Get help now

Bioethanol industry

dovnload

Download

  • Pages 25
  • Words 6052
  • Views 534
  • Can’t find relevant credible information

    Let our experts help you

    Get help now

    It was February 2007, and the Philippine Department of Agriculture needed to prepare a strategy for implementing the recently passed biofuels law. The law required all gasoline sold in the country to be blended with bioethanol1 within two years and all diesel to be blended with biodiesel within three months. Although it was not the lead agency in the law’s implementation, the Department of Agriculture played a crucial role because its policies affected the availability and the cost of the feedstock used in producing both bioethanol and biodiesel. The department was responsible for promoting the cultivation of biofuel feedstock and balancing food and fuel requirements.

    The Philippines required about 500 million litres of ethanol annually for the production of E10,2 the fuel necessitated by the Philippine government. This meant that the country needed at least 25 ethanol plants, each with an annual output of 20 million litres. 3 San Carlos Bioenergy Inc. in San Carlos City was building the country’s first ethanol plant with that production capacity.4 Meanwhile, it was up to the Department of Agriculture to propose a strategy to complement this new biofuels law and ensure its successful administration.

    The Philippines
    The Philippines [see Exhibit 1] was an archipelago of more than 7,100 islands located in South-East Asia. Strategically located as the gateway to Asia from the Pacific Ocean, it had a land area of 298,170 square kilometres and was bordered by the South China Sea to the west and north and the Pacific Ocean to the east and south. As an archipelago, it had a long coastline of 334,539 kilometres. The country had a tropical climate, with an average yearround temperature of 32º C.

    1

    “Bioethanol” is a term applied to ethanol derived from biomass. E10 is a mixture of 10% ethanol and 90% gasoline.
    3
    Manila Times (16 August 2006) “Pending Bio-Fuel Bill Stalls Investments in RP’s Ethanol Plants”. 4
    Manila Times (13 September 2006) “Energy Department Issues Guidelines for Bioethanol Program”. 2

    Ari Luis Halos of the University of the Philippines Los Baños prepared this case for class discussion. This case is not intended to serve as an endorsement, source of primary data, or to show effective or ineffective handling of decision or business processes. © 2008 by The Asia Case Research Centre, The University of Hong Kong. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means—electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise (including the internet)—without the permission of The University of Hong Kong. Ref. 08/370C

    1

    The Philippines’ Rising Bioethanol Industry

    08/370

    Imported oil comprised the largest portion of the Philippines’ energy mix. In 2004, the country imported 100 million barrels of oil, satisfying 36.6% of its energy requirement. Unless biofuels were adopted, the country’s oil import requirements were expected to reach 120 million barrels in 2013. Oil was used for transportation, industry and even power generation, as electricity on several of the smaller islands was generated using fuel oil. The Philippines also used biomass, geothermal, coal, natural gas and hydroelectricity to meet its energy needs,5 but because of its primary dependence upon imported oil, the country’s energy sector was highly susceptible to price fluctuations in the international market.

    The Philippines’ Biofuel Law of 2006
    The Biofuel Law of 2006 (RA9367) was signed on 17 January 2007, mandating the blending of 5% bioethanol with gasoline and 1% biodiesel with diesel fuel within four years of its enactment, after which the proportions were to be increased by 5% in 2009 to 10% for bioethanol and by 1% to 2%in 2008 for biodiesel. During its infancy, the implementing rules and regulations of the law were still being formulated.

    The main thrust of the biofuels act was to reduce Philippine dependence on imported fuel by providing a local supply of alternative and renewable energy. The specific objectives of the law were:
    • To develop and use local, clean and renewable energy sources • To reduce greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions
    • To increase rural employment and income
    • To ensure availability of clean energy.
    As stated in the Biofuel Law, the country was required to use liquid fuel that was blended with locally sourced products. The law also provided incentives to encourage investors to go into the production, distribution and use of locally produced biofuel. Some of the incentives contained in the law included exemption from water affluent fines and financial assistance to those who engaged in the biofuel business.

    The law also created the National Biofuels Board (“NBB”) of the Philippines. The NBB was composed of a chairman who was either the secretary of the Department of Energy or his assigned undersecretary. Members of the board were secretaries or undersecretaries of various government agencies such as the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of Science and Technology, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Finance, the Department of Labor and Employment and line agencies such as the Philippine Coconut Authority and the Sugar Regulatory Administration, both of which fell under the Department of Agriculture.

    In addition to the Department of Agriculture, government agencies such as the Department of Finance and the Department of Science and Technology were
    mandated to develop, implement and monitor the government’s biofuel production and utilisation technology programs.

    5

    Tamang, J.T. (25–30 August 2004) “Philippines Case Study”, Presentation to the 3rd Workshop of the Petroleum Policy and Management Project, Baguio City, The Philippines.

    2

    The Philippines’ Rising Bioethanol Industry

    08/370

    Bioethanol
    Ethanol (CH3CH2OH) was a flammable, colourless, slightly toxic chemical compound commonly found in alcoholic beverages. It had a specific gravity of 0.789.6 Because it could be made from plant material or synthetically from petroleum, ethanol derived from crops was distinguished as bioethanol.

    Crops that were used for bioethanol production were rich in either sugar or starch. It was considered a renewable fuel and as such was eligible to receive such incentives as zero valueadded tax rating under Philippine laws. Different countries used different feedstock in ethanol production. Corn was used in the United States because it was abundant and relatively cheap. Corn grains were liquefied and saccharised into fermentable sugar, which was then fermented with yeast into ethanol. Many other countries used sugarcane and sugar beets for ethanol production. Brazil was the world’s largest ethanol producer and made most of its ethanol from sugarcane, whereas France used sugar beets.

    Ethanol was used as an additive or alternative fuel for cars and other spark-ignited engines. Anhydrous ethanol, or that which has at most 5% water, was blended with gasoline in varying quantities to reduce consumption of petroleum fuels and reduce air pollution. According to a study sponsored by the Food and Agricultural Organization (“FAO”), blending ethanol with gasoline at 0.1% increased its power by about 0.1%. Ethanol was an oxygenate and thus reduced soot formation, as well as NOx (nitrogen oxides) emissions. Ethanol-gasoline blends led to smooth engine operation due to the wider flammability limits of ethanol.7 Because of its lower pollution emission properties, the production of ethanol earned carbon credits. Most engines that were available on the market accepted gasoline blended with up to 10% ethanol, based on the World Wide Fuel Charter. The charter contained fuel standards that were jointly produced by car and engine manufacturers’ associations in the EU, the US and Japan.8

    The Philippines Department of Energy, in conjunction with the Bureau of Product Standards, promulgated the Philippine bioethanol standard, PNS DOE QS 008 [see Exhibit 2 for a comparison of the specifications of bioethanol sold locally with the American standard]. The Local and Worldwide Bioethanol Markets

    In an optimistic scenario, petroleum companies would depend mainly on imports for the first two to five years as bioethanol distilleries established themselves in the country. Seaoil (one of the independent oil players) and Shell Philippines (one of the “big three” oil companies) were currently importing bioethanol from Brazil at US$0.504 per litre 9 and Australia at US$0.550 per litre.10

    6

    Specific gravity is the ratio of the density of a material to the density of water. The density of water is about one kilogram per litre.
    7
    Liu R., Lu N., Liu Q., Liu S., and Gao A. (1994) “Alcohol and cotton oil as alternative fuels for internal combustion engines” in Lu Nan (ed.) Best, G. (ed.) Carvalho Neto, C.C. de (ed.), Integrated Energy Systems in China: the Cold Northeastern Region Experience FAO: Rome, Italy, 111-151.

    8
    European Automobile Manufacturers Association, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Engine Manufacturers Association and the Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association (December 2002) “World Wide Fuel Charter”. 9

    US$1 = PhP 48.381 in February 2007.
    10
    Business Mirror (15 May 2007) “Better Biotechnology to Cut Cost of Local Bioethanol”.

    3

    The Philippines’ Rising Bioethanol Industry

    08/370

    Thirteen distilleries, each with a capacity of 100 kilolitres per day,11 were needed to meet the country’s 2009 bioethanol requirement of 223 million litres [see Exhibit 3 for local bioethanol demand projections]. More distilleries would be needed to keep up with growing requirements and higher mandated blends, raising the number to 30 distilleries by 2011 for the country to be self-sufficient in ethanol production. This would depend on the government’s ability to attract investors. The investment required for a distillery ranged from US$8.27 million for a distillery producing 40 kilolitres per day to US$41.34 million for a distillery producing 100 kilolitres per day. The final investment cost varied a bit, depending on location and the type of feedstock used.

    Annual ethanol production worldwide was expected to reach 49 billion litres in 2007 and increase further to 65 billion litres by 2012.12 The majority of production was expected to be concentrated in Brazil, the US, the EU and Australia, accounting for 84% of total world production [see Exhibit 4]. The US granted its petroleum companies an incentive of US$0.51 per gallon to use bioethanol and charged the same amount for imported bioethanol. Brazil and Australia were expected to dominate the export trade due to competitive
    advantage. These countries had large tracts of land that could be devoted to feedstock production, giving them economies of scale. Brazil was already the top ethanol producing country, accounting for 46% of worldwide production in 2004.

    While Brazil was set to be the major exporter of bioethanol, there was still enough room for other countries to participate in the global market for the product. The Philippines in particular was in a position to becom13e a major exporter to Japan, Korea and China due to its proximity. It had sufficient production areas to meet local and export needs. In fact, Japanese and other foreign investors had visited the Philippines to explore bioethanol ventures.14

    Ethanol Logistics and Distillery Location Considerations
    The logistical flow of bioethanol from plant to pump is illustrated in Figure 1. First, feedstock was harvested and hauled to a distillery where it was processed into bioethanol. The bioethanol was then brought by lorry from the distillery to either an ethanol depot or an oil depot. The cost of transport by lorry was around US$0.00413 per litre per 20 kilometres. The containers on most lorries in the Philippines were 40 feet long, with a carrying capacity of 20,000 litres. The bioethanol was brought to an ethanol depot if it was to be used on another island within the country or exported; otherwise, it was transported directly to an oil depot where it was blended with gasoline. There were two such depots being planned, one in Subic, which was on the main island of Luzon, 66 nautical miles northwest of Manila, and the other in San Carlos City, on the island of Negros. Transfers from one ethanol depot to another were done with the use of tankers. From an ethanol depot or distillery, the bioethanol was brought to an oil depot where it was to be mixed with unleaded gasoline for eventual sale in a gasoline station.

    11

    One kilolitre equals 1,000 litres.
    Berg, C. and Litch, F.O. (April 2004) “World Fuel Ethanol Analysis and Outlook”, Japan Ministry of Energy Trade and Industry,
    http://www.meti.go.jp/report/downloadfiles/g30819b40j.pdf. (accessed 12 February 2007). 13

    Interview with a former vice president of Pilipinas Shell.
    14
    Philippine Daily Inquirer (13 June 2007) “Japan Firm Eyes $150M Worth of Biofuel Plants in Leyte”. 12

    4

    The Philippines’ Rising Bioethanol Industry

    08/370

    Figure 1: Bioethanol Logistics

    By early 2007, San Carlos Bioenergy, Inc. was constructing the first bioethanol distillery in the country. Their facility would be capable of producing 100 kilolitres per day, or 20 million litres per year, and was to be located in San Carlos City at Negros Occidental in Region VI. Sugarcane was to be brought by farmers to the distillery, as was the practice with sugar mills. The ethanol produced from the sugarcane was to be piped to the nearby port where it would be loaded into a tanker. The tanker would then bring the product to Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority, a special economic zone. From there, it would be transported by lorry to Pandacan, Manila, 130 kilometres away. San Carlos Bioenergy had contracted their product to Petron Corporation, the Philippines’ largest refiner and distributor of petroleum products. Ideally, a distillery had to be strategically located relative to the production areas and the depots of the oil companies because the depots were to serve as blending facilities for the production of E515 and E10. Other factors to consider were the presence and adequacy of utilities (ie, water and electricity), logistics (ie, road infrastructure, a port and handling facility, appropriate transport and storage) and site size.

    Because a lot of feedstock was required to produce bioethanol, proximity to farm production areas took precedence over access to the oil depot. This reduced the inbound logistics costs of the feedstock. Furthermore, this would facilitate delivery schedules important in addressing ethanol yield reduction resulting from transport delays. The availability of large tracts of sugarcane land in San Carlos City was the reason why it became the host of the country’s first fuel ethanol plant.

    After a site had been identified, other factors needed to be considered in final site selection for a bioethanol distillery plant. It had to have access to electric substations because the distillery used a number of pumps and motors that required a reliable three-phase power source for operation. The availability of water was yet another factor in site selection, which was why distilleries in the Philippines were usually located near rivers. Because bioethanol was hygroscopic, or absorbed moisture easily, it could not be handled by the current petroleum infrastructure without some modifications. The current petroleum transport infrastructure, including ships and pipelines, relied on water to move petroleum products. Mixing ethanol into gasoline modified gasoline characteristics, making it difficult to remove moisture. Too much moisture in the fuel affected engine performance and service life.

    15

    E5 is a mixture of 5% ethanol and 95% gasoline.

    5

    The Philippines’ Rising Bioethanol Industry

    08/370

    Big oil companies in the Philippines had plans to blend ethanol “in line”. This meant that ethanol and gasoline were to be stored separately at the depot and, as gasoline was being loaded into a lorry, ethanol would be pumped in at the same time such that mixing occurred in the loading pipe, thereby minimising moisture absorption.

    Of particular importance was the Pandacan depot in Manila because this was where 40% of the country’s unleaded gas was trans-shipped and eventually sold. Distilleries located on the main island of Luzon therefore had a distinct advantage over those on other islands, who had to trans-ship their bioethanol via Subic because the port in Luzon had the infrastructure to handle it [see Exhibit 5 for a map of the Philippines showing the general locations of Petron’s depots and the distribution of demand].

    The Luzon mainland was therefore the preferred location for serving the local market, especially considering that this was where most unleaded gasoline was consumed. Also, compared to distilleries based in the Visayas and Mindanao, there were fewer constraints on transshipment. Prospective distillery investors, however, also had to consider exporting their produce, especially if they were located outside the Luzon mainland.

    Ports and Shipping
    Being an archipelago, the Philippines relied heavily on inter-island shipping for its logistical needs. The country had 2,456 ports, most of which were small. Depots, which were owned by the oil companies, had their own ports.

    Classification of Existing Ports, November 2003
    Total Number of Ports

    2456

    Private Ports

    17%

    Fishing Ports

    17%

    Public Ports

    65%

    Others

    1%
    Figure 2: Ports in the Philippines16

    The domestic shipping industry was deregulated in 1994, resulting in improved shipping services. The number of shipping companies also increased from 223 in 1997 to 585 in 2001. Some industrial firms owned and operated their own vessels to carry specialised cargo, such as liquid petroleum gas, chemicals and petroleum. Nevertheless, the shipping industry continued to be dominated by a shipping oligopoly; thus, inter-island cargo rates remained quite expensive [see Exhibit 6].

    Ethanol Feedstock Considerations
    The productivity and price of feedstock were sensitive issues because most farms in the Philippines were small, with an average size of two hectares. Sugarcane was being promoted 16

    The World Bank (2005), “Transport in the Philippines”, http://go.worldbank.org/WQ5TPR6HQ0 (accessed: February 3, 2008).

    6

    The Philippines’ Rising Bioethanol Industry

    08/370

    as the main feedstock for the bioethanol program, and the local sugar industry had lobbied strongly for the passage of the Biofuels Act.17 The choice of sugarcane was based on the experience of Brazil, which was the lowest-cost producer of ethanol in the world, with a production cost of US$0.23 per litre. They used sugarcane as feedstock, with a productivity of 6,000 litres per hectare per year18 [see Exhibit 7 for the comparative ethanol yields of sweet sorghum, corn, cassava and sugarcane in the Philippines].

    The Philippines had a sizeable sugar industry with a long industry of export. Sugarcane was grown mainly on the islands of Negros, Luzon, Panay and Mindanao. Despite increasing local demand for sugar, the Sugar Regulatory Administration (“SRA”) said that there was still a lot of suitable land available for ethanol production. This may have been due to declining exports of sugar.

    The local sugar industry had a number of quirks. For one, the SRA prohibited sugar mills to be located within 100 kilometres of each other in order to discourage price competition. Another was the requirement that sugar farmers have a share in the production. So, when farmers delivered cane to sugar mills, they were paid in terms of sucrose content. Still another quirk, farmers were entitled to a share of the by-products of the sugar production process. One of these by-products was molasses, the main raw material traditionally used for ethanol production in the country. The yield of molasses was approximately 3.5% of the cane weight, and around 280 litres of ethanol were produced for every tonne of Philippine molasses. There were environmental concerns about its use in fuel ethanol production because the wastewater from molasses ethanol production had a dark colour and foul smell. There were also supply concerns because Philippine molasses was not only in high demand in the local potable ethanol and livestock feeds production industries, but also in the export market.

    Cassava was currently being used by the country’s largest distiller, Distilleria Bago, Inc., as a raw material for Extra Neutral Alcohol19 production in one of their columns. They constructed the country’s first cassava milk production facility in Bago City at Negros Occidental. Cassava had long been cultivated in the Philippines. Unfortunately, the yields for the years 2001–2005 were quite low at around 8 tonnes per hectare per year20. Tests done at the Leyte State University, however, showed that yields of 35 tonnes per hectare per year could be attained with the use of new varieties, resulting in ethanol yields of 4,900–6,545 litres per hectare per year. The figure used in this study was based on the estimated yield of NSIC CV22,21 which showed that its ethanol yield was comparable to other feedstocks. Unfortunately, the ethanol productivity of cassava was greatly dependent on its post-harvest handling. Studies by the FAO showed that the starch content of cassava dropped dramatically after harvest. As such, it was strongly recommended that cassava be processed within 48 hours of its harvest. Cassava chips had dramatically reduced starch content, which accounted for their low ethanol productivity in industry. The FAO recommended that mini-distilleries be set up in order to process cassava into ethanol. However, this concept had yet to be tested. In the US, corn producers were considering ethanol production as an alternative business because it was the predominant ethanol feedstock. Unfortunately, the low productivity of 17

    Philippine Daily Inquirer (27 April 2007) “Energy from Agriculture”. Assis, V., Elstrodt, H. and Silva, C.F.C. (2007) “Positioning Brazil for Biofuels Success”, McKinsey Quarterly, 2007 Special Edition: Shaping a New Agenda for Latin America.

    19
    Extra Neutral Alcohol is food grade bioethanol used in making spirits. 20
    Philippines’ Bureau of Agricultural Statistics, http://www.bas.gov.ph/ (accessed 12 February 2007). 21
    NSIC CV-22 is a cassava variety approved by the Philippines’ National Seed Industry Council 18

    7

    The Philippines’ Rising Bioethanol Industry

    08/370

    local corn production, coupled with high demand in the feeds industry,
    discouraged the US Department of Agriculture from seriously considering it as a primary ethanol feedstock. Thus, the opportunity for using corn in local ethanol production would only arise if corn yields became high enough to cause a surplus. The yields were expected to increase dramatically if Bt corn 22 was used. The Philippines was one of the few developing countries that had established a genetically modified crop review and approval process and Bt corn had already been commercialised since 2002, despite the protests of the local office of Greenpeace.23 Sweet sorghum also held great promise as an ethanol feedstock because both its grain and its sweet stalk juice could be used. Furthermore, with advances in cellulosic ethanol production, even its bagasse held potential for ethanol production.

    Initial tests had been conducted at the Mariano Marcos State University from 2006 to 2007 using parent lines provided by the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics. The tests showed that the crop could be harvested three to four times a year with grain yields ranging from 3.28 to 4.4 tonnes per hectare and stalk yields ranging from 43 to 65 tonnes per hectare. The crop experiment also prevailed in spite of a typhoon that had caused it to be waterlogged for seven days. A multi-location trial was underway in the hopes that sweet sorghum varieties would gain approval for commercial production. Aside from productivity, another major consideration was feedstock cost, which made up the biggest proportion of ethanol production cost [see Exhibit 7]. The average cost of feedstock per litre of ethanol of sweet sorghum was comparable to that of sugarcane. While cassava had the potential to have the lowest cost of production, its price was too unstable, varying widely across regions from as low as US$0.031 per kilogram to as high as US$0.434 per kilogram. The cost of feedstock per litre of ethanol from molasses and corn were high and thus more appropriate for use in beverages than in fuel ethanol.

    Another concern of a potential distillery owner was the availability of raw material. This depended a great deal on the willingness of farmers to plant the crop. This, in turn, was dependent on the potential earnings that the farmer could realise [see Exhibit 7]. While sugarcane was favourable to the distillery, it produced less revenue per hectare per year for farmers than Bt corn or sweet sorghum. The revenue per hectare from Bt corn was comparable to an open pollinated variety of sweet sorghum. In other words, the farmer’s revenue from an improved variety of corn was comparable to a regular variety of sweet sorghum. This meant that the farmer had the potential to earn even more without increasing the distillery’s feedstock cost, given a slight improvement in sweet sorghum productivity through hybridisation.

    A challenge for the use of sweet sorghum was the availability of seeds and approval for its widespread planting because it was only just being introduced. This was addressed by the Department of Agriculture’s Bureau of Agricultural Research, which initiated the planting of sweet sorghum on 500 hectares around the country and intended to make planting material available by the year 2009. High-yielding varieties of corn were already being sold by private companies, while those of sugarcane were being distributed by the Sugar Regulatory Administration in areas where sugar was already being produced. The planting material for regular cassava was readily available, but the seed pieces of high-yielding varieties of cassava were not expected to be available for another three years.

    22

    Bt corn is a genetically modified corn variety that contains a gene from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis to kill stem borers, a pest of corn.
    23
    Manila Times (17 July 2006) “Sustained agriculture to boost food security”.

    8

    The Philippines’ Rising Bioethanol Industry

    08/370

    The cost of using sugar-based feedstock such as sugarcane or sweet sorghum stalk was said to be lower than that of using starch-based ones such as corn, sweet sorghum grain or cassava. Although molasses was sugar-based, it had a slightly higher production cost due to the increased pollution control measures required. Distilleries using sugar-based feedstock could not be used for starch-based feedstock, and the capital investment in distilleries dedicated to a certain feedstock were said to vary only slightly on a per-litre basis.

    Food versus Fuel Debate
    Various groups, both in the Philippines and abroad, were raising the issue of the apparent conflict between food and biofuel. This was in light of developments in the US where more and more corn was being used for ethanol production, tightening world demand, despite being the bumper crop of the US for the previous two years. Also, rising ethanol and sugar prices were resulting in higher prices for Brazilian sugarcane as ethanol and sugar marketers competed for supplies.

    However, there were a lot of idle lands and new agricultural production technologies being introduced that promised to increase total yields. What agriculturists argued was that, until then, there hadn’t been enough incentive for farmers to use more land or to employ advanced technologies, nor for capitalists to invest in agriculture [see Exhibits 8 and 9]. In the Philippines, it was typically the farmers’ responsibility to bring produce to the buyer, and they usually sold their produce to traders. In the case of the bioethanol industry, however, most investors planned to deal directly with farmers to minimise costs.

    Labour Availability
    The Philippines had a large pool of manpower that could be tapped by the ethanol industry. Every year, 400,000 individuals in the country graduated from college, around 10% of whom were engineers. Graduates in agriculture, microbiology, chemistry and other related subjects essential to the ethanol industry were also available.

    Furthermore, there were a lot of distilleries already in operation in the country. The Philippines had a sizable alcohol industry, and some of the country’s top corporations were involved in alcohol production and the sale of beverage alcohol. Also, a number of private and public institutions, including academic institutions, were continually developing technologies and manpower in support of the alcohol industry.

    The Role of the Department of Agriculture
    The Philippines’ Board of Investments granted fiscal and non-fiscal incentives to priority projects such as those in the biofuels industry. The Biofuels Law granted additional incentives to biofuels investors in addition to the existing investment incentives [see Exhibit 12]. Officials of the Department of Agriculture, however, were wondering if these incentives were enough. They wanted to formulate a strategy that would maximise the program’s chances of succeeding. With the call for budget proposals for the 2008 General Appropriations Act just around the corner, the Department of Agriculture had to act quickly if it wanted to complement the investors package with infrastructure and other support.

    9

    The Philippines’ Rising Bioethanol Industry

    08/370

    EXHIBIT 1: THE PHILIPPINES AT A GLANCE

    Source: National Mapping and Resource Information Authority.

    Population, Labour and Employment
    Population
    : 78.42 million (as of December 2000)
    : 2.14% annually
    Population growth
    : 32.57 million (as of July 2001)
    Total labour force
    : 89.9% of total labour force
    Employed
    : 17.7% of total labour force
    Underemployed
    : 10.1% of total labour force
    Unemployed
    Sources: National Statistical Coordination Board and Department of Labor and Employment.

    10

    The Philippines’ Rising Bioethanol Industry

    08/370

    EXHIBIT 2: PHILIPPINE STANDARDS AND ASTM D 4806 STANDARDS FOR BIOETHANOL

    PROPERTY
    Appearance

    Acidity/Alkalinity
    Maximum copper, as Cu, milligrams
    per kilogram
    Minimum ethanol content, percent by
    volume

    ETHANOL
    PNS DOE QS 008 ASTM D 4806
    Clear and bright,
    Clear and bright,
    visibly free of
    visibly free of
    suspended or
    suspended or
    precipitated
    precipitated
    contaminants
    contaminants
    6.5–9.0
    6.5–9.0
    0.1

    0.1

    96.9
    (unleaded
    gasoline)
    1.96–2.44*

    0.007

    0.5

    1

    none

    11

    0.5

    0.007

    Source: Bureau of Products Standards, Philippines, 2006.

    40

    0.5

    *2% by volume at the point of denaturing

    1.96–4.76

    40

    Denaturant, percent by volume
    Maximum inorganic chloride content,
    parts per million by mass
    Maximum ethanol, percent by volume
    Maximum total acids (as ascetic acid),
    percent by weight
    Maximum water content, percent by
    volume
    Solvent-washed gum

    5mg/100ml

    92.1

    The Philippines’ Rising Bioethanol Industry

    08/370

    EXHIBIT 3: PROJECTED DEMAND FOR BIOETHANOL IN THE PHILIPPINES

    Year
    A
    2007
    2008
    2009
    2010
    2011
    2012
    2013
    2014
    2015

    Projected
    Gasoline
    Demand
    (In Million
    Litres)
    B
    4,845
    5,102
    5,370
    5,650
    5,939
    6,239
    6,549
    6,872
    7,210

    Mandated
    Blend
    C
    0
    0
    5%
    5%
    10%
    10%
    10%
    10%
    10%

    Source: Department of Energy (DOE), Philippines, 2005.

    12

    Bioethanol
    Requirement
    (In Million Liters)
    D=BxC

    269
    283
    594
    624
    655
    687
    721

    The Philippines’ Rising Bioethanol Industry

    08/370

    EXHIBIT 4: WORLD BIOETHANOL PRODUCTION IN MILLION LITRES, 1975–2012 70000
    60000
    50000
    40000
    30000
    20000
    10000
    0
    1975
    Beverage

    1980

    1985
    Brazil (Fuel)

    1990

    1995

    US (Fuel)

    2000
    EU (Fuel)

    2005

    2010

    Other Countries

    Source: Berg, C. (April 2004) “World Fuel Ethanol Analysis and Outlook”, http://www.distill.com/WorldFuel-Ethanol-A&O-2004.html (accessed 12 January 2007).

    13

    The Philippines’ Rising Bioethanol Industry

    08/370

    EXHIBIT 5: PETRON’S DEPOTS AND THE DISTRIBUTION OF DEMAND

    Distribution of Demand
    Cluster
    Northern Luzon Cluster (area north of Manila)
    Greater Manila Area
    Southern Luzon Cluster (area in Luzon mainland south of
    Manila)
    Visayas Cluster (islands aside from Luzon or Mindanao)
    Mindanao Cluster
    Source: http://www.bioethanol.com.ph/ (accessed 12 January 2007).

    14

    Demand (% of country)
    18%
    40%
    12%
    18%
    12%

    The Philippines’ Rising Bioethanol Industry

    08/370

    EXHIBIT 6: FREIGHT RATES OF DOMESTIC VESSELS FOR EXPORT CARGOES

    Breakdown of Route Chargesa per Two Twenty-Foot Equivalent Units or One Forty-Foot Container

    Route

    Sea
    Distance
    Transport
    Total
    Sea
    Auxiliary Charges from
    in
    Freight
    Charges
    b Transport
    Charges Repositioning
    Nautical
    per
    (US$)
    Freight
    Miles
    Nautical
    Mile (US$)

    Manila–
    Cebu

    392

    553.94

    30.12

    144.23

    212

    0.54

    Manila–
    Cagayan de
    Oro

    504

    680.34

    30.91

    166.61

    310

    0.61

    Manila–
    Zamboanga

    512

    689.37

    30.91

    166.61

    310

    0.61

    Manila–
    Gen.
    Santos

    723

    927.50

    30.91

    166.61

    310

    0.43

    Manila–
    Davao

    829

    1,047.14

    30.91

    166.61

    310

    0.97

    a

    Includes local arrastre at ports of origin and destination, wharfage and documentation stamps.
    b
    Freight of empty containers.
    SOURCE: DOMESTIC SHIPOWNERS ASSOCIATION.

    15

    The Philippines’ Rising Bioethanol Industry

    08/370

    EXHIBIT 7: FEEDSTOCK COMPARISONS

    Sources: GAIN Report on RP sugar industry, GAIN Report on Thai sugar industry, Leyte State University Report on cassava, Biotechnology Coalition of the Philippines Speech, MMSU field tests, FAO and ICRISAT.

    Monocrop Farmer’s Annual Revenue
    140
    High

    High

    Low

    Low

    BT Corn

    Sweet Sorghum

    T PhP/ha/year

    120
    100
    80

    High

    60
    40

    Low

    20
    0
    Sugarcane

    Sources: GAIN Report on RP sugar industry, bas.gov.ph, Biotechnology Coalition of the Philippines Speech, MMSU field tests, FAO and ICRISAT.

    16

    The Philippines’ Rising Bioethanol Industry

    08/370

    Feedstock Cost Comparison

    Price (US$ per
    Metric Tonne )

    Metric
    Tonnes
    per
    Hectare

    Litres
    per
    Metric
    Tonne

    Crops
    per
    Year

    Feedstock

    Min

    Max

    Sugarcane

    20.67

    22.74

    65

    70

    1

    Cassava

    31.00

    119.88

    8

    180

    175.69

    206.69

    5

    Litres
    per
    Hectare
    per Year

    Corn

    Feedstock
    Cost per
    Litre
    Min

    Max

    4,550

    0.295

    0.325

    1

    1,440

    0.172

    0.666

    400

    2

    4,000

    0.439

    0.517

    Sweet Sorghum
    Stalk

    11.37

    12.40

    50

    50

    2

    5,000

    0.227

    0.248

    Grain

    124.02

    144.68

    3

    375

    2

    2,250

    0.331

    0.386

    Source: Department of Agriculture Agribusiness Center.

    Feedstock Planting Cycles
    Feedstock

    Days to Harvest

    Sugarcane
    Cassava
    Corn

    300–330 days
    270 days
    120 days
    100–110 (from seed)
    85–90 days (ratoon*)

    Sweet Sorghum

    *Ratoon is the shoot sprouting from the base of the sweet sorghum crop after the stalk has been harvested.

    Sources: SRA, MMSU field tests, LSU, FAO and ICRISAT.

    Indicative Bioethanol Production Costs for Various Feedstock (US$ per Litre) Feedstock

    Production
    Cost

    Days Used as
    Feedstock per
    Year

    Average
    Production Cost

    Sugarcane

    0.459

    150

    Molasses

    0.605

    150

    Cassava

    0.642

    300

    0.642

    Corn
    Sweet
    Sorghum

    0.650

    300

    0.650

    0.437

    300

    0.437

    Sources: Rusni Distilleries.

    17

    0.532

    The Philippines’ Rising Bioethanol Industry

    08/370

    EXHIBIT 8: CORN AND SUGAR SUPPLY AND DEMAND IN THE PHILIPPINES

    Corn Supply and Demand Projections (2005–2007)
    2007
    Total Supply (thousands of metric tonnes)

    2006

    2005

    6,916

    6,682

    6,394

    200

    204

    192

    6,318

    5,933

    5,253

    Imports

    398

    545

    949

    Corn

    398

    250

    65

    295

    884

    Total Usage (thousands of metric tonnes)

    6,716

    6,482

    6,190

    Food

    1,005

    986

    967

    52

    52

    49

    Feed

    4,395

    4,257

    4,123

    Others*

    1,264

    1,181

    1,051

    200

    200

    204

    Beginning stock
    Production

    Cassava & feed substitute

    Seeds

    Remainder (thousands of metric tonnes)
    * Comprised of wastage and material used for industrial purposes.

    Source: Department of Agriculture-GMA Corn.

    Domestic Raw Sugar: Long-Term Projections of Demand
    Item
    Total Demand (Thousands
    of Tonnes)
    Low
    High
    Average Annual Growth
    Rate (%)
    Low
    High

    2005

    2010

    2015

    2.19
    2.21

    2.53
    2.90

    2.85
    3.02

    3.5
    3.7

    2.90
    3.20

    2.80
    3.10

    Source: University of Asia and the Pacific (2002) “Philippine Sugar Industry, Analysis and Projections of Domestic Demand”.

    18

    The Philippines’ Rising Bioethanol Industry

    08/370

    EXHIBIT 9: CORN AGRIBUSINESS IN THE PHILIPPINES
    Year
    1985
    1986
    1987
    1988
    1989
    1990
    1991
    1992
    1993
    1994
    1995
    1996
    1997
    1998
    1999
    2000
    2001
    2002
    2003
    2004
    2005

    Harvested Area
    Production
    Yield
    (thousands of hectares) (thousands of metric tons) (kilograms per hectare) 3,510.910
    3,862.810
    1,100
    3,594.970
    4,090.730
    1,138
    3,682.650
    4,278.120
    1,162
    3,745.070
    4,427.950
    1,182
    3,689.240
    4,522.200
    1,226
    3,819.560
    4,853.890
    1,271
    3,589.460
    4,655.030
    1,297
    3,331.410
    4,618.850
    1,386
    3,149.340
    4,797.980
    1,523
    3,005.820
    4,519.250
    1,503
    2,692.330
    4,128.510
    1,533
    2,735.720
    4,151.330
    1,517
    2,725.880
    4,332.420
    1,589
    2,354.210
    3,823.180
    1,624
    2,642.210
    4,584.590
    1,735
    2,510.340
    4,511.100
    1,797
    2,486.590
    4,525.010
    1,820
    2,395.456
    4,319.262
    1,803
    2,409.828
    4,615.625
    1,915
    2,527.135
    5,413.386
    2,142
    2,441.788
    5,253.160
    2,151

    Source: ASEAN Food Security Information System, afsis.oae.go.th (accessed 12 April 2007).

    Corn Productivity per Region, 2005
    Region/Province

    Production
    (metric
    tonnes)

    Cordillera Administrative Region
    Region I (Ilocos Region)
    Region II (Cagayan Valley)
    Region III (Central Luzon)
    Region IV-A (Calabarzon)
    Region IV-B (Mimaropa)
    Region V (BICOL Region)
    Region VI (Western Visayas)
    Region VII (Central Visayas)
    Region VIII (Eastern Visayas)
    Region IX (Zamboanga Peninsula)
    Region X (Northern Mindanao)
    Region XI (Davao Region)
    Region XII (SocCSKSarGen)
    Caraga Administrative Region
    Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao
    Philippines

    130,464
    300,184
    769,506
    182,333
    64,102
    94,161
    118,115
    193,736
    188,525
    68,416
    223,208
    938,227
    293,413
    959,286
    98,595
    630,889
    5,253,160

    Harvest Area
    (hectares)
    42,010
    67,298
    258,180
    44,500
    36,365
    36,407
    80,237
    107,030
    246,463
    58,589
    163,365
    381,499
    200,409
    398,343
    55,765
    265,328
    2,441,788

    Productivity
    (metric
    tonnes per
    hectare)
    3.11
    4.46
    2.98
    4.10
    1.76
    2.59
    1.47
    1.81
    0.76
    1.17
    1.37
    2.46
    1.46
    2.41
    1.77
    2.38
    2.15

    Source: Bureau of Agricultural Statistics, http://www.bas.gov.ph/ (accessed 12 April 2007).

    19

    The Philippines’ Rising Bioethanol Industry

    08/370

    Corn Monthly Production, 2005
    Year
    2005

    Month
    January
    February
    March
    April
    May
    June
    July
    August
    September
    October
    November
    December

    Production
    294,919
    353,653
    604,217
    373,791
    199,633
    147,050
    274,880
    1,051,408
    876,435
    255,440
    293,504
    528,230

    Percent
    5.61
    6.73
    11.50
    7.12
    3.80
    2.80
    5.23
    20.01
    16.68
    4.86
    5.59
    10.06

    Source: ASEAN Food Security Information System, afsis.oae.go.th (accessed 12 April 2007).

    Source: Bureau of Agricultural Statistics, http://www.bas.gov.ph/ (accessed 12 April 2007).

    20

    The Philippines’ Rising Bioethanol Industry

    08/370

    Sugarcane Planted Area, Harvested Area, Production and Yield in the Philippines Year
    1985
    1986
    1987
    1988
    1989
    1990
    1991
    1992
    1993
    1994
    1995
    1996
    1997
    1998
    1999
    2000
    2001
    2002
    2003
    2004
    2005

    Harvested Area
    Production
    Yield
    (thousands of hectares) (thousands of metric tonnes) (kilograms per hectare) 368.560
    17,542.100
    47,596
    300.130
    14,831.100
    49,416
    269.270
    13,797.000
    51,239
    215.650
    17,423.100
    80,793
    261.750
    21,424.800
    81,852
    235.270
    18,666.900
    79,343
    271.500
    21,824.500
    80,386
    266.980
    21,005.600
    78,679
    384.009
    22,915.065
    59,673
    401.635
    24,695.188
    61,487
    302.005
    17,774.401
    58,855
    395.640
    23,142.220
    58,493
    375.181
    22,273.095
    59,366
    307.173
    17,333.372
    56,429
    404.065
    23,777.828
    58,847
    383.824
    21,223.438
    55,295
    373.705
    21,708.722
    58,091
    359.866
    21,417.288
    59,515
    383.901
    23,978.373
    62,460
    388.627
    25,579.214
    65,819
    368.944
    22,917.674
    62,117

    Source: ASEAN Food Security Information System, afsis.oae.go.th (accessed 12 April 2007).

    21

    The Philippines’ Rising Bioethanol Industry

    08/370

    Sugarcane Productivity per Region, 2005
    Region/Province

    Production
    (metric
    tonnes)

    Cordillera Administrative
    Region
    Region I (Ilocos Region)
    Region II (Cagayan Valley)
    Region III (Central Luzon)
    Region IV-A (Calabarzon)
    Region IV-B (Mimaropa)
    Region V (BICOL Region)
    Region VI (Western Visayas)
    Region VII (Central Visayas)
    Region VIII (Eastern Visayas)
    Region IX (Zamboanga
    Peninsula)
    Region X (Northern Mind.)
    Region XI (Davao Region)
    Region XII (SocCSKSarGen)
    Caraga Administrative Region
    Autonomous Region of Muslim
    Mindanao
    Philippines

    Harvest
    Area
    (hectares)

    Productivity
    (metric
    tonnes per
    hectare)

    Estimated
    Sucrose
    Content
    (kilograms
    per metric
    tonne)

    9,315
    18,534
    222,029
    1,202,298
    1,765,611
    284,065
    13,072,226
    2,079,900
    499,595

    149
    439
    6,295
    18,656
    29,019
    6,560
    187,152
    37,867
    9,531

    62.52
    42.22
    35.27
    64.45
    60.84
    43.30
    69.85
    54.93
    52.42

    97.50
    91.00
    97.50
    83.90
    97.00
    95.00
    87.75
    82.50
    98.50

    609
    2,875,321
    358,907
    495,563
    21

    145
    52,531
    9,837
    9,635
    4

    4.20
    54.74
    36.49
    51.43
    5.25

    99.83
    103.50
    97.00
    101.00

    33,681
    22,917,675

    1,124
    368,944

    29.97
    62.12

    97.00
    93.00

    Source: Bureau of Agricultural Statistics, http://www.bas.gov.ph/ (accessed 12 April 2007); Philippine Sugar Millers Association, www.psma.com.ph (accessed 15 April 2007).

    Sugarcane Food Balance, 2003, in Thousands of Metric Tonnes
    Year
    Domestic
    Supply

    2003
    Domestic
    Utilisation

    Item
    Total
    Production
    Imports
    Exports
    Change in stock
    Total
    Feed
    Seed
    Processing
    Waste
    Other uses
    Food

    2,138.00
    2,237.00
    188.00
    152.00
    -135.00
    2,138.00
    0.00
    0.00
    0.00
    0.00
    0.00
    2,138.00

    Source: ASEAN Food Security Information System, afsis.oae.go.th (accessed 12 April 2007)

    22

    The Philippines’ Rising Bioethanol Industry

    08/370

    Cassava Planted Area, Harvested Area, Production and Yield in the Philippines

    Year
    1985
    1986
    1987
    1988
    1989
    1990
    1991
    1992
    1993
    1994
    1995
    1996
    1997
    1998
    1999
    2000
    2001
    2002
    2003
    2004
    2005

    Harvested Area
    Production
    Yield
    (thousands of hectares) (thousands of metric tonnes) (kilograms per hectare) 204.567
    1,686.716
    8,245
    211.383
    1,724.142
    8,156
    209.686
    1,784.264
    8,509
    217.083
    1,865.918
    8,595
    213.108
    1,846.861
    8,666
    213.653
    1,853.385
    8,675
    210.908
    1,714.880
    8,605
    204.175
    1,783.733
    8,736
    211.263
    1,843.055
    8,724
    212.877
    1,890.509
    8,881
    225.751
    1,905.903
    8,443
    228.343
    1,910.775
    8,368
    230.522
    1,958.004
    8,494
    215.263
    1,733.821
    8,054
    223.622
    1,890.315
    8,453
    210.208
    1,765.712
    8,400
    208.183
    1,652.036
    7,935
    207.620
    1,625.740
    7,830
    209.210
    1,622.240
    7,754
    205.755
    1,640.520
    7,973
    204.784
    1,677.563
    8,192

    Source: ASEAN Food Security Information System, afsis.oae.go.th (accessed 12 April 2007).

    23

    The Philippines’ Rising Bioethanol Industry

    08/370

    Cassava Productivity per Region, 2005
    Region/Province

    Cordillera Administrative Region
    Region I (Ilocos Region)
    Region II (Cagayan Valley)
    Region III (Central Luzon)
    Region IV-A (Calabarzon)
    Region IV-B (Mimaropa)
    Region V (Bicol Region)
    Region VI (Western Visayas)
    Region VII (Central Visayas)
    Region VIII (Eastern Visayas)
    Region IX (Zamboanga Peninsula)
    Region X (Northern Mindanao)
    Region XI (Davao Region)
    Region XII (SocCSKSarGen)
    Caraga Administrative Region
    Autonomous
    Region
    of
    Muslim
    Mindanao
    Philippines

    1,730
    13,576
    31,975
    9,395
    71,505
    8,909
    122,197
    57,508
    67,145
    70,623
    26,861
    150,484
    15,584
    30,071
    49,234
    950,765

    327
    2,071
    2,642
    1,188
    9,404
    2,226
    24,915
    6,467
    10,595
    23,152
    6,326
    10,428
    2,295
    1,966
    8,390
    92,392

    Productivity
    (metric
    tonnes per
    hectare)
    5.29
    6.56
    12.10
    7.91
    7.60
    4.00
    4.90
    8.89
    6.34
    3.05
    4.25
    14.43
    6.79
    15.30
    5.87
    10.29

    1,677,562

    204,784

    8.19

    Production
    (metric
    tonnes)

    Harvest
    Area
    (hectares)

    Source: Bureau of Agricultural Statistics, http://www.bas.gov.ph/ (accessed 12 April 2007).

    24

    The Philippines’ Rising Bioethanol Industry

    08/370

    EXHIBIT 10: EXPERIMENTAL YIELD OF SWEET SORGHUM

    Variety
    NTJ 2
    SPV 422
    ICSV 700
    ICSV 93046
    ICSR 93034

    Stripped Stalked
    Yield (metric tonnes per
    hectare)
    Main Crop
    Ratoon
    Crop
    45–50
    48–55
    56–60
    57–65
    43–48
    45–50
    47–52
    48–55
    46–52
    47–53

    Grain Yield
    (metric tonnes per
    hectare)
    Main Crop
    Ratoon
    Crop
    3.62
    4.40
    3.28
    3.92
    3.46
    4.11
    3.40
    4.08
    3.46
    4.25

    Percentage
    Sugar by
    Brix
    18.5
    19.0
    18.0
    15.0
    18.0

    Source: Rañola, RE Jr., Layaoen, HL, Costales C, Halos, AC and Baracol, LA (2007) Feasibility Study of

    the Production of Anhydrous Ethanol from Sweet Sorghum, Bureau of Agricultural Research: Quezon City, Philippines, p. 60.

    25

    The Philippines’ Rising Bioethanol Industry

    08/370

    EXHIBIT 11: 2005 AVERAGE FARM PRICES (IN US$) BY REGION

    Region
    Cordillera Administrative Region
    Region I (Ilocos Region)
    Region II (Cagayan Valley)
    Region III (Central Luzon)
    Region IV-A (Calabarzon)
    Region IV-B (Mimaropa)
    Region V (Bicol Region)
    Region VI (Western Visayas)
    Region VII (Central Visayas)
    Region VIII (Eastern Visayas)
    Region IX (Zamboanga Peninsula)
    Region X (Northern Mindanao)
    Region XI (Davao Region)
    Region XII (SocCSKSarGen)
    Caraga Administrative Region
    Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao

    Corn
    (per metric
    tonne)
    152.13
    160.81
    157.71
    167.01
    168.87
    142.20
    154.19
    161.43
    176.52
    N/A
    160.81
    152.75
    144.89
    154.19
    152.95
    171.14

    Sugarcane
    (per metric
    tonne
    sucrose)
    N/A
    N/A
    338.15
    354.27
    250.92
    N/A
    N/A
    355.92
    367.29
    365.85
    N/A
    344.14
    344.56
    305.49
    N/A
    N/A

    Cassava
    (per
    metric
    tonne)
    209.59
    141.79
    96.94
    89.91
    91.77
    126.50
    79.99
    62.21
    52.09
    109.55
    83.30
    32.86
    64.07
    68.42
    69.66
    108.31

    Source: Bureau of Agricultural Statistics, http://www.bas.gov.ph/ (accessed 12 April 2007).

    26

    The Philippines’ Rising Bioethanol Industry

    08/370

    EXHIBIT 12: BIOFUEL INVESTMENT INCENTIVES

    Incentives Granted by the Philippines’ Board of Investments 1. Income tax holiday or additional deductions from taxable income 2. Tax credit on raw materials, supplies and semi-manufactured products 3. Exemption from wharfage dues and export tax, duty, impost and fees 4. Minimal or no duty on machinery, equipment, spare parts and accessories imports 5. Employment of foreign nationals

    6. Guaranteed repatriation of foreign investments and earnings thereon 7. Tax-free importation of consigned equipment for an unlimited period. Additional Incentives for Biofuels Production
    1. Zero specific tax on local or imported biofuels components 2. Exemption of biofuels feedstock from the value-added tax
    3. Exemption of distillery slops from wastewater charges if reused as fertiliser 4. Financial assistance from government financing institutions. Source: Rañola, RE Jr., Layaoen, HL, Costales C, Halos, AC and Baracol, LA (2007) Feasibility Study of the Production of Anhydrous Ethanol from Sweet Sorghum, Bureau of Agricultural Research: Quezon City, Philippines, p. 10-12.

    Bioethanol industry. (2016, Aug 20). Retrieved from https://graduateway.com/bioethanol-industry/

    Hi, my name is Amy 👋

    In case you can't find a relevant example, our professional writers are ready to help you write a unique paper. Just talk to our smart assistant Amy and she'll connect you with the best match.

    Get help with your paper