October 2011 Ethanol Producer Magazine

www.ethanolproducer.com

Wood Climbs from Supporting Role to Center Stage

Page 64

Page 44

oCtobeR 2011

CORN MATTERS

ALSO

Quality Counts

Page 50

Supply/ Demand for Ethanol

Page 58

Stover Power

INSIDE: ACE MEETING PREPS FOR NEW E15 REGULATIONS

LIFE CAN BE COMPLICATED LIQUOZYME® MAKES IT SIMPLE

Running low pH? High pH? It doesn’t matter. Liquozyme is optimized to run as low as pH 5.0. Contact our Customer Solutions team and find out how you can get the most out of your corn, with the best-selling alpha amylase on the market.

With Novozymes, we’ve been able to squeeze every drop of ethanol out of that bushel of corn. JASON MARQUIS, PRODUCTION MANAGER, MARQUIS ENERGY, ILLINOIS, USA

www.bioenergy.novozymes.com

Novozymes is the world leader in bioinnovation. Together with customers across a broad array of industries we create tomorrow’s industrial biosolutions, improving our customers’ business and the use of our planet’s resources.

Rethink Tomorrow

4 | Ethanol Producer Magazine | OCTObER 2011

oCtobeR iSSue 2011 VoL. 17 iSSue 10

contents

58 64

Ethanol Producer Magazine: (uSPS No. 023-974) october 2011, Vol. 17, issue 10. Ethanol Producer Magazine is published monthly. Principal Office: 308 Second Ave. N., Suite 304, Grand Forks, ND 58203. Periodicals Postage Paid at Grand Forks, North Dakota and additional mailing offices. POSTMAS-TER: Send address changes to Ethanol Producer Magazine/Subscriptions, 308 Second Ave. N., Suite 304, Grand Forks, North Dakota 58203.

CoRN QuALitY Seeking Sound Corn: Quality MattersDigging into the details of evaluating corn by HOLLy JESSEN

PoWeRStover for Power—Not Just Biofuels There may be more ways to use crop residue by KRIS bEvILL

WOODY BIOMASSWood Climbs from Supporting Role to Center Stage Questions and a defense of woody feedstocks for cellulosic ethanolby KRIS bEvILL

72

PoLiCYThe Subsidy Debate: Oil vs. EthanolExamining the direct, indirect and hidden subsidies and incentives for both industriesby KATE bECHEN AND PORTER J. MARTIN

FeeDStoCKComprehensive Miscanthus Commercialization Model Needed The perennial energy crop poses many challenges to developersby DAvID R. RObbINS AND STEPHEN S. TAM

CONTRIBuTIONS

fEATuRES

On The Cover A truck dumps corn at Poet biorefining-big Stone, located in big Stone City, S.D.

DEPARTMENTS

6 Editor’s Note Early Stage to Groundbreaking By SuSanne Retka Schill

10 The Way I See It Ethanol Continues to Improve By Mike BRyan

11 Events Calendar Upcoming Conferences & Trade Shows

12 View from the Hill Does the ‘Super Committee’ Matter to Ethanol? By BoB dinneen

14 Drive Grain and Cellulosic Working Together to Fuel America By toM BuiS

16 Grassroots Voice Life After vEETC By Ron v. laMBeRty

18 Europe Calling A bright Future for Ethanol By RoB vieRhout

20 Business Matters Cash Forward Grain Contracts—Can I Get That in Writing? By poRteR j. MaRtin and leah h. zieMBa

22 Business Briefs

26 Commodities Report

30 Distilled

82 Marketplace

86 Ad Index

PHoto: GReG LAtZKA

44 50

CORN DEMANDEthanol: One Market for a Growing Corn Supply A closer look at corn demand and supply by HOLLy JESSEN

76

www.ethanolproducer.com

Wood Climbs from Supporting Role to Center Stage

Page 64

4

oCtobeR 2011

CORN MATTERS

ALSO

Quality Counts

Page 50

Supply/ Demand for Ethanol

Page 58

Stover Power

INSIDE: ACE MEETING PREPS FOR NEW E15 REGULATIONS


This issue of Ethanol Producer Magazine con-tains reports on several early-stage concepts—all intriguing developments with real promise. There’s no guarantee that they will succeed, of course. Problems emerge in scaling up ideas that work in theory or at a small scale. Sometimes the associated costs that initially look favorable ultimately torpedo the project. In all cases, it can take years from when the idea or initial research is announced until it becomes a reality. We often look back at earlier coverage of companies announcing breakthrough discoveries to learn we’ve been reporting their developments for years. So it’s also exciting to be reporting fi-nancing and loan guarantees being received, not to mention licensing agreements. We soon expect to be following the build-out of cellulosic ethanol facilities. I believe Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack’s comment that one day we’ll look around and say, “Where did all these plants come from?” is indeed true. Getting the first ones to the groundbreaking stage seems slow from the current viewpoint, but soon the cranes will be swinging components into position. We’ve been reporting on these first cellu-losic ethanol projects since they were early-stage concepts, and we’ll continue to look for such concepts to share. More than once, we’ve learned a story we wrote resulted in phone calls from potential collaborators.

Among the new ideas reported in this issue, Associate Editor Kris Bevill’s fea-tures a researcher’s proposal to borrow a financing mechanism from wind energy to recruit investors with an appetite for loss to back capital-intensive biomass power islands at ethanol plants. Associate Editor Holly Jessen reports on Ethanol Boosting Systems Inc.’s patent for a system that could optimize engines to take advantage of ethanol’s high octane. The researcher claims it could be used for heavy-duty trucks, too. Then there’s Bevill’s Distilled story about a catalyst discovery that appears to be a cost-effective way to convert ethanol to an intermediate chemical useful for produc-tion in rubber alternatives. We’re finding more researchers looking at integrating inter-mediate chemical and ethanol production. I bet bio-based tires would be a nice-sized market for ethanol-based chemicals, taking some pressure off blend wall concerns.

SuSanne ReTka Schill, [email protected]

EARLy STAGE TO GROuNDBREAkING

ASSOCIATE EDITORS

editor’s note

FOR INDUSTRy NEWS. FOLLOW US: TWITTER.COM/ETHANOLMAGAzINE

Associate Editor kris Bevill examines a critique that claims the conversion technologies for woody-biomass cellulosic ethanol are much further out than ethanol developers claim, on page 64.

Associate Editor holly Jessen takes a look at corn in this issue, discussing quality and grading issues on page 44 and the chang-ing dynamics of corn sup-ply and demand on page 50.

OCTObER 2011 | Ethanol Producer Magazine | 7

TM

EDITORIAL

EDITOR Susanne Retka Schill [email protected]

ASSOCIATE EDITORS Holly Jessen [email protected]

kris Bevill [email protected]

COPy EDITOR Jan Tellmann [email protected]

ART

ART DIRECTOR Jaci Satterlund [email protected]

GRAPHIC DESIGNERErica Marquis [email protected]

PuBLISHING

CHAIRMAN Mike Bryan [email protected]

CEO Joe Bryan [email protected]

vICE PRESIDENTTom Bryan [email protected]

SALES

vICE PRESIDENT, SALES & MARKETING Matthew Spoor [email protected]

EXECUTIvE ACCOUNT MANAGER Howard Brockhouse [email protected]

SENIOR ACCOUNT MANAGER Jeremy Hanson [email protected]

ACCOUNT MANAGERSChip Shereck [email protected]

Marty Steen [email protected]

Bob Brown [email protected]

Andrea Anderson [email protected]

Dave Austin [email protected]

CIRCULATION MANAGER Jessica Beaudry [email protected]

ADvERTISING COORDINATOR Marla Defoe [email protected]

SENIOR MARKETING MANAGER John Nelson [email protected]

EDITORIAL BOARD

Customer Service Please call 1-866-746-8385 or email us at [email protected]. Subscriptions to Ethanol Producer Magazine are free of charge to everyone with the exception of a shipping and handling charge of $49.95 for any country outside the United States, Canada and Mexico. To subscribe, visit www.EthanolProducer.com or you can send your mailing address and payment (checks made out to bbI International) to: Ethanol Producer Magazine Subscriptions, 308 Second Ave. N., Suite 304, Grand Forks, ND 58203. you can also fax a subscription form to (701) 746-5367. Back Issues, Reprints and Permissions Select back issues are

available for $3.95 each, plus shipping. Article reprints are also available for a fee. For more information, contact us at (701) 746-8385 or [email protected]. Advertising Ethanol Producer Magazine pro-vides a specific topic delivered to a highly targeted audience. We are committed to editorial excellence and high-quality print production. To find out more about Ethanol Producer Magazine advertising opportunities, please contact us at (701) 746-8385 or [email protected]. Letters to the Editor We welcome letters to the editor. Send to Ethanol Producer Magazine Letters to the Editor, 308 2nd Ave. N., Suite 304, Grand Forks, ND 58203 or e-mail to [email protected]. Please include your name, address and phone number. Letters may be edited for clarity and/or space.

COPYRIGHT © 2011 by BBI International

Please recycle this magazine and remove inserts or samples before recycling

Chippewa valley Ethanol Co. LLLP Mike JerkeCilion Inc. Jeremy Wilhelm

Commonwealth Agri-Energy LLC Mick HendersonPinal Energy LLC keith kor

Golden Grain Energy LLC Walter Wendland

Neal Jakel Illinois River Energy LLC

Bert farrish Lifeline Foods LLC

Eric Mosebey Lincolnland Agri-Energy LLC

Steve Roe Little Sioux Corn Processors LP

Bernie Punt Siouxland Energy & Livestock Co-op

1,197 miles per gal.

Not with gasoline or diesel, but with The New Ethanol.


american agriculture and the domestic ethanol industry are becoming increasingly efficient and as a result, are playing a larger and more important role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. it was not that many years ago, that it took seven to 10 gallons of water to convert one bushel of corn to ethanol, today it’s just over two. During the same time, it took 25 percent more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than it does today. the list of technological improvements is long and getting longer with each passing year.

According to Geoff Cooper of the Renewable Fuels Association, the current 450 gallons of ethanol produced from an acre of corn is a 50 percent improvement over just 15 years ago and, with future projections using the entire corn plant, that level approaches 800 gallons per acre. While this may seem incredible, so does the fact that over the past 15 years we have seen a 34 percent increase in the per acre yield of corn in the united States.

these and other factors all come together to show substantial improvements in the energy efficiency of ethanol production and a corresponding

decrease in the Co2 emissions from field to the consumers fuel tank. Life-cycle analyses on ethanol show Co2 reductions well in excess of 30 percent, with some approaching 50 percent. the contribution ethanol makes to the reduction of greenhouse gas is no longer in question, only the level of reductions varies slightly from study to study.

For years environmental groups have falsely accused agriculture of “pouring on the fertilizer and chemicals,” when, in fact, the use of both has steadily declined. these are not government-mandated changes, but rather changes driven largely by economics. New and better corn hybrids require less fertilizer and are more drought and disease resistant. better tillage practices, including minimum and no-till, mean better water conservation and fewer trips over the field. Add to that the simple fact that fertilizer and chemicals are among of the most expensive inputs in farming and that any reduction in their use means more money in the farmer’s pocket, and you have a recipe for a smaller carbon footprint.

in fairness, the oil industry also has taken steps (albeit federally mandated) to produce a cleaner fuel, not so much in terms of its carbon footprint, but more as it relates to overall air pollution. Low-sulphur diesel and reduced aromatics in gasoline are just some examples. While these have added costs to their production process,

using fewer chemicals and fertilizer in agriculture has reduced costs. At the same time, the ethanol industry continues to produce ethanol better, faster, cheaper by employing newly developed technology, while the refining process has remained relatively unchanged for decades.

Frankly, about the only thing oil has going for it is an intricate global system of refining and distribution. As each day passes, ethanol becomes more price competitive, but we still rely exclusively on the oil industry for distribution. this is has become the only reason mandates are essential to the continued growth of our industry. With a smaller carbon footprint, renewable, domestically produced and competitively priced ethanol, if it had its own distribution infrastructure, would quickly become the fuel of choice, as Henry Ford envisioned so many years ago.

that’s the way i see it!

the way i see it

Ethanol Continues to Improveby Mike bryan

author: Mike BryanChairman, bbi international

[email protected]


events calendar

Calgary to Host Annual Canadian Renewable fuels Summit

Growing Our Energy Diversity is the theme for the 8th Annual Canadian Renewable Fuels Summit to be held Nov. 28-30 at the

Westin Hotel in Calgary, Alberta. Meeting in the heart of Canada’s oil industry, the conference discussion will be on the future of renewable fuels. “Too often, we find that others seek to pit the oil and gas industry against renewable fuels, and vice versa,” says Jim Grey, chairman of the sponsoring organization, the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association, and Ceo of iGPC ethanol inc. “too often we see these industries compete for the favor of the public or government policymakers. in reality, there is a sound basis for a strong partnership.”

the Canadian renewable fuels industry outlook will be covered in a number of sessions featuring speakers from all sectors. A global perspective will be given in a presentation on the 2011 biofuels Roadmap from the international energy Agency, and there will be a panel featuring industry organization leaders from the U.S. ethanol and biodiesel industries, the eu and Columbia.

The day-and-a-half event reflects the ever-changing biofuels industry—assessing how new technologies and feedstocks, sustainability requirements and policy changes are shaping the future of the industry. two concurrent tracks will give attendees a chance to zero in on policy or technical issues. Developments in aviation fuels will be covered in the policy track along with the potential for adding value to Canada’s vast renewable resources in the New economy panel and issues of interest for advanced biofuels, among other topics. the technical track will delve into more practical challenges and opportunities to discuss waste water treatment, distribution and marketing, employee retention, rail safety, feedstock options and methods for increased efficiencies.

the CRFS offers unique opportunities to network with more than 350 senior ethanol and biodiesel executives from all over the world. “if we are to succeed [as an industry], it will take the contribution of all of us—governments, industry, capital markets, researchers and fuel consumers,” Grey says. ”We all need to invest the knowledge, wisdom and collective will to grow beyond oil. the discussions and debate at this year’s summit will help point the way.”

For more information and to register for the CRFS, visit www.greenfuels.org.

11/28

Northeast Biomass Conference & Trade ShowOctober 11-13, 2011Westin Convention Center Hotel | Pittsburgh, PennsylvaniaWith an exclusive focus on biomass utilization in the Northeast—from Maryland to Maine—the Northeast biomass Conference & Trade Show will connect current and future producers of biomass-derived electricity, industrial heat and power, and advanced biofuels, with waste generators, aggregators, growers, municipal leaders, utilities, technology providers, equipment manufacturers, investors and policymakers. (866)746-8385www.biomassconference.com/northeast

Algae Biomass SummitOctober 24-27, 2011Hyatt Regency Minneapolis | Minneapolis, MinnesotaOrganized by the Algae biomass Organization and coproduced by bbI International, this event brings current and future producers of biobased products and energy together with algae crop growers, municipal leaders, technology providers, equipment manufacturers, project developers, investors and policy makers. It’s a true one-stop shop—the world’s premier educational and networking junction for all algae industries. (866)746-8385www.algaebiomasssummit.org

Southeast Biomass Conference & Trade ShowNovember 1-3, 2011Hyatt Regency Atlanta | Atlanta, GeorgiaWith an exclusive focus on biomass utilization in the Southeast—from the virginias to the Gulf Coast—the Southeast biomass Conference & Trade Show will connect the area’s current and future producers of biomass-derived electricity, industrial heat and power, and advanced biofuels, with waste generators, aggregators, growers, municipal leaders, utility executives, technology providers, equipment manufacturers, investors and policy makers. (866)746-8385www.biomassconference.com/southeast

Pacific West Biomass Conference & Trade ShowJanuary 16-18, 2012San Francisco Mariott Marquis | San Francisco, CaliforniaWith an exclusive focus on biomass utilization in California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Nevada, the Pacific West biomass Conference & Trade Show will connect the area’s current and future producers of biomass-derived electricity, industrial heat and power, and advanced biofuels with waste generators, aggregators, growers, municipal leaders, utility executives, technology providers, equipment manufacturers, investors and policy makers. (866)746-8385www.biomassconference.com/pacificwest


view from the hill

Does the ‘Super Committee’ Matter to Ethanol?by bob Dinneen

the newest creation of Washington, the “super committee,” is hard at work trying to identify trillions of dollars in budget cuts to offset the necessary increase in the cap on the amount of money the federal government can borrow to pay for its prior commitments, such as medicare and social security. While this committee is getting a lot of attention from lobbyists and the media, the impact of this effort remains hard to predict. For ethanol, the impact, if there even is one, is harder to foresee.

We all remember the Kabuki theater that led up to the final deal raising the so-called debt ceiling and creating the super committee. this highly partisan, rhetorically charged fight pushed America to the brink of default and, according to some economists, put America’s economic standing the world over on shakier ground. For all its bluster, this debate did offer a glimmer of opportunity and bipartisanship on the important issue of ethanol tax incentives.

During this debate, an unlikely trio of senators—John Thune of South Dakota, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, and Dianne Feinstein of California—found common ground on ethanol tax policy that would have been instrumental to the industry’s

future. this compromise would have invested in ethanol fueling infrastructure, accelerated the commercialization of advanced and cellulosic ethanol technologies, and helped to pay down the national debt. this deal, while far from perfect, contained enough to garner the support of the grain-based ethanol industry and at least one advanced and cellulosic ethanol group, the Advanced ethanol Council.

Sadly, politics and posturing prevented this deal from being included in the final legislation to raise the debt ceiling and create this super committee. Now, with the clock ticking on both the committee and the ethanol tax incentives already scheduled to expire at the end of this year, the future of any ethanol tax policy compromise is challenging, at best.

In order to find the $1.2 trillion in savings required of it, the super committee will have to tackle a wide range of issues, many of which carry price tags and present budget savings far greater than the ethanol tax incentive for the remainder of 2011. entitlement programs like medicare and social security, along with the budgets of the Department of Defense, u.S. ePA, and other federal agencies will be in the crosshairs. So, too, will be tax cuts and other loopholes for very profitable industries that could garner tremendous budget savings over the next decade.

it is in this context that America’s ethanol industry sees a glimmer of hope. While the full compromise offered this summer is no longer in play, a smaller

package that provides for infrastructure investment and next generation commercialization incentives may be possible. it is also conceivable, though challenging given the enormous political sway of the fossil fuel industry, that the lavish tax subsidies provided to the nation’s oil industry could be eliminated.

i say all of this is possible as an eternal optimist refusing to stop fighting until the fat lady has sung. Additional legislative vehicles may present themselves as well. but the reality on Capitol Hill is a tough one, and the political headwinds and magnitude of the work before the committee may very well exclude biofuels altogether.

Despite the hype of the super com-mittee, it is entirely possible that it will be anything but super for America’s ethanol industry. Fortunately, the expiration of the tax incentive is an event for which the industry has been preparing. A new era of American ethanol production is poised to begin.

author: bob DinneenPresident and Ceo of the

Renewable Fuels Association(202) 289-3835

With good chemistry great things happen.™

We off er more thanjust chemistry — we deliver improved profi tability.Armed with innovative chemistries and a thorough understanding of biorefi ning, Ashland is well positioned to help you operate more effi ciently and profi tably. Our state-of-the-art product portfolio for biorefi neries includes:

– Corn oil extraction aids – Ethanol corrosion inhibitors – Liquid/solid separation aids

– Boiler water treatments – Cooling water treatments – Wastewater treatments

To learn more, visit us online at ashland.com

® Registered trademark, Ashland or its subsidiaries, registered in various countries

™ Trademark, Ashland or its subsidiaries, registered in various countries

* Trademark owned by a third party© 2011, AshlandAD-11031

With good chemistry great things happen.™

We off er more thanjust chemistry — we deliver improved profi tability.Armed with innovative chemistries and a thorough understanding of biorefi ning, Ashland is well positioned to help you operate more effi ciently and profi tably. Our state-of-the-art product portfolio for biorefi neries includes:

– Corn oil extraction aids – Ethanol corrosion inhibitors – Liquid/solid separation aids

– Boiler water treatments – Cooling water treatments – Wastewater treatments

To learn more, visit us online at ashland.com

® Registered trademark, Ashland or its subsidiaries, registered in various countries

™ Trademark, Ashland or its subsidiaries, registered in various countries

* Trademark owned by a third party© 2011, AshlandAD-11031


drive

Grain and Cellulosic Working Together to Fuel America by Tom buis

Four years ago, in december 2007, congress passed the energy independence and Security act with the intent of moving our nation toward greater energy independence and security. the renewable fuel standard (RFS) portion of eiSA called for the increased production of clean renewable fuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel, by 2022.

initially, many people thought we couldn’t meet the stated goals of the RFS but we succeeded in growing the production of ethanol from corn and sorghum and we are on the cusp of producing biofuels from next generation feedstocks. Grain ethanol is now 10 percent of our nation’s fuel supply. it creates American jobs, reduces our dependence on foreign oil, and it is the most competitive fuel in the world today.

Nonetheless, just four years into what was meant to be a 15 year plan, critics of ethanol who want to protect their vested interests are once again skeptical of the ethanol industry’s ability to produce next generation biofuels and continue

the efficiency advancements of first generation ethanol.

but we can. the RFS and eiSA set goals that we could reach, if given the right circumstances and elimination of barriers that prevent the natural expansion of our industry.

What can be done to help move us forward?

First, we need commonsense legislative and regulatory policies that remove the barriers to the market that stifle innovation. The ethanol industry can create jobs in the united States that can’t be outsourced, improve the environment and give consumers savings and choice at the pump through full implementation of E15, tax credits for installing flex-fuel pumps and requirements that all automobiles be flex-fuel capable.

Second, we must stop all the political rhetoric to roll back our nation’s commitment to produce 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel by 2022. We are well on the way and while some would try to pit one feedstock against another on the production of biofuel, as a nation, we need to do all.

Lastly, we must stop the regulatory efforts to penalize the production of biofuels based on the unproven concept of indirect land use change.

As an industry, we have recognized reform is necessary if we are going to make the advancements that will help our nation become energy independent. And new innovations at existing ethanol plants will continue to increase efficiency, reduce water use and boost the amount of energy derived from cellulosic biomass and algae.

When it comes to the debate of grain ethanol versus cellulosic ethanol, we don’t have to choose one or the other—it is both. it is today’s technology as well as tomorrow’s technology that will help our nation succeed.

author: tom buisCeo, Growth energy

(202)[email protected]

Put BetaTec® natural hop extracts to work in your fermentation process to replace antibiotics and enhance yeast propagation. IsoStab® is the natural way to effectively control gram-positive bacteria while eliminating antibiotics and harsh chemicals. Plus, antibiotic-free DDGS adds value to your co-products. VitaHop® Silver yeast nutrient enhances yeast performance and vitality, inducing faster fermentations and larger yields. Combined with BetaTec® fermentation expertise and training, these technologies will significantly increase your plant’s efficiency.

BetaTec®…the natural hop to higher profits. For more information specific to fuel ethanol producers, visit www.bthp.info.

www.betatechopproducts.com


Grassroots voice

Life AftervEETCby Ron v. Lamberty

Most of those who are plugged in to the machinations of our federal government tell us it is virtually certain that the end of this year will also be the end of the volumetric ethanol excise tax credit. How that became a political eventuality, and why elected officials would choose to have a feeding frenzy over a public policy that creates jobs, decreases reliance on foreign oil, cleans our air, reduces federal spending by more than it costs, and returns savings to taxpayers’ pockets when they buy ethanol at the pump, is probably a case for future political science and public relations textbooks. And, while debating the point at which the anti-ethanol sharks first smelled blood in the water is interesting and instructive, it is much more important now to use that knowledge to avoid any further bloodletting, and to remember that sometimes, all you can do to stop a shark is to punch it in the nose.

At the American Coalition for ethanol’s annual meeting and ethanol conference last month, ACe executive Director brian Jennings summed up the VeetC battle saying, “the lesson that we all need to learn from this process is that we shouldn’t be ashamed of a tax

incentive for ethanol and we damn well should not be ashamed of the [renewable fuel standard].” Jennings talked about going on the offensive against those who have created “an alternate reality about ethanol, filled with misconceptions and myths,” and reminded attendees that money “can’t change the fact that they are wrong on the issues, and it can’t change the real economic benefit that this industry, that people in this room are delivering to this country every single day.”

We need to punch some folks in the nose with those facts. We need to go on offense—telling people the truth about ethanol, and reminding people that ethanol is a real product made by real people, not some faceless monolithic government program.

in the fuel market, we need to do what we did to get e10 all over the country—show petroleum marketers how they can make more money selling our product and set their minds at ease about the problems they have been told to expect (by those who make the competing product, of course). And, we need to make their customers comfortable buying new blends of fuel such as E15, E85 or other midlevel blends.

A gasoline retailer recently told an ethanol plant board member that “it’s hard to sell ethanol when you guys don’t promote your product.” One could argue that in a market that is always driven by price (as the fuel market is) a smart promotional strategy would be fighting

for a tax credit that keeps ethanol prices low. ironically, the marketer compared ethanol to other products in the store—not gasoline. Probably because gasoline is rarely promoted—mainly because oil companies know that consumers don’t wake up in the morning thinking “YeS! i get to buy fuel today!” So, it isn’t wrong to sell based on price, but it is risky to sell based oNLY on price (and it’s kind of lazy).

there is a difference between a low price and a good value. unfortunately, we have promoted the former, and in the post-VeetC, fuel marketplace, we will have to make the case for the latter. We will have to remind refiners and tell consumers that ethanol has value in adding octane to fuel, and it increases the amount of gas a refiner can make from a barrel of oil. It keeps fuel systems clean. it cleans the air. It keeps gas lines from freezing up. Race cars use it. it’s made in America by your neighbors, and it keeps those neighbors and your money working in the u.S. economy.

there are plenty of reasons to use ethanol. occasionally, price will still be one of them—we need to make sure motorists know about the others.

author: Ron LambertySenior Vice President

American Coalition for ethanol(605) 334-3381

[email protected]

Right Feedstock. Right Value.

More Ethanolper BushelMeasuring

the Results

Access to grain markets 24/7

BetterGrain Quality

PioneerQualiTrak®

System

DPPSM

Grain Desk

®, TM, SM Trademarks and service marks of Pioneer Hi-Bred. DPPSM is a service mark of Farms Technology.All purchases are subject to the terms of labeling and purchase documents. © 2011 PHII. ENDUS021973P238AVAR1


europe callinG

A bright Future for Ethanolby Robert vierhout

each year a report called the Biofuels Barometer is published that tells how much biofuel in the european union was consumed in the past year. this year’s report (available at http://www.eurobserv-er.org/downloads.asp) gives an interesting picture of how biofuels are doing in europe, reporting a trend that could very well continue until 2020.

As in previous years, we saw a double-digit growth in biofuel consumption in 2010, though the growth curve is getting less steep due to a slowing of growth in biodiesel use. unlike biodiesel which was up 11 percent, ethanol for fuel increased by a strong 26 percent. Why this difference in growth rate and what will the future bring?

First, the main reason ethanol is growing strongly is that compared to biodiesel, ethanol made a slow start. Years ago, Germany strongly promoted the use of biodiesel financially and, as a consequence, production capacity and consumption strongly increased in tandem. ethanol never had favorable treatment like biodiesel and, as a result, the build out of both production capacity and consumption was a far more gradual process. A couple of years ago, however, Germany gradually started reducing biodiesel support dampening its growth. thanks to increasing year-

on-year government targets, biodiesel consumption did not shrink.

A second important reason is that biodiesel use is limited to 7 percent by volume. A dedicated B100 fleet does exist, but without tax support that market is not sustainable. ethanol, on the other hand, has an upper limit of 10 percent by volume. the introduction of e10 in some countries, combined with E85, gives ethanol a better growth perspective.

basically, this explains the difference in growth curves in both biofuels, which most likely will continue in the next decade. Notwithstanding that the diesel fuel market is much bigger than the gasoline market and that there is a shortage on diesel that makes biodiesel an attractive biofuel, it is not likely that biodiesel consumption will have a similar, steep growth pattern as ethanol.

the market potential for biodiesel is beyond question. A large trucking fleet, a growing fleet of passenger cars, maritime use, jet fuel—it all looks good for biodiesel. the problem is not the market; the problem is the availability of economical agricultural raw material. this is where ethanol beats biodiesel. Within the eu, crops for biodiesel are limited in variety, quantity and yield performance. Where ethanol producers can rely on an abundance of cereals and sugary crops with high yields, biodiesel producers will be forced to source crops outside the eu. obviously, it will be soy and, much more likely, palm oil. the weakness, or to put it differently, the political risks, of

those crops is their lack of sustainability. A possible way out of this dilemma would be more use of animal fat, used cooking oil, HVo (hydro-treated vegetable oil), btL (biomass to liquid) and maybe, one day, algae. but so far, the last two belong in the wishful thinking category, and HVo is developing poorly.

this feedstock problem, combined with the unwillingness of car producers to allow more than 7 percent of biodiesel in fossil fuel, could well create opportunities for ethanol. Fewer sustainability risks, higher production potential and a much better perspective on delivering second generation, cellulosic biofuel all contribute to a brighter future for ethanol.

there is little doubt that biodiesel will stay the preferred biofuel in the eu in terms of tonnage. The current 75/25 ratio we have will not change dramatically over the immediate years to come. but it is also clear that the challenge for biodiesel to keep up with demand will be much more of a challenge than for ethanol. Knowing the sensitivity around sustainability, the outcome of the indirect land use change debate could well become a watershed in the eu preference for biofuel.

author: Robert VierhoutSecretary-general, ePuRe

[email protected]


business matters

Cash Forward Grain Contracts—Can I Get That in Writing?by Porter J. Martin and Leah H. Ziemba

practically speaking, most grain is bought and sold over the phone. Then, a confirmatory contract is completed by the buyer and mailed to the farmer/seller to sign and return. But, the story doesn’t end there. Depending on whether you are dealing with a “merchant,” the transaction that you thought was final, may not be a valid contract.

Nearly every state in the united States has adopted a statute of frauds which requires that certain contracts be in writing. in most states, a contract for the sale of goods in excess of $500 is not enforceable until there is something in writing to indicate that a contract was made.

in the business of buying and selling grain (and other goods), it is common for one merchant to send the other merchant a letter of confirmation or an already-prepared form contract. the receiving merchant (in this case, the farmer) is expected to sign the form contract, leaving him or her with no opportunity to amend the terms. the uniform Commercial Code (which has been enacted, with modifications, in every jurisdiction in the united States), provides that unwritten contracts between merchants are enforceable if a written confirmation of the contract is received within a reasonable time, unless written notice of objection to the contract is given within 10 days.

The UCC’s “merchant confirmatory memo rule” precludes a merchant that

receives a confirmatory memo from relying on the statute of frauds as a defense, if the receiving merchant does not object to the confirmation. Of course, the initiating merchant must still be able to establish that an oral contract was actually made, and that the written confirmation applies.

So, how does this relate to cash forward grain contracts? the farmer you contract with may or may not be a merchant, leaving the contracting merchant at risk of losing the sale contract and, perhaps more importantly, with increased hedge exposure in volatile markets. in deciding whether a farmer is a merchant, courts consider whether the farmer regularly deals in goods of the type involved or is familiar with the practice of buying and selling the goods at issue. Relevant factors in most jurisdictions include such things as the length of time the farmer has been engaged in the practice of selling specific product, the degree of business acumen, the awareness of the operation and existence of sale markets, and the experience and knowledge of practices unique to the particular product.

Although most modern courts tend to conclude that a majority of farmers are merchants, the determination is on a case-by-case and state-by-state basis. this means, the contracting party may have to expend litigation costs in order to enforce an oral contract. therefore, it is never a bad idea to review your contracting procedures considering the following points:

Know your customers. Consider •

which of your customers would be considered an experienced grain trader and seller, and which would not. Do you require the farmers you contract with to declare themselves a “merchant”?Confirmatory letter procedure. • Consider putting oral agreements in writing, request the farmer’s signature, and require that the farmer confirm whether he/she is a merchant or not. Timeliness of confirmatory memo. • Also, even if the farmer does meet the definition of a “merchant,” the confirmatory memo must still be sent within a reasonable time. Various courts have considered the time period within which is “reasonable” so you should consider reviewing case law in your jurisdiction. Contract due diligence. Review your • contracts for completeness (are the signatures in the file?) and accuracy. Form contracts sometimes get used for years without a thorough legal review. Ask whether the contract you use still provides adequate protection.

authors: Leah H. Ziemba Member Energy and Sustainability and Agribusiness,

Food Processing and Distribution Groups, Michael best & Friedrich LLP

(608) [email protected]

Porter J. Martin Leader Corporate Mergers and Acquisitions Group,

Michael Best & Friedrich LLP(608) 283-0116

[email protected]

FEBRUARY 22-24, 2012Gaylord Palms Resort & Convention Center | Orlando, Florida

REGISTRATION NOW OPEN!

NationalEthanolConference.com

INDUSTRY INNOVATION


W. Wade Robey has started work as Poet llc’s new chief technology officer, replacing Mark Stow-ers, to lead company’s research and com-mercial development activities. As head of Poet research in Sioux Falls, S.D., he will oversee the com-pany’s technology

development programs including cellulosic ethanol, new products and grain-ethanol process efficiency. Robey brings more than 20 years’ experience in the biotechnology, industrial and animal nutrition industries. In his latest role prior to joining Poet, robey worked for enzymes-maker novozymes as head of marketing, Americas. “Poet stands out as a company committed to technology and research,” he said. “It has done some in-credible work in its 23 years, and I’m excited to now be part of the Poet team and help continue that tradition.

In other news, Poet Biorefining-caro (Mich.) received the Michigan Agri-Business Association’s 2011 Green Agri-Business Designation for incorporating environmen-tal practices such as a total water recovery system to eliminate waste water discharge and a waste heat recovery system, as well as conducting a recycling program.

Butamax advanced Biofuels llc ap-pointed Peter Matrai its chief operating of-ficer, responsible for the development and implementation of Butamax strategy and business plans. In addition, he will lead the company’s global commercial team, which is currently engaged in activities in the United States, Brazil, Europe and Asia. Prior to join-ing Butamax, Matrai spent five years with BP Biofuels as a strategy advisor, contribut-

ing to the development and implementation of BP Biofuels’ global strategy. A joint proj-ect of BP and DuPont, Butamax is poised for a global commercialization launch for its biobutanol process in 2012-’13.

aventine Renewable holdings inc. announced the retirement of Thomas Man-uel from the board of directors and his po-sition as cEo. The board appointed John castle as interim cEo. castle had been re-cently promoted to executive vice president, chief operating and chief financial officer after helping to lead the company through its transition out of bankruptcy as finance officer. In addition, the board of directors appointed calvin Stewart, the chief account-ing and compliance officer of the company, to serve as interim chief financial officer.

Superior indus-tries appointed Matt Voigt as its new con-veying equipment ap-plication engineering specialist to help terri-tory managers devel-op material handling solutions for their customers. A gradu-ate of the University of Wisconsin-Plat-teville with a degree

in mechanical engineering, Voigt worked for Metso’s Barmac line for eight years in design, research and development, and in product and technical support on crushers and screening plants.

edeniQ, inc. appointed Steve Rust its vice president of sales and marketing. He most recently served as director of market-ing at Fremont Industries, where he worked to increase Fremont's market share of water treatment solutions for ethanol producers,

along with introducing Fremont's corn oil recovery product into the market. Earlier, he worked with IcM Inc. in a business devel-opment role that focused on promoting the ethanol industry, including starting up the Ethanol Promotion council as director of industry relations, managing the Team Etha-nol Indy car sponsorship in the Indy racing League and implementing the first blender pump in Kansas. The addition of rust to the team will allow richard root Woods to focus on his role as vice president leading EdeniQ’s commercial development efforts for its cellunator particle sizing technology and its corn oil extraction product line.

Richard Zakrze-wski joined Sand-meyer Steel co. as district sales manager in its Mid-Atlantic sales territory which includes eastern Penn-sylvania, new Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia and south-eastern new York. He replaces Shawn Fenerty who was re-cently promoted to the newly created po-sition of vice presi-

dent–national sales.

cPM Roskamp champion appointed Patty Tometich manager of its test center in Waterloo, Iowa, responsible for all ap-plications testing at the cPM’s pelleting and particle size reduction test center. The cen-ter processes samples of customers’ mate-rials in a laboratory that simulates full-scale equipment such as hammermills, roll crush-ers and shredders, to determine the most cost-efficient and effective means to con-sistently produce customized pelleting and grinding solutions.

BuSINESS bRIEFSPeople, Partnerships & Deals

Research director Wade Robey has moved from Novozymes to become Poet’s chief technology officer.

engineering Specialist Matt Voigt has experience within the industries served by Morris, Minn.-based Superior industries.

Mid-atlantic Sales Richard Zakrzewski brings more than 10 years of experience in stainless steel and nickel alloy sales within the aerospace, oil and gas, chemical processing and nuclear industries to his new position at Sandmeyer.


Sponsored by

business briefs

TMo Renewables ltd. has appointed Peter allen as nonexecutive director. He has experience in serving on the boards of science-based businesses, including ProStra-kan Group plc, chroma Therapeutics ltd., Proximagen neuroscience plc and oxford nanoscience Technologies ltd. TMo built the UK’s first cellulosic ethanol process demonstration unit, in operation since 2008. The TMo process is based on a thermo-philic bacterium.

enerkem inc. announced the closing of $29 million canadian ($30 million U.S.) in additional financing including equity in-vestments of cA$14.5 million and cA$14.2 million in corporate debt. As part of the equity financing round, The Westly Group, Fondaction cSn and Quince Associates, lP join existing investors Valero Energy corp., Waste Management, rho Ventures, Braemar Energy Ventures and cycle capital, investors in the earlier cA$59 million equity round. Enerkem operates two facilities in Quebec and in 2010 began construction of a munici-pal waste-to-biofuels plant in Alberta. The company expects to break ground later this year on a similar facility in Mississippi for which it is receiving financial support from the USDA and U.S. DoE.

codexis inc. and chemtex announced a broad collaboration to develop and pro-duce sustainable detergent alcohols from second-generation cellulosic biomass pro-cesses for use in the household products market. Made from palm kernel and petro-leum sources today, detergent alcohols—a $6 billion worldwide market —are surfactants that stabilize mixtures of oil and water wide-ly used in laundry detergents, shampoos and other consumer products. The collaboration will utilize chemtex’s pretreatment process with codexis’ high performance enzymes. The process will be piloted at chemtex’s research and development facility in rivalta,

Italy, and demonstration-scale trials are to be conducted at chemtex’s 40,000 metric-ton-per-year (13.5 MMgy) cellulosic ethanol plant in crescentino, Italy, that is expected to be operational in 2012.

In other announcements, codexis ap-pointed Pedro Mizutani to its board of directors. Mizutani is executive vice presi-dent-upstream business for raízen Ener-gia Participacoes S.A. and former cEo of cosan Sugar and Ethanol. raízen, Brazil’s largest sugar and ethanol producer, holds approximately 16 percent of codexis’ out-standing shares of common stock and is the company’s largest stockholder.

BinMaster level controls introduced its 3D MultiVision, a Windows-based inven-tory management software for the 3Dlevel-Scanner that enables users to view data for

multiple bins in a single window. The software can be used with all versions of the noncontact, dust penetrating scanner. Users can get detailed information for

a bin including minimum, maximum and average levels and see the 3D visualization of bin content. The software allows multiple users at multiple locations to view bin level and volume data.

coskata inc. announced the first close of its Series D round of financing, reporting participation by the major investors from previous rounds, including The Blackstone Group, Khosla Ventures, Total Energy Ventures International, ATV, Globespan capital Partners, General Motors, Arancia and Sumitomo. “We are very pleased with

the continued commitment of our existing investors and their confidence in our tech-nology platform,” said William roe, presi-dent and cEo. coskata has been operating a demonstration-scale integrated biorefinery in Madison, Pa., since 2009 and earlier this year received a conditional commitment for a USDA loan guarantee to build a commer-cial-scale cellulosic ethanol facility in the Southeast.

Yokogawa corporation of america released the cW10 clamp-on Power Me-

ter. This unit combines the basic functionality of a standard clamp-on tes-ter, digital multimeter and power monitor to diagnose maintenance and electri-cal issues before more ex-pensive and sophisticated equipment may be required to analyze the performance of motors, generators and other power-related equip-ment. The cW10 allows

technicians and maintenance personnel to measure 600 A Ac/Dc, 1000 V Ac/Dc, 600 kW Ac/Dc, power factor, total har-monic distortion, harmonics from 1st to 25th, resistance, and frequency. other mea-surement and diagnostic capabilities include phase rotation, voltage detection, continuity check, diode test, inrush current and low pass filter.

Motorcycle enthusiasts attending the August rally in Sturgis, S.D., were greeted at the legendary Buffalo chip by the Re-newable Fuels association’s “Fueled with Pride” promotional campaign. rFA pro-duced promotional materials, banners and merchandize for the event, as well as dis-played an E85 flex-fuel motorcycle. During the rally it has attended for several years, rFA also sponsors a 50-mile ride, with pro-


share your industry briefs to be included in business briefs, send information (including photos and logos if available) to: business briefs, Ethanol Producer Magazine, 308 second ave. n., suite 304, Grand forks nd 58203. you may also fax information to (701) 746-8385, or e-mail it to [email protected]. please include your name and telephone number in all correspondence.

business briefs

ceeds benefitting two Black Hills charities. In just three years, the event has raised over $150,000 for the Black Hills Special olym-pics and the Sturgis Motorcycle Museum and Hall of Fame.

expertune inc. released its latest ver-sion of PlantTriage Finder, designed to find the root cause of process upsets, automating the in-depth analysis previously performed by an experienced engineer. The new tech-nology works by evaluating correlations between instrument readings throughout a plant. Upsets that start in one area are re-flected in the data patterns from other parts of the plant. Using advanced mathematical techniques, the root cause Finder works without requiring process models. results are displayed graphically.

lechler inc. announced the release of its M20 Tank cleaning machine, designed to tackle large cleaning jobs such as clean-

ing fermenta-tion and storage tanks in ethanol plants or winer-ies. The gear-driven unit is available in a two- or four-nozzle model,

providing high-impact cleaning at relatively low inlet pressures. For cleaning of long tanks, such as tanker trucks and railcars, lechler provides the Horizontal M20, a standard M20 with a special attachment which allows more horizontal spraying.

Pursuit dynamics plc and Biomimet-ics Health Industries ltd. have agreed to form a joint venture to develop the patented intellectual property of both companies to create best-in-class disinfection and decon-tamination solutions using PDX’s atomiza-tion technology and Biomimetics’ chemistry. The core areas of focus will be healthcare disinfection, environmental disinfection, animal health disinfection and crop protec-

tion. Biomimetics is a UK-based life scienc-es organization specializing in the research, development and manufacture of unique nature-replicating chemical products that naturally control pathogens. PDX works in biofuels, brewing, food and beverages and public health and decontamination, deploy-ing its PDX atomizer and reactor technolo-gies.

Rockwell automation inc. launched a Biofuels customer Advisory council to provide customers with a forum to discuss their needs, challenges and industry oppor-tunities. rockwell Automation will utilize the customer feedback to guide and validate future strategies and product roadmaps for its Pavilion8 model predictive control and plantwide optimization solutions. The 2011-’12 advisory group includes representatives from cardinal Ethanol llc, Golden Grain Energy llc, Kansas Ethanol llc, Marquis Energy llc, Trenton Agri Products llc, Western Plains Energy llc, Western Wis-consin Energy llc, White Energy llc and Zilor Enterprises. As part of their participa-tion, members will have the opportunity to preview new products and take advantage of beta-testing opportunities.

lansing Trade Group llc has com-pleted the acquisition of feed merchan-diser ackerman Beardsley Bennett inc. The ABB trade name will be retired and renamed lansing Vermont Inc. A privately owned firm formed in 1931, Lansing has grown into a national trading company, sur-passing its grain roots with growth into the energy market. current annual revenues for the overland Park, Kan.-based company are approximately $5 billion.

Spraying Systems co. released its Tankjet B and BX injectors for tank clean-ing machines and custom-designed nozzle manifolds. The injectors transform steam

and cold water into high-pressure, high-temperature liquid feeds. For use with cold, low-pressure city water and existing plant steam, the injectors are nonintrusive and can eliminate pumps and heat exchangers. A liquid control valve siphons chemicals or detergents into the hot water stream.

Gamajet cleaning Systems inc. re-

leased its new Intrepid tank rinsing machine, responding to customer requests for a less expensive spray ball to use for light residues

that would also reduce water use. The Intrepid offers fast tank rinsing with the 80 percent less water than the stan-dard spray ball at the same pressure. Unlike traditional Gamajet ro-tary impingement tank cleaners, the Intrepid utilizes a unique direct-drive design, requiring no gear reduction while still applying concen-

trated streams for cleaning in a complete, 360-degree pattern.

GreenShift corp. commissioned its patented corn oil extraction system at ad-vanced Bioenergy llc’s 110 MMgy etha-nol plant in Fairmont, neb. GreenShift de-signed and assisted with the construction of a system based on GreenShift’s process that includes two Alfa laval disc stack centrifuges for maximum performance. Advanced Bio-Energy will receive ongoing technical sup-port and have access to GreenShift’s port-folio of proprietary technologies to support its efforts to further enhance coproduct rev-enues beyond corn oil extraction.


Aug. 26—Summer’s end is a good time to look at the forward market and assess whether there is value in deferred prices. The chart below shows the relationship between prompt natural gas prices during the sum-

mer and the January price for the upcoming winter. This is typically called the “seasonal carry.” We have included information from 2009, 2010 and 2011 to date.

notably, the seasonal carry during summer 2011 has been extremely low compared to 2009 and 2010 and the slope of the 2011 curve has been very flat since May. Finally, the current market carry is the lowest in three years and prompt prices are relatively low. When a relatively low market carry is added to a relatively low prompt price, we get a relatively low deferred price. The

Natural Gas Report

Corn Report

Is it time to lock in winter prices? By CASEy WHELAN

Price rationing expected with tight corn supplies By JASON SAGEBIEL

COMMODITIES REPORT

Aug. 31—Dryness and heat in the corn Belt during July wreaked havoc on yield po-tential, pushing markets up. By late August, traders factored in a sub-150-bushel national yield, compared to USDA’s August supply/demand report projections of 153 bush-els per acre, the lowest since 2006’s 149.1. With harvested acres at 84.4 million acres, a 1-bushel decrease reduces carryout by 84 million bushels if demand is constant. The August report estimated carryout at 714 mil-lion bushels, so the final number could be 462 million bushels, although price rationing will occur below a 500-million-bushel carry-out, boosting carryout as the year progresses. The carryout-to-use ratio at 5.4 percent is the lowest since 1995-’96. currently, demand for feed is expected to require 4.90 billion bushels, ethanol 5.10 billion bushels and ex-ports 1.75 billion bushels, with the balance

in residual and other food and industrial sectors. Where will the rationing occur? The livestock and poultry indus-tries have already begun to increase inclusion rates of other, more economical feed-stuffs. The accompanying chart shows the new crop corn price on the day the Au-gust USDA report is released along with the carryout-to-use ratio.

Global corn carryout continues to decline on U.S. production decreases. World carryout was last projected at 114.53 million metric tons (mmt) versus 122.93 a year ago and 143.90 mmt in 2009-’10. china is ex-pected to produce 178 mmt with domestic

current January price $4.39 per million Btu (MMBtu) is within 5 cents of the lowest level at which the contract has traded. In addition, the average January price over the past three years has been $5.39 per MMBtu, 23 percent higher than the current deferred January price.

could the deferred prices for the next winter continue to drop? certainly. on the other hand, other factors could also result in prices rallying. When, as is the case now, the deferred market offers a relatively low price and a relatively low carry, the opportunity cost of lower prices is often less than the risk of higher prices. We believe now may be a good time to evaluate and consider some deferred coverage.

consumption at 182.5 mmt. The USDA is expecting china to import 2 mmt of corn in the new marketing year.

Corn Price Analysis based on August (New Crop) Supply/Demand

Seasonal Carry to January

$3.00

$2.50

$2.00

$1.50

$1.00

$0.50

$-

5-apr5-may 5-Jun 5-Jul 5-aug 5-sep

2010 20112009


DDGS Report

Ethanol Report

Nearby DDGS sales dominate as market factors shift By SEAN BRODERICk

Ethanol markets nervous about corn production By RICk kMENT

COMMODITIES REPORT

DDGS Prices ($/ton)

LOCATION OCT 2011 SEPT 2011 OCT 2010

Minnesota 190 190 120

Chicago 205 205 136

buffalo, N.Y. 218 220 125

Central Calif. 254 253 168

Central Fla. 228 240 154SouRCe: CHS inc.

Natural Gas Prices ($/MMBtu)

LOCATION SEPT 1, 2011 AuG 1, 2011 SEPT 1, 2010

NYMEX 3.94 4.37 3.84

NNG Ventura 4.00 4.37 3.58

CA Citygate 4.23 4.55 3.63SouRCe: u.S. energy Services inc.

Regional Ethanol Prices Front Month Futures (AC) $2.929

REGION SPOT RACk

West Coast $3.040 $3.115

Midwest $2.905 $3.050

east Coast $2.980 $3.288SouRCe: DtN

Regional Gasoline Prices Front Month Futures Price (RBOB) $2.935

REGION SPOT RACk

West Coast $3.244 $3.141

Midwest $3.070 $3.048

east Coast $2.916 $3.065SouRCe: DtN

Corn futures Prices (Dec. Futures, $/bushel)

DATE HIGH LOW CLOSE

August 31, 2011 7.75 1/2 7.67 7.67 1/2

July 29, 2011 6.89 1/4 6.65 1/2 6.68 3/4

August 31, 2010 4.44 1/2 4.38 4.39 1/4SouRCe: FCStone

Cash Sorghum Prices ($/bushel)

LOCATION AuG 26, 2011

JuLy 29, 2011

SEPT 3, 2010

Superior, Neb. 7.12 6.56 4.15

beatrice, Neb. 7.18 6.26 4.05

Sublette, Kan. 7.08 6.16 3.86

Salina, Kan. 7.34 6.75 4.32

triangle, texas 6.89 6.13 4.16

Gulf, texas 8.12 7.04 4.52

SouRCe: Sorghum Synergies

u.S. Ethanol Production (1,000 barrels)

PER DAy MONTH END STOCkS

June 2011 902 27,064 18,833

May 2011 895 27,756 20,387

June 2010 854 25,632 18,565SouRCe: u.S. energy information Administration

Aug. 29—Traders are focused on 2011 corn production expecting supplies to remain tight. This will significantly impact ethanol production costs—corn being the largest input cost. Ethanol de-mand remains strong, helping to keep fu-tures prices near $3 per gallon while rack and spot markets fetch wholesale prices well above $3. The expectation of tight corn and ethanol supplies is keeping most buyers aggressive. East and West coast ethanol prices are carrying increased pre-miums due to strong blending demand. Though discounted for nearly a year, the ethanol discount eroded at the end of August due to softness in energy mar-kets and continued strong buying sup-port in corn and ethanol prices. Ethanol demand may hold, even without a price

discount, but that could quickly change if corn continues to climb.

Gasoline remains firm, though fall-ing from midsummer driving demand and increased concern that the fragile economy will keep consumers mindful of transportation budgets. overall demand for gasoline is sluggish, but tighter sup-plies could maintain price levels through the end of the year. The stock market’s wild ride in August caused many traders to second-guess expected stock market performance and once again look for a more constant investment vehicle—a move which could increase investment in energy commodities over the next sever-al months, and support gasoline prices.

Aug. 26—DDGS markets synchro-nize with corn—always lagging and nev-er too far out of trading range. looking back at the hot summer, prices stayed on the higher end due to the misfortune in Texas and the Southwest. Most crush margins for livestock feeding have turned negative. The poultry industry is back on shaky ground and while Midwestern hogs were profitable this summer, they are again breaking even, or less.

DDGS exports are down less than 10 percent. Bulk volumes are low, though Mexico use is trending up, and central and South American countries are seeing small upticks. The chicago container market is picking up, replac-ing some bulk business, especially to china. There’s cautious optimism for fall

and winter. Saudi Arabia will subsidize DDGS purchases with estimates as high as 500,000 tons and South Korea should rebound to 2010 levels after being down 185 percent due to hoof and mouth dis-ease. The Viptera trait issue in this year’s corn crop will be watched—china ap-proval isn’t expected until early next year and EU approval is an unknown.

Ethanol’s margin structure is prompting very nearby DDGS sales—less than a month out. This has worked so far, as corn has rallied, but competing products like corn gluten feed and canola meal will make inroads this year as feed wheat has. As always, corn prices will dictate DDGS prices, but better crops in some areas that did poorly last year will add another dynamic.

IncreaseProductivity

Managing your inbound grain and trading has never been easier, more convenient or more profi table! Introducing

DPPSM grain desk – a customized electronic grain marketing and trading tool that creates new fi nancial opportunities by

connecting ethanol producers directly to top-performing farmers. To learn how DPP grain desk can help increase your plant

productivity, go to www.dppgraindesk.com or call 888-393-6471 today.

SM Service mark of Farms Technology©2011 DPPGD021796P238AVA


distilled Ethanol News & Trends

Speakers Kristy Moore and Monte Shaw represented two sides of the same coin at the 2011 American coalition for Ethanol conference, which had the theme “rooted in America.” About 225 people at-tended the event, which was held Aug. 22-24 in Des Moines, Iowa.

Moore, director of technical services for the renewable Fuels Association, went over what it will take to get E15 through the many and complex federal, state and local regulatory hurdles before the fuel can be sold at retail stations. As Executive Direc-tor of the Iowa renewable Fuels Associa-tion, Shaw talked about that state’s efforts to move to selling E15 at retail gas stations while stressing the importance of clearing those regulatory hurdles first. “No amount of promotion will undo the damage or the hurt caused if we lose a technical battle,” Shaw said.

Starting with some history, Moore

pointed out that the E10, or gasohol, waiver approval of 1978 happened by default. It was approved simply because the U.S. EPA failed to make a decision on the waiver be-fore the deadline. By 2007, 10 percent etha-nol was being blended into approximately 50 percent of the nation’s fuel supply, with Minnesota and connecticut the only states at 100 percent of the supply. By 2010, E10’s market penetration had greatly improved—with 10 percent ethanol being blended into about 90 percent of the U.S. gasoline supply. only six or seven states are on the lower end with E10 penetrations of 60 to 70 percent. That’s a remarkable transformation, she pointed out.

EPA approval of the E15 waiver for passenger vehicles model year 2001 and newer was finalized at the end of January. Although 2000 model vehicles and older were not part of the waiver, it does repre-sent 65 percent of the vehicles on the road

today. Since that time, the rFA and others have been working to take the needed steps to bring this fuel to the marketplace. For example, nearly $1 million has been spent to complete health effects testing/fuel reg-istration requirements. Although progress has been made, there’s more to be done and Moore was not able to say when the process would draw to an end. “I don’t have a date,” she told conference-goers.

Some of the remaining impediments include fuel quality/specification issues, oc-tane certification, fuel detergent certification, automaker warranties, missfueling liability, underground storage tank regulations and safety and emergency response information. In some states, regulations will need to be changed, as some have legislated that their fuel supply shall contain no more than 10 percent ethanol. Another issue is that in De-cember, Underwriters laboratories said that fire marshals could approve existing fuel dis-

Preparing for E15ACE speakers address regulatory hurdles, getting the fuel to consumers

e15 hurdles Kristy Moore, director of technical services for the Renewable Fuels Association, speaks at the ACE conference about the remaining hurdles to get E15 to the marketplace.

PH

OTO

: LA

CE

Y D

IXO

N, A

CE


penser equipment for the use of E15. later, the product safety certification organization reversed that decision, Moore said.

Make no mistake; changing the nation’s fuel is a serious and complicated process that will take time. “We just want a chance and we just want a fair chance,” she said.

Following Moore’s talk, Shaw spoke about the Iowa model for moving E15 to the consumer. “Iowa is going to be ready to go on the first day E15 is legal to sell,” he said.

The state has 41 ethanol plants that produce nearly 3.7 billion gallons of ethanol yearly and has been working hard to prepare for the day the technical hurdles have been overcome. “The fact of the matter is, Iowa has a heck of a lot riding on E15,” he said. “If we solve this, there will be a pot of gold at the end of the renewable rainbow,” he added later, to laughter from the audience. E15 is vitally important to the short-term success of the ethanol industry and using

existing infrastructure is vital for the suc-cess of E15, he said. one way the industry has stayed afloat is by exporting increasingly larger amounts of ethanol to Brazil, but that option won’t always be available. “We’re one successful sugarcane harvest from having plants shut down, in my opinion,” he said.

In preparation for E15, Iowa passed a law this year that says retailers are not li-able for damage caused by the use of an incompatible motor fuel. The law says that the fuel must have been chosen by the con-sumer from a correctly labeled dispenser and it must comply with fuel specifications. Shaw told the audience similar laws need to be passed in other states and that it might be one of the most important steps to bringing E15 to the marketplace.

To help retailers sell E15, Iowa also ap-proved a new tax credit that was put into place July 1. retailers that sell blends of E15 to E66 are eligible for a 3 cent tax credit

through 2014, and a 2 cent tax credit from 2015 to 2017, he said. In addition, the state has $3 million allocated annu-ally for infrastructure grants to install blender pumps, E85 pumps and biodiesel dispens-ers or blending terminals. The funds can be used for up to 70 percent of the in-stallation cost, or a maximum of $50,000. It’s not currently known if E15 system up-grades will qualify under that program, Shaw said.

In Iowa, regulations al-low E15 to be sold through existing dispensers. That de-cision was made after the dis-penser manufactures stated that their pumps are compat-ible with and warranted for E15. Also, this was before the Ul reversed its decision on existing dispensers, he said. on the underground storage tank side, Iowa previously used an E85 compatibility checklist and will implement

a similar E15 checklist according to recent EPA guidance.

As for an E15 ASTM spec, Shaw ad-vocates moving ahead without it, knowing it will happen later on. Although E10 and E85 both have specs, Iowa state law doesn’t reference an ASTM spec and was crafted specifically to allow midlevel ethanol blend sales. “Yes, an ASTM

spec is preferable but waiting two years is not,” he said, referring to the time it could take to get an ASTM spec approved for E15. Much work remains to clear up gray areas so more of Iowa’s 3,000 retailers will feel com-fortable offering E15 at their stations. What will be needed in the beginning, however, is encouraging retailers willing to “stick their toes in the somewhat murky waters” and go for it. once that happens, and other retailers see that it works, more will follow.

ron lamberty, senior vice president of AcE agreed. “Basically, we’ve got to make sure it’s legal and then somebody has got to do it,” he said. Brian Jennings, executive vice president, added that bringing E15 to the marketplace will mean near-term relief and opportunity for the industry. Adding more blender pumps and flex-fuel vehicles will also continue to be a high priority for AcE, he said.

In all, more than 30 speakers and mod-erators spoke on topics such as the likely de-mise of the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax credit, the health effects of ethanol, the ef-fect of food safety laws on distillers grains production, cellulosic ethanol, managing high margins and more. Keynote speakers included Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, a for-mer S.D. congresswoman; Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, and Dallas Tonsager, under secre-tary for rural development with the USDA. —Holly Jessen

Ethanol News & Trends

distilled

PH

OTO

: LA

CE

Y D

IXO

N, A

CE

Stand-up example Monte Shaw, executive director of the iowa Renewable Fuels Association talks about the steps the state has taken so retailers can sell e15 as soon as regulatory hurtles are cleared.

Recognized for Service Dallas tonsager, left, under secretary for rural development with the USDA, accepts the Merle Anderson Award from the namesake of the award. Anderson is the founder of ACe.


mental concerns. “We’ve never intentionally plant-ed pennycress on 200,000 acres, so what does that mean in terms of what crops you plant?” Atkin-son explains. “Is it going to be displacing crops? Is

it going to be grown in flood-prone areas? Does it attract pests that might get into corn? There’s all these different things.”

When the USDA finalized BCAP last year, it also issued an environmental im-pact statement, which focused on switch-grass. For this reason, proposed projects intending to use switchgrass did not have to complete an environmental assessment, but other energy grasses, specifically mis-canthus, were put to the test before those projects were approved. “If you take a look at some of the dedicated energy crops that people have proposed, depend-ing on where you grow them, sometimes they might flirt along the lines of invasive-ness, because you want a hardy crop,” At-kinson says. “We are intentionally estab-lishing crops at a commercial-scale using federal dollars, so you need to do an en-vironmental assessment if we don’t know the full environmental impacts.”

The two project areas devoted to en-ergy crops for ethanol production were sponsored by Abengoa and Zeachem Inc. The FSA approved up to $6.2 mil-lion to be used to establish 20,000 acres of switchgrass in Kansas and oklahoma which will be used to supply the compa-ny’s 25 MMgy cellulosic plant in Hugoton, Kan. In oregon, the FSA will provide up to $17.1 million to establish 7,000 acres of hybrid poplar for Zeachem’s 25 MMgy in Boardman. (“Trees are more expensive than switchgrass,” Atkinson says.)

It is unclear what will happen to BCAP when the USDA’s new fiscal year begins on oct. 1. The U.S. House of rep-resentatives proposed eliminating the pro-gram completely in fiscal year 2012, but the Senate had not acted before the August recess. President Barack obama requested that $201 million be appropriated for the program. If BcAP is allowed to continue, Atkinson says the FSA will re-evaluate the acreages allotted to previously approved projects, many of which were downsized due to budget constraints, and consider expanding them. In the meantime, farm-ers in the program can rest assured that program payments will not be suddenly eliminated. “We cannot enter into a con-tract to pay out for years unless we have that money right now,” Atkinson says. “If you enter into a contract for three years, you will be paid for three years. If it’s for five years, it’s five years. None of these people are at risk of having a funding dis-ruption.”

As for future new project areas, the agency is trying to keep an open mind about what crops might be added to the mix. “We want to be as specific as possi-ble so that people have certainty, but we’re also working to be as flexible as possible in order to accommodate entrepreneurs who may have approaches that have not been envisioned,” he says. —Kris Bevill

distilled

The USDA awarded nine Biomass crop Assistance Program project areas and one nonproject area in fiscal year 2011, consuming the entire $112 million budget for the first, and possibly only, year of a program designed to invest in the expan-sion of energy crops throughout the U.S. Two of the project areas—switchgrass in Kansas and hybrid poplar in oregon—will directly benefit cellulosic ethanol facilities. others are focused on converting energy crops to biodiesel, biobutanol and pellet-izing biomass for a variety of uses. Poet LLC is the beneficiary of the nonproject area. The USDA is providing matching payments to farmers to cover the cost of providing corn stover to Project liberty in Emmetsberg, Iowa.

Todd Atkinson, chief of staff at the USDA’s Farm Service Agency, says more than 40 applicants filed to establish BCAP areas this year, but a relatively tight budget made it impossible to fund all of them. Approved projects will incentivize the planting of switchgrass and other peren-nial native grasses, giant miscanthus, cam-elina and poplar in areas across Arkansas, Missouri, Kansas, ohio, Pennsylvania, oklahoma, oregon, california, Montana and Washington. Unfunded proposed projects would have established a wide range of feedstocks, from pennycress to energy cane to pongamia—an oil seed tree native to India.

Applicants must meet two very im-portant criteria to be considered. The first, which could be difficult for many cellu-losic ethanol producers, is that a biorefin-ery needs to be ready to begin producing when the crop is ready for harvest. The second is a required environmental as-sessment if there is any question as to the crop’s impact on any number of environ-

Safely Securing Energy Crop AcresbCAP assists in establishing energy crops throughout US

Approved projects will

incentivize the planting

of switchgrass and other

perennial native grasses,

giant miscanthus, camelina

and poplar in areas across

Arkansas, Missouri, Kansas,

Ohio, Pennsylvania,

Oklahoma, Oregon,

California, Montana and

Washington.


distilled

in Europe,” he says. “The require-ments on any loan guarantee are very challenging for any company. There are more projects than there is available money, so competition is very high. We have been compet-

ing with other energy technologies that, from a commercial standpoint, have more maturity, less uncertainty and definitely less risk. I think that has been a little bit detrimental to our in-dustry and, overall, the process for our indus-try is complex, but our relationship with the loan guarantee office has been very good. It’s a tough problem, but I think DoE is going to be able to put in some beautiful projects in a very complex environment.”

The Hugoton project is a prime example of the complexity of cellulosic ethanol. In ad-dition to producing ethanol, the company will construct a cogeneration facility on-site that will produce 20 megawatts of biomass-based electricity to run the ethanol plant. The plant is expected to require about 300,000 tons of corn stover to produce 23 MMgy of ethanol using its enzymatic hydrolysis process. In late July, the USDA also approved a Biomass crop Assistance Program to establish 20,000 acres of switchgrass in the area surrounding the plant. If all goes well, switchgrass will be ready to harvest for use at the facility during its in-augural year in combination with stover and wheat straw already promised to the company by 60 area farmers. Salgado says the BcAP project is not vital to the plant’s success be-

cause it already has supply agreements in place with farmers, but it will be helpful in proving the energy crop concept and will serve as an example for the deployment of that concept throughout the U.S.

once the biomass procurement concept has been proven and the Hugoton plant is up and running, Abengoa will target its six exist-ing U.S. corn-based ethanol plants as co-loca-tion opportunities for cellulosic facilities and will also entertain the option of serving as a technology provider to third parties. “Glob-ally, there are about 600 biorefineries produc-ing ethanol today,” he says. “We are trying to introduce a new concept, which is a new technology, and the risk associated to develop that technology is going to be mitigated, and the deployment is going to be much faster, if we are able to co-locate those assets with the existing infrastructure. I believe this could be-come a reality very soon.”

For now, however, all of the company’s cellulosic focus is geared toward Hugoton, Salgado says. As of late August, the company had finalized a construction agreement and was expecting to receive its air permit within a few weeks. Executives were working around the clock to finalize the loan guarantee by Sept. 30 and it appeared the company would be able to hold a groundbreaking before the start of october. Approximately 300 jobs will be cre-ated during the construction of the plant. The facility will provide 65 full-time jobs when op-erational. —Kris Bevill

on Aug. 19, the U.S. DoE offered to guarantee $133.9 million in financing for Abengoa Bioenergy U.S. Holding Inc.’s first commercial-scale cellulosic facility. With fed-eral financial backing in place, the company is marching ahead with its plans to establish a 23 MMgy multi-feedstock facility in Hugoton, Kan., by 2013 and expects to begin construc-tion by the end of September.

The DoE’s loan guarantee approval for biofuels projects has been notoriously hard to come by, so successfully emerging from the process is a major milestone. Poet llc was the first cellulosic ethanol project to receive a nod, garnering a $105 million conditional commitment earlier this summer for its fa-cility in Iowa. But despite the slow start and lengthy approval process (Spain-based Aben-goa filed its initial loan guarantee application two years ago), Abengoa Bioenergy President and CEO Javier Salgado says he is satisfied with the program overall and believes the U.S. programs can serve as an example for other countries to emulate when determin-ing how best to support biofuels expansion. “If we were to have 50 percent of the sup-port of what this country has had for new-age technologies and projects, I would be happy

Approved at LastAbengoa CEO offers European view of programs

PH

oto

: Ab

eN

Go

A

existing opportunities Abengoa’s future plans call for the addition of cellulosic facilities at all six of its existing corn ethanol plants in the U.S., including this 55 MMgy plant in York, Neb.


distilled

What if there were a flex-fuel engine on the market that was more ef-ficient, and provided more power than today’s flex-fuel vehicles (FFVs) and was affordable? Better still, what if that engine could also be used for heavy-duty vehicles that now use diesel engines?

That’s a future that cambridge, Mass.-based Ethanol Boosting Systems llc, an MIT spinoff, has been working toward. In early August, the com-pany took a step closer when the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued a patent for a single nozzle, direct injection system for rapidly variable gasoline/anti-knock agent mixtures. It utilizes a second tank, which could contain ethanol or methanol, for direct injection at high power levels. “It could be a game changer for engines because it’s the most cost-effective way to get high-efficien-cy engines,” says Daniel cohn, cEo and co-founder of Ethanol Boosting Systems. “And it’s good for ethanol because it opens up the possibility for flex-fuel heavy duty truck en-gines for ethanol—that’s a big potential win for ethanol—and it makes flex-fuel light duty car engines more attractive.”

U.S. DoE funded testing in collabo-ration with Ford, confirming what Etha-nol Boosting Systems’ computer models showed. “This technology opens up the pos-sibility for high efficiency, high torque, flex-ible-fuel engines for trucks. These engines have a lot of advantages over diesel—they are cheaper, they’re cleaner and they provide more power.”

While critics blame ethanol for a variety of engine-related ills, cohn points to short-comings of gasoline. Ethanol is a superior

A Better ffV?Single nozzle, dual fuel injection could work in heavy-duty trucks, too

Ethanol/gasoline tank

Ethanol tank

Engine

Direct injection

MixerKnock sensor

Fuel management microprocessor

Manifold

Turbo-charger

Air

Boosting performance ethanol boosting Systems received a patent for the system outlined in the schematic using single nozzle, direct injection for a spark ignition gasoline engine. SOURCE: ETHANOL BOOSTING SYSTEMS LLC

fuel, he says, because it’s higher octane than gasoline and can be operated at a higher compression ratio with more turbo charg-ing. The problem with conventional FFVs is that it’s not possible to achieve maximum efficiency and torque when the vehicle is run on gasoline. The performance of the engine has to be degraded, otherwise, when it was running on gasoline the engine would have issues with knock. “What’s really nice about our engine is it’s a no compromise FFV, that is, you design it for the maximum perfor-mance of ethanol,” he tells EPM, adding that while it’s true ethanol has less energy per gallon than gasoline, this engine com-pensates with higher efficiency.

Another piece of good news is that, with the FFV configuration, there’s no need for special handling for the second tank. Every time the driver fills up with a higher ethanol blend, the fuel is directed into the second, smaller tank. “So the second tank is always poised to be used,” he says, as long as the driver fills up with E85 often. —Holly Jessen


distilled

FROM PROBLEMS TO PELLETS TO PROFITS

If you’re transporting DDG as meal,

you’re losing profi ts every day. Put

that money back in your pocket with a

CPM pellet mill. Get increased energy

savings, fl owability and dust control

with less cleanup from the only pellet

mill with a gear drive train. Durable,

energy effi cient and trouble-free with

parts made and warehoused in the

USA to serve you faster. Call for your

FREE cost analysis today.

WWW.CPM.NET | 800-428-0846CRAWFORDSVILLE, INDIANA

Making ProgressGreat River Energy advances hybrid corn-cellulosic project

A planned hybrid corn-cellulosic etha-nol plant near Jamestown, n.D., is one step closer to fruition following recent local ap-proval for a 10-year tax break. Dakota Spirit AgEnergy llc, a subsidiary of Minnesota-based electric cooperative Great river En-ergy, wants to build a 50 MMgy corn-based dry mill at Spiritwood, n.D., which will sit alongside an existing cargill Malt plant and a combined heat and power (cHP) plant that is currently being constructed by Great river Energy. The ethanol plant will be ex-panded over time to also produce 10 MMgy of cellulosic ethanol using locally obtained corn stover and wheat straw as feedstocks.

Sandra Broekema, business develop-ment manager for Great river Energy, says construction of the corn ethanol plant could begin in April, pending the comple-tion of project finance. This first phase of the project is expected to cost about $110 million and could be complete by 2014. Broekema says the project will be financed by private investors, adding that other state incentives aside from the 10-year property tax reduction could be applied to reduce the project’s cost.

Great river Energy’s cHP plant will be completed in 2013 and will be used to pro-vide steam to power both the malt plant and the ethanol plant. Inbicon A/S is serving as technology provider for the cellulosic por-tion of the project and is currently standard-izing a 10 MMgy modular design, Broekema says. After the first phase is operational, Broekema says an economic evaluation will be conducted regarding the cellulosic phase. It is expected that about 240,000 tons of feedstock would be required to supply the cellulosic plant.

Great river Energy’s project is one of very few new, corn-based ethanol construc-tion projects expected to commence in the near future. Some industry members have voiced concerns regarding the market for ethanol after the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax credit is eliminated, but Broekema ex-pressed confidence that demand for the fuel will continue to be strong. “We believe that the expiration of VEETc shouldn’t have a material impact on the overall demand for ethanol, since discretionary blending and higher concentrations are small segments of the overall market,” she says. —Kris Bevill

Wide open opportunity Great River Energy plans to begin constructing the first phase of a hybrid corn/cellulosic ethanol facility in south-central North Dakota early next year. the company is currently constructing a combined heat and power plant at the site, which is also home to Cargill Malt.

PH

oto

: GR

eAt

RiV

eR

eN

eR

GY


A group of scientists at Washington State University and the U.S. DOE’s Pacific North-west national laboratory recently discov-ered that isobutene, a valuable chemical used mostly to produce rubber for automobile tires,

can be created from ethanol by introducing a low-cost catalyst comprised of zinc oxide and zirconium oxide. The researchers made this unexpected discovery while attempting to ex-tract hydrogen from ethanol. The hydrogen

distilled

Surprising DiscoveryResearchers stumble upon new ethanol application

Secret pathway The right balance of zinc and zirconium oxides in this catalyst (purple block) converts ethanol to isobutene with low amounts of unwanted byproducts such as acetone and ethylene. SouRCe: PACiFiC NoRtHWeSt NAtioNAL LAboRAtoRY

experiment didn’t work, but the outcome was better than expected, according to lead researcher Yong Wang, a chemical engineer who holds a joint appointment at Pnnl and WSU. He says ethanol producers around the country could “absolutely” apply this new finding to their process and begin produc-ing the biochemical to replace its fossil fuel-derived counterpart.

Isobutene’s many uses make it a good candidate for widespread production at etha-nol plants, unlike zein, for example, which could be produced by only a few ethanol plants before the market becomes saturated. “It’s basically a platform molecule,” Wang says. “You can use it for making a solvent, chemicals and also fuel additives. It diversi-fies the application of ethanol plants. There’s no limitation.” He estimates that for every gallon of ethanol produced, about one-third of it could be used to make isobutene. The catalysts used at Pnnl were produced using conventional methods and are “very cheap,” he says, which should make the process even more attractive to cash-strapped ethanol pro-ducers.

The isobutene discovery was particularly surprising for researchers because while they knew that the conversion was scientifically possible, no one had done it in a one-step reaction before, Wang says. now that they know it is possible, researchers are work-ing through the usual steps of scaling-up a new technology to apply it at a commercial level. The back-of-the-envelope calculations show that it is economically possible and the chemistry is proven, he says, adding that discussions are ongoing with several ethanol producers to partner with for the scale up to commercial production. —Kris Bevill


The clean Fuels Foundation is in the formative stages of a nationwide education outreach program that will target drivers at the one place they all must go before they hit the road—the Department of Motor Vehicles. Burl Haigwood, director of pro-gram development for the clean Fuels Foundation and program manager for the project, says the DMV Driver Education project provides a unique opportunity to encourage drivers to become aware of their vehicle’s fuel capabilities and to warn them of the dangers of fossil fuel use. “If DoT [Department of Transportation] and DMVs can work together on seat belts, distracted driving, aggressive driving, child safety seats, speed limits and voter registration, why can’t they work together on the driver’s right to know how gaso-line and crude oil are impacting their per-sonal lives?” he says. “A driver has a right to know that relying on oil has a personal impact on that driver. our addiction to oil has an impact on every driver’s economic, environmental and national security.”

local education efforts by ethanol producers are good, Haigwood says, but in order to have a real impact, a nation-wide education campaign needs to be im-plemented. The DMV provides a perfect captive audience for ethanol education and providing drivers with that informa-tion can be done in a variety of ways, from questions on driving tests to flyers posted on the walls of the offices. The program will require time and money, however, and ethanol producers are being sought out to participate in the DMV project. “You can’t do it one at a time,” Haigwood says. “I’m not saying, don’t do what you’re doing. But when you look at your education and investment portfolio, how much are you putting on the DMV? right now that in-vestment is zero. We’re asking the ethanol industry and all stakeholders to ante up.”

A national education program has

been difficult to launch so far, due mostly to misinformation campaigns being funded by the wealthy oil companies, Haigwood says. He also believes the federal government needs to become responsible for participat-

ing in order to own up to the renewable fuel standard it implemented. “They need to own it, and indoctrinate that law into their programs,” he says. —Kris Bevill

distilled

•

••••

Essential Expertise

for Water, Energy and Air

SM

Got a Minute?Campaign suggests targeting drivers in the one place all go—DMvs


distilled

OPERATING LEASES ASSET-BASED LENDING LEVERAGED LEASES SYNTHETIC LEASES

CIT Rail. Leasing Expertise.

© 2011 CIT Group Inc. CIT and the CIT logo are registered service marks of CIT Group Inc.

CIT Rail leverages industry-leading experience and equipment management capabilities to develop leasing solutions that maximize flexibility and free up capital for your growth priorities. With one of the youngest, most diversified railcar and locomotive fleets in the industry, we can help you increase loading efficiencies and reduce out-of-service time.

To learn more, visit www.citrail.com or call 312-906-5701.

The second leg of the U.S. EPA’s three-tiered greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reg-ulations came into play on July 1, triggering compliance requirements for many of the nation’s ethanol plants. According to the rule, Prevention of Significant Deterioration per-mits are now required for any new construc-tion project that will result in GHG emissions exceeding 100,000 tons per year. Modifications at existing facilities, such as adding new equip-ment, which will increase GHG emissions by 75,000 tons or more per year are also required to obtain PSD permits. Additionally, any facil-ity that emits at least 100,000 tons per year of co2 equivalent is subject to Title V permitting requirements.

Prior to the rule’s finalization, represen-tatives from all aspects of U.S. manufactur-ing fought hard to prevent the EPA from

The Next PhaseProducers urged to prepare for Tailoring Rule

implementing emissions regulations that were envisioned to be too costly and complicated. The final rule was a heavily amended version of the pro-posed rule, reflecting many of the in-dustry’s concerns regarding excessive

regulation. While, of course, not everyone was pleased with the final decision (several lawsuits are pending and various members of congress have suggested eliminating the regulations al-together), it appears that there have been rela-tively few problems with the rule as affected parties adjust to their new requirements.”

“It’s been pretty much business as usual,” says Marnie Stein, senior environmental spe-cialist at the Iowa Department of natural resources Air Quality Bureau. “But they still have until next July to apply for their Title V permits.”

According to Aimee Andrews, managing consultant of climate change services at envi-ronmental consulting firm Trinity Consultants, although the Title V permit applications are not due until next July, producers should not pro-crastinate in preparing their documents. “It’s a

big process,” she says. “A Title V application is not a two-pager. Most states are requiring a large set of forms to go with that applica-tion. It’s a huge exercise in paperwork, but it’s also data collection issues and [possible] delays in getting the data together that you need to build in time for.” Andrews says it will likely take about four weeks to put together a Title V application, but because of those possible de-lays, producers should not wait until next June to begin the process.

While some ethanol plants and other in-dustrial facilities employ environmental, health and safety personnel to focus on environmen-tal compliance issues, Andrews says she has seen an increase in the number of facilities that have cut those positions and therefore have to assign regulatory tasks to employees with other responsibilities who also may not be as skilled at compiling the necessary data. “companies are trimming everywhere and it’s sad because a lot of people don’t realize that if they’re not compliant, they’ll get shut down,” she says. —Kris Bevill


distilled

Search for SugarsScience fair project zeros in on aspen bark for ethanol production

Breaking down the cellulose in wood isn’t easy. But—as two canadian students and their science teacher discovered—bark is a different story.

James ross and Isaiah Saunders, who are today graduates of St. Joseph-Scollard Hall, a catholic school in north Bay, ontario, took their bark-to-ethanol science project from a local science fair all the way to an internation-al science fair. With the help of high school science teacher David chechak, the pair pro-duced ethanol from aspen bark—calculating one tree would produce about 16 gallons of ethanol.

The project won one of three awards of merit in the energy and transport category at the Expo Science International for pre-college science exhibition. The event was held in Brat-islava, Slovakia, in July, and included projects

by 1,500 students from more than 75 countries around the world. “We weren’t expecting this,” ross says of winning the award. “We couldn’t stop smil-ing when we heard the news. It was the biggest surprise of our lives.”

The idea of making ethanol from aspen bark stemmed from the fact that deer and por-cupine survive on it in the winter. “We figured if animals eat it, then there must be sugar in there, which, when fermented with yeast, can produce ethanol,” ross says.

The bark of poplar and aspen trees is a somewhat toxic waste product that goes into landfills, Chechak tells EPM. For their science experiment ross and Saunders ground up the bark and wood separately with a chainsaw. They found that, unlike the wood, the bark

Science high Canadian high school students James Ross and isaiah Saunders won an award of merit at an international science fair for their project converting aspen bark to ethanol.

PH

OTO

: EX

PO

SC

IEN

CE

INTE

RN

ATIO

NA

L

contained quite a bit of reduced sugars and could be fermented into ethanol fairly easily. Bark isn’t a cellulosic feedstock and, unlike wheat or corn, isn’t used for feed or food, he points out.

The project went so well chechak, ross and Saunders are seriously talking about ap-plying for a patent. In September, ross and Saunders start classes at carleton University in ottawa, ontario. ross wants to pursue a bachelor of science and Saunders will study engineering. “They were some of my top stu-dents,” chechak says. —Holly Jessen


distilled

America has a jobs problem and an en-ergy problem. “As an industry we are doing our part to be part of the solution,” says Dave Sovereign, chairman of the Golden Grain Energy board of directors. “We need to get this message out to the people and help spread it as far and as wide as we can.”

In Iowa, a handful of ethanol plants and the Iowa corn Promotion Board found the vehicle—literally—to do that. The mo-bile biofuels education center has spread the truth about ethanol at events such as fairs and political rallies. It’s an eye-catching dis-play that tells the story of a fuel that’s good for the environment, reduces greenhouse gas emissions, is good for the economy, cre-ates jobs and keeps American money here in America, Sovereign says.

The Iowa ethanol plants onboard with the project are Golden Grain of Mason city, Absolute Energy llc in St. Ansgar, Homeland Energy Solutions llc in lawler,

and Big river resources llc, which oper-ates one plant in Dyersville, and another in Galva, Ill. Besides visual displays, the trailer contains six computers, three DVD players and three television sets, Sovereign says. It’s handicapped accessible and has its own gen-erator for power, which includes air condi-tioning. one of the most popular displays is a bushel of corn, 2.85 gallons of ethanol and 17 pounds of distillers grains.“People really enjoyed getting in here and run-ning their hands through the corn and the DDGS,” he says.

Sovereign urges others to get involved in ethanol advocacy wherever they are. Etha-nol plant boards can do that by forming po-litical action committees or allocating funds for advertizing and promotion. Individuals can make themselves available as sources for local newspapers or to speak at community clubs. “Don’t think for a minute that one person or a place can’t make a difference or an impact,” he adds. —Holly Jessen

‘Biofuel Truth Express’Mobile education center hits road with positive message

eye catcher The “Biofuels, Moving America Forward” trailer gets some very curious looks as it travels down the road, according to Dave Sovereign, chairman of the Golden Grain energy board of directors.


distilled

Missouri, Michigan and Kansas are a few of the states actively working to increase the number of blender and E85 pumps, increasing consumer access to the renewable fuel. Fund-ing for this is available through a variety of federal, state and local programs, including the USDA’s rural Energy for America Program.

In August, USDA rural Development Business Program Administrator Judy canales recognized Missouri for the approval of 26 biofuel pumps at fuel retailers—more than any other state in the nation. The pumps will be installed through a program with USDA rural Development and a partnership with the Missouri corn Merchandising council, the Association of Missouri Electric cooperatives and the Missouri Department of Agriculture. "Missouri's unique team is leading the nation in applications, but more importantly, in actu-ally making this work," canales said. "But this is not the end of a campaign. This is step one. our goal is 10,000 blender pumps [in the na-tion] over the next five years."

In Michigan, the 2011 Michigan Etha-nol Infrastructure & Marketing Incentive of-fers funding for gas station to convert to or add blender pumps. In all, $50,000 is available

through the clean En-ergy coalition, which is working with the corn Marketing Pro-gram of Michigan. As of the end of August, $15,000 of the funding had been used. “Ide-ally, we would like to finish this project no later than December,” says Matt Sandstrom, division manager, clean Energy Mobil-ity. “However, we will extend the program if necessary.” retail sta-tions can apply for grants of up to $10,000 per pump. In addition, stations can get awards for $5,000 or up to 50 percent of the cost of mar-keting materials and highway signage.

In Kansas, an application has been sub-mitted to the U.S. DoE to use $5 million in federal stimulus money to install E85 pumps at nearly 40 gas stations around Wichita. En-vironmental reviews were under way in late August. The funds had been appropriated to

Blender Pump CarrotIncentive programs spur growth in ethanol infrastructure

First of Many Chuck Ackman, representing Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn.; Charlie Poster, assistant commissioner at the Minnesota Department of Agriculture; Dale Hegland, manager of the Glencoe Co-op Association; and Colleen Landkamer, Minnesota director of the USDA Rural Development office, cut the ribbon on a blender pump at the Glencoe Co-op Association, located about an hour west of Minneapolis, on Aug. 8. The pump was one of the first to be installed as a result of the USDA’s offer earlier this year to provide grants and loans for blender pumps through its Rural Energy for America Program. Glencoe Co-op received a $6,771 REAP grant for its pump. the uSDA set a goal in 2010 of installing 10,000 blender pumps throughout the country within the next five years.

PH

OTO

: US

DA

-RU

RA

L D

EV

ELO

PM

EN

T

Efficiency Kansas, a microloan program in-tended to help residents make energy-efficien-cy improvements in their homes. However, the program wouldn’t be able to use up all the funds by the federal deadline, says Kansas De-partment of commerce spokesman Dan lara. The idea is to use more than $20 million in stimulus funding on this and two other proj-ects. —Holly Jessen

C

M

Y

CM

MY

CY

CMY

K

GEN-00811_PrintAd_BW_MountainSpread_FINAL.pdf 1 7/25/11 9:25 AM


corn quality


corn quality

Quality Matters

digging into the details Although most corn ethanol plants don’t use third-party grading services, grain expert Charles Hurburgh Jr. believes it is needed.

PHoto: NCGA PHoto CoNteSt WiNNeRS

inbound corn quality matters. That’s the message charles Hur-burgh Jr. wants to send ethanol plants.

Most ethanol plants purchase no. 2 corn, which allows for 5 percent dam-age. But Hurburgh, professor in charge of the Iowa Grain Quality Initiative at Iowa State University, suspects more damaged corn is sneaking in than is real-ized. “My observation has been that there’s an awful lot of hand waving that goes along with grading and [grading] is basically not done in an exhaustive way,” he tells EPM.

Do ethanol plants need to improve their grading practices? By HOLLy JESSEN

Seeking Sound Corn:


corn quality

It’s well known that vomitoxin, a type of mycotoxin that was a big problem in 2009, is concentrated in the distillers grains and can cause problems if fed to livestock. Damaged corn can also impact the fermen-tation process, requiring additional rescue antibiotics or sulfuric acid between batches.

While those problems can be righted, it’s a cost and a hassle best avoided, Hurburgh says. “Professional-ism on input quality will pay rewards, no matter what,” he says.

The quality of the corn entering an ethanol plant is only as good as the grad-ing program and the

vigilance and training of the graders. Plants that don’t make this a priority will receive damaged corn. “I don’t think I am telling any secrets out of school—if grading is not monitoring quality, you’re going to get whatever you’re calling no. 2 corn,” he says. “And if you accepted it, you are calling it no. 2 corn whether it is or it isn’t. That 5 percent will go to 10 in a heartbeat, because the person shipping knows you are not checking.”

It isn’t known yet whether the 2011 corn crop will suffer damage, and the 2010 crop looked great. So, why worry about corn damage? It’s the wet and highly dam-aged supplies from 2009 that are the poten-tial problem. “We still have a lot of 2009 corn put away in storage and actually being blended out,” he says. “I would guess that we have another year or so for the potential

for high-damage corn.” Even in years with no damaged corn in the system, Hurburgh advocates vigilance. Those are the times that foster the hand-waving mentality for grain grading. “It lulls you to sleep,” he says, add-ing that plants need to be prepared to react quickly to changes in corn quality. In addi-tion, with corn yield growing yearly, grain grading will become even more important. “The more grain we handle, the more there will need to be discipline in the system,” he says. “That’s what grain inspection does.”

Professionals in Placeno two ways about it—ethanol plants

need professional grain inspection at grain receiving, Hurburgh says. That could mean hiring a third party grain inspection firm, which is the practice of many large ethanol processors such as Archer Daniels Midland

corn Quality Matters iSu corn quality expert Charles Hurburgh Jr. says ethanol plants need to beef up their corn grading activities at grain receiving.

SoundKernels

Dirtnot

Damage

PinkEpicoccum

Mold

Germnot

Damage

PurplePlunule

BlightBlue-eye

Mold

DamagedKernels

CobRot

Mold

SurfaceMold

DryerDamage

GermDamage

SproutDamage

InsectDamage

on the web

examples of damaged and sound corn kernels can be found on the uSDA Grain inspection, Packers & Stockyards Administration website. Go to education & outreach, eLearning and view visual reference images. Visit: http://www.gipsa.usda.gov

PH

oto

S: u

SD

A G

iPS

A


corn quality

Co. and Cargill Inc. “You won’t find them using house grades,” he says, adding that soybean processors also use third-party ser-vices for grain grading.

There’s resistance to the idea within the ethanol industry, however. Although he’s talked to many plant managers who say it would be far too expensive, Hurburgh isn’t sure that’s true. “I’ll stick my neck out,” he tells EPM. “I believe that a plan could be worked that would allow the use of third-party inspection—certainly in a 100 MMgy plant. I don’t know about a 50 MMgy plant, obviously there is an economy of scale.”

Even if an ethanol plant didn’t work with a company that had an on-site grain inspection laboratory—such as is the case at the 35 MMgy cargill ethanol plant in Eddyville, Iowa— there are ways to incor-porate third-party testing. An ethanol plant could contract with a third party to do blind checks, meaning the in-house grader is peri-odically checked at random against an offi-cial grader. “The validation makes sure that they are not getting biased one way or an-other with respect to the official system,” he says. Hurburgh also recommends in-house

graders receive professional training. This is a step that won’t cost much but will pay off big. “House graders can be just as good with the right training and validation,” he says.

There are many avenues for grain grad-ing training. For example, the USDA’s Grain Inspection, Packers & Stockyards Adminis-tration offers elearning opportunities on its website. And, although it varies from state to state, courses or workshops are often of-fered through extension services. In Texas, grain-grading workshops were offered in May—something the Texas Agrilife Exten-sion Service has been doing for the past 21

years, says Steve Amosson, professor and economist. Staff from Hereford renewable Energy, a 105 MMgy ethanol plant in Here-ford, Texas, have been among the training’s attendees. “At these grain prices, you cannot afford a mistake,” Amosson tells EPM.

Hurburgh also understands that with plants unloading a truck every couple min-utes at times, it’s not feasible to do exhaus-tive grading for every load. He recommends taking composite samples from each seller, for later grading. The trade-off for speed is that not every bad load of corn will be identified up front. In the long run, how-ever, the plant will be able to increase its average corn quality using this strategy. “If someone is taking liberties with you, there are market ways to discipline that,” he ex-plains, adding that it’s typically price.

Finally, he recommends plants test pro-tein periodically. Protein levels are the sin-gle biggest factor that determines ethanol yield, as protein and fermentable starch are inversely related, meaning if protein levels are high, starch levels will be low. A 1 per-cent downward shift in protein, from 8 to 7 percent, also will mean the protein con-

clean Stream A farmer checks for corn quality on the farm.

PH

oto

: NC

GA

PH

oto

Co

Nte

St

WiN

Ne

RS

‘The biggest issue for us is

trucks that are layered and

attempt to hide off-grade.

This is not an isolated issue.’

- Steve Roe, general manager,

Little Sioux Corn Processors


corn quality

tent in distillers grains will likely go down about 3 percentage points, from about 26 to 23 percent protein. “They should know, on an average basis, what the protein trends

are,” he says, “because that’s going to affect what their guarantee can be on the distillers grains.”

other factors, such as test weight,

moisture, broken corn or foreign material don’t affect yield as much. In 2009, dam-aged corn with low test weight didn’t have a significant impact on yield but did mean more spoilage in storage, he says. In fact, low test weight corn can be lower in pro-tein, translating into higher yields.

Producers Chime inWhat are ethanol producer’s thoughts

on corn grading? Steve roe, general man-ager of little Sioux corn Processors lP, agrees that corn grading is very important business at an ethanol plant. The 92 MMgy ethanol plant in Marcus, Iowa, does not use a third-party grading company because it’s simply too expensive, he says.

To avoid accepting off-grade corn, the plant has three to four employees working to weigh trucks and grade corn. Still, he ac-knowledges that bad corn can sometimes slip by. “We probe trucks twice to determine corn grades,” he says. “The biggest issue for

looking Good Corn ethanol plants typically accept No. 2 dent field corn. Although corn from 2010 was of good quality, ethanol plants are still receiving loads blended with damaged corn from 2009.

PH

oto

: NC

GA

PH

oto

Co

Nte

St

WiN

Ne

RS


corn quality

us is trucks that are layered and attempt to hide off grade. This is not an isolated is-sue.” That practice also occurs within in-dustries other than ethanol, he adds. “If we catch firms sending layered corn, they are discounted very heavily or the load is rejected.”

GreenField Ethanol, which operates four ethanol plants in canada, has a com-prehensive corn quality assurance program, says Ken robertshaw, the company’s direc-tor of corn procurement. At the 60 MMgy Johnstown, ontario, ethanol plant—the largest of GreenField’s plants with a com-bined capacity of more than 160 MMgy—three full-time corn analysts work to process 70 loads of corn daily, five days a week and 13 hours a day. These employees process all corn and distillers grains at the plant, includ-ing the required shipping documentation.

like roe, robertshaw says that good quality assurance programs are important in any industry, including the ethanol indus-

try. “Having solid data from the front gate, from the process, and through to the final products gives the plant the understanding it needs to operate at its peak efficiency,” he says. “This knowledge allows us to work with the supplier to set incoming corn spec-ifications that will yield the best results for both parties.”

In any crop year, GreenField screens incoming corn for mycotoxins. When the vomitoxin problem was at its peak, the com-pany provided suppliers with load-specific vomitoxin data so they could manage their inventories. The company has observed a significant drop in vomitoxin levels from the bad 2009 crop year, he adds.

All GreenField corn analysts are trained to grade in accordance with cana-dian Grain commission guidelines and all loads of corn are sampled and tested using cGc methods. While the company does use in-house staff for corn grading, it also uses third-party validation, including send-

ing a weekly random sample to the cGc and using that data internally to cross-check the accuracy of company grading. once a year, the plant’s corn grading facilities and procedures are audited by a third party to confirm the plant is complying with CGC regulations. Finally, the truck scale is cali-brated quarterly to canadian weights and measures standards by a third-party vendor. These and other measures help assure the plant’s supplier that its grading practices are consistent and fair, robertshaw tells EPM. “[It] also allows us to accurately track in-coming corn quality and make proactive process adjustments when required.”

author: Holly JessenAssociate editor, Ethanol Producer Magazine

(701) 738-4946 [email protected]


corn demand


corn demand

Food, Feed and Fuel Corn yields have been increasing yearly for decades. PHoto: NCGA PHoto CoNteSt WiNNeRS

Frank talk about where the nation’s corn supply goes—fuel, feed and foodBy HOLLy JESSEN

in July, for the first time, the uSda World agriculture Supply and demand estimate report projected more corn would be used for ethanol than feed. That report suggested that 5 billion bushels of the 2010-’11 corn crop will go for feed while 5.05 billion bushels will get sucked up into ethanol production. For the next corn crop ,the numbers are projected at 5.15 billion bushels of corn for ethanol and 5.05 billion bushels for feed.

Those numbers only tell part of the story and when viewed only on the sur-face, can be misleading, rick Tolman, cEo of the ncGA cautions. It ignores the fact that corn going into ethanol production isn’t completely consumed. About one third of the corn destined for ethanol production comes out the back end as distillers grains, not to mention multiple coproducts from wet mills. It’s a mes-sage the ncGA and, indeed, the entire ethanol industry has declared repeatedly.

One Market for a Growing Corn Supply

Ethanol:


corn demand

“Ethanol may be processing more, but basi-cally one-third of what is being processed is coming right back into the livestock ration,” says Paul Bertels, ncGA’s vice president for production and utilization.

In fact, the ncGA asserts, when corn coproducts from ethanol production are taken into account, domestic and international live-stock is still the no. 1 use for U.S. corn. In all, 1.2 billion bushels of corn are displaced by dis-

tillers grains and corn gluten feed, according to the ProExporter network, or PrX, which tracks the us-age of corn and other crops. Adding that to the 5 billion bushels of corn consumed by U.S. livestock brings the total to 6.2 billion bushels of corn for domestic feed. In addi-tion, another 1.5 billion bushels of corn was ex-ported in the past year.

In all, that means about 7.7 billion bushels per year of U.S. corn goes for feed use in the U.S. and overseas—a much higher number than the 5.15 billion bushels the USDA projects will be used for ethanol. looking at it this way, 43 percent of the corn supply, including ethanol

coproducts, becomes feed for livestock, 16 percent of corn and distillers grains is ex-ported and 26 percent is used to produce ethanol. “Ethanol is certainly is important growing market for us, but it is not the largest consumer, livestock still is,” Tolman says.

The key message that needs to be com-municated, he tells EPM, is that the U.S. corn supply is grow-

ing, thanks to increased yield. According to the USDA, corn farmers produced an average yield of 152.8 bushels of corn per acre in 2010, up 30 percent from the average 20 years ago. Most markets for corn, such as feed, exports, food and industrial, have remained relatively flat during the past decade. Corn use for etha-nol, on the other hand, has grown dramatically. “Ethanol has taken up that surplus,” he says. “otherwise it would have been a burden on farmer’s income, because we’d driven prices down, and we would have had a reduction in acres, because there would be no end use for it.”

The mistake people make when they fall

into the food vs. fuel mindset is that the corn supply is of a fixed size, so when more corn is used for fuel, that must mean corn is taken away from uses like food and feed. “People get a little hysterical about the food vs. fuel,” Tolman says. “They believe that we are taking corn away from livestock producers.” That’s not the case, however. “The big difference is the pie is growing. Those pieces that have been going for feed and food are still there—they are not any smaller—it’s just that the pie got bigger.”

of course, current supply concerns have made this topic even more difficult. Weather conditions reduced the crop size last year and when this article was written in August, it was looking as though abnormally hot weather and low precipitation could mean a tight sup-ply for the second year in a row, Bertels says. Ultimately, corn producers can’t do anything about the weather. “I tell people, we basically plant the crop, we spray the crop and then you enter God’s phase,” he says. Although it’s not yet clear what the final numbers for the 2011 corn crop will be, on Aug. 11 USDA estimated 12.914 billion bushels. That number would put it at the third highest corn crop in history, be-hind 13.038 billion bushels in 2007 and 13.092 billion bushels in 2009.

What’s in a Footnote? Although the USDA doesn’t add etha-

nol’s coproducts to the numbers for live-stock feed from corn, this spring the agency did make a change to the way it reports the amount of corn going for ethanol produc-tion. on the April 8 report, a line in the WASDE report was changed from “ethanol for fuel” to “ethanol & by-products.” In addi-tion, a footnote was added to define the line as “corn processed in ethanol plants to produce ethanol and co-products including distillers' grains, corn gluten feed, corn gluten meal and corn oil.”

The ncGA considers it a step in the right direction. “It at least gives this some cre-dence,” Tolman says. “Previously when we’d raise this issue with critics or the general me-dia out there, the nonfarm media, there was nothing we could relate back to. now we can at least show them the USDA footnote and at least show them that what we’re saying has some official validity to it.” Bertels agreed the

Removed consumers Paul bertels, NCGA’s vice president for production and utilization, feels society is so separated from where food comes from people can be easily mislead.

Surface Story the uSDA WASDe reports on corn uses are misleading because they don’t show that one-third of the corn going into ethanol plants comes back out as livestock feed, says Rick tolman, Ceo of the NCGA.

SouRCe: NCGA

Corn for Feed and Ethanol


corn demand

change is a positive. “It has gotten people to start to talk about it,” he says.

of course, it would provide a more ac-curate picture of total feed from corn if the USDA would expand its feed category to in-clude distillers grains and other coproducts. Ideally, Tolman would like to see the USDA display its feed statistics both ways, the way it does currently, plus showing a figure for livestock feed supply with distillers grains and corn combined. “There’s a story to tell. What they’re doing is direct shipments, and there’s a story to tell [about] what’s actually consumed,” he says. Still, Tolman understands why USDA doesn’t do it that way. “They’re just looking at first purchasers so it’s a little bit of a tricky issue for them,” he says.

As much as he’d like to see it happen, Bertels just doesn’t believe the USDA will change its corn-for-feed reporting ways. Part of the problem is nailing down accurate co-product numbers. “nobody really knows how much DDG is produced,” he says, adding that doesn’t mean there aren’t some pretty

Where Does the Corn Go? Estimated Uses for the 2010-’11 Corn Supply (14.2 billion bushels)

16% (2.3 billion bushels of corn and distillers grains) is exported to other countries.

10% (1.4 billion bushels) is processed for other uses, such as corn starch, corn sugar or even plastic fiber.

27% (3.9 billion bushels) becomes ethanol, which helps replace foreign oil and reduces greenhouse gas emissions.

41% of the corn supply (5.8 billion bushels) becomes feed for livestock here in the united States. this includes distillers grains and gluten feed, valuable ethanol coproducts.

6% (880 million bushels) is surplus “carried out” for the next corn marketing year.

good guesstimates out there. PrX, the service ncGA uses, tracks corn and distillers grains, coming up with what the ncGA considers more accurate numbers than those reported by USDA. Yes, it would be wonderful if the

USDA followed the PrX model, Bertels says, but he doesn’t hold out much hope.

Another issue is that the USDA doesn’t conduct feed-use surveys. The agency makes many of its projections based on surveys,

SouRCe: NCGA

|article continued on page 56|


corn demand

SouRCe: NCGA 2011 WoRLD oF CoRN RePoRt | PHotoS: NCGA PHoto CoNteSt WiNNeRS

HIGH-FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP USAGE, 1985-2010Million Bushels

1,15

3

190

327

1,42

5

219

379

1,62

8

226

473

1,97

7

250

536

2,06

2

249

542

2,35

5

258

532

2,54

9

273

530

2,70

7

282

525

3,01

9

280

545

3,54

1

277

535

4,44

2

265

523

5,02

5

234

489

5,93

8

250

514

6,28

0*

250*

515*

FOOD, SEED & INDUSTRIAL (FSI) USAGE, 1985-2010Million Bushels

’85

’90

’95

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

’08

’09

’10

’85

’90

’95

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

’08

’09

’10

’85

’90

’95

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

’08

’09

’10

Source: USDA ERS, Feed Outlook, 1/12/11*Crop year ending 8/31/11FSI reported here includes all corn going to ethanol plants, regardless of final product.

Source: USDA ERS, Feed Outlook, 1/12/11*Crop year ending 8/31/11

CORN CONSUMPTION

Feed & Residual

U.S. CORN USAGE BY SEGMENT, 1993-2010Million Bushels

’93

’94

’95

’96

’97

’98

’99

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

’08

’09

’10*

Source: USDA ERS Feed Outlooks*ProjectionFSI reported here includes all corn going to ethanol plants, regardless of final product.

FSI

Exports

Carry-out

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0

15


STARCH USAGE, 1985-2010Million Bushels

U.S. CORN USAGE BY SEGMENT, 2010Million Bushels

Feed & Residual Includes corn displaced by DDG/CGF* (790)

5,990

Export Includes DDG/CGF exports* (400)

2,350

FSI 4,812

Fuel Ethanol 3,710

HFCS 515

Starch 250

Sweeteners 260

Cereal/Other 197

Beverage Alcohol 135

Seed 23

Total Uses 13,430

Source: USDA, ERS, Feed Outlook, 1/11Crop year ending 8/31/11* Estimate, ProExporter Network, calculations based on whole-corn equivalents;

see www.ncga.com/usagecalc for details


1,15

3

190

327

1,42

5

219

379

1,62

8

226

473

1,97

7

250

536

2,06

2

249

542

2,35

5

258

532

2,54

9

273

530

2,70

7

282

525

3,01

9

280

545

3,54

1

277

535

4,44

2

265

523

5,02

5

234

489

5,93

8

250

514

6,28

0*

250*

515*


’85

’90

’95

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

’08

’09

’10

’85

’90

’95

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

’08

’09

’10

’85

’90

’95

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

’08

’09

’10



CORN CONSUMPTION

Feed & Residual


’93

’94

’95

’96

’97

’98

’99

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

’08

’09

’10*


FSI

Exports

Carry-out

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0

15





5,990


2,350

FSI 4,812

Fuel Ethanol 3,710

HFCS 515

Starch 250

Sweeteners 260

Cereal/Other 197


Seed 23

Total Uses 13,430




1,15

3

190

327

1,42

5

219

379

1,62

8

226

473

1,97

7

250

536

2,06

2

249

542

2,35

5

258

532

2,54

9

273

530

2,70

7

282

525

3,01

9

280

545

3,54

1

277

535

4,44

2

265

523

5,02

5

234

489

5,93

8

250

514

6,28

0*

250*

515*


’85

’90

’95

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

’08

’09

’10

’85

’90

’95

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

’08

’09

’10

’85

’90

’95

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

’08

’09

’10



CORN CONSUMPTION

Feed & Residual


’93

’94

’95

’96

’97

’98

’99

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

’08

’09

’10*


FSI

Exports

Carry-out

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0

15





5,990


2,350

FSI 4,812

Fuel Ethanol 3,710

HFCS 515

Starch 250

Sweeteners 260

Cereal/Other 197


Seed 23

Total Uses 13,430



BEVERAGES & MANUFACTURING, 1985-2010Million Bushels

U.S. CORN EXPORTS, 1991-2010Million Bushels

1,58

4

1,66

0

1,32

7

2,17

7

2,22

9

1,79

4

1,50

4 1,97

9

1,93

7

1,94

1

1,90

5

1,58

8 1,90

0

1,81

8 2,13

4

2,12

5

2,43

7

1,85

8

1,98

7

1,95

0*

’91

’92

’93

’94

’95

’96

’97

’98

’99

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

’08

’09

’10

Source: USDA ERS, Feed Outlook, Jan. 2011*Crop year ending 8/31/11Exports reported here do not include distillers grain or other ethanol coproducts.

CORN USED FOR ETHANOL PRODUCTION, 1985-2010Million Bushels

U.S. ETHANOL PRODUCTION FACILITIES, 2010Million Gallons

OperatingPotential Capacity Total

Iowa 3,595 0 3,595

Nebraska 1,839 113 1,977

Illinois 1,480 5 1,485

Minnesota 1,119 0 1,137

Indiana 906 113 1,111

South Dakota 1,016 33 1,049

Ohio 424 0 538

Kansas 437 20 512

Wisconsin 498 3 501

Texas 250 115 365

North Dakota 343 0 353

Michigan 265 0 265

Missouri 261 0 261

California 123 50 250

Tennessee 177 38 215

New York 164 0 164

Oregon 40 0 148

Colorado 125 0 125

Georgia 100 10 110

Pennsylvania 110 0 110

Virginia 0 0 65

North Carolina 0 60 60

Arizona 55 0 55

Idaho 54 0 54

Mississippi 54 0 54

Kentucky 35 0 35

New Mexico 30 0 30

Wyoming 7 0 7

Louisiana 2 0 2

Total 13,508 560 14,631

8393

135

124

125

161

130

185

131

186

131

187

132

187

133

189

135

190

136

190

135

192

134

192

134

194

135*

197*

CEREAL & FOOD, 1985-2010Million Bushels

’85

’90

’95

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

’08

’09

’10

’85

’90

’95

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

’08

’09

’10

Source: USDA ERS, Feed Outlook, Jan. 2011*Crop year ending 8/31/11


Source: Renewable Fuels Association

SWEETENER USAGE, 1985-2010Million Bushels

16

169

271

200

349

227

396

227

630

227

707

231

996

238

1,16

8

234

1,32

3

245

1,60

3

259

2,11

9

256

3,04

9

245

3,70

9

256

4,56

8260*

4,90

0* **

’85

’90

’95

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

’08

’09

’10 ’8

5

’90

’95

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

’08

’09

’10


Source: USDA ERS, Feed Outlook, Jan. 2011*Crop year ending 8/31/11**Includes approximately 1.2 billion bushels to be used as distillers grain for livestock feed. Source: Pro Exporter Network


1,15

3

190

327

1,42

5

219

379

1,62

8

226

473

1,97

7

250

536

2,06

2

249

542

2,35

5

258

532

2,54

9

273

530

2,70

7

282

525

3,01

9

280

545

3,54

1

277

535

4,44

2

265

523

5,02

5

234

489

5,93

8

250

514

6,28

0*

250*

515*


’85

’90

’95

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

’08

’09

’10

’85

’90

’95

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

’08

’09

’10

’85

’90

’95

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

’08

’09

’10



CORN CONSUMPTION

Feed & Residual


’93

’94

’95

’96

’97

’98

’99

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

’08

’09

’10*


FSI

Exports

Carry-out

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0

15





5,990


2,350

FSI 4,812

Fuel Ethanol 3,710

HFCS 515

Starch 250

Sweeteners 260

Cereal/Other 197


Seed 23

Total Uses 13,430





1,58

4

1,66

0

1,32

7

2,17

7

2,22

9

1,79

4

1,50

4 1,97

9

1,93

7

1,94

1

1,90

5

1,58

8 1,90

0

1,81

8 2,13

4

2,12

5

2,43

7

1,85

8

1,98

7

1,95

0*

’91

’92

’93

’94

’95

’96

’97

’98

’99

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

’08

’09

’10





Iowa 3,595 0 3,595

Nebraska 1,839 113 1,977

Illinois 1,480 5 1,485

Minnesota 1,119 0 1,137

Indiana 906 113 1,111


Ohio 424 0 538

Kansas 437 20 512

Wisconsin 498 3 501

Texas 250 115 365


Michigan 265 0 265

Missouri 261 0 261



New York 164 0 164

Oregon 40 0 148

Colorado 125 0 125

Georgia 100 10 110


Virginia 0 0 65


Arizona 55 0 55

Idaho 54 0 54

Mississippi 54 0 54

Kentucky 35 0 35

New Mexico 30 0 30

Wyoming 7 0 7

Louisiana 2 0 2

Total 13,508 560 14,631

8393

135

124

125

161

130

185

131

186

131

187

132

187

133

189

135

190

136

190

135

192

134

192

134

194

135*

197*


’85

’90

’95

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

’08

’09

’10

’85

’90

’95

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

’08

’09

’10





16

169

271

200

349

227

396

227

630

227

707

231

996

238

1,16

8

234

1,32

3

245

1,60

3

259

2,11

9

256

3,04

9

245

3,70

9

256

4,56

8260*

4,90

0* **

’85

’90

’95

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

’08

’09

’10 ’8

5

’90

’95

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

’08

’09

’10





1,58

4

1,66

0

1,32

7

2,17

7

2,22

9

1,79

4

1,50

4 1,97

9

1,93

7

1,94

1

1,90

5

1,58

8 1,90

0

1,81

8 2,13

4

2,12

5

2,43

7

1,85

8

1,98

7

1,95

0*

’91

’92

’93

’94

’95

’96

’97

’98

’99

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

’08

’09

’10





Iowa 3,595 0 3,595

Nebraska 1,839 113 1,977

Illinois 1,480 5 1,485

Minnesota 1,119 0 1,137

Indiana 906 113 1,111


Ohio 424 0 538

Kansas 437 20 512

Wisconsin 498 3 501

Texas 250 115 365


Michigan 265 0 265

Missouri 261 0 261



New York 164 0 164

Oregon 40 0 148

Colorado 125 0 125

Georgia 100 10 110


Virginia 0 0 65


Arizona 55 0 55

Idaho 54 0 54

Mississippi 54 0 54

Kentucky 35 0 35

New Mexico 30 0 30

Wyoming 7 0 7

Louisiana 2 0 2

Total 13,508 560 14,631

8393

135

124

125

161

130

185

131

186

131

187

132

187

133

189

135

190

136

190

135

192

134

192

134

194

135*

197*


’85

’90

’95

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

’08

’09

’10

’85

’90

’95

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

’08

’09

’10





16

169

271

200

349

227

396

227

630

227

707

231

996

238

1,16

8

234

1,32

3

245

1,60

3

259

2,11

9

256

3,04

9

245

3,70

9

256

4,56

8260*

4,90

0* **

’85

’90

’95

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

’08

’09

’10 ’8

5

’90

’95

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

’08

’09

’10





1,58

4

1,66

0

1,32

7

2,17

7

2,22

9

1,79

4

1,50

4 1,97

9

1,93

7

1,94

1

1,90

5

1,58

8 1,90

0

1,81

8 2,13

4

2,12

5

2,43

7

1,85

8

1,98

7

1,95

0*

’91

’92

’93

’94

’95

’96

’97

’98

’99

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

’08

’09

’10





Iowa 3,595 0 3,595

Nebraska 1,839 113 1,977

Illinois 1,480 5 1,485

Minnesota 1,119 0 1,137

Indiana 906 113 1,111


Ohio 424 0 538

Kansas 437 20 512

Wisconsin 498 3 501

Texas 250 115 365


Michigan 265 0 265

Missouri 261 0 261



New York 164 0 164

Oregon 40 0 148

Colorado 125 0 125

Georgia 100 10 110


Virginia 0 0 65


Arizona 55 0 55

Idaho 54 0 54

Mississippi 54 0 54

Kentucky 35 0 35

New Mexico 30 0 30

Wyoming 7 0 7

Louisiana 2 0 2

Total 13,508 560 14,631

8393

135

124

125

161

130

185

131

186

131

187

132

187

133

189

135

190

136

190

135

192

134

192

134

194

135*

197*


’85

’90

’95

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

’08

’09

’10

’85

’90

’95

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

’08

’09

’10





16

169

271

200

349

227

396

227

630

227

707

231

996

238

1,16

8

234

1,32

3

245

1,60

3

259

2,11

9

256

3,04

9

245

3,70

9

256

4,56

8260*

4,90

0* **

’85

’90

’95

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

’08

’09

’10 ’8

5

’90

’95

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

’08

’09

’10



Wor

ld o

f Cor

n20

11


corn demand

Corn is a key ingredient in numerous food items like cereal, peanut butter, snack foods and soft drinks. There are more than 4,200 different uses for corn products, and more are being found each day.

Acetic and amino acidsAlcoholic beverages and brewingAntibioticsAspirinBaby foodBaconBaked goodsBakery productsBaking powderBatteriesBlankets and beddingBookbindingBreadings, coatings and battersCake, cookie, dessert mixesCandiesCanned fruits, fruit fillingsCaramel colorCarbonated and fruit beveragesCardboardCarpet tileCerealsChalkCharcoal briquettesCheese spreadsChewing gumCitric acidCleaners, detergentsCoatings on paper, wood and metalCoffee whitenerColor carrier for printingCondimentsConfections, chocolateCorn breadCorn chipsCorn flakesCornmeal mixesCosmeticsCrayonsDisposable diapersDoughnuts

Dried soupsDrink cups, plates and cutleryDusting for pizzasDyes and inksElectroplating and galvanizingEnglish muffinsEnzymesFermentation processesFireworksFood acidsFood coloringFood packagingFrittersFrosting and icingFrozen and dried eggsFrozen puddingGlues and adhesivesGravy mixesHamsHot dogs, bolognaHush puppiesIce cream and sherbetsIndustrial chemicalsIndustrial filters and waterIndustrial sweetenerInsecticidesInstant breakfast foodsInstant pudding mixInstant teaJams, jellies, preservesLaminated building materialsLeather tanningLubricantsMannitolMarshmallowsMatchesMeat productsMetal platingMuffinsOre and oil refining

Organic solventsPaintsPancake mixesPaper, recycled paperPeanut butterPet foodPharmaceuticalsPickles and relishesPlasticsPotato chipsPowdered mixesPowdered sugarPrecooked frozen foodsRayonRubber tiresSalad dressingsSaltSausageSeasoning mixesShampooShaving creamShoe polishSnack foodsSoaps and cleanersSoupsSpicesSpoon breadSports and active wearSpray cooking oilSurgical dressingsTextilesTheatrical makeupTomato saucesVinegarWallboard and wallpaperWineWorcestershire sauceYeast

CORN ALL AROUND

9


1,15

3

190

327

1,42

5

219

379

1,62

8

226

473

1,97

7

250

536

2,06

2

249

542

2,35

5

258

532

2,54

9

273

530

2,70

7

282

525

3,01

9

280

545

3,54

1

277

535

4,44

2

265

523

5,02

5

234

489

5,93

8

250

514

6,28

0*

250*

515*


’85

’90

’95

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

’08

’09

’10

’85

’90

’95

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

’08

’09

’10

’85

’90

’95

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

’08

’09

’10



CORN CONSUMPTION

Feed & Residual


’93

’94

’95

’96

’97

’98

’99

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

’08

’09

’10*


FSI

Exports

Carry-out

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0

15





5,990


2,350

FSI 4,812

Fuel Ethanol 3,710

HFCS 515

Starch 250

Sweeteners 260

Cereal/Other 197


Seed 23

Total Uses 13,430





1,58

4

1,66

0

1,32

7

2,17

7

2,22

9

1,79

4

1,50

4 1,97

9

1,93

7

1,94

1

1,90

5

1,58

8 1,90

0

1,81

8 2,13

4

2,12

5

2,43

7

1,85

8

1,98

7

1,95

0*

’91

’92

’93

’94

’95

’96

’97

’98

’99

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

’08

’09

’10





Iowa 3,595 0 3,595

Nebraska 1,839 113 1,977

Illinois 1,480 5 1,485

Minnesota 1,119 0 1,137

Indiana 906 113 1,111


Ohio 424 0 538

Kansas 437 20 512

Wisconsin 498 3 501

Texas 250 115 365


Michigan 265 0 265

Missouri 261 0 261



New York 164 0 164

Oregon 40 0 148

Colorado 125 0 125

Georgia 100 10 110


Virginia 0 0 65


Arizona 55 0 55

Idaho 54 0 54

Mississippi 54 0 54

Kentucky 35 0 35

New Mexico 30 0 30

Wyoming 7 0 7

Louisiana 2 0 2

Total 13,508 560 14,631

8393

135

124

125

161

130

185

131

186

131

187

132

187

133

189

135

190

136

190

135

192

134

192

134

194

135*

197*


’85

’90

’95

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

’08

’09

’10

’85

’90

’95

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

’08

’09

’10





16

169

271

200

349

227

396

227

630

227

707

231

996

238

1,16

8

234

1,32

3

245

1,60

3

259

2,11

9

256

3,04

9

245

3,70

9

256

4,56

8260*

4,90

0* **

’85

’90

’95

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

’08

’09

’10 ’8

5

’90

’95

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

’08

’09

’10



Beef

Other

HogsPoultry

PERCENTAGE OF BIOTECH ACREAGE, 2008-2010 U.S. CORN FED BY REGION, 1993-2010Million Bushels

CORN FED BY LIVESTOCK GROUP, 1993-2010Million Bushels

U.S. MEAT EXPORTS BY ANIMAL GROUP, 1993-2010*Thousand Metric Tons

BIOTECH SHARE OF U.S. CORN ACRES PLANTED, 2010

* Estimates. Source PRX, USDA FAS Livestock and Poultry: World Markets and Trade, 10/10

Source: USDA NASS, Acreage Report, 6/30/10

Data Source: USDA, NASS, Crop Production Annual, 1/12/2011

*ProExporter Network estimates the equivalent of 189, 253, 329, 342, 569, 914, 927, 1,082 and 1,161 million bushels of corn fed to livestock was displaced by DDG, in the 02-03, 03-04, 04-05, 05-06, 06-07, 07-08, 08-09, 09-10 and 10-11 crop years, respectively.

* Crop year 9/01/10 to 8/31/11. Source: PRXFeed reported here does not include distillers grain or other ethanol coproducts.

Non-Corn Belt

Dairy

Beef

Poultry

Pork

Corn Belt

’93

’94

’95

’96

’97

’98

’99

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

’08

’09

’10

’93

’94

’95

’96

’97

’98

’99

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

’08

’09

’10

’93

’94

’95

’96

’97

’98

’99

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

’08

’09

’10

3,0002,8002,6002,4002,2002,0001,8001,600

1,800

1,500

1,200

900

600

300

0

3,5003,0002,5002,0001,5001,000

5000

U.S. CORN ENDING STOCKS, 1930-2010Million Bushels

* Crop year ending 8/31/11Source: USDA ERS, Feed Outlook, 1/14/11

Insect Resistant

Herbicide Tolerant

StackedTraits

All Biotech Hybrids

08 09 10 08 09 10 08 09 10 08 09 10

IL 13 10 15 15 15 15 52 59 52 80 84 82

IN 7 7 7 16 17 20 55 55 56 78 79 83

IA 16 14 15 15 15 14 53 57 61 84 86 90

KS 25 24 22 30 29 28 35 38 40 90 91 90

MI 15 13 11 24 20 25 33 42 44 72 75 80

MN 19 23 18 29 24 28 40 41 46 88 88 92

MO 27 23 15 21 17 19 22 37 45 70 77 79

NE 27 26 22 24 23 24 35 42 45 86 91 91

ND 24 22 22 34 30 34 31 41 37 89 93 93

OH 12 15 13 17 17 22 37 35 36 66 67 71

SD 7 6 6 30 25 29 58 65 60 95 96 95

TX 20 21 18 31 30 27 27 33 40 78 84 85

WI 14 13 13 26 27 29 35 37 38 75 77 80

Other 20 20 21 32 30 30 22 28 31 74 78 82

Total 17 17 16 23 22 23 40 46 47 80 85 86

Thousand Acres

Non-Biotech 12,347

Insect Resistant 14,111

Herbicide Tolerant 20,284

Stacked Traits 41,450

Total 88,192

47%Stacked

Traits

14%Non-Biotech

16%Bt

23%HerbicideTolerant

17

474

163

740

2,10

6

667

1,03

4

1,52

1 1,89

9

1,59

6

1,08

7

958

2,11

4

1,96

7

1,30

4 1,62

4

1,67

3

1,70

8

745

’30

’40

’50

’60

’70

’80

’90

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

’08

’09

’10

*

U.S. CORN PRODUCTION, 2010

Acres Planted (1,000s)

Acres Harvested

for Grain (1,000s)

Average Yield

(bushels/acre)

Total Production

(1,000 bushels)

Alabama 270 250 116 29,000

Arizona 45 22 210 4,620

Arkansas 390 380 150 57,000

California 610 180 195 35,100

Colorado 1,330 1,210 151 182,710

Connecticut 26

Delaware 180 173 115 19,895

Florida 60 25 105 2,625

Georgia 295 245 145 35,525

Idaho 320 110 180 19,800

Illinois 12,600 12,400 157 1,946,800

Indiana 5,900 5,720 157 898,040

Iowa 13,400 13,050 165 2,153,250

Kansas 4,850 4,650 125 581,250

Kentucky 1,340 1,230 124 152,520

Louisiana 510 500 140 70,000

Maine 28

Maryland 500 430 106 45,580

Massachusetts 17

Michigan 2,400 2,100 150 315,000

Minnesota 7,700 7,300 177 1,292,100

Mississippi 750 670 136 91,120

Missouri 3,150 3,000 123 369,000

Montana 80 34 135 4,590

Nebraska 9,150 8,850 166 1,469,100

Nevada 4

New Hampshire 15

New Jersey 80 71 114 8,094

New Mexico 140 66 180 11,880

New York 1,050 590 150 88,500

North Carolina 910 840 91 76,440

North Dakota 2,050 1,880 132 248,160

Ohio 3,450 3,270 163 533,010

Oklahoma 370 340 130 44,200

Oregon 70 38 200 7,600

Pennsylvania 1,350 910 128 116,480

Rhode Island 2

South Carolina 350 335 91 30,485

South Dakota 4,550 4,220 135 569,700

Tennessee 710 640 117 74,880

Texas 2,300 2,080 145 301,600

Utah 70 23 172 3,956

Vermont 92

Virginia 490 310 67 20,770

Washington 200 125 205 25,625

West Virginia 48 29 90 2,610

Wisconsin 3,900 3,100 162 502,200

Wyoming 90 50 121 6,050

U.S. 88,192 81,446 152.8 12,446,865

ONE BUSHEL (56 lbS.) OF CORN PROVIDES:

31.5 lbs. of starch

or

33 lbs. of sweetener

or

2.8 gal. of fuel ethanol

or

22.4 lbs. of PLA fiber/polymer

plus

17.5 lbs. of distillers dried grains with solubles*

13.5 lbs. of gluten feed**

2.6 lbs. of gluten meal**

and

1.5 lbs. of corn oil**

TOTAL DIGESTIBLE NUTRIENTS

Cracked corn: 90%Shelled corn: 88%Ear corn: 90%

CORN PRODUCTION

U.S. CORN AT A GLANCE, 2010

88.2 millionacres planted

81.4 millionacres harvested

12.4 billionbushels produced

$65.97 billioncorn crop value

$5.30average price per bushel

U.S. SELECT CROP VALUE, 2010Billions of Dollars (U.S.)

COMPONENTS OF YELLOW DENT CORNWet Weight

Oat

s

Bar

ley

Sor

ghum

Whe

at

Soy

bean

s

Cor

n

0.19 0.70

1.90

12.4

8

38.9

5

65.9

7

Source USDA WASDE, 1/12/11

3.8% Corn Oil

16%Water

19.2%Protein &

Fiber

61%Starch

Source USDA NASS Crop Production 2010 Summary, 1/12/11

*In dry grind ethanol process.**In wet mill ethanol process. Gluten feed is 20 percent protein and gluten meal is 60 percent protein.

12

U.S. CORN PRODUCTION, 2010

Acres Planted (1,000s)

Acres Harvested

for Grain (1,000s)

Average Yield

(bushels/acre)

Total Production

(1,000 bushels)

Alabama 270 250 116 29,000

Arizona 45 22 210 4,620

Arkansas 390 380 150 57,000

California 610 180 195 35,100

Colorado 1,330 1,210 151 182,710

Connecticut 26

Delaware 180 173 115 19,895

Florida 60 25 105 2,625

Georgia 295 245 145 35,525

Idaho 320 110 180 19,800

Illinois 12,600 12,400 157 1,946,800

Indiana 5,900 5,720 157 898,040

Iowa 13,400 13,050 165 2,153,250

Kansas 4,850 4,650 125 581,250

Kentucky 1,340 1,230 124 152,520

Louisiana 510 500 140 70,000

Maine 28

Maryland 500 430 106 45,580

Massachusetts 17

Michigan 2,400 2,100 150 315,000

Minnesota 7,700 7,300 177 1,292,100

Mississippi 750 670 136 91,120

Missouri 3,150 3,000 123 369,000

Montana 80 34 135 4,590

Nebraska 9,150 8,850 166 1,469,100

Nevada 4

New Hampshire 15

New Jersey 80 71 114 8,094

New Mexico 140 66 180 11,880

New York 1,050 590 150 88,500

North Carolina 910 840 91 76,440

North Dakota 2,050 1,880 132 248,160

Ohio 3,450 3,270 163 533,010

Oklahoma 370 340 130 44,200

Oregon 70 38 200 7,600

Pennsylvania 1,350 910 128 116,480

Rhode Island 2

South Carolina 350 335 91 30,485

South Dakota 4,550 4,220 135 569,700

Tennessee 710 640 117 74,880

Texas 2,300 2,080 145 301,600

Utah 70 23 172 3,956

Vermont 92

Virginia 490 310 67 20,770

Washington 200 125 205 25,625

West Virginia 48 29 90 2,610

Wisconsin 3,900 3,100 162 502,200

Wyoming 90 50 121 6,050

U.S. 88,192 81,446 152.8 12,446,865

ONE BUSHEL (56 lbS.) OF CORN PROVIDES:

31.5 lbs. of starch

or

33 lbs. of sweetener

or

2.8 gal. of fuel ethanol

or

22.4 lbs. of PLA fiber/polymer

plus

17.5 lbs. of distillers dried grains with solubles*

13.5 lbs. of gluten feed**

2.6 lbs. of gluten meal**

and

1.5 lbs. of corn oil**

TOTAL DIGESTIBLE NUTRIENTS

Cracked corn: 90%Shelled corn: 88%Ear corn: 90%

CORN PRODUCTION

U.S. CORN AT A GLANCE, 2010

88.2 millionacres planted

81.4 millionacres harvested

12.4 billionbushels produced

$65.97 billioncorn crop value

$5.30average price per bushel

U.S. SELECT CROP VALUE, 2010Billions of Dollars (U.S.)

COMPONENTS OF YELLOW DENT CORNWet Weight

Oat

s

Bar

ley

Sor

ghum

Whe

at

Soy

bean

s

Cor

n

0.19 0.70

1.90

12.4

8

38.9

5

65.9

7

Source USDA WASDE, 1/12/11

3.8% Corn Oil

16%Water

19.2%Protein &

Fiber

61%Starch


*In dry grind ethanol process.**In wet mill ethanol process. Gluten feed is 20 percent protein and gluten meal is 60 percent protein.

12

U.S. CORN ACRES PLANTED, 1930-2010Thousand Acres

U.S. CORN PRICES, 1930-2010Dollars per Bushel (U.S.)

U.S. CORN CROP VALUE, 1930-2010Billions of Dollars (U.S.)

88,6

92

28.9

2,20

60.

60

76,4

43

1.32

103,

915

20.5

1,75

70.

55

85,5

25

0.97

82,8

59

38.2

2,76

41.

52

72,9

38

4.22

81,4

25

54.7

3,90

61.

00

71,4

22

3.93

66,8

63

71.4

4,15

21.

33

57,3

58

5.51

84,0

43

91.0

6,63

93.

11

72,9

61

20.5

5

74,1

66

118.

57,

934

2.28

66,9

52

18.1

9

79,5

51

136.

99,

915

1.85

72,4

40

18.5

0

75,7

02

138.

29,

502

1.97

68,7

68

18.8

8

78,8

94

129.

38,

967

2.32

69,3

30

20.8

8

78,6

03

142.

210

,087

2.42

70,9

44

24.4

8

80,9

29

160.

311

,806

2.06

73,6

31

24.3

8

81,7

79

147.

911

,112

2.00

75,1

17

22.2

0

78,3

27

149.

110

,531

3.04

70,6

38

32.0

9

93,5

27

150.

713

,038

4.20

86,5

20

54.7

6

85,9

82

153.

912

,092

4.06

78,5

70

49.0

9

86,3

82

165.

213

,092

3.55

*

79,4

90

46.4

8*

88,1

92

152.

812

,447

5.30

**

81,4

66

65.9

7**

U.S. CORN PRODUCTION, 1930-2010Million Bushels

U.S. CORN ACRES HARVESTED, 1930-2010Thousand Acres

U.S. AVERAGE CORN YIELDS, 1930-2010Bushels per Acre

U.S. ALL CROP ACRES HARVESTED, 2010

’30

’40

’50

’60

’70

’80

’90

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

’08

’09

’10

’30

’40

’50

’60

’70

’80

’90

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

’08

’09

’10

’30

’40

’50

’60

’70

’80

’90

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

’08

’09

’10

’30

’40

’50

’60

’70

’80

’90

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

’08

’09

’10

’30

’40

’50

’60

’70

’80

’90

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

’08

’09

’10

’30

’40

’50

’60

’70

’80

’90

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

’08

’09

’10

Source USDA, NASS Crop Production 2010 Summary, 1/12/11




* Estimated ** Projected for crop year 2010-2011Source USDA, WASDE NASS Crop Production 2010 Summary, 1/12/11



Thousand Acres

Corn (grain) 81,446 Sunflower 1,874 Flaxseed 418

Corn (silage) 5,567 Dry Edible Beans 1,843 Proso Millet 363

Soybeans 76,616 Canola 1,431 Tobacco 338

Hay 59,862 Oats 1,263 Rye 265

Wheat 47,637 Peanuts 1,255 Safflower 168

Cotton 10,707 Sugar Beets 1,156 Sweet Potatoes

117

Sorghum (grain) 4,808 Potatoes 1,004 Peppermint 71

Sorghum (silage) 273 Sugar Cane 881 Mustard Seed

48

Rice 3,615 Dry Edible Peas 711 Hops 31

Barley 2,465 Lentils 634 Other 46

Total 306,912

Sorghum (grain) 1.6%Rice 1.2%

Barley 0.8%Sunflower 0.6%

26.5%Corn

(grain)

19.5%Hay

15.5%Wheat

25.0%Soybeans

Cotton 3.5%

All Other 5.8%

13

U.S. CORN ACRES PLANTED, 1930-2010Thousand Acres

U.S. CORN PRICES, 1930-2010Dollars per Bushel (U.S.)

U.S. CORN CROP VALUE, 1930-2010Billions of Dollars (U.S.)

88,6

92

28.9

2,20

60.

60

76,4

43

1.32

103,

915

20.5

1,75

70.

55

85,5

25

0.97

82,8

59

38.2

2,76

41.

52

72,9

38

4.22

81,4

25

54.7

3,90

61.

00

71,4

22

3.93

66,8

63

71.4

4,15

21.

33

57,3

58

5.51

84,0

43

91.0

6,63

93.

11

72,9

61

20.5

5

74,1

66

118.

57,

934

2.28

66,9

52

18.1

9

79,5

51

136.

99,

915

1.85

72,4

40

18.5

0

75,7

02

138.

29,

502

1.97

68,7

68

18.8

8

78,8

94

129.

38,

967

2.32

69,3

30

20.8

8

78,6

03

142.

210

,087

2.42

70,9

44

24.4

8

80,9

29

160.

311

,806

2.06

73,6

31

24.3

8

81,7

79

147.

911

,112

2.00

75,1

17

22.2

0

78,3

27

149.

110

,531

3.04

70,6

38

32.0

9

93,5

27

150.

713

,038

4.20

86,5

20

54.7

6

85,9

82

153.

912

,092

4.06

78,5

70

49.0

9

86,3

82

165.

213

,092

3.55

*

79,4

90

46.4

8*

88,1

92

152.

812

,447

5.30

**

81,4

66

65.9

7**

U.S. CORN PRODUCTION, 1930-2010Million Bushels

U.S. CORN ACRES HARVESTED, 1930-2010Thousand Acres

U.S. AVERAGE CORN YIELDS, 1930-2010Bushels per Acre

U.S. ALL CROP ACRES HARVESTED, 2010

’30

’40

’50

’60

’70

’80

’90

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

’08

’09

’10

’30

’40

’50

’60

’70

’80

’90

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

’08

’09

’10

’30

’40

’50

’60

’70

’80

’90

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

’08

’09

’10

’30

’40

’50

’60

’70

’80

’90

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

’08

’09

’10

’30

’40

’50

’60

’70

’80

’90

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

’08

’09

’10

’30

’40

’50

’60

’70

’80

’90

’00

’01

’02

’03

’04

’05

’06

’07

’08

’09

’10








Thousand Acres

Corn (grain) 81,446 Sunflower 1,874 Flaxseed 418

Corn (silage) 5,567 Dry Edible Beans 1,843 Proso Millet 363

Soybeans 76,616 Canola 1,431 Tobacco 338

Hay 59,862 Oats 1,263 Rye 265

Wheat 47,637 Peanuts 1,255 Safflower 168

Cotton 10,707 Sugar Beets 1,156 Sweet Potatoes

117

Sorghum (grain) 4,808 Potatoes 1,004 Peppermint 71

Sorghum (silage) 273 Sugar Cane 881 Mustard Seed

48

Rice 3,615 Dry Edible Peas 711 Hops 31

Barley 2,465 Lentils 634 Other 46

Total 306,912

Sorghum (grain) 1.6%Rice 1.2%

Barley 0.8%Sunflower 0.6%

26.5%Corn

(grain)

19.5%Hay

15.5%Wheat

25.0%Soybeans

Cotton 3.5%

All Other 5.8%

13


corn demand

such as crop yield, exports and even livestock numbers. However, on the feed side, the USDA doesn’t really make good estimates, Bertels says. The feed category covers feed and residual, a term that isn’t defined well. With a large crop, the residual portion tends to grow, and with a tight crop supply residu-al uses shrink. “It’s like a ledger, everything has got to basically zero out,” he says. “Well, that’s the fudge factor.”

What About Food use? Although more than 99 percent of the

corn produced in the U.S. is field corn, used primarily for feed and ethanol production, the ncGA recognizes that corn is a key ingredi-ent in food items as well as many industrial uses. “I don’t know that anybody has a fully comprehensive list of all the things that corn goes into,” Tolman says, “from the paper in-dustry, the coating that goes on books and paper, to electronics industry, to the hospital and pharmaceutical industry. That use that goes for food and industrial is relatively small compared to ethanol and feed use but it is still important.”

one of the biggest uses of corn for food products is high-fructose corn syrup. The ncGA estimated in its 2010 World of corn report that 3.7 billion bushels of corn was processed into ethanol that year. com-pare that to 515 million bushels of corn pro-cessed into high-fructose corn syrup. corn for beverages and manufacturing has stayed fairly steady since 2000 at 130 million bush-els of corn, to 2010 at 135 million bushels of corn. corn for cereal and food rose from 185 million bushels of corn in 2000 to 197 million bushels in 2010. “There is definitely a very important, although small, segment for human consumption,” Tolman says, add-ing that, although field corn is used to pro-duce some food products and ingredients, a significant portion of the corn grown for human consumption is white corn, which is kept separate from field corn used for feed and ethanol production.

It’s disingenuous, Bertels says, to say that corn use for ethanol is taking food out of the mouths of the hungry. nearly three times more corn goes into sweeteners for soft drinks than anything the average person

DIFFERENT BY DESIGN™

CTB ADVERTISINGAd No. BR-2196/0611Brock Grain Systems

Ethanol Producer

Call us or visit www.BrockGrain.com to learn more about Brock products.

Use Brock’s experience to help you take controlof your grain and maximize your profitability!

Build for Your FutureWith BROCK® Grain Management Systems

Brock’s engineering experience and design advantages offer the management edge you need with more storage options –15 feet to 156 feet in diameter and single bin capacities up to 1.34 million bushels.

Brock 156-Foot Diameter M SERIES™ Bin

SMOOTHCORR® Sidewall System (patent pending) provides a stronger overall body sheet with a corrugated outer surface and a smooth inner surface for better strength and easier grain fl ow.

Brock’s FULL SWEEP® Bin Anchor System (patent pending) is standard on the M SERIES Bins to provide the fi rm footing required for single-pass sweep operation.

Free-Span Roof Structure supports up to 50 lbs. per square foot ground snow loads and roof peak loads up to 50,000 lbs. without center support towers.

Brock Grain Systems A Division of CTB, Inc.Phone: 574.658.4191 E-mail: biofuel�brockgrain.comBrock Grain Systems A Division of CTB, Inc.Phone: 574.658.4191 E-mail: biofuel�brockgrain.com

2011 Winner AE50 Award for Innovative Technology

Balancing out The NCGA points to a recent study that shows profits are up for cattle and dairy operations, offsetting increased feed costs.

|article continued from page 53|


would consider a corn food product, such as corn chips or corn flakes—and those markets are still being served by the U.S. corn industry. “If we were taking corn away from anyplace, we would be taking it away from foreign live-stock,” Bertels says, “but we are not even do-ing that.”

corn exports to foreign countries were 1.9 billion bushels in 2000 and peaked at 2.4 billion bushels in 2007. The number did drop to about 1.9 billion bushels for the next three years, although, again, that number doesn’t include exports of distillers grains, which re-placed some of the corn that was formerly exported. From 2008 to 2010, distillers grains exports increased by 60 percent. In all, 9 mil-lion metric tons of distillers grains were ex-ported in 2010, according to numbers from the renewable Fuels Association. From Janu-ary to April this year, 2.6 million metric tons of distillers grains have been exported, nearly identical to the amount exported during the same time period last year.

What about developing countries? The leading importers of U.S. corn are Japan, Mexico, South Korea, Taiwan, Egypt, canada, china, Venezuela, columbia and the Domini-can republic. The ncGA estimates that 80 percent of the corn exported from the U.S. is used for livestock feed, not food. “We’re not starving the Third World of corn because it wasn’t going there to start with,” Bertels says. “There’s a lot of people that are opposed to ethanol that are looking for any kind of hook to hang their criticism on.”

A related criticism is that ethanol pro-duction takes corn away from livestock feed, a hardship on those industries. In early Au-gust, the ncGA noted that a newly released study found that profits rose for the beef and dairy farm industries since the renewable fuel standard was expanded in 2007. The report, completed by Texas A&M University and Doane Advisory Services, verifies NCGA’s positions that increased ethanol production has not negatively impacted the profitability of key livestock markets. “For years, corn farmers have understood that we have the ability to supply both growing ethanol and livestock producers simultaneously without negatively impacting these valued customers,” says ncGA President Bart Schott, pointing to increasing yields.

The report looked at the 2011-’16 eco-nomic outlook of six representative beef cattle ranches and six representative dairy farms. The baselines in the Food and Agri-cultural Policy research Institute for 2007 and 2011 were compared to reflect changes since the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 was enacted. The 2011 baseline did reflect higher feed price, meaning higher feed costs per head for beef cattle ranches and dairies. on the other hand, net cash farm

incomes were projected to be higher in 2011 due to higher beef and milk prices. “While it is easy to reiterate artificial arguments against the use of ethanol, we believe this study clear-ly illustrates the fallacies on which they are often based,” Schott says. “This study again concludes that, in reality, we do not have to choose between using corn for food or fuel.”

author: Holly JessenAssociate editor, Ethanol Producer Magazine

(701) 738-4946 [email protected]

corn demand

SAFETY IS A WAY OF LIFE At Mole•Master•••

…so when OSHA clamped down recently on compliance for the existing OSHA Grain Handling Standard, it didn’t scare us at all. That’s because nobody in the industry puts more emphasis on safety training than Mole•Master.We recognize that safety is everybody’s business but we do our part to make sure that when we begin a project, we already have in place safety procedures to assure that our team will meet or exceed

every applicable safety standard.In addition to our own intense ongoing safety training, Mole•Master has also been qualified by several companies who monitor stringent safety requirements for their large grain clients.So whether you need Professional

Silo Cleaning Services or Do-It- Yourself Bin Cleaning Equipment,

make the safe choice.

27815 State Route 7Marietta, OH 45750 USA

800.322.6653 • Fax [email protected]

www.molemaster.com

S I L O A N D B I N C L E A N I N G

© 2011, Mole•Master Services Corp. All rights reserved.

Ask about our new soda blasting capabilities.


power


Partnering to produce energy from stover could be an attractive option for corn ethanol plants.By kRIS BEVILL

power

Power

in mid-July, right around the time the area’s corn crop was beginning to mature and farmers could start looking ahead to the season’s harvest, a number of ethanol produc-ers, farmers and researchers gathered for a daylong meeting at the university of Minnesota to discuss ways to best use the aftermath of the harvest. corn stover has long been pegged as a po-tential feedstock for cellulosic ethanol, but this group focused instead on a more immediate application—energy generation. An increasing number of studies are showing that in order for farmers to maintain high yields of corn, some of the remaining stover will need to be removed from the fields. For corn-based etha-nol plants this represents an opportunity to displace at least some of their fossil fuel consumption with a renewable resource readily available from their existing corn suppliers. researchers also believe that it represents an opportunity for new partnerships in the power generation sector.

Stover for

—Not Just biofuels


Power islandGasification of biomass is not a new

technology. It’s relatively easy to install and has been used effectively for generations to produce heat and power for varying-size fa-cilities. While it’s not as widely deployed in the U.S., countries across Europe and Japan often install combined heat-and-power (cHP) sys-tems to operate their facilities. The reason for this, of course, is that those countries do not possess the same abundant supplies of cheap fossil fuels as can be found in the U.S. When every strategic move can be boiled down to dollars and cents, it just makes economic sense for U.S. facilities, including ethanol plants, to use the cheapest fuel available to them. In 2008, when natural gas prices soared to pain-ful levels, gasification of biomass was an at-tractive option for ethanol producers seeking to reduce the cost of their highest input after corn. But in the past couple years, natural gas has regained the lead as the most affordable, widely available fuel for U.S. ethanol produc-ers. As a result, the few producers who had installed biomass gasification systems in 2008-’09 idled their equipment and switched back to the cheaper option. During the con-ference at the University of Minnesota, re-searchers proposed a new strategy for ethanol producers to use renewable resources such as corn stover to power their facilities and still profit. They believe that by partnering with entities that have an appetite for short-term losses, ethanol producers can afford to gasify enough corn stover to power their plants and be electricity producers as well.

Wind as an exampleUniversity of Minnesota extension pro-

duction economist Doug Tiffany is part of a group of renewable energy researchers who analyzed technologies to gasify biomass for steam and electricity generation at ethanol plants. They identified technologies and pos-sible feedstock options fairly quickly, includ-ing corn stover, syrup and distillers grains. Many ethanol plants already have power is-lands that house the power generation units for the facility that could be updated to also produce electricity for sale back to the grid. But the researchers soon found the difficult part of this concept would be to make the improved power island an economic ben-

efit for the ethanol plant. They also needed to find a way to finance the construction of these new islands. They found their inspira-tion in the wind.

Wind power projects are notoriously expensive to construct and require years of operation to repay the investment. Therefore, those projects require hefty investments up front from parties who have an appetite for tax losses. Power island projects using stover at ethanol plants are expected to experience similar situations regarding up-front capital and sustained losses. Because ethanol plants generally are smaller companies with a group of owners who cannot utilize long-term pa-per losses, Tiffany suggests modeling corn stover power islands after wind projects by bringing in partners who take on the losses and also have the experience and capability to handle the day-to-day business of power supply contracts. The power island can be si-phoned off from the ethanol plant and func-tion as its own entity, allowing the plant to use waste heat produced from the gasification of biomass to power its operations, but pro-

tecting its owners from the inherent first few years of loss. “Here’s a distinct business and it would have some opportunities for depre-ciation and use of provisions in the tax code and might be in a better position to negotiate with power companies than an ethanol plant itself,” Tiffany explains. “It may be attractive to investors and it may be more attractive to bankers if they’re dealing with investors who own the power island. And it may be a very good deal for the ethanol plants themselves, especially if they’re rewarded for ethanol that uses steam that came from biomass or elec-tricity that came from biomass.”

Major electric companies are an obvi-ous choice to partner with for such a project. companies such as Florida Power & light co. and Xcel Energy Inc. have invested in wind projects and have enough passive in-come from other operations that can be shielded from taxes by showing losses on renewable energy projects, such as wind. of-tentimes, these companies participate in wind projects by taking a 99 percent share of the valuation of equipment and earnings for the

power

Capital Cost Allocations: Ethanol Plant and Power Island

160,000,000

140,000,000

120,000,000

100,000,000

80,000,000

60,000,000

40,000,000

20,000,000

0

conventional

cHP + Grid - Stover

cHP + Grid - Syrp + Stov

BIGcc - Stover

BIGcc - Syrp + Stov

nGcc - natG

as

Power Island capital cost

Ethanol Plant capital cost

$-

$87,524,280

$132,716,166

$80,808,840

$139,157,349

$67,872,654

deep pockets Required Constructing a power island capable of producing waste heat for an ethanol facility and electricity for the grind is a capital intensive project. in some cases, the power island could cost twice as much as the ethanol facility. The most expensive option would employ biomass integrated gasification combined cycle technology (biGCC). Natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) technology is the least expensive option.SOURCE: DOUG TIFFANY, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA


first 10 years, which are the years of largest losses, according to Tiffany. After the first decade, majority ownership flips back to the land owners.

Aside from the tax benefits, power companies may be interested in partnering to produce this form of renewable energy as a way to meet environmental standards. Energy policy in the U.S. is currently frag-mented. Some states have initiated renewable energy standards and many expect that a fu-ture nationwide energy standard will include requirements for renewable energy genera-tion. Also, companies currently investing in renewable energy stand to benefit from the positive publicity of being an early adopter of this technology. Additionally, ethanol plant power islands serve as a more reliable source of electricity than wind projects, which often produce power only about 35 percent of the time, Tiffany says. “This could run 95 percent of the time. We’d only be stopping the gen-eration of power for repairs and times of the year when there isn’t quite as much demand,” he says. “In that way, this would be power that

would be more attractive for power compa-nies to manage. That’s why we were attracted to this whole concept. These ethanol plants are running basically year-round. They have a constant demand for steam or thermal en-

ergy and they could be using biomass and be a reliable source of renewable energy. This is a perfect marriage. The ethanol plant and the power island essentially need each other. The power island needs to have a place to dis-charge the heat and drying the distillers grains or doing some cooking at the ethanol plant is a way to use that heat. The corn stover is out there. We need to see some businesses get or-ganized, the farmers themselves, and say they can be contracted to bring in this biomass. That still has to happen, but what we’re trying to do is to jump ahead a little bit and deter-mine how some of these things might come together.”

Tiffany says that while power companies are certainly prime partner targets for etha-nol plant power generation projects, he’s also seeing increased interest from municipalities in smaller communities that might be willing to take some losses in order to become part owners of their own reliable power supply. A power island at a 50 MMgy ethanol plant could produce up to 25 megawatts of electric-ity, enough to service up to 25,000 people, he

‘Our primary focus is hedging

against the cost of natural

gas. If the economics relative

to natural gas make sense,

we’ll run the gasifier and

spend those energy dollars

in our local community. The

carbon markets, if they come

along, that’s gravy.’

—Andy Zurn , plant engineer,

Chippewa Valley Ethanol Co.

power


says. And with ethanol plants already located in rural areas, partnering with those smaller municipalities is an option that makes good sense. A handful of ethanol plants have done this already, but are using natural gas to power the generators and capturing waste heat for process heat.

Simple economicsVance Morey, professor of bioproducts

and biosystems at the University of Minne-sota, admits that ethanol producers are not

likely to switch from natural gas to biomass as long as natural gas prices stay low. not un-less they entertain the option of becoming electricity producers as well as users. “The key is the ability to generate electricity and get more efficiency out of the process,” he says. “There are two things that I think will make that happen: if the price of natural gas goes up biomass starts to get more attractive, and if we eventually go to some type of carbon credits and low-carbon electricity.”

chippewa Valley Ethanol co. lllP in

Benson, Minn., was one of the first ethanol plants to adopt biomass gasification when it installed a gasifier at its 48 MMgy plant in 2008. But plant engineer Andy Zurn says the monetization of carbon played a secondary role in the plant’s decision to utilize area bio-mass. “Value for low carbon ethanol is icing on the cake,” he says. “our primary focus is hedging against the cost of natural gas. If the economics relative to natural gas make sense, we’ll run the gasifier and spend those energy dollars in our local community. The carbon markets, if they come along, that’s gravy.”

cVEc installed a Frontline Bioenergy gasifier in 2008 and used it to fire corncobs for cogeneration in 2008 and 2009. The first year’s harvest was a small, grassroots produc-tion, Zurn says, but in 2009, the operation was expanded to include more farmers and more acres. With the help of a 50-50 fund-ing promise from the USDA’s Biomass crop Assistance Program, cVEc agreed to pay farmers $80 per ton for their cobs, a gener-ous offering in order to convince first-time cob harvesters that participation would be worth their effort. Area farmers signed up and made good on their end of the bargain, but when it came time to pay, BcAP’s fund-ing was cut and it backed out of the project. “We went to get our money from BcAP and they said they weren’t funding it,” Zurn says. “cVEc already had an agreement with these

power

Front-runners The Frontline Bioenergy gasifier at Chippewa Valley Ethanol Co. LLLP enables the plant to utilize corn cobs and other biomass sources for power when natural gas prices skyrocket.

PH

oto

: CH

iPP

eW

A VA

LLe

Y e

tHA

No

L C

o. L

LLP


farmers. We already had the corn cobs.” cVEc settled on paying farmers $60 per ton for the cobs—$20 less than the farmers expected, but $20 more per ton than cVEc had originally planned on contributing—in order to make up at least somewhat for the federal government’s failure. rightly, cVEc is leery of participating in any future BcAP projects and would likely pay farmers out-right for their cobs in future harvests. “If you don’t trust that it’s going to be there for you, why are you going to do all the work to set up and get the whole logistics supply chain arranged?” Zurn says. “It fooled us once in 2009. We’re not going to play that game again.”

Despite the less-than-expected pay-out, Zurn says Minnesota farmers would likely participate in cob harvests again. “These farmers are businessmen,” he says. If there’s additional money to create a new supply stream, which is corn cobs in our world, and it doesn’t hurt their busi-ness, it just makes good business sense.” But cVEc doesn’t plan on asking for cobs again until the economics of fuel sources demands it. The plant is set up to switch between biomass and natural gas pretty simply and the biomass gasifier has been shut off since gas prices took a nosedive two years ago. cVEc doesn’t currently possess the capability to produce additional electricity for a power partner and the low cost of natural gas doesn’t justify the use of cobs to displace fossil fuel right now, Zurn says. In the future, if the plant expands its gasification abilities and entertains the op-tion of becoming a renewable energy gen-erator, switching fuel sources to respond to the lowest cost would be less of an option. Power purchase agreements may require a specific feedstock to be used and deviating from that protocol could void the contract. cVEc may be interested in producing ex-cess power in the future, Zurn says, but that would likely happen only after the plant has met its own power needs for a couple of years and ensured that its system is up to par.

Cellulosic ConsiderationsUniversity of Minnesota research-

ers believe that of the three gasification

options most readily available at ethanol plants—distillers grains, syrup and corn stover—stover is hands down the best can-didate for energy production. But is that still the case when considering stover as a feedstock source for cellulosic ethanol pro-duction? How do the two compare?

Morey and Tiffany say that using corn stover as an energy source could provide ethanol producers with some needed ex-perience in handling the biomass. “We wouldn’t use nearly as much of it as would be needed for cellulosic ethanol, but this would be the time for us to learn the les-sons on how to put together businesses and maybe removal rates and enforce all these things,” Tiffany says.

“Some people have some experience collecting stover for feed or livestock bed-ding, but not large amounts,” Morey adds. “I think developing this is a way of getting more people producing stover and starting to develop the technologies and markets for that. It’s an interim step.” Producers seem to agree with this approach as well. Poet llc used some of the stover it col-lected in Iowa last year to feed the gasifier at its 100 MMgy plant in chancellor, S.D. In August, Poet entered into a project fo-cused on establishing energy grass sources near the chancellor plant and said it plans to gasify the grasses while scientists perfect the complicated task of producing cellu-losic ethanol from them.

Zurn says cVEc isn’t really worried about potential feedstock competition from cellulosic producers. “cellulosic ethanol is coming along so slow and there’s a variety of different uphill battles for the cellulosic folks,” he says. “We recognize there will be more demand for biomass, but will it be five years from now? Ten years from now? We think that if we can get the local bio-mass supply system set up, there’s probably going to be room for all of us. The whole ethanol world is stacked up against the fos-sil fuel world. If fossil fuels are dirt cheap, renewable energy is going to be pretty hard pressed without any incentives.”

author: Kris bevill Associate editor, Ethanol Producer Magazine


Ethanol is a global industry, and it takes a company with a worldwide reach to understand it.

That’s INTL FCStone, Inc. and its subsidiaries. Whether your operations are centered in Brazil, Europe, Australia, China or the United States, we can make your world a little easier to manage and understand.

With deep roots in agribusiness, we have a wealth of resources to help you cope with uncertainty and price volatility in grain, energy, ethanol, and other renewable fuels.

With customers in more than 100 countries around the world and wide-ranging expertise in interest rate and currency risk management, we’ve got you covered no matter where you are or what you need.

A GLOBAL UNDERSTANDING

FCStone, LLCRenewable Fuels GroupWest Des Moines, Iowa2829 Westown Parkway, Ste. [email protected], ext. 3728

Commodity trading involves risks, and you should fully understand those risks before trading.

www.intlfcstone.com

power


woody biomass

enough for everyone in oregon, the uSDA recently launched a biomass Crop Assistance Program for GreenWood Resources inc. to develop hybrid poplar plantations for ZeaChem inc.’s nearby ethanol production facility. biofuel developers interested in wood as a feedstock believe there will be ample supply for their uses, as well as for other industries.

PHoto: GReeNWooD ReSouRCeS iNC.


woody biomass

Wood-to-ethanol projects approach feasibilityBy kRIS BEVILL

in the classic children’s tale “The Giving Tree,” a lone tree willingly serves up all it has to offer to a growing boy in order to please him— providing first shade, food and shel-ter, then transportation, and, finally, a stump for the boy, who is now an old man, to rest his weary body on. While the moral of the story is up for interpretation, when taken in a literal sense the book highlights well the critical role trees play in providing resources to the human race. Trees have played a supporting role in the story of humankind since the dawn of time. As humans moved from cave to city, woody biomass has been a readily available resource to help advance society and expand technology. It seems a natural progression that as we seek renewable resources for alternative fuels, trees would be there once again for our benefit. But as it turns out, trees guard their precious c5 and c6 sugars, those necessary to produce cellulosic ethanol and biochemicals, with a nearly impenetrable system of natural defenses that has yet to be overcome by our best scientists. While significant advances have been made in solving this puzzle, there are some who say it is just too compli-cated to be completely conquered in the near future and perhaps wood is best left to be used for its many other purposes.

Climbs from SupportingRole to Center Stage


woody biomass

In May, timberland analysis firm Forisk consulting llc released a comprehensive study it conducted that concluded wood-based biofuels will not be commercially vi-able on a wide-spread basis for at least 10 more years. The technology to produce bio-fuels using wood products is extremely com-plex, the firm found, and while a few projects could produce biofuels commercially within the next decade, others will require up to 20 more years of development before they can be successful.

The study was conducted by examining 12 conversion pathways to produce liquid biofuels using gasification, hydrolysis and fermentation or pyrolysis methods and eval-uating the proposed production methods of 36 renewable diesel and cellulosic ethanol projects under development. Among the cellulosic ethanol projects evaluated for the study were those being developed by coska-ta Inc., Mascoma corp./Frontier renewable resources llc, Ineos new Planet Energy llc, Zeachem Inc., American Process Inc., and range Fuels Inc. When compared to projects being developed to produce renew-able diesel and/or jet fuel from wood sourc-es, Forisk concluded that cellulosic ethanol projects face greater technical hurdles and

will produce fewer gallons per dry ton of feedstock than renewable diesel. Therefore, it is more likely that wood will be used for renewable diesel production first. Of the production processes evaluated, gasification ranked first as the most promising technol-ogy, specifically those that employ microbes and catalytic, fast-pyrolysis processes.

In the time since Forisk’s study was re-leased, the number of proposed and oper-ating bioenergy projects using wood that it tracks has increased slightly—from 453 in May to 457 in late July—but the number of wood-using biofuels projects has decreased by one, down to 35. Brooks Mendell, princi-pal investigator at Forisk, points out that the number of cellulosic ethanol projects target-ing wood as a feedstock is already a small subset of the total number of proposed cellulosic ethanol projects in the U.S., and he thinks that number will get even smaller. Mendell says Forisk’s study results have been reinforced by investment firms that pur-chased the report to check their own analysis and while a few technology companies have contacted his firm to make the case that they are farther along than reported, Mendell doesn’t see any reason to update their status. “We have no proof that they can function at

commercial scale,” he explains. “We would be the first to call a project and congratulate them when they build a commercial-scale fa-cility and are able to run it at capacity for six to 12 months. That would be great.”

HeadwayIt’s true that no commercial-scale wood-

based cellulosic facility is operating in the U.S., but several project developers insist that they are close to proving wood’s commercial viability as a biofuel feedstock. In Pennsyl-vania, coskata is currently using woodchips to feed its demonstration-scale facility. Wes Bolsen, chief marketing officer and presi-dent of government affairs for coskata, says Forisk did not contact his company prior to its study and likewise, coskata has not been in contact with Forisk to dispute its study re-sults, but he doubts it will take a decade to commercialize wood-to-ethanol. In January, coskata received a conditional commitment for a $250 million USDA loan guarantee for its proposed 55 MMgy cellulosic facility in Boligee, Ala., and plans to be operating the facility in about 24 months. “Ten years ver-sus two is quite a difference,” Bolsen says. “The USDA understands the technology and that it will return the taxpayers their money. It’s much closer than many people give it credit.”

Bolsen admits that wood is a “some-what difficult” feedstock to extract sugars from, and says that is why he agrees with Forisk’s findings that gasification is the best technology for wood-based biofuel produc-tion. “When you gasify it, you utilize the entire feedstock—the lignin, the cellulose and the hemicellulose,” he says. “Gasifying wood biomass is a fantastic front-end wood process. That’s what the core of our tech-nology is. What we’re adding is a back-end syngas fermentation that makes the platform technology very viable. I don’t think anyone should worry about wood biomass being the downfall. I think, in fact, we’ll embrace wood biomass as an early leader in biofuel produc-tion.”

Zeachem cEo Jim Imbler doesn’t wholly agree that gasification is the best pro-cess for producing biofuels and chemicals from wood, but he does believe that wood-

intermediate proof Coskata Inc.’s demonstration-scale plant in Madison, Penn., is currently processing pine into ethanol using a hybrid gasification-fermentation technology, proving that the concept of wood as a feedstock is economically viable, according to the company.

PH

oto

: Co

SK

AtA

iNC

.


based biofuels will soon be commercially vi-able. Zeachem is in the midst of construct-ing its demonstration-scale facility in oregon and will begin producing chemicals by the end of the year. cellulosic ethanol produc-tion is expected to commence early next year. Zeachem’s hybrid biochemical-ther-mochemical approach will utilize a bacteria that occurs naturally in termites and converts mixed sugars to acetic acid in high-temper-ature, harsh environments. This is what en-ables ZeaChem to break down difficult wood products, he says, adding, “If you can make wood work, it works out pretty well.”

Both Imbler and Bolsen claim their technologies are capable of producing high yields. coskata is already churning out 100 gallons of ethanol per dry ton of feedstock at its demo plant, according to Bolsen. Zeachem is projecting to produce 135 gal-lons of product per dry ton. To compare, Mendell says Forisk’s analysis shows diesel and jet fuel processes using wood can pro-duce up to 60 gallons per dry ton.

In addition to the project developers, several other end-users and suppliers, as well as the federal government, appear to have confidence in wood as a biofuel feedstock. The U.S. DoE has invested in Zeachem’s demonstration-scale plant, the USDA award-ed a Biomass crop Assistance Program to develop hybrid poplar supplies for the facil-ity, and the company has been busy in recent months announcing offtake and feedstock supply agreements. Agreements are nice, but Mendell says they mean very little until the process is proven. “Until the technolo-gies prove that they’re actually going to be consuming wood at a significant level on an ongoing basis, all feedstock programs basi-cally have minimal implications,” he says. “The same is true for offtake agreements. Until they prove the ability to produce at significant volumes over time, they have no implication on the market.” Many people in the timber sector will be “thrilled” when these projects finally become viable, he says, but supply agreements for a plant are not enough to cause concern that ethanol plants will become competition for wood resources any time soon.

Fair enough, says Imbler, who says the

woody biomass

here and now borregaard’s existing commercial-scale, wood-to-ethanol facility and its under-construction pilot plant are both located in Sarpsborg, Norway, about an hour’s drive from the capital city of oslo.

PH

oto

: bo

RR

eG

AA

RD


••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

•••••••

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

BOILERSSELL•RENT•LEASE

IMMEDIATE DELIVERYCALL:800-704-2002

24 / 7 EMERGENCY SERVICE

wabash444 Carpenter Avenue, Wheeling, IL 60090

POWEREQUIPMENT CO.

10HP TO 250,000#/hr250,000#/hr Nebraska 750 psig 750OTTF

150,000#/hr Nebraska 1025 psig 900OTTF


150,000#/hr Nebraska 350 psig



80,000#/hr Erie City 2000 psig 800OTTF





20,000#/hr Erie City 200 psig

10-1000HP Firetube 15-600 psig

ALL PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURECOMBINATIONS SUPERHEATED

AND SATURATED

RENTAL FLEET OF MOBILETRAILER-MOUNTED BOILERS

75,000#/hr. Nebraska 350 psig

75,000#/hr. Optimus 750 psig 750°TTF





75-300HP Firetube 15-600 psig

ALL BOILERS ARE COMBINATION GAS/OIL

ENGINEERING • START-UP

FULL LINE OF BOILER AUXILIARYSUPPORT EQUIPMENT.

Electric Generators:• 50KW-30,000KW

WEB SITE: www.wabashpower.com847-541-5600 • FAX: 847-541-1279

E-mail: [email protected]

woody biomass

mature technology already used in the tim-ber industry makes its members less likely to respond enthusiastically to new ideas. “The forestry world doesn’t change that fast,” he says. “This will be a transforma-tive change. But it’s up to us to prove it. When people figure out how to make it work, it’ll be big.”

trend SetterWhile the U.S may not have an exam-

ple of commercial-scale, wood-to-ethanol production, norway does. In Sarpsborg, about an hour outside of oslo in south-east norway, Borregaard operates a biore-finery that currently produces 5 MMgy of wood-based ethanol. In fact, the com-pany has been producing lignocellulosic ethanol since 1938. Borregaard favors the use of enzymes to produce ethanol from wood because it enables the company to utilize more of the feedstock’s potential, says Klaus neumann, vice president of business development. “our approach is to fractionate the biomass and work with what you get there because we see a lot of value in that,” he says.

Fermenting sugars from wood to pro-duce ethanol was a big business through-out Scandinavia and parts of russia for many years, according to neumann, but was pushed out due to regulatory issues and the rise of cheap oil. Borregaard still operates the Sarpsborg facility profitably, but the company’s current view toward wood-based biofuels production is that it can hardly be done economically if etha-nol is the only revenue stream. “In Scandi-navia, it would be quite hard to be profit-able only producing ethanol from woody biomass,” he says. “one idea is to diver-sify and make a lot of products out of the same type of biomass. We have developed a lot of interesting new applications with the lignin coming out of the process as a performance chemical. We don’t really look at the lignin as a fuel, but in order to have the maximum value addition of the raw material, we try to convert as much as possible off the fractions, both from the lignin and the fiber, into commercial prod-ucts.” Borregaard’s process converts more

than 90 percent of the incoming biomass into various products, including lignin, vanillin, carbon dioxide and biofuels.

neumann points out that woody bio-mass is a more affordable feedstock in the U.S. and in other parts of the world, like Southeast Asia, but the concept of diversi-fying revenue streams to produce products other than just ethanol is one that is already being embraced by wood-to-ethanol pro-ducers here. Zeachem touts its technolog-ical ability to produce a variety of valuable biobased chemicals and coskata, though not as vocal about it, has a platform that will also produce chemicals. Bolsen says diversified revenue streams play an impor-tant role in coskata’s business strategy, but for now, it is publicly focused on ethanol. “As a young company, you have to focus on what you believe is the best ready-now, commercially viable technology,” he says, adding that, for now, that’s cellulosic etha-nol.

Mendell agrees that projects using wood as a feedstock to produce biochem-icals as well as ethanol have a leg up on commercialization potential over single-stream production models. It makes sense economically and there are fewer techni-cal hurdles that need to be overcome in order to produce chemicals as opposed to ethanol, he says. “If you’re going to pur-sue this really hard-to-get technology, you have to do things that work along the way to pay your bills,” he says. “That’s what these firms are doing when they’re pro-ducing chemicals, which seems like a good cash-generating strategy. Diversifying away from transportation fuels seems like a re-ally smart move on all measures.”

Biofuels industry observers such as Forisk are also noting a trend toward diversifying away from wood as a sole feedstock. Zeachem and coskata both say they can, and probably will, use more feedstocks than just wood. Borregaard has also recently begun construction of a pilot-scale facility in Sarpsborg to dem-onstrate a new process to produce etha-nol and chemicals from other feedstocks. The process, dubbed BAlI for its ability to process bagasse and lignin into perfor-


woody biomass

mance chemicals, is extremely efficient in breaking down c5 and c6 sugars and al-lows flexibility in the pretreatment phase, according to neumann. “We can actually select how to break down the fibers and how to work up the different types of sug-ars,” he says. The technology is expected to allow Borregaard to enter markets other than biofuels in locations around the world through partnerships with other biofuel or biochemical producers. “If we can put to-gether a concept where they would become a biofuel producer and we would produce specialty chemicals from the remainder of the biomass, that’s one way we think it will be quite possible to commercialize those types of technologies,” he says. Bor-regaard’s BAlI pilot plant is scheduled to become operational in the second quarter of next year and will process up to 1 dry ton of various feedstocks per day.

Borregaard would like to partner with biofuel or biochemical producers to es-tablish commercial plants using its BAlI process because, according to neumann, while his company has lengthy experience as a biorefiner, its specialty lies in produc-ing chemicals from biomass. “That’s the area where we feel we have competency and we would like to expand the market, and where we see the opportunities,” he says. “Also, in developing new biorefin-ery concepts where we try to sell multiple products, I think it will add a lot to the speed if you can do that together with other companies who have expertise in

complimentary areas—maybe technol-ogy, or feedstock or even marketing for those products.” The U.S. is an ideal area to launch this new concept due to its em-phasis on technology development as well as policies that promote the production of cellulosic biofuels and interest in bio-chemicals, he says.

Biofuels producers may see the ben-efit of using wood to produce liquid fu-els and chemicals, but Mendell says that, for now, the U.S. forestry industry will be content to watch the development of wood-based biofuels from the sidelines, and instead focus on the use of wood to produce energy. “That’s smart for the for-estry industry,” he says. “Today 71 percent of the wood-fired electricity produced in the country is within the forest products industry. Many of these projects represent extensions of what they already know how to do. I suspect that's one reason why even in the case of electricity projects or these liquid-fuel projects there's been less em-phasis on wood. Projects are learning it's a little more complicated than saying you're going to use forest residues that have been left untouched out in the woods. It's a more complicated story than that."

author: Kris bevill Associate editor, Ethanol Producer Magazine


The most notorious user of wood for ethanol production to date has been Range Fuels Inc., which briefly produced methanol from wood sources early this year but unexpectedly ceased operations and locked the doors at its Soperton, Ga., facility before it could make good on a promise to produce measurable amounts of cellulosic ethanol. While there has been no official statement from the com-pany explaining what went wrong, others in the industry say the plant suffered tech-nological constraints and that the facility’s

failure had nothing to do with its choice of feedstock.

Wes Bolsen, chief marketing officer and president of government affairs for coskata, says that, in fact, Georgia is an ideal location for a wood-to-biofuels proj-ect. “Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and Arkansas are the heart of what we call the wood basket,” he says. “I can’t speak to their [range Fuels’] technology, and clearly coskata’s technology is different, but gasifying wood biomass is a fantastic front-end wood process.”

What’s Wood Got to Do With it?

For more information, contact us at 866-746-8385 or e-mail [email protected]. Follow Us: twitter.com/#!/biomassmagazinee-ma FFo

IF YOU'RE LUCKY, I MAY EVEN DANCE.

The Load Toad® uses patented technology to load grain more evenly than is humanly possible. As a result, it loads 5%* more grain into every railcar. This translates into a 5% savings on your grain shipping costs. Meet the Load Toad in person. Call (605) 965-6414 to put the Toad to the test with a custom trial at your plant. Or email [email protected].

*Results may vary. LoadToad.com

CONVENTIONAL GRAIN LOADER

Traditional grain loading isn’t very efficient. Grain piles in the middle and top edges remain unfilled.

WITH LOAD TOAD

The Load Toad’s patented technology loads grain more evenly, resulting in 5% more grain loaded into every railcar.


contRiBution

policy

the claims and statements made in this article belong exclusively to the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Ethanol Producer Magazine or its advertisers. All questions pertaining to this article should be directed to the author(s).

Much has been said and writ-ten about whether the ethanol industry is sustainable without tax credits and tariffs. But what of-ten is missing in criticisms of ethanol is an acknowledgement that the oil industry signifi-cantly benefits from a variety of tax credits, incentives and other publicly-funded subsi-dies. Bloomberg New Energy Finance estimated that worldwide governments provided ap-proximately $43 billion to $46 billion in direct subsidies to renewable energy and biofuel technologies, projects and companies in 2009. According to an International Energy Agency study in 2008, fossil fuels received an estimat-ed $557 billion, not factoring in security and

public health costs associated with fossil fuels. The oil and ethanol industries, as well as the energy sector more generally, are subsidized by taxpayers through state and federal subsidies, incentives, tax credits and other governmental policies.

It is a significant challenge to compare oil subsidies and ethanol subsidies because there is no consensus on the definition of “subsidy,” “public financial support,” “incentives” or sim-ilar terms. For example, the oil industry would not characterize the tax benefits associated with oil and gas exploration and development expensing as a “subsidy,” even though it is the only major industry that benefits from these specific tax provisions. On the other hand, the

ethanol industry may agree that the Volumet-ric Ethanol Excise Tax credit (VEETc) is a subsidy, but disagree that it should be charac-terized as an “ethanol-only subsidy” because gasoline blenders (i.e. oil companies) are the ones who actually receive the credit, not etha-nol producers.

ethanol Subsidies The ethanol industry receives a variety

of federal and state incentives. When state incentives are factored in, some estimates put ethanol subsidies at around $30 billion, though this number is only an estimate because there is an inherent difficulty in measuring state-level incentives. Given the multitude of state pro-grams, this article focuses on the three federal programs: VEETc, the Small Producers Tax credit and the import tariff, all of which are set to expire on Dec. 31. While our focus is

The Subsidy Debate: Oil vs. EthanolDirect, indirect and hidden subsidies and incentives benefit both industries, and need to be acknowledgedBy kATE BECHEN AND PORTER J. MARTIN


policy

on these three federal programs, it is impor-tant to note that state programs have played pivotal roles in the development of the etha-nol industry. For example, Iowa’s retailer tax credit played a significant role in establishing E10 ethanol at pumps throughout the state and eventually across the country.

The VEETc (or the blenders credit) provides a tax incentive in the amount of 45 cents per gallon of pure ethanol blended with gasoline. Thus, while VEETc is a subsidy ben-efiting the ethanol industry, the credit actually goes entirely to oil industry blenders, not etha-nol producers. The credit, calculated by the Congressional Budget Office to be about $6 billion in 2009, is first taken as a credit against the blender’s fuel tax liability, but any excess is claimed as a direct payment from the Internal Revenue Service. It is difficult to accurately measure what portion of VEETC benefits the oil industry versus ethanol, but most likely oil has been in the best position to retain the value of VEETc, especially since 2006 when the supply of ethanol exceeded the renewable fuel standard (rFS), allowing oil companies to be price setters and consume ethanol when the price is in their favor.

The small ethanol producer tax credit is a tax incentive in the amount of 10 cents per gallon of ethanol that is sold or used by a producer in an ethanol fuel mixture. Quali-fied facilities produce not more than 60 mil-lion gallons of any type of alcohol and the incentive applies to the first 15 million gallons produced.

The import duty for fuel ethanol has two features, a 2.5 percent ad valorem tariff on the import of ethanol for use in fuel and a duty of 54 cents per gallon of ethanol. It is important to note that the 54-cent duty applies to im-ports from most countries to offset VEETc, an important point often ignored by critics of ethanol subsidies. Ethanol imports from coun-tries that are party to one of several interna-tional trade agreements with the U.S. are not subject to the 54-cent duty, as long as the etha-nol is produced from feedstocks originating in those nations. The tariff is in place to ensure that the U.S. is not subsidizing foreign ethanol by allowing foreign companies to benefit from VEETc.

The national rFS also has likely had a

subsidizing effect on the ethanol industry. The rFS calls for 36 billion gallons of renewable fuel to be produced by 2022, although conven-tional biofuel will be capped at 15 billion gal-lons in 2015. corn and sorghum growers also benefit from direct payments and crop insur-ance premium subsidies.

oil SubsidiesAt the turn of the 20th century, the fed-

eral government realized the importance for national security in developing oil reserves. As such, the government created many beneficial taxation, subsidy and other incentive programs geared specifically to aid the then young and struggling oil industry. This close historical relationship between the oil industry and the federal government has resulted in significant benefits for the oil industry.

The oil industry benefits from longstand-ing tax incentives not enjoyed by ethanol or any other major industry. one example is the favorable taxation of oil and gas exploration and development expenses that allow the oil industry to pay about $1 billion less in taxes each year, roughly the equivalent of the indus-try’s research and development expenditures. This deduction allows for a majority of ex-penses that do not have a salvage value to be expensed in the year incurred, rather than am-ortizing the costs over a longer period of time. Historically, the federal government sought to entice a fledgling industry into locating and de-veloping oil and gas reserves in the name of national security. over 100 years later these incentives still exist.

In addition to exploration and develop-ment expense deductions, the oil industry, given its size and level of dependency upon equipment and leases, also significantly ben-efits from various accelerated depreciation provisions for equipment and leases. Esti-mates have placed oil’s tax benefit at $4 bil-lion due to accelerated depreciation. While the same deductions are available to ethanol, oil utilizes these tax deductions to a greater extent because of its size and the prevalence of leasing arrangements in the oil industry. According to a 2010 article in the New York Times, “As oil Industry Fights a Tax, It reaps Subsidies,” a 2005 congressional Budget of-fice study found that, “capital investments

like oil field leases and drilling equipment are taxed at an effective rate of 9 percent, signifi-cantly lower than the overall rate of 25 percent for businesses in general and lower than virtu-ally any other industry.” lower taxes due to preferential treatment of a particular industry is equivalent to a subsidy.

Oil also benefits from a domestic produc-tion activities deduction. Due to the large scale of oil companies, this deduction is significant, but it is also a deduction available to any U.S. manufacturer. In fact, the oil industry only re-ceives a 6 percent deduction, while all other industries receive 9 percent. The oil industry also benefits significantly from foreign tax credit provisions and deferral of income from controlled foreign corporations.

Hidden SubsidiesThe oil industry benefits from the U.S.

strategic petroleum reserve, as a result of the federal government purchasing extra oil sup-plies to be used in emergency situations. other less obvious benefits and incentives received by the oil industry include taxpayer support of the transportation infrastructure, public li-ability for plugging and remediating onshore wells, environmental costs associated with air pollution and environmental clean up costs as-sociated with oil spills.

A University of california-Davis study by Mark Delucchi and James Murphy with the Institute of Transportation Studies con-

veetc capture It is difficult to determine which segment best captures the value of the blenders credit, but most likely, the oil industry benefits most.


Expansion or maintenance needs???With over 40 years of experience sellinginto your market, we know and havewhat you need...when you need it.

No order is too small.

www.rjsales.com

IN-STOCKSTAINLESS PVFFrom 1/8" to 36"

Indianapolis, IN 800-777-0510Minneapolis, MN 800-777-1355Raleigh, NC 800-565-5525

Buffalo, NY 800-666-0088Cleveland, OH 800-777-0820Chicago, IL 800-777-2008Cranbury, NJ 800-777-1858

LWC629-RJS-0446 Biorefining Ad #3 1/11/11 1:46 PM Page 1

cluded that “if the U.S. motor vehicles did not use petroleum, the U.S. would reduce its peace time and war time defense expenditures in the long run by roughly $1 [billion] to $10 billion per year.” Most oil proponents disagree that these types of government expendi-tures should be characterized as subsidies to the oil industry. roughly half of the world’s daily consumption of oil flows through one of seven or eight narrow sea passages, including the Panama canal, Bab el-Mendab, Strait of Malacca, Strait of Hormus, Suez canal and Suez-Mediterranean Pipeline, Bosporms and Dardeanelles and Danish Straights. Ensuring the steady flow of oil through these diverse oil transit chokepoints is of considerable value to the oil industry, and many current measures to ensure stability would not be necessary if the passageways were not significant oil check points. Ethanol has no such check points and a U.S. military presence is not needed to protect ethanol shipping and distribution channels.

Gas and ethanol production facilities also

benefit from tax increment financing, enter-prise zones, high-quality job creation incentives and new capital investment programs offered by states. The ethanol industry has benefited from a variety of state programs, especially in corn Belt states.

While the ethanol industry has not been as successful as the oil industry in securing and maintaining tax advantages at the federal level, it has, or will be, a beneficiary of stimu-lus spending directed at the renewable energy industry in general. The size of ethanol’s por-tion of the stimulus funds is not clear. The Biomass crop Assistance Program, the clean cities portion of the stimulus money and vari-ous earmarks for advanced biofuels research all will directly or indirectly lend support to the ethanol industry.

It is very difficult to assign a portion of public expenditures to a particular industry. It is also difficult to quantify and compare the financial benefits of complex tax provi-sions. But, is there anything wrong with sim-

ply acknowledging that the oil industry derives significant economic benefit from public fi-nancing of infrastructure, the U.S. tax code, environmental cleanup initiatives and military protection of the foreign oil supply? These factors have been largely excluded from ar-ticles and commentary that criticize ethanol’s dependence on tax credits and tariffs. Simply acknowledging that a subsidy, benefit or in-centive exists doesn’t mean that there are not good reasons to continue such support. We all drive cars and are heavily reliant on the oil industry. But this also doesn’t mean that there aren’t also good reasons to reevaluate certain subsidies that become out dated, ineffective or excessive.

authors: Kate bechen Attorney, Energy & Sustainability Group, Michael Best &

Friedrich [email protected]

(414) 225-4956

Porter J. Martin Partner, Michael Best & Friedrich LLP

[email protected](608) 283-0116

policy

SM

*Hayes, Dermot J., Du, Xiaodong (April 2011) The Impact of Ethanol Production on US and Regional Gasoline Markets: An Update to May 2009. Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD).

www.EthanolRFA.org

Over 200 plants nationwide. 13 billion gallons of clean, renewable American energy, a year.

Fueling the economy with over 400,000 jobs. Turning everyday abundant, renewable ingredients into clean sustainable energy.

Ethanol reduced the average American household’s gasoline bill by more than $800.If ethanol disappeared, gas prices could rise by as much as 92%.*


contRiBution

feedstock

the claims and statements made in this article belong exclusively to the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Ethanol Producer Magazine or its advertisers. All questions pertaining to this article should be directed to the author(s).

Miscanthus x Giganteus (MxG) has great potential to become the energy crop of choice in the unit-ed States. It has been explored in Europe for two decades but has not been actively pursued in the U.S. until very recently. Many

reasons can be cited, such as the lack of long-term yield data in different U.S. re-gions, high establishment costs and the rela-tively low yield from direct conversion of cellulosic biomass into bioethanol based on today’s technology. lack of political support

for green initiatives such as proliferation of carbon credits adds to the woes for adop-tion of miscanthus as a viable energy crop of the future. The key issue to be addressed, therefore, is the apparent lack of sustainable economics.

In general, many studies have pointed to the fact that miscanthus should be a more suitable candidate than switchgrass as an energy crop. MxG dry mass yield reaches

Comprehensive Miscanthus Commercialization Model NeededA systematic look at feedstock development offers ideas for reducing costs, ensuring success By DAVID R. ROBBINS AND STEPHEN S. TAM


feedstock

twice that of switchgrass with a rotation cycle of up to 20 years. Typically, dry mass yield can be 12 to 20 tons per acre, with the highest reported yield of 24 tons per acre. nevertheless, large-scale commercialization of MxG has not yet appeared, and there remain very few, if any, economically viable integrated commercialization or business process approaches.

It is crucial to the successful scalabil-ity and sustainability of MxG commercial-ization that the individual process MxG blocks—propagation, farming and densifi-cation—be profitable. This will significantly enable the national targets for conversion of biomass to ethanol to be achievable.

At least three U.S. companies have developed MxG commercialization meth-odologies that, while subtly different, can supply only a small portion of a large and growing market. In addition, through the Biomass crop Improvement Program, the USDA has aided the establishment of four planting zones totaling 200,000 acres in the U.S. for growing miscanthus as a dedicated energy crop and feedstock for cellulosic eth-

anol production. Federal programs such as BcAP, local government subsidies, carbon credits and other forms of subsidies are market accelerators, but not enablers. Key features of a successful integrated approach will lie in balancing the business risks with innovative technology and business solu-tions, imposing rigorous financial assess-ment of the returns on investment in vari-ous segments.

Challenges and SolutionsBy choosing state-of-the-art technology

in all stages, a robust feedstock farming op-eration can be built to supply hundreds of thousands of tons of biomass for multiple markets in the U.S and specifically cellulosic ethanol. Earth Sense Energy USA Inc. and other companies are developing strategies to address the challenges facing successful MxG development, including the following:

Addressing extremely high establish-• ment costs, often estimated at more than $2,000 per acre, by maximizing automa-tion to reduce labor costs, and using plantlets and rhizomes to reduce costs.

Matching field stock genetics to geo-• graphical requirements to ensure field establishment success.Ensuring top yields by using precision • planting technology to achieve high plant density.Managing market growth and nursery/• greenhouse utilization by identifying a product mix for nursery business dur-ing the demand ramp-up phase for mis-canthus that includes propagation of vegetables, fruits or ornamentals. In addition to using various technology

and business processes to mitigate risks, as described above, the success of the integrat-ed MxG commercialization model requires developers to combine knowledge and ex-perience with MxG agronomy, plantlet mul-tiplication rates and environmental condi-tions suitable for planting miscanthus. For example, it has been established experimen-tally that the multiplication rate of vegetative propagation can reach 90-to-1 compared to conventional rhizome field planting that can only reach plantlet multiplication rates of up to 20-to-1 in one calendar year in temperate zones. In tropical zones, however, multipli-cation of rhizomes can also reach 90-to-1 or higher in any one year. Attention will need to be paid, if this model is adopted, to the unit costs of production and logistics to en-sure the economic success of the supplier and the customer.

other strategies can reduce costs as well. one is to use miscanthus transplants during the seasons when rhizomes are unavailable. Plantlets can be regenerated continuously and planted in regions that are temperate, unlike rhizomes that have a particular har-vest window. By choosing farmland at vari-ous latitudes and growing zones, miscanthus planting can be performed six to 10 months per year, facilitating better crop planting schedules and equipment utilization, reduc-ing capital requirements. Manpower can be cross-utilized between planting, harvest and densification.

Densifying feedstock minimizes logis-tics costs and facilitates storage. In addi-tion, the different quality specifications for

Miscanthus ecosystem Many areas need further research and development before the potential of MxG to become an energy crop for cellulosic ethanol production is realized. SouRCe: eARtH SeNSe eNeRGY uSA iNC

The MxG Value Chain


feedstock

domestic and commercial heating, cofiring with coal, as well as cellulosic ethanol feed-stocks, will create opportunities for develop-ing densification product lines. Similar to the risk mitigation strategy for nurseries/green-houses, we suggest initial densification op-erations be designed for multiple feedstock densification.

A profitable, scalable and sustainable MxG supply chain can be built if business risks are balanced and financial returns on the various process blocks are vigorously assessed. Table 1 shows projected invest-ment and returns for a nursery, plantation and densification plant as individual units, as well as an integrated system.

The commercialization of process blocks are each economically viable with-out government subsidies. nevertheless, state and federal grants will be most helpful in supporting the MxG field establishment

years before MxG crop yield stabilizes. Gov-ernment support for carbon trading, such as through the chicago climate Exchange or some other federal program, would also help stabilize and enhance the income of MxG farmers. A cap and trade program to reduce carbon emissions would accelerate the demand for dedicated energy crops. Ad-ditionally, government grants targeting each process block will help generate innovations and lower production costs of MxG for bio-fuels production. For instance, BcAP will provide financial support up to $45 per ton for feedstocks for biomass energy projects.

The development of a miscanthus sup-ply chain with a multi-objective optimization model allows an organization to determine the variety and product type of the field stock genetic material, to select the farming geography compatible with the source ge-netics, to utilize the most advantageous den-

sification technology, to manage distribution costs to the served market and to participate in government support programs to make miscanthus the feedstock of choice for cel-lulosic ethanol production.

authors: David R. RobbinsCEO/Cofounder, Earth Sense Energy USA Inc.


Steven S. tamChief Research Officer/Cofounder, Earth Sense Energy

+852-62120616 (Hong Kong)[email protected]

Additional information was contributed by Jimmy Holliman, consultant to eSe and David Croxton, eSe director and with Renewable energy Crops of Great britain, a pioneer of mis-canthus for biomass in the eu.

Projected investment and Return MxG nursery

onlyMxG Plantation

onlyMxG Pellet Plant

onlyIntegrated MxG

commercializationInvestment $16 million $3.5 million $7.5 million $27 million Gross profit margin 31% 45% 27% 31%Earnings before interest, taxes, amortization 31% 41% 27% 31%Net profit after tax 16% 22% 14% 16%Return on investment to cash flow 2.1 3.3 6.3 5.0return on investment (present value k=10%) 1.3 2.1 4.0 2.9Internal rate of return 15% 27% 47% 34%

Table 1 The chart shows target returns on investments for individual and integrated risk-balanced MxG commercialization blocks. SouRCe: eARtH SeNSe eNeRGY uSA iNC.

PH

oto

: PH

oto

S: e

AR

tH S

eN

Se

eN

eR

GY

Growing Green Automated processes from the development of plantlets to planting will be needed to make MxG economically sustainable.

headline essenceheadline brow

GeneArt® gene synthesis, build your

next breakthrough

©2011 Life Technologies Corporation. All rights reserved. The trademarks mentioned herein are the property of Life Technologies Corporation or their respective owners. For research use only. Not intended for any animal or human therapeutic or diagnostic use. CO18747

Go to www.invitrogen.com/geneart

Experience the new generation of gene synthesis and assembly toolsGeneArt® solutions give you predictability, adaptability, and confidence. Whether increasing protein expression rates as much as 100X or assembling genetic constructs with unprecedented precision, GeneArt® gene synthesis and assembly tools enable youto break through your most complex challenges.


premium plant Services, inc. 888-549-1869 www.premiumplantservices.com

Heat exchanger

heat exchanger Services 303-947-7864 www.hexservices.com

Seneca companies 800-369-5500 www.senecaco.com

Hydro-blastinghydro-klean, inc. 515-283-0500 www.hydro-klean.com

MpS Group515-953-5656 www.mpsgrp.com

EPM MARKETPLACE

Ag Products & Servicesequipment

Associations/OrganizationsGrowth energy 202-545-4000 www.growthenergy.org

Clean CitiesRed River valley clean cities 651-227-8014 www.CleanAirChoice.org

twin cities clean cities coalition 651-223-9568 www.CleanAirChoice.org

ChemicalsAnti-MicrobialFerm Solutions 859-402-8707 www.ferm-solutions.com

DenaturantMethanol of orlando407-234-1788 [email protected]

Desiccantinterra Global 847-292-8600 www.interraglobal.com

Enzymescte Global, inc.847-564-5770 www.cte-global.com

Water treatmentu.S. Water Services763-553-0379 www.uswaterservices.com

YeastFerm Solutions 859-402-8707 www.ferm-solutions.com

Fermentis-division of Si lesaffre800-558-7279 www.fermentis.com

Xylogenics, inc.317-697-7514 www.xylogenics.com

CleaningDryer Systemshth companies 636-584-4586 [email protected]

hydro-klean, inc. 515-283-0500 www.hydro-klean.com


emergency Spill Responsehydro-klean, inc. 515-283-0500 www.hydro-klean.com


evaporators hydro-klean, inc. 515-283-0500 www.hydro-klean.com

Reach your customers

Your Solution. Advertise Today.

EPM MARKETPLACE


Railcar Spill Response hydro-klean, inc. 515-283-0500 www.hydro-klean.com

tank Cleaning equipment cloud/Sellers cleaning Systems800-234-5650 www.sellersclean.com

Gamajet cleaning Systems inc 877-GAMAJET www.gamajet.com

Scanjet, inc.281-480-4041 www.scanjetinc.com

EPM MARKETPLACE

Spraying Systems co.800-95-SPRAY www.tankjet.com

tank Cleaning Serviceshydro-klean, inc. 515-283-0500 www.hydro-klean.com

premium plant Services, inc. 888-549-1869 www.premiumplantservices.com


tank Cleaning Systems Spraying Systems co.800-95-SPRAY www.tankjet.com

Conferences/Trade Shows & Meetingsalgae Biomass Summit763-458-0068 www.algaebiomasssummit.org

algal Biomass organization763-458-0068 www.algalbiomass.org

ConstructionConcrete Siloshoffmann, inc. 563-263-4733 www.hoffmanninc.com

Fabricationagra industries, inc. 715-536-9584 www.agraind.com

andy j.egan company 616-791-9952 www.andyegan.com

Grain Storagehoffmann, inc. 563-263-4733 www.hoffmanninc.com

Mechanicall&M ethanol Maintenance contracting, inc. 515-955-2010 www.lmethanol.com

Plant Construction agra industries, inc. 715-536-9584 www.agraind.com

Roeslein & associates, inc.314-729-0056 www.roeslein.com

Stackhoffmann, inc. 563-263-4733 www.hoffmanninc.com

tanksagra industries, inc. 715-536-9584 www.agraind.com

j.c. Ramsdell enviro Services, inc. 877-658-5571 www.jcramsdell.com

Consultingenvironmentalcantley inc. 865-360-4080

icM, inc. 877-456-8588 www.icminc.com

Rtp environmental associates 516-333-4526 www.rtpenv.com

Seneca companies800-369-5500 www.senecaco.com

Feasibility Studiesharris Group inc. 206-494-9422 www.harrisgroup.com

Plant OptimizationicM, inc. 877-456-8588 www.icminc.com

EPM MARKETPLACE

With all contact information placed in one convenient location, Ethanol Producer Magazine not only contains top editorial content but also a useful directory in each publication. Whether a first-time advertiser wanting to raise awareness of your business or a frequent display advertiser looking for added exposure, EPM Marketplace is the perfect solution.


biogas Scrubberseco-tec, inc. 905-427-0077 www.eco-tec.com

blowers & FansFlaktWoods 716-845-0900 www.flaktwoods.com

Catwalksl&M ethanol Maintenance contracting, inc. 515-955-2010 www.lmethanol.com

Cellulosic Pretreatment

Centrifugesaaron equipment 630-350-2200 www.aaronequipment.com

Control SystemsicM, inc. 877-456-8588 www.icminc.com

kahler automation corp.507-235-6648 www.kahlerautomation.com

Cooling towersdelta cooling towers, inc. 800-BUY-DELTA www.deltacooling.com

Corn oil RecoveryicM, inc. 877-456-8588 www.icminc.com

SafetyRail Safe training, inc. 712-212-4145 www.railsafetraining.com

educationBismarck State college701-224-5735 www.BismarckState.edu/energy

employmentRecruitingSearchpath of chicago 815-261-4403, x100 www.searchpathofchicago.com

Strategic Resources425-688-1151 www.strategicresources.com

engineeringDesign/Buildagra industries, inc. 715-536-9584 www.agraind.com

Burns & Mcdonnell 816-333-9400 www.burnsmcd.com

Wolf Material handling Systems 763-576-9040 www.wolfmhs.com

Process DesignadF engineering inc. 937-847-2700 www.adfengineering.com


vogelbusch uSa, inc. 713-461-7374 www.vogelbusch.com

equipment & ServicesAir Pollution/Odor Controlanguil environmental Systems, inc.414-365-6400 www.anguil.com

EPM MARKETPLACE

Reach your customers

Your Solution. Advertise Today.

EPM MARKETPLACE

DDGS Dieseltotal-yield diesel from distillers 402-640-8925 www.total-yield.com

Dryers-Fluid bedBuhler aeroglide 919-851-2000 www.aeroglide.com

Dryers-Rotary DrumicM, inc. 877-456-8588 www.icminc.com

Dryers-Rotary Steam tubeicM, inc. 877-456-8588 www.icminc.com

emissions testing & ReductionaRi environmental, inc.847-487-1580 www.arienv.com

Fermentation MonitoringetS laboratories707-963-4806 www.etslabs.com

Fractionation-CornBuhler inc. 763-847-9900 www.buhlergroup.com/us

cereal process technologies 217-779-2595 www.cerealprocess.com

crown iron Works company 651-639-8900 www.crowniron.com


Grain Handling & Storageagra industries, inc. 715-536-9584 www.agraind.com

hoffmann, inc.563-263-4733 www.hoffmanninc.com

Sukup Manufacturing co.641-892-4222 www.sukup.com

Heat exchangerspick heaters, inc.800-233-9030 www.pickheater.com

HoppersAiroflex Equipment563-264-8066 www.airoflexequipment.com


Steam injection Heaters

Storage-DDGShoffmann, inc.563-263-4733 www.hoffmanninc.com

Structural Fabricationagra industries, inc. 715-536-9584 www.agraind.com

l&M ethanol Maintenance contracting, inc. 515-955-2010 www.lmethanol.com

tanksagra industries, inc. 715-536-9584 www.agraind.com

Millwrightagra industries, inc. 715-536-9584 www.agraind.com

Molecular SievesicM, inc. 877-456-8588 www.icminc.com

Parts & ServicesicM, inc. 877-456-8588 www.icminc.com

Pipel&M ethanol Maintenance contracting, inc. 515-955-2010 www.lmethanol.com

Robert-james Sales, inc. 800-666-0088 www.rjsales.com

Pipe-Fittingshammertek corp. 717-898-7665 www.hammertek.com

Robert-james Sales, inc. 800-666-0088 www.rjsales.com

Pipe-FlangesRobert-james Sales, inc. 800-666-0088 www.rjsales.com

Productivity enhancementsicM, inc. 877-456-8588 www.icminc.com

PumpspeopleFlo Manufacturing 847-929-4774 www.peopleflo.com

Sealsaesseal, inc. 865-531-0192 www.aesseal.com

EPM MARKETPLACE

EPM MARKETPLACEJet Cookers

Laboratory-testing Services Foundation analytical laboratory 712-225-6989 www.foundationanalytical.com

Loading equipmentBear Boring llc 309-695-5150 www.bearboring.com

Loading equipment-LiquidpFt-alexander, inc.1-800-696-1331 www.pft-alexander.com

Maintenance Servicesl&M ethanol Maintenance contracting, inc. 515-955-2010 www.lmethanol.com

Maintenance SoftwareicM, inc. 877-456-8588 www.icminc.com

EPM MARKETPLACE

With all contact information placed in one convenient location, ethanol Producer Magazine not only contains top editorial content but also a useful directory in each publication. Whether a first-time advertiser wanting to raise awareness of your business or a frequent display advertiser looking for added exposure, EPM Mar-ketplace is the perfect solution.


70 2011 Southeast biomass Conference & trade Show

25 2012 international Fuel ethanol Workshop & expo

21 2012 National ethanol Conference

80 2012 Pacific West Biomass Conference & trade Show

62 Agra industries

13 Ashland Hercules Water technologies

15 betatec Hop Products

54 brock Grain Systems

49 brownWinick Law Firm

38 Cit

35 CPM Roskamp Champion

34 Davenport Dryer, LLC

29 Dynamic Pricing Platform

39 Fagen, inc.

63 FC Stone, LLC

19 Fermentis - Division of S.i. Lesaffre

53 Freez-it-Cleen

42, 43 & 88

GeNeNCoR® - A Danisco Division

2 Growth energy

67 Hitachi Zosen Corporation

5 ICM, Inc.

8 & 9 inbicon

48 indeck Power equipment Co.

41 Johnson System, inc.

69 Kennedy and Coe, LLC

79 Life technologies

71 Load toad

55 Mole Master Services Corporation

37 Nalco Company

87 North American bioproducts Corp.

3 Novozymes

17 Pioneer Hi-bred international

75 Renewable Fuels Association

74 Robert-James Sales, inc.

61 Scherer Corrugating

81 Sukup Manufacturing Co.

28 u.S. tsubaki

36 Vicam

40 Vogelbusch uSA, inc.

68 Wabash Power equipment Co.

Adindex

EPM MARKETPLACE

Thermal Oxidizers

• 60 Years of Experience

• 500+ RTO Installed Base

• 100% Uptime Guarantee

• 24/7/365 Emergency Response Service Guarantee

Clean Air & Energy Technology

www.eisenmann.us.comEmail: [email protected]

Marketplace_EthanolProducer.indd 1 5/18/2011 3:34:27 PM

Truck Receiving/DumpersAiroflex Equipment563-264-8066 www.airoflexequipment.com

used equipmentupM Machine713-440-8200 www.upmmachine.com

Valvescashco, inc.785-472-4461 www.cashco.com

Wastewater treatment ServicesicM, inc.877-456-8588 www.icminc.com

Water treatmenth2o innovation 763-566-8961 www.H2OINNOVATION.com

Yield enhancement edeniQ, inc.559-302-1780 www.edeniq.com

FinanceinsuranceeRi Solutions, inc. 316-927-4294 erisolutions.com

Mergers & AcquisitionsMoglia advisors 847-884-8282 www.mogliaadvisors.com

MarketingFuel ethanolchS Renewable Fuels 651-355-6271 www.chsinc.com

MiscellaneousMaas companies 507-424-2640 www.maascompanies.com

Research & Developmentengine testingRoush industries 734-779-7736 www.roush.com

transportationRailcar Gate openersthe arnold company 800-245-7505 www.arnoldcompany.com

Spezyme® CLConventional Liquefaction, Superior Performance Call 1-800-847-5311 to add us to your teamwww.genencor.com

October 2011 Ethanol Producer Magazine

Documents

Transcript of October 2011 Ethanol Producer Magazine