Greetings and welcome to the ClearSign Combustion Corporation Inc. 2013 First Quarter Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. A brief question and answer session will follow the formal presentation. (Operator Instructions). As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. This call will include forward-looking information and statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and the provisions of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Except for historical information contained in this release, statements in this release may constitute forward-looking statements regarding our assumptions, projections, expectations, targets, intentions or beliefs about future events that are based on management’s belief, as well as assumptions made by, and information currently available to, management. While we believe that our expectations are based upon reasonable assumptions, there can be no assurances that our goals and strategies will be realized. Numerous factors, including risks and uncertainties, may affect our actual results and may cause results to differ materially from those expressed in forward-looking statements made by us on our behalf. Some of these factors include the acceptance of existing and future products, the impacts of competitive products and pricing, general business and economic conditions, and other factors detailed in our Annual Report on Form 10-K and the other periodic reports filed with the SEC. We specifically disclaim any obligations to update or revise any forward-looking statements whether as result of new information, future developments or otherwise. It is now my pleasure to introduce your host, Geoff Osler, Chief Marketing Officer for Clearsign Combustion Corporation. Thank you, Mr. Osler. You may begin.

I would like to introduce our CEO, Rick Rutkowski who will take the call.

Thanks everyone for joining us this afternoon. We have with us Jim Harmon, our Chief Financial Officer; and Joe Colannino, our Chief Technology Officer as well as Geoff Osler, our Chief Marketing Officer today. I’m going to ask Jim to report the numbers as reported here in the press release. I will say just in terms of broadly characterizing, we are largely on plan in terms of first quarter operating expense. We are under in a couple of different capital budgets, but those are predominantly timing differences. But in general we’re tracking to plan as far as finances go and overall operating expense staffing. I think we’ll come back to where productivity is running at or ahead of schedule with regard to the investments we’re making and of course that’s what we’re very much focused on. And I think we can put some context around that for you. Go ahead, Jim.

Thanks Rick. This is the peas and carrots of the report here. The excitement is to have drawn done here in two minutes. Since we are a development stage company, we have no revenue as of yet and are obviously in the works of moving in that direction. But let me report on what happened with regards to our costs. The biggest difference for us was that we had completed our IPO a little over a year ago, last April and as a result our Q1 in 2012 is substantially less than our Q1 in 2013 because we have substantially more resources this time. So our loss this quarter was $1.357 million, compared to a loss a year ago of $865,000. So that’s a $500,000 difference. It’s made up of two major components. One is on the research and development side. We increased our R&D spend by about $200,000 of which $143,000 was increased compensation because of a headcount increase and $35,000 was depreciation increase because of our significant capital expenditures last year in terms of getting our labs set up and being depreciated. And then on the G&A side, our costs went up approximately $300,000 which is about the amount that it is costing us to be a public company at this stage and obviously we didn’t have any of those expenses a year ago since we weren’t as of yet public. On the balance sheet side of things, our cash balance stands at $6.655 million. As Rick pointed out we’re on plan overall as we’ve been advertising of our OPO. This cash will last us at least through April of 2014 and as I said we continue to be on plan with regard to that. Rick, I’ll kick it back to you.

Sure. So with regard to cash balances, again the goal as we go forward here is to book additional development contracts. The Grandeg contract which we expect to complete within this calendar year would offset cash burn rate to the extent that we sign another agreement and deal against those, that would be an offset as well. We don’t anticipate a significant increase in fixed costs. I believe we other than budgeted adds for this year which are not significant. We have just a small planned headcount. So by and large we are in line with our budget and expectations. Cash position is actually a bit higher again because of timing on some capital expense, in particular some associated with patents where we’re achieving a very high level of productivity. And I think productivity is really the theme. As I look back at the first quarter, it was a time of really pretty significant advancements, two in particular that we reported on, one of which was the development of a power supply which has significant advantages for our application as compared to the power supplies that we’ve been using in the laboratory. So in particular dramatically reduced costs. We have historically used systems that require 40 to 50 kilovolts and cost about $1,000 per kilovolt and the system that we have developed we believe can be produced in small volumes for a small fraction of that cost. The impact of that of course is to make our system more affordable and or more profitable for our partners and customers alike. So we think there’s a benefit to be enjoyed by everyone here. Also this opens up new applications for smaller systems. And of course I like to point out that given a $50,000 power supply; something like the Grandeg opportunity…

Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, we will now be conducting a question and answer session. (Operator Instructions) One moment please while we poll for questions. Our first question comes from Jim Mcllree with Dominick & Dominick. Please proceed with your question. Jim Mcllree – Dominick & Dominick: Rick, on getting to 2 parts per million, is that going to require -- well, let me ask it a different way. What will that require? Do you need like a third burner instead of the dual burner that you created or do you have to create a whole new something to get there?

We don’t believe so. We won’t know of course until we get there all of the tricks that we need to do. But at the moment the architecture appears to be robust and scalable enough that I don’t anticipate that we would need anything as meaningful as a third stage. Having said that, we have protected from an IP perspective a variety of different permutations as you can imagine. So I think it’s going to be really tweaking and dialing it in. I’ll let Joe maybe speak to that since he has a better idea.

Yeah, it’s a great question. The changes we’re anticipating are really more a matter of degree rather than time. So the platform that we have as Rick said is a robust platform. But there are differences that we would like to make when we get into things like train lengths and actual physical dispositions of geometric parts, et cetera. There’s significant room for optimization we feel just because we’ve converged on this solution relatively early in our investigation and we feel there’s more room to go. So I think that it’s unlikely that we’ll have to add the qualitative differences. There are more going to be some changes in quantity as we approach these lower emissions limits. Jim Mcllree – Dominick & Dominick: And my assumption is, is that going from 5 to 2 is a heck of a lot harder than it was from going to let’s say a big number down to 5. Is my assumption correct or incorrect?

I think generally and again I’ll let Joe give his answer as well, I think generally it’s the case with emissions that as you -- it’s the last 10% that takes 90% of the effort sort of thing. So you see the same trend with regard to particular, the difference required in terms of capturing or collection efficiencies with respect to ultra-fine particulate are geometrically lower than collection efficiencies with regard. And it starts to go non-linear at about 40 microns, even below 40 microns. So I think the same -- your assumption is a good one with regard to notch. But as you push further down the curve, at least with historical architectures, things have become dramatic when more challenging. If you look at the kind of effort, so people have achieved Low NOx numbers. They’ve typically done them at the expense of tradeoffs like dramatic increase in excess air for example. So we’re seeing some examples of burners where excess air can be dialed up to 8% or 10% in order to drive NOx down along with some other features of the burner. But that creates such a billowing effect and cools the air. It’s like heating a house with the windows open a bit. So Joe, maybe you can talk in general about these ideas on non-linear.

Yeah, I’d love to. Probably a good way to think of this as to the first order is to think of percentage reduction. So to go from 100 parts of a million to 50 parts of a million is about a 50% reduction. And that’s roughly the same level of effort that it takes to go from 10 parts per million to 5 parts per million. It’s the percent reduction that becomes more difficult or that scale I suppose. So it’s a lot easier as you noted to drop 10 or 15 parts per million when you’re starting at 100 than it is when you’re starting at 20. So as we go below five and hopefully get down to 2, those are 60% reductions and they’re going to take some effort to get there. But again we have confidence based on our past history that we will achieve those limits and I suppose time will tell. Jim Mcllree – Dominick & Dominick: And Rick, you also made a remark about, I’m not sure you phrased it, but the way I noted it was driving the regulations and by that I’m assuming what you’re talking about is that if you demonstrate to the regulators that you can do make up a number, 2 parts per million, then that’s what they’re going to put into law and that will become the bogey that all other manufacturers must meet. Is that what you were referring to?

Yeah. Obviously it’s not a process that we have direct control over, but that dialogue between regulators and industry very much takes into account available technology and even in the language that’s available control technology and it’s generally understood that available has some meaning it’s really available, that’s it’s available at least within the bounds of affordability. So I would be premature to prognosticate too much about that. But we think that path is available to us and the way you’ve captured the essence of it is correct that it’s a little bit of a chick and egg. Regulators have a target and it’s up to industry to respond and describe whether that target can be met effectively or cost effectively or within the bounds of what timeframe that’s reasonable. And there is that back and forth. It’s not as arbitrary as regulators are saying hit this number and challenging industry to do it. So we do think that as we’re able to demonstrate more and more in a more referencable scale, that the impact exactly that, the regulators will be able to point to our technology and say apparently there is an available controlled technology to achieve these limits and therefore we think we can some schedule require emissions limits to reach that level without unduly encumbering industry. And that’s really the name of the game with respect to that dialogue. So we do think the potential here would be game changing in that regard.

Our next question comes from Brett Conrad with Longboard Capital. Please proceed with your question.

I’ve got a question on your -- it’s hard to recall, but is there a market strategy -- it’s easy I think for a small company to gain a line on bill cycles. So it looks like you’ve got a lot of different iron to the fire right now. When do you think something will emerge at particulate vertical that you can really (inaudible) and have it super short relatively sales cycle to the other things you’re looking at and also is capital efficient for the company. In other words maybe getting money upfront or more money upfront from these partners like Grandeg. When do you think that will start to get paired to you or are you starting to see any patterns now in the way you want to go or if you’re limited to capitalized?

Yeah, very much. I think that was my purpose in that last bit of commentary where I said we are seeing some patterns discern themselves in terms of where the high value and again relatively quick to market solutions are. And refinery heaters is a compelling segment of the market, again because the quality of the demand and the value proposition are so compelling, the ability to deliver that kind of economic difference. The funnel is very active right now in terms of partnering prospect. The other thing that’s nice about that particular space is it’s not terribly pregnant. You have a handful of major vendors who really dominate the segment in the U.S which of course is the logical starting place for us and we’re actively in discussions with all of them. So the real variability in terms of predicting the timeline is just the imprecision with which one can predict how fast a relationship with a large company can move. And I don’t know that you’ve heard me say it before but it’s because I only saying started saying it recently, but it’s logical that we would see the partnerships with smaller, more agile companies like Grandeg come ahead of those with larger companies. But I would say that it’s not as if we’re really just beginning those. We should remind folks and maybe some folks haven’t heard of it, that the original assignment that puts us in the direction or allowed us to really focus on the Duplex burner architecture was a prospective partner who said here’s an interesting challenge, can you shrink flame length 30% without increasing NOx emissions. And it was interesting. We did have our board meeting a few days ago and one of our board members was saying I spent many years learning…

That’s my only question. Thank you.

Thank you and do look forward to you visiting one of these days. Are there any other questions? If not, I can turn my attention to another press release that you would have seen in which we announced and reported that we had filed a shelf registration statement, a couple of important things that we highlight in the press release. We have been planning to do this soon after we became eligible. We became eligible on the one year anniversary of our public offering. It’s our belief and I think management and the board of directors’ philosophical belief that for small public companies that the S3 shelf registration process is particularly advantageous. It allows us to access the market quickly when opportunity strike. Brett just asked the question about partnering and things of that nature. We do occasionally have partners inquire about making investments in the company. We’d accommodate that as well we also occasionally have inquiries from large institutional investors asking if we may be able to accommodate their interest and some increased liquidity as well. So we anticipate that if we continue to be successful in meeting and exceeding these milestones, that that level of interest will grow. So it allows us to at any time over the ensuing three years from the date of effectiveness to raise up to an aggregate maximum of about $30 million. We can do that in offerings of really any size, time structure in any way and the specific terms are to be derived at the time of the offering. So again it’s a nice we believe strategic way to access capital markets for companies like ours. And obviously we’re going to want to maintain our balance sheet strength in particular as we begin to negotiate prospective partnering arrangements and things of…

Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today’s teleconference. You may disconnect you lines at this time. Thank you for your participation.