XML 23 R9.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT

3. Property, Plant and Equipment

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2017

Property, Plant and Equipment [Abstract]

Property, Plant and Equipment

Property, plant and equipment consist of the following:

		December 31, 2017				December 31, 2016
Land		$	2,747			$	2,713
Plant and buildings			82,652				81,755
Furniture and fixtures			1,003				572
Machinery and equipment			3,972				4,308
Construction in progress			941				88
GAFI property, plant & equipment			15,408				-
Total gross property, plant & equipment			106,723				89,436
Less accumulated depreciation			(27,886	)			(23,066	)
Total net property, plant & equipment		$	78,837			$	66,370

Depreciation on the components of the property, plant and equipment is calculated using the straight-line method to allocate their depreciable amounts over their estimated useful lives as follows:

		Years
Plant and buildings			20 - 30
Machinery and equipment			5 - 7
Furniture and fixtures			3 - 5

The Company recorded depreciation expense of approximately $4.6 million and $4.7 million for the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016.

The Company evaluates the recoverability of long-lived assets with finite lives in accordance with ASC Subtopic 360-10-35 Property Plant and Equipment –Subsequent Measurements, which requires recognition of impairment of long-lived assets whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of an asset may not be recoverable. When events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of an asset may not be recoverable, based on estimated undiscounted cash flows, the impairment loss would be measured as the difference between the carrying amount of the assets and its estimated fair value. We used estimates in coming up with forecasts, we used significant assumptions with regard to the cost of inputs mainly palm stearin, and outputs mainly biodiesel. In addition, a qualified third-party independent appraiser validated the fair value of assets exceeded the carrying amount of the Keyes plant and Kakinada plant confirming the results of the internal impairment evaluation that no impairment was warranted on the plant assets. The third-party independent appraiser used the plant condition and operational ability of the plants as significant assumptions while considering other commodity and market driven conditions. These assumptions were commodity market driven but we also considered the Government regulations, import and export tariffs, availability of alternate low-cost inputs, and potential customer agreements. All assumptions were evaluated based on conditions which the Company believes will become available to increase production at profitable margins in the future. However, the changes in conditions such as government regulations and market conditions affect the operations of the plants and could trigger an impairment in the future. For Keyes plant, the fair value of asset group exceeded the carrying value by 110 percent. For Kakinada plant, the fair value of asset group exceeded the carrying value by 134 percent.