under the facility. This loan and security agreement (the “Original Agri-Energy Loan Agreement”) includes customary affirmative and negative covenants for agreements of this type and events of default. The aggregate amount outstanding under the Original Agri-Energy Loan Agreement bears interest at a rate equal to 13% and is subject to an end-of-term payment equal to 8% of the amount borrowed. The loan is secured by the equity interests of Agri-Energy held by Gevo Development and substantially all the assets of Agri-Energy. The loan matures on September 1, 2014, and provides for interest-only payments during the first 24 months. An additional interest-only period of six months may be elected in the event that we begin producing isobutanol at our Agri-Energy Facility by June 30, 2012. The loan is guaranteed by Gevo, Inc. pursuant to a continuing guaranty executed by Gevo, Inc. in favor of TriplePoint, which is secured by substantially all of the assets of Gevo, Inc., other than its intellectual property. At March 31, 2012, we were in compliance with the debt covenants under the Original Agri-Energy Loan Agreement.

Amended Agri-Energy Loan Agreement. In October 2011, Agri-Energy entered into an amended and restated loan and security agreement (the “Amended Agri-Energy Loan Agreement”) with TriplePoint which amends and restates the Original Agri-Energy Loan Agreement. The Amended Agri-Energy Loan Agreement includes customary affirmative and negative covenants for agreements of this type and events of default. The Amended Agri-Energy Loan Agreement provides Agri-Energy with additional term loan facilities of up to $15.0 million (the “New Loan”) (which amount is in addition to the existing $12.5 million term loan provided under the Original Agri-Energy Loan Agreement, which term loan remains in place under the Amended Agri-Energy Loan Agreement), the proceeds of which will be used to pay a portion of the costs, expenses, and other amounts associated with the retrofit of the Agri-Energy Facility to produce isobutanol. The loan matures on October 31, 2015 with the last monthly amortization payment due on the date of such advance. The aggregate amount outstanding under the New Loan bears interest at a rate of 11% and is subject to an end-of-term payment equal to 5.75% of the amount borrowed. The New Loan provides for interest-only payments through July 1, 2012 and an additional interest-only period of six months on the New Loan may be elected in the event that we have received net offering proceeds of at least $75.0 million from one or more secondary equity offerings by June 30, 2012. Any borrowings under the New Loan that are in excess of 50% of the amount incurred for the retrofit the Agri-Energy Facility must be immediately repaid to TriplePoint.

On October 20, 2011, Agri-Energy borrowed $10.0 million under the Amended Agri-Energy Loan Agreement. On January 6, 2012, Agri-Energy borrowed an additional $5.0 million under this facility, bringing the total borrowed under the New Loan at March 31, 2012 to $15.0 million. Upon our request and the additional approval of TriplePoint, we may borrow an additional $5.0 million under the Amended Agri-Energy Loan Agreement increasing the maximum size of the New Loan to $20.0 million. At March 31, 2012, we were in compliance with the debt covenants under the Amended Agri-Energy Loan Agreement.

The Amended Agri-Energy Loan Agreement provides that Agri-Energy will secure all of its obligations under the Amended Agri-Energy Loan Agreement and any other loan documents by granting to TriplePoint a security interest in and lien upon all or substantially all of its assets. Gevo, Inc. has guaranteed Agri-Energy’s obligations under the Amended Agri-Energy Loan Agreement. As additional security, concurrently with the execution of the Amended Agri-Energy Loan Agreement, (i) Gevo Development entered into a limited recourse continuing guaranty in favor of TriplePoint, (ii) Gevo Development entered into an amended and restated limited recourse membership interest pledge agreement in favor of TriplePoint, pursuant to which it pledged the membership interests of Agri-Energy as collateral to secure the obligations under its guaranty and (iii) Gevo, Inc. entered into an amendment to its security agreement with TriplePoint, which secures its guarantee of Agri-Energy’s obligations (including up to $32.5 million in term loans) under the Amended Agri-Energy Loan Agreement.

Additionally, concurrent with the execution of the Amended Agri-Energy Loan Agreement, we entered into a warrant agreement with TriplePoint pursuant to which TriplePoint is entitled to purchase up to 188,442 shares of our common stock on the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the warrant agreement, at a price per share of $7.96, subject to adjustment. The warrants may be exercised until October 20, 2018.

Our contractual obligations have not changed materially from those reported under the heading “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” in Part II, Item 7 of our Annual Report.

We did not have during the periods presented, and we do not currently have, any relationships with unconsolidated entities, such as entities often referred to as structured finance or special purpose entities, established for the purpose of facilitating off-balance sheet arrangements or other contractually narrow or limited purposes.

During the three months ended March 31, 2012, there were no material changes in our market risk exposure. For a discussion of our market risk associated with interest rates and commodity prices as of December 31, 2011, see “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk” in Part II, Item 7A of our Annual Report.

(a) Conclusion regarding the effectiveness of disclosure controls and procedures—An evaluation of the effectiveness of the design and operation of our disclosure controls and procedures has been performed under the supervision of, and with the participation of, our management, including our Chief Executive Officer and our Chief Financial Officer. Based on that evaluation, our management, including our Chief Executive Officer and our Chief Financial Officer, has concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were effective at March 31, 2012.

(b) Changes in internal control over financial reporting—There were no changes in our internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the quarter ended March 31, 2012 that have materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

Legal Matters – On January 14, 2011, Butamax Advanced Biofuels LLC (“Butamax”), a joint venture between BP Biofuels North America LLC and E. I. DuPont de Nemours and Co. (“DuPont”), filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, as Case No. 1:11-cv-00054-SLR, alleging that we are infringing one or more claims made in U.S. Patent No. 7,851,188 (the “’188 Patent”), entitled “Fermentive Production of Four Carbon Alcohols.” The ’188 Patent, which has been assigned to Butamax, claims certain recombinant microbial host cells that produce isobutanol and methods for the production of isobutanol using such host cells. Butamax is seeking a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, damages and costs, including attorney’s fees and expenses. On March 25, 2011, we filed a response to the Complaint, denying Butamax’s allegations of infringement and raising affirmative defenses.

On August 11, 2011, Butamax amended the Complaint to include allegations that we are infringing one or more claims made in U.S. Patent No. 7,993,889 (the “’889 Patent”), also entitled “Fermentive Production of Four Carbon Alcohols” (the “Amended Complaint”). The ’889 Patent, which has been assigned to Butamax, claims methods for producing isobutanol using certain recombinant yeast microorganisms expressing an engineered isobutanol biosynthetic pathway. On September 22, 2011, Butamax filed a motion requesting a preliminary injunction with respect to the alleged infringement of the ’899 Patent. We believe that the Amended Complaint is without merit and will continue to aggressively defend our freedom to operate.

On September 13, 2011, we filed an answer to the Amended Complaint in which we asserted counterclaims against Butamax and DuPont for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,017,375, entitled “Yeast Organism Producing Isobutanol at a High Yield” and U.S. Patent No. 8,017,376, entitled “Methods of Increasing Dihydroxy Acid Dehydratase Activity to Improve Production of Fuels, Chemicals, and Amino Acids,” both of which were recently awarded to us by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The counterclaim seeks a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, damages and costs, including attorney’s fees and expenses.

On January 24, 2012, we filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, as Case No. 1:12-cv-00070-SLR, alleging that Butamax and DuPont are infringing one or more claims made in U.S. Patent No. 8,101,808 (the “’808 Patent”) entitled “Recovery of Higher Alcohols from Dilute Aqueous Solutions.” The ’808 Patent claims methods to produce a C3-C6 alcohol—for example, isobutanol—through fermentation and to recover that alcohol from the fermentation medium. We are seeking a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, damages and costs, including attorney’s fees and expenses.

On March 12, 2012, Butamax filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, as Case No. 1:12-cv-00298-SLR, alleging that we are infringing one or more claims made in U.S. Patent No. 8,129,162, entitled “Ketol-Acid Reductoisomerase Using NADH.” This complaint is in addition to the Amended Complaint discussed above. Butamax is seeking a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, damages, interest, costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees. We believe that we have meritorious defenses to these claims and intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit.

On March 13, 2012, we filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, as Case No. 1:12-cv-00301-SLR, alleging that Butamax and DuPont are infringing U.S. Patent No. 8,133,715, entitled “Reduced By-Product Accumulation for Improved Production of Isobutanol” (the “’715 Patent”). The ’715 Patent claims recombinant microorganisms, including yeast, with modifications for the improved production of isobutanol. We are seeking a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, damages and costs, including attorney’s fees and expenses.

On April 10, 2012, we filed a complaint (the “Gevo Complaint”) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, as Case No. 1:12-cv-00448-SLR, alleging that Butamax and DuPont are infringing one or more claims made in U.S. Patent No. 8,153,415 (the “’415 Patent”) entitled “Reduced By-Product Accumulation for Improved Production of Isobutanol.” The ’415 Patent claims technology which eliminates two pathways that compete for isobutanol pathway intermediates in yeast. We are seeking a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, damages and costs, including attorney’s fees and expenses.

On April 17, 2012, we amended the Gevo Complaint to include allegations that Butamax and DuPont are infringing one or more claims made in U.S. Patent No. 8,158,404 (the “’404 Patent”) entitled “Reduced By-Product Accumulation for Improved Production of Isobutanol.” The ’404 Patent claims the elimination of an important enzyme pathway in isobutanol-producing yeast. We are seeking a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, damages and costs, including attorney’s fees and expenses.

Due to the very early stage of this litigation, we have determined that the possible loss or range of loss related to this litigation cannot be reasonably estimated at this time.

You should carefully consider the risks described below before investing in our publicly-traded securities. The risks described below are not the only ones facing us. Our business is also subject to the risks that affect many other companies, such as competition, technological obsolescence, labor relations, general economic conditions, geopolitical changes and international operations. Additional risks not currently known to us or that we currently believe are immaterial also may impair our business operations and our liquidity. The risks described below could cause our actual results to differ materially from those contained in the forward-looking statements we have made in this Report, the information incorporated herein by reference and those forward-looking statements we may make from time to time.

We are a development stage company with a history of net losses, and we may not achieve or maintain profitability.

We have incurred net losses since our inception, including losses of $19.3 million, $48.2 million, $40.1 million, $19.9 million in the three months ended March 31, 2012 and fiscal years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively. As of March 31, 2012, we had an accumulated deficit of $153.9 million. We expect to incur losses and negative cash flow from operating activities for the foreseeable future. We are a development stage company and, to date, our revenues have been extremely limited and we have not generated significant revenues from the sale of isobutanol. Prior to September 2010, our revenues were primarily derived from government grants and cooperative agreements. Since the completion of our acquisition of Agri-Energy in September 2010, we have generated revenue from the sale of ethanol and related products, and we expect to continue to generate revenue from the sale of all such products that are produced prior to the completion of the retrofit of the Agri-Energy Facility. If our existing grants and cooperative agreements are canceled prior to the expected end dates or we are unable to obtain new grants and cooperative agreements, our revenues could be adversely affected. Furthermore, we expect to spend significant amounts on further development of our technology, acquiring or otherwise gaining access to ethanol plants and retrofitting them for isobutanol production, marketing, general and administrative expenses associated with our planned growth and management of operations as a public company. In addition, the cost of preparing, filing, prosecuting, maintaining and enforcing patent, trademark and other intellectual property rights and defending ourselves against claims by others that we may be violating their intellectual property rights may be significant.

In particular, over time, the costs of our litigation with Butamax Advanced Biofuels LLC (a joint venture between BP p.l.c. (“BP”) and E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, “Butamax”), may become significant (as described further under the heading “Legal Proceedings” in Part II, Item 1 of this Report). As a result, even if our revenues increase substantially, we expect that our expenses will exceed revenues for the foreseeable future. We do not expect to achieve profitability during this period, and may never achieve it. If we fail to achieve profitability, or if the time required to achieve profitability is longer than we anticipate, we may not be able to continue our business. Even if we do achieve profitability, we may not be able to sustain or increase profitability on a quarterly or annual basis.

Our planned retrofits of the ethanol production facilities in Luverne, Minnesota and Redfield, South Dakota will be our first commercial retrofits, and, as a result, our production of isobutanol could be delayed or we could experience significant cost overruns in comparison to our current estimates.

In September 2010, we acquired ownership of an ethanol production facility, the Agri-Energy Facility in Luverne, Minnesota, and in June 2011, we acquired access to a second ethanol production facility, the Redfield Facility in Redfield, South Dakota, pursuant to our joint venture with Redfield. We intend to retrofit both facilities to produce isobutanol. Cost overruns or other unexpected difficulties could cause the retrofits to cost more than we anticipate, which could increase our need for such funding. Such funds may not be available when we need them, on terms that are acceptable to us or at all, which could delay our initial commercial production of isobutanol. If additional funding is not available to us, or not available on terms acceptable to us, it could force us to use significantly more of our own funds than planned, limiting our ability to acquire access to or retrofit additional ethanol plants. Such a result could reduce the scope of our business plan and have an adverse effect on our results of operations.

Our ability to compete may be adversely affected if we are unsuccessful in defending against any claims by competitors or others that we are infringing upon their intellectual property rights, such as if Butamax is successful in its lawsuits alleging that we are infringing its patents for the production of isobutanol using certain microbial host cells.

The various bioindustrial markets in which we plan to operate are subject to frequent and extensive litigation regarding patents and other intellectual property rights. In addition, many companies in intellectual property-dependent industries, including the renewable energy industry, have employed intellectual property litigation as a means to gain an advantage over their competitors. As a result, we may be required to defend against claims of intellectual property infringement that may be asserted by our competitors against us and, if the outcome of any such litigation is adverse to us, it may affect our ability to compete effectively. Currently, we are defending against two lawsuits filed by Butamax, one which alleges that we have infringed two patents for certain recombinant microbial host cells that produce isobutanol and methods for the production of isobutanol using such host cells and another which alleges that we have infringed one patent covering a modified Pseudomonas KARI enzyme.

Our involvement in litigation, interferences, opposition proceedings or other intellectual property proceedings inside and outside of the U.S. may divert management time from focusing on business operations, could cause us to spend significant amounts of money and may have no guarantee of success. Any current and potential intellectual property litigation also could force us to do one or more of the following:

We are aware of a significant number of patents and patent applications relating to aspects of our technologies filed by, and issued to, third parties, including, but not limited to Butamax. We cannot assure you that we will ultimately prevail if any of this third-party intellectual property is asserted against us or that we will ultimately prevail in the patent infringement litigation with Butamax.

There is no guarantee we will be able to maintain Agri-Energy’s historical revenues and results from operations, and Agri-Energy’s historical financial statements will not be a strong indicator of our future earnings potential.

While we remain a development stage company, Agri-Energy operates a commercial ethanol facility in Luverne, Minnesota, which currently generates revenues from sales of ethanol. There is no guarantee that we will be able to maintain Agri-Energy’s historical levels of revenue or results from operations. The retrofit of the Agri-Energy Facility to produce isobutanol is underway and we project completing the retrofit by June 30, 2012. Our future profitability depends on our ability to produce and market isobutanol, not on continued production and sales of ethanol. Because the risks involved in our isobutanol production are different from those involved with operating an ethanol production facility, Agri-Energy’s financial results prior to the completion of the planned retrofit to isobutanol production will not be a reliable indicator of our future earnings potential. Furthermore, our planned retrofit will require a significant amount of time. While we believe the facility will be able to continue ethanol production during most of the modification and retrofit process, there is no guarantee that this will be the case and we may need to significantly reduce or halt ethanol production during the modification and/or retrofit. In addition, the retrofit of the Agri-Energy Facility will be subject to the risks inherent in the build-out of any manufacturing facility, and we may not be able to produce isobutanol at the volumes, rates and costs we expect following the retrofit. While we believe we will have the ability to reverse the retrofit and switch between ethanol and isobutanol production, the Agri-Energy Facility may fail to perform as expected following completion of the retrofit. If we are unable to continue ethanol production during the modification and/or retrofit process or if we are unable to produce isobutanol at the volumes, rates and costs we expect and are unable to switch back to ethanol production, we would be unable to match the facility’s historical economic performance and our business, financial condition and results of operations would be materially adversely affected.

We may not be successful in the development of individual steps in, or an integrated process for, the production of commercial quantities of isobutanol from plant feedstocks in a timely or economic manner, or at all.

As of the date of this Report, we have not produced commercial quantities of isobutanol and we may not be successful in doing so. The production of isobutanol requires multiple integrated steps, including:

Our future success depends on our ability to produce commercial quantities of isobutanol in a timely and economic manner. Our biocatalysts have not yet produced commercial volumes of isobutanol. While we have produced isobutanol using our biocatalysts at the demonstration facility, such production was not at full scale. We have focused the majority of our research and development efforts on producing isobutanol from dextrose and challenges remain in achieving substantial production volumes with other sugars, like corn mash. The risk of contamination and other problems rise as we increase the scale of our isobutanol production. If we are unable to successfully manage these risks, we may encounter difficulties in achieving our target isobutanol production yield, rate, concentration or purity at a commercial scale, which could delay or increase the costs involved in commercializing our isobutanol production. In addition, we have never sourced large quantities of feedstocks and we have no experience storing and/or distributing significant volumes of isobutanol. The technological and logistical challenges associated with each of the processes involved in production, sale and distribution of isobutanol are extraordinary, and we may not be able to resolve any difficulties that arise in a timely or cost effective manner, or at all. Even if we are successful in developing an economical process for converting plant feedstocks into commercial quantities of isobutanol, we may not be able to adapt such process to other biomass raw materials, including cellulosic biomass.

Neither we nor ICM have ever built (through retrofit or otherwise) or operated a commercial isobutanol facility. We assume that we understand how the engineering and process characteristics of the one MGPY demonstration facility will scale up to larger facilities, but these assumptions may prove to be incorrect. Accordingly, we cannot be certain that we can manufacture isobutanol in an economical manner in commercial quantities. If our costs to build large-scale commercial isobutanol facilities are significantly higher than we expect or if we fail to manufacture isobutanol economically on a commercial scale or in commercial volumes, our commercialization of isobutanol and our business, financial condition and results of operations will be materially adversely affected.

We may not be able to successfully identify and acquire access to additional ethanol production facilities suitable for efficient retrofitting, or acquire access to sufficient capacity to be commercially viable or meet customer demand.

Our strategy currently includes accessing and retrofitting, either independently or with potential development partners, existing ethanol facilities for the production of large quantities of isobutanol for commercial distribution and sale. We have acquired one 22 MGPY ethanol production facility and we have acquired access to one 50 MGPY ethanol production facility pursuant to our joint venture with Redfield. We plan to acquire additional production capacity to enable us to produce and sell approximately 350 MGPY of isobutanol in 2015. We may not find development partners with whom we can implement this growth strategy, and we may not be able to identify facilities suitable for joint venture, acquisition or lease. Even if we successfully identify a facility suitable for efficient retrofitting, we may not be able to acquire access to such facility in a timely manner, if at all. The owners of the ethanol facility may reach an agreement with another party, refuse to consider a joint venture, acquisition or lease, or demand more or different consideration than we are willing to provide. In particular, if the profitability of ethanol production increases, plant owners may be less likely to consider modifying their production, and thus may be less willing to negotiate with us or agree to allow us to retrofit their facilities for isobutanol production. We may also find that it is necessary to offer special terms, incentives and/or rebates to owners of ethanol facilities that allow us to access and retrofit their facilities before our production technology has been proven on a commercial scale. Even if the owners of a facility are interested in reaching an agreement that grants us access to the plant, negotiations may take longer, or cost more, than we expect, and we may never achieve a final agreement. Further we may not be able to raise capital on acceptable terms, or at all, to finance our joint venture, acquisition, participation or lease of facilities. Even if we are able to access and retrofit several facilities, we may fail to access enough capacity to be commercially viable or meet the volume demands or minimum requirements of our customers, including pursuant to definitive supply or distribution agreements that we may enter into, which may subject us to monetary damages. For example, under the terms of our international off-take and distribution agreement with Sasol, we are required to pay certain shortfall fees if we are not able to supply Sasol with certain minimum quantities of product. Failure to acquire access to sufficient capacity in a timely manner and on favorable terms may slow or stop our commercialization process, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Once we acquire access to ethanol facilities, we may be unable to successfully retrofit them to produce isobutanol, and we may not be able to retrofit them in a timely and cost-effective manner.

For each ethanol production facility to which we acquire access, we will be required to obtain numerous regulatory approvals and permits to retrofit and operate the facility. These include such items as a modification to the air permit, fuel registration with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), ethanol excise tax registration and others. These requirements may not be satisfied in a timely manner, or at all. Later-enacted federal and state governmental requirements may also substantially increase our costs or delay or prevent the completion of a retrofit, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

No two ethanol facilities are exactly alike, and each retrofit will require individualized engineering and design work. There is no guarantee that we or any contractor we retain will be able to successfully design a commercially viable retrofit, or properly complete the retrofit once the engineering plans are completed. Neither we nor ICM has ever built, via retrofit or otherwise, a full-scale commercial isobutanol facility. Our estimates of the capital costs that we will need to incur to retrofit a commercial-scale ethanol facility may prove to be inaccurate, and each retrofit may cost materially more to engineer and build than we currently anticipate. For example, our estimates assume that each plant we retrofit will be performing at full production capacity, and we may need to expend substantial sums to repair underperforming facilities prior to retrofit.

Our retrofit design was developed in cooperation with ICM and is based on ICM technology. There is no guarantee that our retrofit design will be compatible with existing ethanol facilities that do not utilize ICM technology. Before we can retrofit such facilities, we may need to modify them to be compatible with our retrofit design. This may require significant additional expenditure of time and money, and there is no guarantee such modification will be successful.

Furthermore, the retrofit of acquired facilities will be subject to the risks inherent in the build-out of any manufacturing facility, including risks of delays and cost overruns as a result of factors that may be out of our control, such as delays in the delivery of equipment and subsystems or the failure of such equipment to perform as expected once delivered. In addition, we will depend on third-party relationships in expanding our isobutanol production capacity and such third parties may not fulfill their obligations to us under our arrangements with them. Delays, cost-overruns or failures in the retrofit process will slow our commercial production of isobutanol and harm our performance.

Though our initial retrofit design includes the capability to switch between isobutanol and ethanol production, we may be unable to successfully revert to ethanol production after we begin retrofit of an ethanol facility, or the facility may produce ethanol less efficiently or in lower volumes than it did before the retrofit. Thus, if we fail to achieve commercial levels of isobutanol production at a retrofitted facility, we may be unable to rely on ethanol production as an alternative revenue source, which could have a material adverse effect on our prospects.

Our facilities and process may fail to produce isobutanol at the volumes, rates and costs we expect.

Some or all of the facilities we choose to retrofit may be in locations distant from corn or other feedstock sources, which could increase our feedstock costs or prevent us from acquiring sufficient feedstock volumes for commercial production. General market conditions might also cause increases in feedstock prices, which could likewise increase our production costs.

Even if we secure access to sufficient volumes of feedstock, the facilities we retrofit for isobutanol production may fail to perform as expected. The equipment and subsystems installed during the retrofit may never operate as planned. Our systems may prove incompatible with the original facility, or require additional modification after installation. Our biocatalyst may perform less efficiently than it did in testing, if at all. Contamination of plant equipment may require us to replace our biocatalyst more often than expected, or cause our fermentation process to yield undesired or harmful by-products. Likewise, our feedstock may contain contaminants like wild yeast, which naturally ferments feedstock into ethanol. The presence of contaminants, such as wild yeast, in our feedstock could reduce the purity of the isobutanol that we produce and require us to invest in more costly isobutanol separation processes or equipment. Unexpected problems may force us to cease or delay production and the time and costs involved with such delays may prove prohibitive. Any or all of these risks could prevent us from achieving the production throughput and yields necessary to achieve our target annualized production run rates and/or to meet the volume demands or minimum requirements of our customers, including pursuant to definitive supply or distribution agreements that we may enter into, which may subject us to

monetary damages. For example, under the terms of our international off-take and distribution agreement with Sasol, we are required to pay certain shortfall fees if we are not able to supply Sasol with certain minimum quantities of product. Failure to achieve these rates or meet these minimum requirements, or achieving them only after significant additional expenditures, could substantially harm our commercial performance.

We may be unable to produce isobutanol in accordance with customer specifications.

Even if we produce isobutanol at our targeted rates, we may be unable to produce isobutanol that meets customer specifications. If we fail to meet specific product or volume specifications contained in a supply agreement, the customer may have the right to seek an alternate supply of isobutanol and/or terminate the agreement completely, and we could be required to pay shortfall fees or otherwise be subject to damages. A failure to successfully meet the specifications of our potential customers could decrease demand, and significantly hinder market adoption of our products.

We lack significant experience operating commercial-scale ethanol and isobutanol facilities, and may encounter substantial difficulties operating commercial plants or expanding our business.

We have very limited experience operating a commercial ethanol facility and no experience operating a commercial isobutanol facility. Accordingly, we may encounter significant difficulties operating at a commercial scale. We believe that our facilities will be able to continue producing ethanol during much of the retrofit process. We will need to successfully administer and manage this production. Though ICM and the employees of Agri-Energy and Redfield are experienced in the operation of ethanol facilities, and our future development partners or the entities that we acquire may likewise have such experience, we may be unable to manage ethanol producing operations, especially given the possible complications associated with a simultaneous retrofit. Once we complete a commercial retrofit, operational difficulties may increase, because neither we nor anyone else has experience operating a pure isobutanol fermentation facility at a commercial scale. The skills and knowledge gained in operating commercial ethanol facilities or small-scale isobutanol plants may prove insufficient for successful operation of a large-scale isobutanol facility, and we may be required to expend significant time and money to develop our capabilities in isobutanol facility operation. We may also need to hire new employees or contract with third parties to help manage our operations, and our performance will suffer if we are unable to hire qualified parties or if they perform poorly.

We may face additional operational difficulties as we further expand our production capacity. Integrating new facilities with our existing operations may prove difficult. Rapid growth, resulting from our operation of, or other involvement with, isobutanol facilities or otherwise, may impose a significant burden on our administrative and operational resources. To effectively manage our growth and execute our expansion plans, we will need to expand our administrative and operational resources substantially and attract, train, manage and retain qualified management, technicians and other personnel. We may be unable to do so. Failure to meet the operational challenges of developing and managing increased isobutanol production, or failure to otherwise manage our growth, may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We may have difficulty adapting our technology to commercial-scale fermentation which could delay or prevent our commercialization of isobutanol.

While we have succeeded, at the demonstration plant, in reaching our commercial fermentation performance targets for isobutanol concentration, fermentation productivity and isobutanol yield, we have not accomplished this in a commercial plant environment. We are currently optimizing our yeast biocatalyst in anticipation of its integration into commercial facilities, but this process, if it succeeds at all, may take longer or cost more than expected. Our yeast biocatalyst may not be able to meet the commercial performance targets at a commercial-scale retrofitted plant in a timely manner, or ever. In addition, the risk of contamination and other problems may increase at commercial-scale isobutanol production facilities which could negatively impact our cost of production. If we encounter difficulties in scaling up our production, our commercialization of isobutanol and our business, financial condition and results of operations will be materially adversely affected.

We may have difficulties gaining market acceptance and successfully marketing our isobutanol to customers, including refiners and chemical producers.

A key component of our business strategy is to market our isobutanol to refiners and chemical producers. We have no experience marketing isobutanol on a commercial scale and we may fail to successfully negotiate marketing agreements in a timely manner or on favorable terms. If we fail to successfully market our isobutanol to refiners and chemical producers, our business, financial condition and results of operations will be materially adversely affected.

No market currently exists for isobutanol as a fuel or fuel blendstock. Therefore, to gain market acceptance and successfully market our isobutanol to refiners, we must effectively demonstrate the commercial advantages of using isobutanol over other biofuels and blendstocks, as well as our ability to produce isobutanol reliably on a commercial scale at a sufficiently low cost. We must show that isobutanol is compatible with existing infrastructure and does not damage pipes, engines, storage facilities or pumps. We must also overcome marketing and lobbying efforts by producers of other biofuels and blendstocks, including ethanol, many of whom may have greater resources than we do. If the markets for isobutanol as a fuel or fuel blendstock do not develop as we currently anticipate, or if we are unable to penetrate these markets successfully, our revenue and revenue growth rate, if any, could be materially and adversely affected.

We also intend to market our isobutanol to chemical producers for use in making various chemicals such as isobutylene, a type of butene that can be produced through the dehydration of isobutanol. Although a significant market currently exists for isobutylene produced from petroleum, which is widely used in the production of plastics, specialty chemicals, alkylate for gasoline blending and high octane aviation fuel, no one has successfully created isobutylene on a commercial scale from biobased isobutanol. Therefore, to gain market acceptance and successfully market our isobutanol to chemical producers, we must show that our isobutanol can be converted into isobutylene at a commercial scale. As no company currently dehydrates commercial volumes of isobutanol into isobutylene, we must demonstrate the large-scale feasibility of the process and reach agreements with companies that are willing to invest in the necessary dehydration infrastructure. Failure to reach favorable agreements with these companies, or the inability of their plants to convert isobutanol into isobutylene at sufficient scale, will slow our development in the chemicals market and could significantly affect our profitability.

Obtaining market acceptance in the chemicals industry is complicated by the fact that many potential chemicals industry customers have invested substantial amounts of time and money in developing petroleum-based production channels. These potential customers generally have well-developed manufacturing processes and arrangements with suppliers of chemical components, and may display substantial resistance to changing these processes. Pre-existing contractual commitments, unwillingness to invest in new infrastructure, distrust of new production methods and lengthy relationships with current suppliers may all slow market acceptance of isobutanol.

We believe that consumer demand for environmentally sensitive products will drive demand among large brand owners for renewable hydrocarbon sources. One of our marketing strategies is to leverage this demand to obtain commitments from large brand owners to purchase products made from our isobutanol by third parties. We believe these commitments will, in turn, promote chemicals industry demand for our isobutanol. If consumer demand for environmentally sensitive products fails to develop at sufficient scale or if such demand fails to drive large brand owners to seek sources of renewable hydrocarbons, our revenue and growth rate could be materially and adversely affected.

We may face substantial delay in getting regulatory approvals for use of our isobutanol in the fuels and chemicals markets, which could substantially hinder our ability to commercialize our products.

Commercialization of our isobutanol will require approvals from state and federal agencies. Before we can sell isobutanol as a fuel or fuel blendstock directly to large petroleum refiners, we must receive EPA fuel certification. We are currently conducting Tier 1 EPA testing, and the approval process may require significant time. Approval can be delayed for years, and there is no guarantee of receiving it. Additionally, California requires that fuels meet both its fuel certification requirements and a separate state low-carbon fuel standard. Any delay in receiving approval will slow or prevent the commercialization of our isobutanol for fuel markets, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Before any biofuel we produce receives a renewable identification number (“RIN”), we must register it with the EPA and receive approval that it meets specified regulatory requirements. Delay or failure in developing a fuel that meets the standards for advanced and cellulosic biofuels, or delays in receiving the desired RIN, will make our fuel less attractive to refiners, blenders, and other purchasers, which could harm our competitiveness.

With respect to the chemicals markets, we plan to focus on isobutanol production and sell to companies that can convert our isobutanol into other chemicals, such as isobutylene. However, should we later decide to produce these other chemicals ourselves, we may face similar requirements for EPA and other regulatory approvals. Approval, if ever granted, could be delayed for substantial amounts of time, which could significantly harm the development of our business and prevent the achievement of our goals.

Our isobutanol fermentation process utilizes a genetically modified organism which, when used in an industrial process, is considered a new chemical under the EPA’s Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”). The TSCA requires us to comply with the EPA’s Microbial Commercial Activity Notice process to operate plants producing isobutanol using our biocatalysts. The TSCA’s new chemicals submission policies may change and additional government regulations may be enacted that could prevent or delay regulatory approval of our isobutanol production.

There are various third party certification organizations such as ASTM International (“ASTM”) and Underwriters’ Laboratories, Inc. involved in standard-setting regarding the transportation, dispensing and use of liquid fuel in the U.S. and abroad. These organizations may change the current standards and additional requirements may be enacted that could prevent or delay approval of our products. The process of seeking required approvals and the continuing need for compliance with applicable standards may require the expenditure of substantial resources, and there is no guarantee that we will satisfy these standards in a timely manner, if ever.

In addition, to retrofit ethanol facilities and operate the retrofitted plants to produce isobutanol, we will need to obtain and comply with a number of permit requirements. As a condition to granting necessary permits, regulators may make demands that could increase our retrofit or operations costs, and permit conditions could also restrict or limit the extent of our operations, which could delay or prevent our commercial production of isobutanol. We cannot guarantee that we will be able to meet all regulatory requirements or obtain and comply with all necessary permits to complete our planned ethanol plant retrofits, and failure to satisfy these requirements in a timely manner, or at all, could have a substantial negative effect on our performance.

We are in negotiations, facilitated by the Air Transport Association of America (“ATA”) with several major passenger and cargo airlines for potential commitments by several ATA member airlines to purchase jet fuel manufactured by third parties from our isobutanol. Jet fuels must meet various statutory and regulatory requirements before they may be used in commercial aviation. In the U.S., the use of specific jet fuels is regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”). Rather than directly approving specific fuels, the FAA certifies individual aircraft for flight. This certification includes authorization for an aircraft to use the types of fuels specified in its flight manual. To be included in an aircraft’s flight manual, the fuel must meet standards set by ASTM. The current ASTM requirements do not permit the use of jet fuel derived from isobutanol, and we will need to give ASTM sufficient data to justify creating a new standard applicable to our biojet fuel. Though our work testing isobutanol-based biojet fuel with the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory has provided us with data we believe ASTM will take into consideration, the process of seeking required approvals and the continuing need for compliance with applicable statutes and regulations will require the expenditure of substantial resources. Failure to obtain regulatory approval in a timely manner, or at all, could have a significant negative effect on our operations.

We may be unable to successfully negotiate final, binding terms related to our current non-binding isobutanol supply and distribution agreements, which could harm our commercial prospects.

We have engaged in negotiations with a number of companies, and have agreed to preliminary terms regarding supplying isobutanol or the products derived from it to various companies for their use or further distribution, including LANXESS, Toray Industries, United Airlines and TOTAL PETROCHEMICALS. However, as of March 31, 2012, we are not party to any final, definitive supply or distribution agreements for our isobutanol, other than our exclusive supply agreement with LANXESS, our international off-take and distribution agreement with Sasol, our commercial off-take agreement with Mansfield, and our contract from the Defense Logistics Agency. We may be unable to negotiate final terms with other companies in a timely manner, or at all, and there is no guarantee that the terms of any final agreement will be the same or similar to those currently contemplated in our preliminary agreements. Final terms may include less favorable pricing structures or volume commitments, more expensive delivery or purity requirements, reduced contract durations and other adverse changes. Delays in negotiating final contracts could slow our initial isobutanol commercialization, and failure to agree to definitive terms for sales of sufficient volumes of isobutanol could prevent us from growing our business. To the extent that terms in our initial supply and distribution contracts may influence negotiations regarding future contracts, the failure to negotiate favorable final terms related to our current preliminary agreements could have an especially negative impact on our growth and profitability. Additionally, as we have yet to produce or supply commercial volumes of isobutanol to any customer, we have not demonstrated that we can meet the production levels contemplated in our current non-binding supply agreements. If our production scale-up proceeds more slowly than we expect, or if we encounter difficulties in successfully completing plant retrofits, potential customers, including those with whom we have current letters of intent, may be less willing to negotiate definitive supply agreements, or demand terms less favorable to us, and our performance may suffer.

Even if we are successful in producing isobutanol on a commercial scale, we may not be successful in negotiating sufficient supply agreements for our production.

We expect that many of our customers will be large companies with extensive experience operating in the fuels or chemicals markets. As a development stage company, we lack commercial operating experience, and may face difficulties in developing marketing expertise in these fields. Our business model relies upon our ability to successfully negotiate and structure long-term supply agreements for the isobutanol we produce. Many of our potential customers may be more experienced in these matters than we are, and we may fail to successfully negotiate these agreements in a timely manner or on favorable terms which, in turn, may force us to slow our production, delay our acquiring and retrofitting of additional plants, dedicate additional resources to increasing our storage capacity and/or dedicate resources to sales in spot markets. Furthermore, should we become more dependent on spot market sales, our profitability will become increasingly vulnerable to short-term fluctuations in the price and demand for petroleum-based fuels and competing substitutes.

Our isobutanol may encounter physical or regulatory issues which could limit its usefulness as a fuel blendstock.

In the fuel blendstock market, isobutanol can be used in conjunction with, or as a substitute for, ethanol and other widely-used fuel oxygenates and we believe our isobutanol will be physically compatible with typical gasoline engines. However, there is a risk that under actual engine conditions, isobutanol will face significant limitations, making it unsuitable for use in high percentage gasoline blends. Additionally, current regulations limit fuel blends to low percentages of isobutanol, and also limit combination isobutanol-ethanol blends. Government agencies may maintain or even increase the restrictions on isobutanol fuel blends. As we believe that the potential to use isobutanol in higher percentage blends than is feasible for ethanol will be an important factor in successfully marketing isobutanol to refiners, a low blend wall could significantly limit commercialization of isobutanol as a fuel blendstock.

Our isobutanol may be less compatible with existing refining and transportation infrastructure than we believe, which may hinder our ability to market our product on a large scale.

We developed our business model based on our belief that our isobutanol is fully compatible with existing refinery infrastructure. For example, when making isobutanol blends, we believe that gasoline refineries will be able to pump our isobutanol through their pipes and blend it in their existing facilities without damaging their equipment. If our isobutanol proves unsuitable for such handling, it will be more expensive for refiners to use our isobutanol than we anticipate, and they may be less willing to adopt it as a fuel blendstock, forcing us to seek alternative purchasers.

Likewise, our plans for marketing our isobutanol are based upon our belief that it will be compatible with the pipes, tanks and other infrastructure currently used for transporting, storing and distributing gasoline. If our isobutanol or products incorporating our isobutanol cannot be transported with this equipment, we will be forced to seek alternative transportation arrangements, which will make our isobutanol and products produced from our isobutanol more expensive to transport and less appealing to potential customers. Reduced compatibility with either refinery or transportation infrastructure may slow or prevent market adoption of our isobutanol, which could substantially harm our performance.

Most of the ethanol plants we initially plan to retrofit use dry-milled corn as a feedstock. We plan to sell, as animal feed, the iDGs™ left as a co-product of fermenting isobutanol from dry-milled corn. We believe that this will enable us to offset a significant portion of the expense of purchasing corn for fermentation. We are currently approved to sell iDGs™ into animal feed through a self-assessed Generally Regarded As Safe (“GRAS”) process via third party scientific review. In order to improve the value of our iDGs™, we are also in the process of obtaining U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) approval for the marketing of our iDGs™. We believe obtaining FDA approval will increase the value of our iDGs™ by offering customers of our iDGs™ further assurance of the safety of our iDGs™. FDA testing and approval can take a significant amount of time, and there is no guarantee that we will ever receive such approval. If FDA approval is delayed or never obtained, or if we are unable to secure market acceptance for our iDGs™, our net cost of production will increase, which may hurt our operating results.

We rely heavily upon our relationship with ICM. In October 2008, we entered into a development agreement and a commercialization agreement with ICM. Pursuant to the terms of the development agreement, ICM engineers helped us install the equipment necessary to test and develop our isobutanol fermentation process at ICM’s one MGPY ethanol demonstration facility, and ICM agreed to assist us in running and maintaining the converted plant. We have been using the demonstration plant to improve our

biocatalysts and to develop processes for commercial-scale production of isobutanol. Under the commercialization agreement, as amended, ICM serves as our exclusive engineering, procurement and construction (“EPC”) contractor for the retrofit of ethanol plants, and we serve as ICM’s exclusive technology partner for the production of butanols, pentanols and propanols from the fermentation of sugars. In August 2011, we entered into a work agreement with ICM. Pursuant to the terms of the work agreement, ICM will provide EPC services for the retrofit of ethanol plants.

Because ICM has designed over 50% of the current operating ethanol production capacity in the U.S., we believe that our exclusive alliance with ICM will provide us with a competitive advantage and allow us to more quickly achieve commercial-scale production of isobutanol. However, ICM may fail to fulfill its obligations to us under our agreements and under certain circumstances, such as a breach of confidentiality by us, can terminate the agreements. In addition, ICM may assign the agreements without our consent in connection with a change of control. Since adapting our technology to commercial-scale production of isobutanol and then retrofitting ethanol plants to use our technology is a major part of our commercialization strategy, losing our exclusive alliance with ICM would slow our technological and commercial development. It could also force us to find a new contractor with less experience than ICM in designing and building ethanol plants, or to invest the time and resources necessary to retrofit plants on our own. Such retrofits may be less successful than if performed by ICM engineers, and retrofitted plants might operate less efficiently than expected. This could substantially hinder our ability to expand our production capacity, and could severely impact our performance. If ICM fails to fulfill its obligations to us under our agreements and our competitors obtain access to ICM’s expertise, our ability to realize continued development and commercial benefits from our alliance could be affected. Accordingly, if we lose our exclusive alliance with ICM, if ICM terminates or breaches its agreements with us, or if ICM assigns its agreements with us to a competitor of ours or to a third party that is not willing to work with us on the same terms or commit the same resources, our business and prospects could be harmed.

We may require substantial additional financing to achieve our goals, and a failure to obtain this capital when needed or on acceptable terms could force us to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our development and commercialization efforts.

Since our inception, most of our resources have been dedicated to research and development, as well as demonstrating the effectiveness of our technology. We believe that we will continue to expend substantial resources for the foreseeable future on further developing our technologies, developing future markets for our isobutanol and accessing facilities necessary for the production of isobutanol on a commercial scale. These expenditures will include costs associated with research and development, accessing existing ethanol plants, retrofitting the plants to produce isobutanol, obtaining government and regulatory approvals, acquiring or constructing storage facilities and negotiating supply agreements for the isobutanol we produce. In addition, other unanticipated costs may arise. Because the costs of developing our technology at a commercial scale are highly uncertain, we cannot reasonably estimate the amounts necessary to successfully commercialize our production.

To date, we have funded our operations primarily through equity offerings, including our initial public offering in February 2011, and borrowings under our secured debt financing arrangements. Based on our current plans and expectations, we will require additional funding to achieve our goal of producing and selling approximately 350 million gallons of isobutanol in 2015. In addition, the cost of preparing, filing, prosecuting, maintaining and enforcing patent, trademark and other intellectual property rights and defending against claims by others that we may be violating their intellectual property rights, including the current litigation with Butamax, may be significant. Moreover, our plans and expectations may change as a result of factors currently unknown to us, and we may need additional funds sooner than planned. We may also choose to seek additional capital sooner than required due to favorable market conditions or strategic considerations.

Additional funds may not be available when we need them, on terms that are acceptable to us, or at all. If needed funds are not available to us on a timely basis, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate:

Raising additional capital may cause dilution to our existing stockholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to our technologies.

We may seek additional capital through a combination of public and private equity offerings, debt financings, strategic partnerships and licensing arrangements. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale or issuance of equity, warrants or convertible debt securities, your ownership interest will be diluted, and the terms of such securities may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect your rights as a stockholder. If we raise capital through debt financing, it may involve agreements that include covenants limiting or restricting our ability to take certain actions, such as incurring additional debt, making capital expenditures or declaring dividends. If we raise additional funds through strategic partnerships or licensing agreements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights to our technologies, or grant licenses on terms that are not favorable to us. If we are unable to raise additional funds when needed, we may be required to delay, limit, reduce or terminate our development and commercialization efforts.

Our quarterly operating results may fluctuate in the future. As a result, we may fail to meet or exceed the expectations of research analysts or investors, which could cause our stock price to decline.

Our financial condition and operating results have varied significantly in the past and may continue to fluctuate from quarter to quarter and year to year in the future due to a variety of factors, many of which are beyond our control. Factors relating to our business that may contribute to these fluctuations are described elsewhere in this Report. Accordingly, the results of any prior quarterly or annual periods should not be relied upon as indications of our future operating performance.

Fluctuations in the price of corn and other feedstocks may affect our cost structure.

Our approach to the biofuels and chemicals markets will be dependent on the price of corn and other feedstocks that will be used to produce isobutanol. A decrease in the availability of plant feedstocks or an increase in the price may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and operating results. At certain levels, prices may make these products uneconomical to use and produce, as we may be unable to pass the full amount of feedstock cost increases on to our customers.

The price and availability of corn and other plant feedstocks may be influenced by general economic, market and regulatory factors. These factors include weather conditions, farming decisions, government policies and subsidies with respect to agriculture and international trade, and global demand and supply. The significance and relative impact of these factors on the price of plant feedstocks is difficult to predict, especially without knowing what types of plant feedstock materials we may need to use.

Fluctuations in the price and availability of natural gas may harm our performance.

The ethanol facilities we are retrofitting or plan to retrofit to produce isobutanol, including the Agri-Energy Facility in Luverne, Minnesota, and the Redfield Facility in Redfield, South Dakota, use significant amounts of natural gas to produce ethanol. After retrofit with our GIFT^® technology, these facilities will continue to require natural gas to produce isobutanol. Accordingly, our business is dependent upon natural gas supplied by third parties. Should the price of natural gas increase, our performance could suffer. Likewise, disruptions in the supply of natural gas could have a material impact on our business and results of operations.

Fluctuations in petroleum prices and customer demand patterns may reduce demand for biofuels and biobased chemicals.

We anticipate marketing our biofuel as an alternative to petroleum-based fuels. Therefore, if the price of oil falls, any revenues that we generate from biofuel products could decline, and we may be unable to produce products that are a commercially viable alternative to petroleum-based fuels. Additionally, demand for liquid transportation fuels, including biofuels, may decrease due to economic conditions or otherwise. We will encounter similar risks in the chemicals industry, where declines in the price of oil may make petroleum-based hydrocarbons less expensive, which could reduce the competitiveness of our biobased alternatives.

Changes in the prices of distiller’s grains and iDGs™ could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition.

We sell distiller’s grains as a co-product from the production of ethanol at the Agri-Energy Facility in Luverne, Minnesota and we also plan to sell the iDGs™ that will be produced as a co-product of our commercial isobutanol production. Distiller’s grains and iDGs™ compete with other animal feed products, and decreases in the prices of these other products could decrease the demand for and price of distiller’s grains and iDGs™. Additionally, we have not yet produced commercial IDG’s and, as such, there is a risk our IDG’s may not meet market requirements. If the price of distiller’s grains and iDGs™ decreases or our IDG’s do not meet market requirements, our revenue from the sale of distiller’s grains and iDGs™ could suffer, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition.

To the extent that we produce ethanol at accessed plants before commencing isobutanol production, we will be vulnerable to fluctuations in the price of and cost to produce ethanol.

We believe that the ethanol production facilities we access will continue to produce ethanol during most of the retrofit process. In most cases, we expect to obtain income from this ethanol production. Our earnings from ethanol revenue will be dependent on the price of, demand for and cost to produce ethanol. Decreases in the price of ethanol, whether caused by decreases in gasoline prices, changes in regulations, seasonal fluctuations or otherwise, will reduce our revenues, while increases in the cost of production will reduce our margins. Many of these risks, including fluctuations in feedstock costs and natural gas costs, are identical to risks we will face in the production of isobutanol. To the extent that ethanol production costs increase or price decreases, earnings from ethanol production could suffer, which could have a material adverse effect on our business.

Reductions or changes to existing regulations and policies may present technical, regulatory and economic barriers, all of which may significantly reduce demand for biofuels or our ability to supply isobutanol.

The market for biofuels is heavily influenced by foreign, federal, state and local government regulations and policies concerning the petroleum industry. For example, in 2007, the U.S. Congress passed an alternative fuels mandate that required nearly 14 billion gallons of liquid transportation fuels sold in 2011 to come from alternative sources, including biofuels, a mandate that grows to 36 billion gallons by 2022. Of this amount, a minimum of 21 billion gallons must be advanced biofuels. In the U.S. 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. 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 biofuels. Market uncertainty regarding future policies may also affect our ability to develop new biofuels products or to license our technologies to third parties. Any inability to address these requirements and any regulatory or policy changes could have a material adverse effect on our biofuels business, financial condition and results of operations. Our other potential bioindustrial products may be subject to additional regulations.

Additionally, like the ethanol facilities we plan to retrofit, our isobutanol plants will emit greenhouse gases. Any changes in state or federal emissions regulations, including the passage of cap-and-trade legislation or a carbon tax, could limit our production of isobutanol and iDGs™ and increase our operating costs, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

If we engage in additional 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 expect to acquire businesses, assets, technologies or products to enhance our business in the future. In connection with any future acquisitions, we could:

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 business, adverse effects on existing business relationships with current and/or prospective partners, customers and/or suppliers, risks associated with entering markets in which we have no or limited prior experience and potential loss of key employees. Other than our acquisition of Agri-Energy, we have not engaged in acquisitions in the past, and do not have experience in managing the integration process. Therefore, we may not be able to successfully integrate any businesses, assets, products, technologies or personnel that we might acquire in the future without a significant expenditure of operating, financial and management resources, if at all. The integration process could divert management time from focusing on operating our business, result in a decline in employee morale and cause retention issues to arise from changes in compensation, reporting relationships, future prospects or the direction of the business. Acquisitions may also require us to record goodwill, 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 large and immediate write-offs and restructuring and other related expenses, all of which could harm our operating results and financial condition. In addition, we may acquire companies that have insufficient internal financial controls, which could impair our ability to integrate the acquired company and adversely impact our financial reporting. 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, financial condition and results of operations may be materially adversely affected.

If we engage in additional joint ventures, 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 expect to enter into joint ventures with the owners of existing ethanol production facilities in order to acquire access to additional isobutanol production capacity. We currently anticipate that in each such joint venture, the ethanol producer would contribute access to its existing ethanol production facility and we would be responsible for retrofitting such facility to produce isobutanol. Upon completion of the retrofit, and in some cases the attainment of certain performance targets, both parties to the joint venture would receive a portion of the profits from the sale of isobutanol, consistent with our business model. In connection with these joint ventures, we could incur substantial debt to fund the retrofit of the accessed facilities and we could assume significant liabilities.

Realizing the anticipated benefits of joint ventures, including projected increases to production capacity and additional revenue opportunities, involves a number of potential challenges. The failure to meet these challenges could seriously harm our financial condition and results of operations. Joint ventures are complex and time-consuming and we may encounter unexpected difficulties or incur unexpected costs related to such arrangements, including:

Additionally, our joint venture partners may have liabilities or adverse operating issues that we fail to discover through due diligence prior to entering into the joint ventures. In particular, to the extent that our joint venture partners failed to comply with or otherwise violated applicable laws or regulations, or failed to fulfill their contractual obligations, we may suffer financial harm and/or reputational harm for these violations or otherwise be adversely affected.

Our joint venture partners may have significant amounts of existing debt and may not be able to service their existing debt obligations, which could cause the failure of a specific project and the loss by us of any investment we have made to retrofit the facilities owned by the joint venture partner. In addition, if we are unable to meet specified performance targets related to the production of isobutanol at a facility owned by one of our joint venture partners, we may never become eligible to receive a portion of the profits of the joint venture and may be unable to recover the costs of retrofitting the facility.

Additionally, we plan to be the sole marketer for all isobutanol and co-products produced using our proprietary technology including, without limitation, all isobutanol that is produced by any facilities that we access via joint venture. Marketing agreements can be very complex and the obligations that we assume as the sole marketer of isobutanol may be time consuming. We have no experience marketing isobutanol on a commercial scale and we may fail to successfully negotiate marketing agreements in a timely manner or on favorable terms. If we fail to successfully market the isobutanol produced using our proprietary technology to refiners and chemical producers, our business, financial condition and results of operations will be materially adversely affected.

If we lose key personnel, including key management personnel, or are unable to attract and retain additional personnel, it could delay our product development programs and harm our research and development efforts, we may be unable to pursue partnerships or develop our own products and it may trigger an event of default under our loan agreements with TriplePoint.

Our business is complex and we intend to target a variety of markets. Therefore, it is critical that our management team and employee workforce are knowledgeable in the areas in which we operate. The loss of any key members of our management, including our named executive officers, or the failure to attract or retain other key employees who possess the requisite expertise for the conduct of our business, could prevent us from developing and commercializing our products for our target markets and entering into partnerships or licensing arrangements to execute our business strategy. In addition, the loss of any key scientific staff, or the failure to attract or retain other key scientific employees, could prevent us from developing and commercializing our products for our target markets and entering into partnerships or licensing arrangements to execute our business strategy. We may not be able to attract or retain qualified employees in the future due to the intense competition for qualified personnel among biotechnology and other technology-based businesses, particularly in the advanced biofuels area, or due to the limited availability of personnel with the qualifications or experience necessary for our renewable chemicals and advanced biofuels business. If we are not able to attract and retain the necessary personnel to accomplish our business objectives, we may experience staffing constraints that will adversely affect our ability to meet the demands of our partners and customers in a timely fashion or to support our internal research and development programs. In particular, our product and process development programs are dependent on our ability to attract and retain highly skilled scientists. Competition for experienced scientists and other technical personnel from numerous companies and academic and other research institutions may limit our ability to do so on acceptable terms. Additionally, certain changes in our management could trigger an event of default under our loan and security agreements with TriplePoint, and we could be forced to pay the outstanding balance of the loan(s) in full. All of our employees are at-will employees, which means that either the employee or we may terminate their employment at any time.

Our planned activities will require additional expertise in specific industries and areas applicable to the products and processes developed through our technology platform or acquired through strategic or other transactions, especially in the end markets that we seek to penetrate. These activities will require the addition of new personnel, and the development of additional expertise by existing personnel. The inability to attract personnel with appropriate skills or to develop the necessary expertise could impair our ability to grow our business.

Our ability to compete may be adversely affected if we do not adequately protect our proprietary technologies or if we lose some of our intellectual property rights through costly litigation or administrative proceedings.

Our success will depend in part on our ability to obtain patents and maintain adequate protection of our intellectual property covering our technologies and products and potential products in the U.S. and other countries. We have adopted a strategy of seeking patent protection in the U.S. and in certain foreign countries with respect to certain of the technologies used in or relating to our products and processes. As such, as of March 31, 2012, we exclusively licensed rights to 102 issued patents and filed patent applications in the U.S. and in various foreign jurisdictions, and we owned rights to approximately 259 issued patents and filed patent applications in the U.S. and in various foreign jurisdictions. When and if issued, patents would expire at the end of their term and any patent would only provide us commercial advantage for a limited period of time, if at all. Our patent applications are directed to our enabling technologies and to our methods and products which support our business in the advanced biofuels and renewable chemicals markets. We intend to continue to apply for patents relating to our technologies, methods and products as we deem appropriate.

Only eight of the patent applications that we have filed in the U.S. or in any foreign jurisdictions, and only certain of the patent applications filed by third parties in which we own rights, have been issued. A filed patent application does not guarantee a patent will issue and a patent issuing does not guarantee its validity, nor does it give us the right to practice the patented technology or commercialize the patented product. Third parties may have or obtain rights to “blocking patents” that could be used to prevent us from commercializing our products or practicing our technology. The scope and validity of patents and success in prosecuting patent applications involve complex legal and factual questions and, therefore, issuance, coverage and validity cannot be predicted with any certainty. Patents issuing from our filed applications may be challenged, invalidated or circumvented. Moreover, third parties could practice our inventions in secret and in territories where we do not have patent protection. Such third parties may then try to sell or import products made using our inventions in and into the U.S. or other territories and we may be unable to prove that such products were made using our inventions. Additional uncertainty may result from potential passage of patent reform legislation by the U.S. Congress and from legal precedent as handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court, as they determine legal issues concerning the scope, validity and construction of patent claims. Because patent applications in the U.S. and many foreign jurisdictions are typically not published until 18 months after filing, or in some cases not at all, and because publication of discoveries in the scientific literature often lags behind the actual discoveries, there is additional uncertainty as to the validity of any patents that may issue and the potential for “blocking patents” coming into force at some future date. Accordingly, we cannot ensure that any of our currently filed or future patent applications will result in issued patents, or even if issued, predict the scope of the claims that may issue in our and other companies’ patents. Given that the degree of future protection for our proprietary rights is uncertain, we cannot ensure that: (i) we were the first to make the inventions covered by each of our filed applications, (ii) we were the first to file patent applications for these inventions, (iii) the proprietary technologies we develop will be patentable, (iv) any patents issued will be broad enough in scope to provide commercial advantage and prevent circumvention, and (v) that competitors and other parties do not have or will not obtain patent protection that will block our development and commercialization activities.

These concerns apply equally to patents we have licensed, which may likewise be challenged, invalidated or circumvented, and the licensed technologies may be obstructed from commercialization by competitors’ “blocking patents.” In addition, we generally do not control the patent prosecution and maintenance of subject matter that we license from others. Generally, the licensors are primarily or wholly responsible for the patent prosecution and maintenance activities pertaining to the patent applications and patents we license, while we may only be afforded opportunities to comment on such activities. Accordingly, we are unable to exercise the same degree of control over licensed intellectual property as we exercise over our own intellectual property and we face the risk that our licensors will not prosecute or maintain it as effectively as we would like.

In addition, unauthorized parties may attempt to copy or otherwise obtain and use our products or technology. Monitoring unauthorized use of our intellectual property is difficult, particularly where, as here, the end products reaching the market generally do not reveal the processes used in their manufacture, and particularly in certain foreign countries where the local laws may not protect our proprietary rights as fully as in the U.S., so we cannot be certain that the steps we have taken in obtaining intellectual property and other proprietary rights will prevent unauthorized use of our technology. If competitors are able to use our technology without our authorization, our ability to compete effectively could be adversely affected. Moreover, competitors and other parties such as universities may independently develop and obtain patents for technologies that are similar to or superior to our technologies. If that happens, the potential competitive advantages provided by our intellectual property may be adversely affected. We may then need to license these competing technologies, and we may not be able to obtain licenses on reasonable terms, if at all, which could cause material harm to our business. Accordingly, litigation may be necessary for us to assert claims of infringement, enforce patents we own or license, protect trade secrets or determine the enforceability, scope and validity of the intellectual property rights of others.

Our commercial success also depends in part on not infringing patents and proprietary rights of third parties, and not breaching any licenses or other agreements that we have entered into with regard to our technologies, products and business. We cannot be certain that patents have not or will not issue to third parties that could block our ability to obtain patents or to operate our business as we would like or at all. There may be patents in some countries that, if valid, may block our ability to commercialize products in those countries if we are unsuccessful in circumventing or acquiring rights to these patents. There also may be claims in patent applications filed in some countries that, if granted and valid, may also block our ability to commercialize products or processes in these countries if we are unable to circumvent or license them.

As is commonplace in the biotechnology industries, some of our directors, employees and consultants are or have been employed at, or associated with, companies and universities that compete with us or have or will develop similar technologies and related intellectual property. While employed at these companies, these employees, directors and consultants may have been exposed to or

involved in research and technology similar to the areas of research and technology in which we are engaged. Though we have not received such a complaint, we may be subject to allegations that we, our directors, employees or consultants have inadvertently or otherwise used, misappropriated or disclosed alleged trade secrets or confidential or proprietary information of those companies. Litigation may be necessary to defend against such allegations and the outcome of any such litigation would be uncertain.

Under some of our research agreements, our partners share joint rights in certain intellectual property we develop. For example, under our development agreement with ICM we have exclusive rights to all intellectual property developed within the defined scope of the project, but all other intellectual property developed pursuant to the agreement is to be jointly owned. Such provisions may limit our ability to gain commercial benefit from some of the intellectual property we develop, and may lead to costly or time-consuming disputes with parties with whom we have commercial relationships over rights to certain innovations.

If any other party has filed patent applications or obtained patents that claim inventions also claimed by us, we may have to participate in interference proceedings declared by the United States Patent and Trademark Office to determine priority of invention and, thus, the right to the patents for these inventions in the U.S. These proceedings could result in substantial cost to us even if the outcome is favorable. Even if successful, an interference may result in the loss of certain claims. Even successful interference outcomes could result in significant legal fees and other expenses, diversion of management time and efforts and disruption in our business. Uncertainties resulting from initiation and continuation of any patent or related litigation could harm our ability to compete.

Our government grants are subject to uncertainty, which could harm our business and results of operations.

We have received various government grants, including a cooperative agreement, to complement and enhance our own resources. We may seek to obtain government grants and subsidies in the future to offset all or a portion of the costs of retrofitting existing ethanol manufacturing facilities and the costs of our research and development activities. We cannot be certain that we will be able to secure any such government grants or subsidies. Any of our existing grants or new grants that we may obtain may be terminated, modified or recovered by the granting governmental body under certain conditions.

We may also be subject to audits by government agencies as part of routine audits of our activities funded by our government grants. As part of an audit, these agencies may review our performance, cost structures and compliance with applicable laws, regulations and standards. Funds available under grants must be applied by us toward the research and development programs specified by the granting agencies, 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 have received funding from U.S. government agencies, which could negatively affect our intellectual property rights.

Some of our research has been funded by grants from U.S. government agencies. When new technologies are developed with U.S. government funding, the government obtains certain rights in any resulting patents and technical data, generally including, at a minimum, a nonexclusive license authorizing the government to use the invention or technical data for noncommercial purposes. U.S. government funding must be disclosed in any resulting patent applications, and our rights in such inventions will normally be subject to government license rights, periodic progress reporting, foreign manufacturing restrictions and march-in rights. March-in rights refer to the right of the U.S. government, under certain limited circumstances, to require us to grant a license to technology developed under a government grant to a responsible applicant, or, if we refuse, to grant such a license itself. March-in rights can be triggered if the government determines that we have failed to work sufficiently towards achieving practical application of a technology or if action is necessary to alleviate health or safety needs, to meet requirements of federal regulations or to give preference to U.S. industry. If we breach the terms of our grants, the government may gain rights to the intellectual property developed in our related research. The government’s rights in our intellectual property may lessen its commercial value, which could adversely affect our performance.

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

The laws of some foreign countries do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as federal and state laws in the U.S. Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and enforcing intellectual property rights in certain foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of certain countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to bioindustrial technologies. This could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or misappropriation of our other intellectual property rights. Proceedings to enforce our patents and other proprietary rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights in such countries may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop.

If our biocatalysts, or the genes that code for our biocatalysts, are stolen, misappropriated or reverse engineered, others could use these biocatalysts or genes to produce competing products.

Third parties, including our contract manufacturers, customers and those involved in shipping our biocatalysts may have custody or control of our biocatalysts. If our biocatalysts, or the genes that code for our biocatalysts, were stolen, misappropriated or reverse engineered, they could be used by other parties who may be able to reproduce these biocatalysts for their own commercial gain. If this were to occur, it would be difficult for us to discover or challenge this type of use, especially in countries with limited intellectual property protection.

Confidentiality agreements with employees and others may not adequately prevent disclosures of trade secrets and other proprietary information.

We rely in part on trade secret protection to protect our confidential and proprietary information and processes. However, trade secrets are difficult to protect. We have taken measures to protect our trade secrets and proprietary information, but these measures may not be effective. We require new employees and consultants to execute confidentiality agreements upon the commencement of an employment or consulting arrangement with us. These agreements generally require that all confidential information developed by the individual or made known to the individual by us during the course of the individual’s relationship with us be kept confidential and not disclosed to third parties. These agreements also generally provide that know-how and inventions conceived by the individual in the course of rendering services to us shall be our exclusive property. Nevertheless, these agreements may not be enforceable, our proprietary information may be disclosed, third parties could reverse engineer our biocatalysts and others may independently develop substantially equivalent proprietary information and techniques or otherwise gain access to our trade secrets. Costly and time-consuming litigation could be necessary to enforce and determine the scope of our proprietary rights, and failure to obtain or maintain trade secret protection could adversely affect our competitive business position. In addition, an unauthorized breach in our information technology systems may expose our trade secrets and other proprietary information to unauthorized parties.

We may face substantial competition, which could adversely affect our performance and growth.

We may face substantial competition in the markets for isobutanol, plastics, fibers, rubber, other polymers and hydrocarbon fuels. Our competitors include companies in the incumbent petroleum-based industry as well as those in the nascent biorenewable industry. The incumbent petroleum-based industry benefits from a large established infrastructure, production capability and business relationships. The incumbents’ greater resources and financial strength provide significant competitive advantages that we may not be able to overcome in a timely manner. Academic and government institutions may also develop technologies which will compete with us in the chemicals, solvents and blendstock markets.

The biorenewable industry is characterized by rapid technological change. Our future success will depend on our ability to maintain a competitive position with respect to technological advances. Technological development by others may impact the competitiveness of our products in the marketplace. Competitors and potential competitors who have greater resources and experience than we do may develop products and technologies that make ours obsolete or may use their greater resources to gain market share at our expense.

In the production of isobutanol we face competition from DuPont, which has announced plans to develop and market isobutanol through Butamax, a joint venture with BP. Additionally, a number of companies including Cathay Industrial Biotech, Ltd., Green Biologics Ltd., METabolic Explorer, S.A., TetraVitae Bioscience, Inc. and Cobalt Technologies, Inc. are developing n-butanol production capability from a variety of renewable feedstocks.

In the plastics, fibers, rubber and other polymers markets, we face competition from incumbent petroleum-derived products, other renewable isobutanol producers and renewable n-butanol producers. Our competitive position versus the incumbent petroleum-derived products and other renewable butanol producers may not be favorable. Petroleum-derived products have dominated the market for many years and there is substantial existing infrastructure for production from petroleum sources, which may impede our ability to establish a position in these markets. Other isobutanol and n-butanol companies may develop technologies that prove more effective than our isobutanol production technology, or more adept at marketing their production. Additionally, one small company in France, Global Bioenergies, S.A., is pursuing the production of isobutylene from renewable carbohydrates directly. Since conversion of isobutanol to butenes such as isobutylene is a key step in producing many plastics, fibers, rubber and other polymers from our isobutanol, this direct production of renewable isobutylene, if successful, could limit our opportunities in these markets.

In the gasoline blendstock market, we will compete with renewable ethanol producers (including those working to produce ethanol from cellulosic feedstocks), producers of alkylate from petroleum and producers of other blendstocks, all of whom may reduce our ability to obtain market share or maintain our price levels. For example, Coskata, Inc. is developing a hybrid thermochemical-biocatalytic process to produce ethanol from a variety of feedstocks. If any of these competitors succeed in producing blendstocks more efficiently, in higher volumes or offering superior performance than our isobutanol, our financial performance may suffer. Furthermore, if our competitors have more success marketing their products or reach development or supply agreements with major customers, our competitive position may also be harmed.

In the production of other cellulosic biofuels, key competitors include Shell Oil Company, BP, DuPont-Danisco Cellulosic Ethanol LLC, Abengoa Bioenergy, S.A., POET, LLC, ICM, Mascoma Corporation, Range Fuels Inc. Inbicon A/S, INEOS New Planet BioEnergy LLC, Coskata, Inc., Archer Daniels Midland Company, BlueFire Ethanol, Inc., KL Energy Corporation, ZeaChem Inc., Iogen Corporation, Qteros, Inc., AE Biofuels, Inc. and many smaller start-up companies. If these companies are successful in establishing low cost cellulosic ethanol or other fuel production, it could negatively impact the market for our isobutanol as a gasoline blendstock.

In the markets for the hydrocarbon fuels that we plan to produce from our isobutanol, we will face competition from the incumbent petroleum-based fuels industry. The incumbent petroleum-based fuels industry makes the vast majority of the world’s gasoline, jet and diesel fuels and blendstocks. It is a mature industry with a substantial base of infrastructure for the production and distribution of petroleum-derived products. The size, established infrastructure and significant resources of many companies in this industry may put us at a substantial competitive disadvantage, and delay or prevent the establishment and growth of our business in the market for hydrocarbon fuels.

Biofuels companies may also provide substantial competition in the hydrocarbon fuels market. With respect to production of renewable gasoline, biofuels competitors are numerous and include both large established companies and numerous startups. For example, Virent Energy Systems, Inc. has developed a process for making gasoline and gasoline blendstocks and Kior, Inc. has developed a technology platform to convert biomass into renewable crude oil. Many other competitors may do so as well. In the jet fuel market, we will face competition from companies such as Synthetic Genomics, Inc., Solazyme, Inc., Sapphire Energy, Inc. and Exxon-Mobil Corporation that are pursuing production of jet fuel from algae-based technology. LS9, Inc. (“LS9”) and others are also targeting production of jet fuels from renewable biomass. We may also face competition from companies working to produce jet fuel from hydrogenated fatty acid methyl esters. In the diesel fuels market, competitors such as Amyris Inc. and LS9 have developed technologies for production of alternative hydrocarbon diesel fuel.

In the plastics, fibers, rubber and other polymers markets and the hydrocarbon fuels market, we expect to face vigorous competition from existing technologies. The companies we may compete with may have significantly greater access to resources, far more industry experience and/or more established sales and marketing networks. Additionally, since we do not plan to produce most of these products directly, we depend on the willingness of potential customers to purchase and convert our isobutanol into their products. These potential customers generally have well-developed manufacturing processes and arrangements with suppliers of the chemical components of their products and may have a resistance to 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 such as process changes and capital and other costs associated with transitioning to alternative components, 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. If we are unable to convince these potential customers that our isobutanol is comparable or superior to the alternatives that they currently use, we will not be successful in entering these markets and our business will be adversely affected.

We also face challenges in marketing our isobutanol. Though we intend to enhance our competitiveness through partnerships and joint development agreements, some competitors may gain an advantage by securing more valuable partnerships for developing their hydrocarbon products than we are able to obtain. Such partners could include major petrochemical, refiner or end-user companies. Additionally, petrochemical companies may develop alternative pathways for hydrocarbon production that may be less expensive, and may utilize more readily available infrastructure than that used to convert our isobutanol into hydrocarbon products.

We plan to enter into partnerships through which we will sell significant volumes of our isobutanol to partners who will convert it into useful hydrocarbons or use it as a fuel or fuel blendstock. However, if any of these partners instead negotiate supply agreements with other buyers for the isobutanol they purchase from us, or sell it into the open market, they may become competitors of ours in the field of isobutanol sales. This could significantly reduce our profitability and hinder our ability to negotiate future supply agreements for our isobutanol, which could have an adverse effect on our performance.

Our ability to compete successfully will depend on our ability to develop proprietary products that reach the market in a timely manner and are technologically superior to and/or are less expensive than other products on the market. Many of our competitors have substantially greater production, financial, research and development, personnel and marketing resources than we do. In addition, certain of our competitors may also benefit from local government subsidies and other incentives that are not available to us. As a result, our competitors may be able to develop competing and/or superior technologies and processes, and compete more aggressively and sustain that competition over a longer period of time than we could. Our technologies and products may be rendered obsolete or uneconomical by technological advances or entirely different approaches developed by one or more of our competitors. As more companies develop new intellectual property in our markets, the possibility of a competitor acquiring patent or other rights that may limit our products or potential products increases, which could lead to litigation. Furthermore, to secure purchase agreements from certain customers, we may be required to enter into exclusive supply contracts, which could limit our ability to further expand our sales to new customers. Likewise, major potential customers may be locked into long-term, exclusive agreements with our competitors, which could inhibit our ability to compete for their business.

In addition, various governments have recently announced a number of spending programs focused on the development of clean technologies, including alternatives to petroleum-based fuels and the reduction of carbon emissions. Such spending programs could lead to increased funding for our competitors or a rapid increase in the number of competitors within those markets.

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. This failure could reduce our competitiveness and market share, adversely affect our results of operations and financial position and prevent us from obtaining or maintaining profitability.

The terms of our loan and security agreements with Lighthouse Capital Partners V, L.P. (“Lighthouse”) and TriplePoint may restrict our ability to engage in certain transactions.

In December 2006, we entered into a loan and security agreement with Lighthouse and in August 2010, we entered into two loan and security agreements with TriplePoint: one in which we borrowed $5.0 million, and another in which our wholly owned subsidiary Gevo Development borrowed $12.5 million to finance its acquisition of Agri-Energy, each of which has since been amended. In October 2011, the Original Agri-Energy Loan Agreement was amended to provide Agri-Energy with additional term loan facilities of up to $15.0 million to pay a portion of the costs, expenses, and other amounts associated with the retrofit of Agri-Energy Facility to produce isobutanol. Pursuant to the terms of these loan and security agreements, we cannot engage in certain actions, including disposing of certain assets, granting or otherwise allowing the imposition of a lien against certain assets, incurring certain kinds of additional indebtedness or acquiring or merging with other entities unless we receive the prior approval of Lighthouse and/or TriplePoint. If Lighthouse and/or TriplePoint do not consent to any of the actions that we desire to take, we could be prohibited from engaging in transactions which could be beneficial to our business and our stockholders or could be forced to pay the outstanding balance of the loan(s) in full. As of March 31, 2012, the aggregate outstanding principal and final payment under our loan from Lighthouse was approximately $0.7 million, and the aggregate outstanding principal and final payments under the loans from TriplePoint was approximately $34.8 million.

Business interruptions could delay us in the process of developing our products and could disrupt our sales.

We are vulnerable to natural disasters and other events that could disrupt our operations, such as riots, civil disturbances, war, terrorist acts, floods, infections in our laboratory or production facilities or those of our contract manufacturers and other events beyond our control. We do not have a detailed disaster recovery plan. In addition, we may not carry sufficient business interruption insurance to compensate us for losses that may occur. Any losses or damages we incur could have a material adverse effect on our cash flows and success as an overall business. Furthermore, ICM may terminate our commercialization agreement if a force majeure event interrupts our operations for a specified period of time.

We currently engage in hedging transactions to offset some of the effects of volatility in commodity prices. We expect to engage in similar transactions once we begin commercial isobutanol production. We generally follow a policy of using exchange-traded futures contracts to reduce our net position in agricultural commodity inventories and forward cash purchase contracts to manage price

risk. Hedging activities may cause us to suffer losses, such as if we purchase a position in a declining market or sell a position in a rising market. Furthermore, hedging exposes us to the risk that the other party to a hedging contract defaults on its obligation. We may vary the hedging strategies we undertake, which could leave us more vulnerable to increases in commodity prices or decreases in the prices of isobutanol, distiller’s grains or ethanol. Losses from hedging activities and changes in hedging strategy could have a material adverse effect on our operations.

Ethical, legal and social concerns about genetically engineered products and processes, and similar concerns about feedstocks grown on land that could be used for food production, could limit or prevent the use of our products, processes and technologies and limit our revenues.

Some of our processes involve the use of genetically engineered organisms or genetic engineering technologies. Additionally, our feedstocks may be grown on land that could be used for food production, which subjects our feedstock sources to “food versus fuel” concerns. If we are not able to overcome the ethical, legal and social concerns relating to genetic engineering or food versus fuel, our products and processes may not be accepted. Any of the risks discussed below could result in increased expenses, delays or other impediments to our programs or the public acceptance and commercialization of products and processes dependent on our technologies or inventions. Our ability to develop and commercialize one or more of our technologies, products, or processes could be limited by the following factors:

The subjects of genetically engineered organisms and food versus fuel have received negative publicity, which has aroused public debate. This adverse publicity could lead to greater regulation and trade restrictions on imports of genetically engineered products or feedstocks grown on land suitable for food production.

The biocatalysts that we develop have significantly enhanced characteristics compared to those found in naturally occurring enzymes or microbes. While we produce our biocatalysts only for use in a controlled industrial environment, the release of such biocatalysts into uncontrolled environments could have unintended consequences. Any adverse effect resulting from such a release could have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition, and we may be exposed to liability for any resulting harm.

Compliance with stringent laws and regulations may be time consuming and costly, which could adversely affect the commercialization of our biofuels products.

Any biofuels developed using our technologies will need to meet a significant number of regulations and standards, including regulations imposed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, the EPA, the FAA, various state agencies and others. Any failure to comply, or delays in compliance, with the various existing and evolving industry regulations and standards could prevent or delay the commercialization of any biofuels developed using our technologies and subject us to fines and other penalties.

We use hazardous materials in our business and we must comply with environmental laws and regulations. Any claims relating to improper handling, storage or disposal of these materials or noncompliance with applicable laws and regulations could be time consuming and costly and could adversely affect our business and results of operations.

Our research and development processes involve the use of hazardous materials, including chemical, radioactive and biological materials. Our operations also produce hazardous waste. We cannot eliminate entirely the risk of accidental contamination or discharge and any resultant injury from these materials. Federal, state and local laws and regulations govern the use, manufacture, storage, handling and disposal of, and human exposure to, these materials. We may be sued for any injury or contamination that results from our use or the use by third parties of these materials, and our liability may exceed our total assets. Although we believe that our activities conform in all material respects with environmental laws, there can be no assurance that violations of environmental, health and safety laws will not occur in the future 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, 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 can be joint and several and without regard to comparative fault. Environmental laws could become more stringent over time imposing greater compliance costs and increasing risks and penalties associated with violations, which could impair our research, development or production efforts and harm our business.

As isobutanol has not previously been used as a commercial fuel in significant amounts, its use subjects us to product liability risks, and we may have difficulties obtaining product liability insurance.

Isobutanol has not previously been used as a commercial fuel and research regarding its impact on engines and distribution infrastructure is ongoing. Though we intend to test our isobutanol further before its commercialization, there is a risk that it may damage engines or otherwise fail to perform as expected. If isobutanol degrades the performance or reduces the lifecycle of engines, or causes them to fail to meet emissions standards, market acceptance could be slowed or stopped, and we could be subject to product liability claims. Furthermore, due to isobutanol’s lack of commercial history as a fuel, we are uncertain as to whether we will be able to acquire product liability insurance on reasonable terms, or at all. A significant product liability lawsuit could substantially impair our production efforts and could have a material adverse effect on our business, reputation, financial condition and results of operations.

We may not be able to use some or all of our net operating loss carry-forwards to offset future income.

In general, under Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, a corporation that undergoes an “ownership change” is subject to limitation on its ability to utilize its pre-change net operating loss carry-forwards, or net operating losses, to offset future taxable income. We may have experienced one or more ownership changes in prior years, and the issuance of shares in connection with our initial public offering may itself have triggered an ownership change; hence our ability to utilize our net operating losses to offset income if we attain profitability may be limited. In addition, these loss carry-forwards expire at various times over the next 20 years. We believe that it is more likely than not that these carry-forwards will not result in any material future tax savings.

Enacted and proposed changes in securities laws and regulations have increased our costs and may continue to increase our costs in the future.

In recent years, there have been several changes in laws, rules, regulations and standards relating to corporate governance and public disclosure, including the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”), the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and various other new regulations promulgated by the SEC and rules promulgated by the national securities exchanges.

The Dodd-Frank Act, enacted in July 2010, expands federal regulation of corporate governance matters and imposes requirements on publicly-held companies, including us, to, among other things, provide stockholders with a periodic advisory vote on executive compensation and also requires compensation committee reforms and enhanced pay-for-performance disclosures. While some provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act are effective upon enactment, others will be implemented upon the SEC’s adoption of related rules and regulations. The scope and timing of the adoption of such rules and regulations is uncertain and accordingly, the cost of compliance with the Dodd-Frank Act is also uncertain.

These and other new or changed laws, rules, regulations and standards are, or will be, subject to varying interpretations in many cases due to their lack of specificity. As a result, their application in practice may evolve over time as new guidance is provided by regulatory and governing bodies, which could result in continuing uncertainty regarding compliance matters and higher costs necessitated by ongoing revisions to disclosure and governance practices. Our efforts to comply with evolving laws, regulations and standards are likely to continue to result in increased general and administrative expenses and a diversion of management time and attention from revenue-generating activities to compliance activities. Further, compliance with new and existing laws, rules, regulations and standards may make it more difficult and expensive for us to maintain director and officer liability insurance, and we may be required to accept reduced coverage or incur substantially higher costs to obtain coverage. Members of our board of directors

and our principal executive officer and principal financial officer could face an increased risk of personal liability in connection with the performance of their duties. As a result, we may have difficulty attracting and retaining qualified directors and executive officers, which could harm our business. We continually evaluate and monitor regulatory developments and cannot estimate the timing or magnitude of additional costs we may incur as a result.

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 (“Section 404”) requires us 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 of 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. Even if we conclude that our internal control over financial reporting provides reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, 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.

Our management has concluded that there are no material weaknesses in our internal controls over financial reporting as of March 31, 2012. However, there can be no assurance that our controls over financial processes and reporting will be effective in the future or that additional material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in our internal controls will not be discovered in the future. 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. In addition, a delay in compliance with Section 404 could subject us to a variety of administrative sanctions, including SEC action, ineligibility for short form resale registration, the suspension or delisting of our common stock from the stock exchange on which it is listed and the inability of registered broker-dealers to make a market in our common stock, which would further reduce our stock price and could harm our business.

We are subject to anti-takeover provisions in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws and under Delaware law that could delay or prevent an acquisition of the Company, even if the acquisition would be beneficial to our stockholders.

Provisions in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and our amended and restated bylaws may delay or prevent an acquisition of us. Among other things, our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and amended and restated bylaws provide for a board of directors which is divided into three classes with staggered three-year terms, provide that all stockholder action must be effected at a duly called meeting of the stockholders and not by a consent in writing, and further provide that only our board of directors may call a special meeting of the stockholders. These provisions may also frustrate or prevent any attempts by our stockholders to replace or remove our current management by making it more difficult for stockholders to replace members of our board of directors, who are responsible for appointing the members of our management team. Furthermore, because we are incorporated in Delaware, we are governed by the provisions of Section 203 of the Delaware General Corporation Law, which prohibits, with some exceptions, stockholders owning in excess of 15% of our outstanding voting stock from merging or combining with us. Finally, our charter documents establish advance notice requirements for nominations for election to our board of directors and for proposing matters that can be acted upon at stockholder meetings. Although we believe these provisions together provide an opportunity to receive higher bids by requiring potential acquirers to negotiate with our board of directors, they would apply even if an offer to acquire the Company may be considered beneficial by some stockholders.

Concentration of ownership among our existing officers, directors and principal stockholders may prevent other stockholders from influencing significant corporate decisions and depress our stock price.

Our officers, directors and existing stockholders who held at least 5% of our common stock as of March 31, 2012 together control approximately 73% of our outstanding common stock with a single stockholder (Khosla Ventures I, L.P. and its affiliates (“Khosla Ventures”)) controlling approximately 27% of our outstanding common stock. If these officers, directors and principal stockholders or a group of our principal stockholders act together, they will be able to exert a significant degree of influence over our management and affairs and control matters requiring stockholder approval, including the election of directors and approval of mergers or other business combination transactions. The interests of this concentration of ownership may not always coincide with our interests or the interests of other stockholders. For instance, officers, directors and principal stockholders, acting together, could cause us to enter into transactions or agreements that we would not otherwise consider. Similarly, this concentration of ownership may have the effect of delaying or preventing a change in control of the Company otherwise favored by our other stockholders. This concentration of ownership could depress our stock price.

Our stock price may be volatile, and your investment in our stock could suffer a decline in value.

The market price of shares of our common stock could be subject to wide fluctuations in response to many risk factors listed in this section, and others beyond our control, including:

Furthermore, the stock markets have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have affected and continue to affect the market prices of equity securities of many companies. These fluctuations often have been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of those companies. These broad market and industry fluctuations, as well as general economic, political and market conditions such as recessions, interest rate changes or international currency fluctuations, may negatively impact the market price of shares of our common stock. In the past, companies that have experienced volatility in the market price of their stock have been subject to securities class action litigation. We may be the target of this type of litigation in the future. Securities litigation against us could result in substantial costs and divert our management’s attention from other business concerns, which could seriously harm our business.

Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock in the public market could occur at any time. These sales, or the perception in the market that the holders of a large number of shares of common stock intend to sell shares, could reduce the market price of our common stock. Our three largest stockholders as of March 31, 2012 beneficially own, collectively, approximately 47% of our outstanding common stock. If one or more of them were to sell a substantial portion of the shares they hold, it could cause our stock price to decline.

In addition, as of March 31, 2012, there were 3,501,805 shares subject to outstanding options that are or will become eligible for sale in the public market to the extent permitted by any applicable vesting requirements and Rules 144 and 701 under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”). Moreover, certain holders of our outstanding common stock (including shares of our common stock issuable upon the exercise of outstanding warrants) have rights, subject to some conditions, to require us to file registration statements covering their shares and to include their shares in registration statements that we may file for ourselves or other stockholders.

We registered 6,751,194 shares of common stock which are reserved for issuance under our stock incentive plans and our employee stock purchase plan. These shares can be freely sold in the public market upon issuance and once vested.

If securities or industry analysts do not publish research or reports about our business, or publish negative reports about our business, our stock price and trading volume could decline. The trading market for our common stock will be influenced by the research and reports that securities or industry analysts publish about us or our business.

We do not have any control over these analysts. If one or more of the analysts who cover us downgrade our stock or change their opinion of our stock, our stock price would likely decline. If one or more of these analysts cease coverage of the Company or fail to regularly publish reports on us, we could lose visibility in the financial markets, which could cause our stock price or 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.

The terms of our loan and security agreement with Lighthouse currently prohibits us from paying cash dividends on our common stock and we do not anticipate paying cash dividends in the future. As a result, only appreciation of the price of our common stock, which may never occur, will provide a return to stockholders. Investors seeking cash dividends should not invest in our common stock. Under the terms of our Amended Agri-Energy Loan Agreement with TriplePoint, subject to certain limited exceptions, Agri-Energy is only permitted to pay dividends if the following conditions are satisfied: (i) the retrofit of the Agri-Energy Facility is complete and the facility is producing commercial volumes of isobutanol, (ii) its net worth is greater than or equal to $10.0 million, and (iii) no event of default has occurred and is continuing under the agreement. Accordingly, even if we decide to pay cash dividends in the future, we may not be able to access cash generated by Agri-Energy if amounts are then outstanding pursuant to the Amended Agri-Energy Loan Agreement.

On February 14, 2011, we closed our initial public offering. The offer and sale of 8,222,500 shares 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. 333-168792), which was declared effective by the SEC on February 8, 2011. The principal underwriters of the initial public offering were UBS Securities LLC, Piper Jaffray & Co. and Citigroup Global Markets Inc. We raised approximately $110.4 million in net proceeds after deducting underwriting discounts and commissions of $8.6 million and other offering costs of $4.3 million. 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). Since April 1, 2011, the approximate point in time where we began to use cash from our initial public offering, we have used $39.6 million in cash for operations, including working capital needs, as well as $15.3 million in cash for acquisition of property, plant and equipment. We have and intend to continue to invest the remaining funds in demand deposit accounts or short-term investment-grade securities.

The Company did not repurchase any shares during the first quarter of 2012. Additionally, there were no sales of unregistered equity securities during the first quarter of 2012.

Pursuant to the requirements 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.


Gevo, Inc.

By:		/s/ MARK SMITH
		Mark Smith Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)



		Page
	PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Item 1.	Financial Statements		3
	Consolidated Balance Sheets as of March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011 (unaudited)		3
	Consolidated Statements of Operations for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011, and for the period from June 9, 2005 (date of inception) to March 31, 2012 (unaudited)		4
	Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011, and for the period from June 9, 2005 (date of inception) to March 31, 2012 (unaudited)		5
	Notes to Unaudited Consolidated Financial Statements		8
Item 2.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations		21
Item 3.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk		29
Item 4.	Controls and Procedures		30

	PART II. OTHER INFORMATION
Item 1.	Legal Proceedings		31
Item 1A.	Risk Factors		32
Item 2.	Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds		54
Item 3.	Defaults Upon Senior Securities		55
Item 4.	Mine Safety Disclosures		55
Item 5.	Other Information		55
Item 6.	Exhibits		55
	Signatures		57


	March 31, 2012			December 31, 2011
Assets
Current assets:
Cash and cash equivalents	$	73,622		$	94,225
Accounts receivable		3,030			2,938
Inventories		5,454			3,814
Prepaid expenses and other current assets		1,641			1,283
Derivative assets		62			—
Margin deposit		386			474

Total current assets		84,195			102,734

Property, plant and equipment, net		42,139			28,777

Debt issue costs, net		946			1,017
Deposits and other assets		695			502

Total assets	$	127,975		$	133,030

Liabilities
Current liabilities:
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities	$	17,821		$	12,440
Current portion of secured debt, net of $1,090 and $969 discount at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively		6,371			3,491
Derivative liabilities		47			186

Total current liabilities ¹		24,239			16,117
Long-term portion secured debt, net of $1,521 and $1,504 discount at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively		26,510			24,752
Other long-term liabilities		18			24

Total liabilities		50,767			40,893

Commitments and Contingencies

Stockholders’ Equity
Preferred stock, $0.01 par value per share; 5,000,000 shares authorized at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011; none issued and outstanding		—			—
Common stock, $0.01 par value per share; 100,000,000 authorized; 26,758,924 and 26,382,058 shares issued and outstanding at March 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011 , respectively		267			264
Additional paid-in capital		230,883			226,508
Deficit accumulated during development stage		(153,942	)		(134,635	)

Total stockholders’ equity		77,208			92,137

Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity	$	127,975		$	133,030


							From June 9, 2005
							(Date of Inception)
	Three Months Ended March 31,						To
	2012			2011			March 31, 2012
Revenue and cost of goods sold
Ethanol sales and related products, net	$	14,258		$	15,109		$	92,765
Grant revenue and research and development program revenue		614			172			4,157
Licensing revenue		—			—			138

Total revenues		14,872			15,281			97,060

Cost of goods sold		15,010			15,193			89,044

Gross (loss) margin		(138	)		88			8,016

Operating expenses
Research and development		4,955			3,266			62,174
Selling, general and administrative		13,127			5,234			83,452
Other operating expenses		—			—			1,248

Total operating expenses		18,082			8,500			146,874

Loss from operations		(18,220	)		(8,412	)		(138,858	)

Other (expense) income
Interest and other expense		(1,087	)		(892	)		(9,666	)
Interest and other income		—			50			721
Loss from change in fair value of warrant liabilities		—			(29	)		(2,852	)

Total other expense		(1,087	)		(871	)		(11,797	)

Net loss		(19,307	)		(9,283	)		(150,655	)

Deemed dividend—amortization of beneficial conversion feature on Series D-1 convertible preferred stock		—			(1,094	)		(3,872	)

Net loss attributable to Gevo, Inc. common stockholders	$	(19,307	)	$	(10,377	)	$	(154,527	)

Net loss per share attributable to Gevo, Inc. common stockholders—basic and diluted	$	(0.74	)	$	(0.76	)

Weighted-average number of common shares outstanding—basic and diluted		26,186,133			13,744,337


							From June 9, 2005
							(Date of Inception)
	Three Months Ended March 31,						To
	2012			2011			March 31, 2012
Operating Activities
Net loss	$	(19,307	)	$	(9,283	)	$	(150,655	)
Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash used in operating activities:
Non-cash stock-based compensation		4,119			1,321			22,665
Depreciation and amortization		788			1,013			11,080
Non-cash interest expense		393			213			3,474
Gain from change in fair value of derivatives		(201	)		(109	)		(620	)
Loss from change in fair value of warrant liabilities		—			29			2,852
Other non-cash expenses		—			—			364
Changes in operating assets and liabilities (net of effects of acquisitions):
Accounts receivable		(92	)		(152	)		(1,031	)
Inventories		(1,640	)		(1,468	)		(1,884	)
Prepaid expenses and other current assets		(211	)		(46	)		(859	)
Margin deposit		88			(384	)		506
Deposits and other assets		—			1			(90	)
Accounts payable, accrued expenses, and long-term liabilities		(834	)		(1,739	)		7,933

Net cash used in operating activities		(16,897	)		(10,604	)		(106,265	)

Investing Activities
Acquisitions of property, plant and equipment, net		(8,045	)		(805	)		(24,295	)
Other		(49	)		—			(107	)
Acquisition of Agri-Energy, net of cash assumed		—			—			(24,936	)
Restricted certificate of deposit		—			—			(79	)

Net cash used in investing activities		(8,094	)		(805	)		(49,417	)


					From June 9, 2005 (Date of Inception) To March 31, 2012

	Three Months Ended March 31,
	2012		2011
Supplemental disclosures of cash and non-cash investing and financing transactions
Capital asset additions in accounts payable and accrued expenses	$	7,950	$	251	$	7,950

Warrants issued with secured long-term debt (grant date fair value)	$	120	$	—	$	1,746

Cash paid for interest, net of amount capitalized	$	664	$	623	$	5,815

Warrants issued with convertible promissory notes	$	—	$	—	$	505

Reclass deferred offering costs to additional paid-in-capital upon initial public offering	$	—	$	4,296	$	4,296

Conversion of preferred stock warrants to common stock warrants upon initial public offering and reclassification of related liability to additional paid-in-capital	$	—	$	2,063	$	2,063

Deemed dividend—amortization of beneficial conversion feature on Series D-1 convertible preferred stock	$	—	$	1,094	$	3,872

Fixed assets acquired using ICM, Inc. credit	$	—	$	288	$	726

Promissory notes and accrued interest converted to Series C preferred stock	$	—	$	—	$	3,043

Issuance of Series C preferred stock upon exercise of warrant (amount reclassified from liability to equity)	$	—	$	—	$	1,458

Issuance of Series D-1 preferred stock to ICM, Inc. in exchange for a credit against future services	$	—	$	—	$	1,000


	March 31,		December 31,
	2012		2011
Raw materials
Corn	$	3,990	$	2,408
Enzymes and other inputs		85		151
Finished goods
Ethanol		405		349
Distiller’s grains		54		17
Work in process		464		456
Spare parts		456		433

Total inventories	$	5,454	$	3,814


	Three Months Ended March 31,						Inception to March 31, 2012
	2012			2011			Inception to March 31, 2012
Exchange-traded futures contracts	$	248		$	470		$	710
Forward purchase contracts		(47	)		(361	)		(90	)


Year of Expiration	March 31, 2012 Corn Net Short Position Bushels		December 31, 2011 Corn Net Short Position Bushels
2012		465		77


	Three Months Ended March 31,						Increase (Decrease)
	2012			2011			Amount			Percent
Revenue and cost of goods sold
Ethanol sales and related products, net	$	14,258		$	15,109		$	(851	)		(6	%)
Grant and research and development program revenue		614			172			442			257	%

Total revenues		14,872			15,281			(409	)		(3	%)

Cost of goods sold		15,010			15,193			(183	)		(1	%)

Gross (loss) margin		(138	)		88			(226	)		(257	%)

Operating expenses
Research and development		4,955			3,266			1,689			52	%
Selling, general and administrative		13,127			5,234			7,893			151	%

Total operating expenses		18,082			8,500			9,582			113	%

Loss from operations		(18,220	)		(8,412	)		(9,808	)		117	%

Other (expense) income
Interest and other expense		(1,087	)		(892	)		(195	)		22	%
Interest and other income, net		—			21			(21	)		(100	%)

Total other expense		(1,087	)		(871	)		(216	)		25	%

Net loss		(19,307	)		(9,283	)		(10,024	)		108	%

Deemed dividend—amortization of beneficial conversion feature on Series D-1 convertible preferred stock		—			(1,094	)		1,094			(100	%)

Net loss attributable to Gevo, Inc. common stockholders	$	(19,307	)	$	(10,377	)	$	(8,930	)		86	%


	March 31,			December 31,
	2012			2011
Lighthouse—Matures July 2012	$	730		$	1,241
TriplePoint—Matures August 2014		5,400			5,400
TriplePoint—Matures September 2014		13,500			13,500
TriplePoint—Matures October 2015		10,575			10,575
TriplePoint—Matures January 2016		5,287			—

Secured debt		35,492			30,716
Less unamortized debt discounts		(2,611	)		(2,473	)

		32,881			28,243
Less current portion of secured debt		(6,371	)		(3,491	)

Long-term portion of secured debt	$	26,510		$	24,752