Drivers of Global Commodity Prices, Drought, and Second Generation Biofuels Uncertainties

1. Drivers of Global Commodity Prices, Drought, and Second Generation Biofuels Uncertainties Wally Tyner November 27, 2012

2. Commodity Price Changes2008-2012 • Commodity price surge in 2008 • global changes in production and consumption of key commodities, • the depreciation of the dollar, and • growth in the production of biofuels • Price plunge in 2009 • Same drivers as 2008 but in other direction • Financial crisis and recession

3. Commodity Price Changes2008-2012 • Price increases in 2011 • Key drivers were rapid increase in US corn ethanol production, and • Surge in Chinese imports of soybeans • The combined area needed for these two demands went from 8.2 mil. ha. in 2006 to 18.3 mil. ha. in 2011, an increase of 124% in 5 years.

5. The Drought and Corn Market • We began 2012 with low stocks, but optimistic crop forecasts. • There are many impacts of the drought that permeate not only the agricultural sector but the economy as a whole. • Corn price exceeded $8/bu. ($315/MT) this summer. • This presentation is about one issue related to the drought – the possible impacts on corn price of a partial waiver of the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) for corn ethanol. • It is not about the merits of the RFS itself. • EPA denied the waiver request Nov. 16.

6. Drought and Reduction in Corn Production Expected corn production in July Estimated corn production after drought

7. Corn Price Impacts Many Sectors • Livestock products such as meat, dairy, and eggs; • Soft drinks and food products containing corn sweeteners; • Gasoline containing 10% or more ethanol made from corn; • Other food items that contain corn starch, corn flour, or corn directly. • There will not be enough corn for everyone to continue consuming at normal rates.

8. Calls for a Corn Ethanol Waiver • NY Times editorial July 30 • Many livestock groups • Governors of 8 states in the US • Secretary General of the UN Food and Agricultural Organization • Argument being that ethanol production caused harm to poor consumers all over the globe • Higher commodity prices also have brought crop area response from farmers in many parts of the world

9. Global harvested area increased 42 mil. ha. since 2006.

11. Little change in N. America or Europe Oceania, Southeast Asia, and N. Africa off of a small base.

12. Food vs. Fuel • Commodity prices clearly up and partly due to biofuels • Urban consumers and rural net food buyers adversely affected • 70% of world’s poor live in rural areas and derive their livelihood from agriculture – these groups could be made better off with higher prices

13. Food v. Fuel • As we will see in the slides that follow, corn ethanol has now become an integrated part of the US fuel system. • US government does not have, at present, authority to ban use of corn for ethanol. • The authority that exists is to waive the biofuel blending requirement (RFS).

14. The Renewable Fuel Standard • It is 13.2 BG for 2012 and 13.8 BG for 2013 for corn ethanol. • There is some flexibility built into it: • Blenders can use surplus credits from prior year blending to meet the current year RFS. It is estimated that blenders have about 2.6 BG of such prior year credits. • Blenders can also borrow from future obligations if needed.

15. Blenders Need Positive Economic Incentives • In recent weeks, ethanol has been priced 25 to 40 cents below RBOB. • On that basis, blenders would not have a financial incentive to change from current practice. • Corn and ethanol would have to rise in price or gasoline fall to change the basic economics. • However, CBOB is blended in much of the country, and it is usually cheaper than RBOB.

16. Blenders Must Overcome Technical Blending Issues • At present, most of the regular gasoline produced in the US comes out of the refinery as 84 octane, and ethanol is added to bring it up to 87. • It is not clear how quickly that whole system could be modified if ethanol blending were partially waived. • Also not clear if refiners and blenders would want to do it for a one time waiver.

17. Determinants of Waiver Impacts • The extent to which a partial waiver would have an impact depends on the financial incentives and technical constraints faced by the refining and blending sectors. • If they cannot change current practice quickly, there would be little impact. • If it is not in their financial interest to change, there would be little impact.

18. Impacts on Livestock Producers and Consumers • Livestock producers face substantially higher feed costs, much of which they cannot pass on to consumers in the short run. • Ultimately, consumers will face higher prices for livestock products and other products that use corn and higher fuel costs. • Most farmers have crop insurance, but they will also face losses.

19. Economic Harm Done by the Drought • Corn price substantially higher than normal year, and losses amount to tens of billions of dollars • In considering a waiver, EPA cannot change the loss – it can only redistribute it among the affected parties if there is blending flexibility.

20. Possible Waiver Impacts • If refiners and blenders do not have or choose not to use ethanol blending flexibility, a waiver has very limited impact. • It is basically for this reason that EPA denied the waiver request. • To the extent there is flexibility, use of prior blending RINs could reduce ethanol blending and this corn price by about $0.67/bu. ($26/MT).

21. Second Generation Biofuel Uncertainties • For cellulosic biofuels there are five major sources of uncertainty: • Future oil prices, • Feed stock costs and availability by region, • Conversion costs and efficiencies, • Environmental impacts, • Government policy. • The combination of all of these uncertainties makes analysis of biofuels impacts highly uncertain. • Add in the condition of the financial markets at present, and cellulosic biofuel investment becomes quite problematic.

22. Source: EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2012

23. Feedstock Costs and Supply • For many years, DOE used a cellulosic feedstock cost of $30/dry ton. • Today we expect that corn stover may be more like $80 and dedicated energy crops closer to $110 or more per dry ton. • Contracting mechanisms: • The production and delivery of biomass need long term contracts, • Contracts should meet the needs of farmers and conversion facilities. • The basic issue is how to index and share risks associated with the production and delivery. • There is more than enough feedstock to meet the cellulosic RFS – the question is cost.

24. Technological Uncertainty • All of the processes have a high degree of technical uncertainty. • While in most cases, it is known that we can produce energy products using the technology, the question is at what cost. • Thermochemical processes lead to “drop-in” fuels, which are attractive for many reasons. • Biochemical processes go to ethanol

25. Conversion Costs • Most estimates put the wholesale cost for biofuels from either biochemical or thermochemical conversion around $4.00/gal. gasoline equivalent. • Generally we need about $150 oil (Brent) or higher to make cellulosic biofuels competitive on a market basis with no government intervention.

26. Finding: Only in an economic environment characterized by high oil prices, technological breakthroughs, and a high implicit or actual carbon price would biofuels be cost-competitive with petroleum-based fuels. • • Biofuel Breakeven Model used to estimate: • The minimum price that biomass suppliers would be willing to accept for a dry ton of biomass delivered to the biorefinery gate. • The maximum price that processors would be willing to pay to at least break even.

27. Gap between supplier’s price and processor’s price is negative for all types of cellulosic biomass likely to be produced in 2022. Source: Examples from committee analysis in BioBreak model. Price of Oil $111/barrel. Biomass yield 70 gallons of ethanol per dry ton.

28. Finding: RFS2 cellulosic fuel mandate unlikely to be met in 2022 • • No commercially viable biorefineries exist, to date, for converting lignocellulosic biomass to fuels. • • Aggressive deployment, in which the capacity build rate more than doubles the historic capacity build rate of corn-grain ethanol, necessary to produce 16 billion gallons of cellulosic biofuels by 2022. • • Policy uncertainties could deter investors from aggressive deployment.

29. Environmental Impacts • The environmental impacts of cellulosic biofuels could be positive, as they create wildlife habitat and can reduce soil erosion. • There has been some concern about possible local loss of biodiversity. This could arise if a biofuel plant were surrounded up to fifty miles by mostly miscanthus or switchgrass.

30. Government Policy • RFS enforcement • Blend wall – huge issue for ethanol • Reverse auctions • Cellulosic biofuel costs are higher than current market oil prices, but could be competitive if we priced energy security and/or GHG externalities. • Key is to reduce uncertainty for private sector investors.

31. Renewable Fuel Standard

32. RFS Issues • Out clause enables fuel blenders to avoid using cellulosic biofuels if EPA waives any part of that mandate. • Obligated parties can buy RINs from EPA for $0.78 this year plus the cost of an advanced RIN, in lieu of blending. • EPA is enforcing the other advanced biofuels part of the mandate, which means we are importing ethanol from Brazil to meet the mandate, and exporting to Brazil to provide their needs.

33. Cellulose RFS Issues • In their February 2010 final ruling, the EPA effectively converted the US RFS from a volumetric to an energy basis. • They interpret the RFS as 35 billion gallons of ethanol equivalent, plus 1 bil. gal. biodiesel. • This means that a gallon of bio-gasoline would count as 1.5 gallons, and a gallon of non ester bio-diesel counts as 1.7 gallons. • If the entire 35 billion gallons were met with bio-gasoline, it would amount to 23.5 billion physical gallons. • The big remaining RFS issue is enforcement uncertainty.

34. The Blend Wall • In the US, we consume about 133 billion gallons of gasoline type fuel annually, so a 10% blend limit would be a max of 13.3 billion gallons of ethanol. • At the blend wall, there is more ethanol capacity than market absorptive capacity, so ethanol price falls. • Ethanol price falls to the breakeven with corn for the marginal producer that just meets the wall limit. • The early 2012 approved change to 15% for 2001+ vehicles would shift the blend wall to 19.5 billion gallons if widely adopted. However, adoption has been very slow.

35. Blending wall

36. Impacts of Blending Wall on Cellulose • So long as corn and sugarcane ethanol are less expensive to produce than cellulosic ethanol, there is no room for cellulosic ethanol. Corn ethanol or imported sugarcane ethanol would supply the quantity needed up to the wall – even if the limit is increased to 15%.

37. Reverse Auction • With all the uncertainty in the market today, investors are reluctant to make the plunge. • With a reverse auction, government or military would auction the procurement of biofuels with long-term contracts. • Eliminates price uncertainty • Presumably bidders would take into account their feedstock and conversion costs • Other government policies less of an issue

38. Cellulosic Biofuel Conclusions • We have the feedstock resource base to meet the RFS and beyond for cellulosic biofuels. • The costs will be higher than previously estimated, but likely economic at $150 crude oil, or lower with subsidies. If we priced fossil fuel externalities, cellulosic biofuels could become competitive. • The five uncertainties loom large in the near term as they inhibit private sector investment. • Reverse auction might get early plants built. • Cellulose biofuels will not come on without strong incentives or a credible mandate.

39. Thank you!Questions and Comments For more information: http://www.agecon.purdue.edu Click on faculty directory Click on Tyner