Hashim Rebuild Presentation Nyc 22 Sept

REBUILD PROGRAM
By
Hashim Djojohadikusumo
What is Rebuild Program?

Rebuild is developed to make huge profit
financially while re-foresting degraded
areas through the application of
agroforestry, where forest products would
generate jobs and revenues while the
forest could be restored along with
biodiversity, rain fall, and all the benefit
tropical forest can provide for the earth.
Rebuild the Economy, Society

and Environment
Rebuild is leveraging the multi-culture of food and
forest species as well as product transformation in
adjacent industrial site to generate a stream of
revenue while re-growing and protecting the
forests.
Rebuild allows to use degraded land in forest estates
to generate activity, leading to economic, social and
environmental benefits: roll-out in pilot site could
lead to more than 60,000 jobs, the protection of
50,000 Ha of primary forest, the restoration of an
additional 16,000 ha in wildlife corridors, ~5 Mt/year in
C02 emission reduction mainly through the
replacement of gasoline by ethanol while generating a
positive NPV for investors.
How Much Money?

The economics of the Rebuild project correspond to 2
successive investments, staggered:
The initial cash out in year 1 (-230 M USD) is expected to
be recovered in year 5 thanks to the first forest products
(e.g., cassava, torrefied pellets from dead wood).
Then investors have to cash out an additional ~750
M EUR in year 7 to initiate Ethanol production facilities.
This cash is expected to be recovered in year 10 after
initial sales of Ethanol
The project has overall a NPV close to 800 M USD at

15% discount rate, which makes a case for attracting
external investors - though investor appetite could
remain limited until the concept is proven at scale.
How Much Money?

Given current assumptions on the economic
model, it is estimated that the concept
would have the potential to scale up to Ha
within 15-20 years - equivalent to the
development of Palm Oil in the last 15 years.
This scale would imply capital investments
of ~80Bn USD overall, while enabling to
reduce man-made emissions of C02 by 1.5%
globally.
Challenges
It is technically feasible, with some operational risks to
anticipate:
1. Putting in place a detailed operational plan - in particular
for the clearing and planting activities, as well as the
construction of the industrial unit
2. Ensuring the transfer of knowledge from the projects
architect to operational managers, to ensure efficient and
scalable execution -10M
3. Preparing the hiring of more than 30,000 palm tappers 56 years after project launch, through centers of excellence
for example More importantly, if the rebuild concept turns
to be profitable, there is a significant risk that it can lead
to the implementation of intensive sugar palm
monocultures, even inside forest estates, increasing
pressure on land and potentially leading to deforestation
Deforestation
The planet has lost 1.3 million square kilometers of forests since 1990 an area larger than South Africa, according to data published by the
World Bank.
Reality
Jos Graziano da Silva, Food and Agriculture
Organisation Director-General, has said:
"Forests play a fundamental role in
combating rural poverty, ensuring food
security and providing people with
livelihoods.
And
they
deliver
vital
environmental services such as clean air
and water, the conservation of biodiversity
and combating climate change.
Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03/23/deforestation-where-is-the-world-losing-the-most-trees/
Tree cover and cover loss in M Ha

2001
Tree
cover
Net
cover
loss
since
2001
Russia
North America
Africa
Brazil
Other South America
Indonesia & Malaysia
China
S.E.A.
Other
Total
SOURCE: Ministry of forestry, 2008 - Rekalkulasi Penutupan Lahan Indonesia, 2006globalforestwatch.org
Indonesian Forests
Significant deforestation rate in
Indonesia seems strongly correlated
with land pressure
Tree cover has declined ~4% in 13
years
Faster rate in Indonesia seems related
to strong pressure on land for
agriculture and plantation.
Rebuild offers a production-protection solution that

would allow to regenerate forests on degraded
land while ensuring profits.
Rebuild is a community-led, circular and multiculture restoration concept of degraded forest and
protection of primary forest resulting in a steady
income stream spread over 15 years and positive
externalities.
Rebuild is an interdependent system of nature and
community with Sugar palm and Ethanol playing
a large part
Total concession -170,000 Ha

Infrastructure
Central facilities such as
nursery, lab and command
center
Port
Concession
Each concession shares
main infrastructure such a
as large roads
A port with access to the
river sea is situated nearby
Land-use for Rebuild

1.
Replacement of degraded land

Selection of areas suitable for planting, made of degraded land (low-value secondary forest or
grassland)
Clearing of the areas (even secondary forests) to replace it by more sustainable species and
coordinate the growth of plants
1.
Protection of existing primary forest

When primary forest pre-exists on the land, it will be protected and maintained
1.
Creation of biodiversity corridors

Biodiversity corridors will be created in all cases to allow wildlife to migrate between primary forest
areas -representing 20% of usable areas in all cases
1.
Creation of natural forest when none pre-exists

When no primary forest exists in the concession, primary forest species will be planted through
recipes1 with 25 years maturity to ultimately rebuild forests and favor biodiversity, as piloted in
Samboja Lestari
5.
Rotating production
At any given time, there will be four pixels producing ethanol in each block
Same applies to other activities (initial clearing of land, etc.) in order to make sure that the land
rotates efficiently while activities remain stable over time
In Conclusion
(1)
The rebuild concept should quickly generate jobs for local populations, as it is estimated
the pilot site (104,000 Ha exploited) will ultimately provide jobs to more than 60,000
people.
On average, jobs should be better paid than for other agricultural activities and require
significant technical skills for palm tappers, yet generate less positions per hectare due to
the low ^ intensity of operations.
(2)
Overall, the pilot project for the concept should lead to million tons of cumulated C02
emissions reductions over 30 years for each hectare cultivated (5 million tons per year
in ITCI)
90% of that impact comes from the substitution of gasoline by ethanol and of coal by
torrefied pellets.
The direct sequestration effect on the ITCI site would be limited, agroforests effectively
replacing secondary forests with about the same biomass content (with a 20tons/hectare
impact due to the conversion of dead wood to biochar).
In Conclusion
(3)
On top of directly quantified effects, the rebuild concept is expected to significantly
contribute to the protection and restoration of forests (in ITCI, for 104,00 Ha
exploited, 50,000 Ha of primary forest is conserved and 16,000Ha is re-created over
25 years)
Restoring and protecting forests can lead to multiple positive externalities that
generate social and environmental benefits outside of the exploited area
Ecosystem services (natural products, ecosystem control, indirect economic
value) is estimated to represent up to 80% of the income of the poorest people in
villages.
Reforestation and exploitation contribute to limiting fires.
Biodiversity protection as well as carbon sequestration further contribute to
the value of the restored forests.
The Economics of Rebuild

(1)
The economics of the Rebuild project correspond to 2 successive investments,

staggered:
The initial cash out in year 1 (~230 M USD) serves to set up agricultural
operations as well as some industrial facilities - and is then recovered in year 5
thanks to the initial products (cassava, pellets)
In year 7, investors have to cash out an additional ~750 M EUR to initiate
Ethanol production facilities. This cash
is expected to be recovered in year 10 after initial sales of Ethanol
Once Ethanol has started being tapped, operations are projected to generate net
cash flows of ~600 M USD per year for a concession of 104,000 Ha in exploitation
The project would have an NPV close to 800 M USD at 15% discount rate, which
make a case for attracting external investors - though the high risk related to a new
concept may limit investor appetite until the concept is proven at scale
The Economics of Rebuild

(2)
The business case seems relatively resilient to stress tests:
The business case would remain NPV-positive with Ethanol prices
dropping 50% to ~200 USD/m3
The business case would remain NPV-positive with sugar palm
trees dropping 50% compared to current assumptions
A 100% increase in Capex would significantly hurt returns, yet leave
a positive NPV
The business could withstand 3 years delay in Ethanol production
and sales and remain NPV-positive
Rebuild Business in Four Steps

Context and Objectives
To prepare for the concept roll-out, the ITCI team has
developed a model in order to assess the intrinsic
economic potential of Rebuild
This case is based on a generic description not the
actual implementation plan
The model is based on several preliminary assumptions,
as the operational plans (e.g. factory construction) have not
yet been developed, and therefore require outside-in
assumptions
All model results should be interpreted as approximate,
outside-in estimates, that do not aim at providing potential
investors with a precise cash flow profile. However, the results
allow us to better understand if the concept can attract
investors
The Rebuild concept was modelled in four steps by ITCI

Context and objectives
To prepare for the concept

roll-out, the ITCI team has
developed a model in order
to assess the intrinsic
economic potential of Rebuild
This case is based on a
generic description not the
actual implementation plan
The model is based on
several preliminary
assumptions, as the
operational plans (e.g. factory
construction) have not yet
been developed, and
therefore require outside-in
assumptions
All model results should be
interpreted as approximate,
outside-in estimates, that do
not aim at providing potential
investors with a precise cash
flow profile. However, the
results allow us to better
understand if the concept
can attract investors
Model key inputs and structure

Concession parameters
Input
Investment
USD M
(accumulated
at year 15)
Land area
000 Ha
(minimum
30k Ha)
FOB woodchip,
USD/ton
63,296
Avg salary refinement
2,238
FOB Biological value,

USD/Ton
166
5,280
FOB Ethanol value,

USD/m3
425
Carbon value, USD/Ton
430
104
Physical outputs
Refinements
Values, USD M
Wet Biomass
000 tons annual
1,597
Torrefied pellets
000 tons, annual
271
Torrified pellet sales

USD m FOB, annual
45
Sugar Palm SAP

000 m3, annual
19,209
Biodiesel
000 m3, annual
P.t. not
modelled
Biodiesel sales
USD m FOB, annual
P.t. not
modelled
Cassava
000 tons, annual
555
Ethanol
000 m3, annual
1,561
Ethanol sales
USD m FOB, annual
663
Forest Basket
Various
Various
Tapioca
000 tons, annual
144
Tapioca sales
USD m FOB, annual
62
Forest Basket
Various
Various
Carbon credits
USD m, annual
Forest Basket
USD m FOB, annual
214
Operational
cost
USD M
412
NOTE: Outputs and values represented are at year 15 (steady-state) for the entire program: 104,000Ha
SOURCE: Rebuild Business Case Model v8.5
Avg salary core
Tapioca value, USD/Ton
Calculation
s
Output
87
1664
Core ecosystem
RebuildTM Mobile Camps
Jobs
Man-years
Key commercial input parameters
CO2 capture
000 tons acc.
4,089
CO2 emission
000 tons pa
645
CO2 replaced
000 tons acc
39,196
Revenue
generated
USD m
1,136
This report is confidential and solely for the use of NICFI. No part of it may be circulated, quoted or reproduced for distribution outside NICFI without prior written approval from NICFI. This report is not intended to serve as
investment advice, or a recommendation of any particular transaction or investment, any type of transaction or investment, the merits of purchasing or selling securities, or an invitation or inducement to engage in investment activity.
BUSINESS CASE
38
Initial investments can be staggered, and are recovered 3-4 years after they
are made
Projected annual net cash flows and accumulated cash

M USD, for a 104,000 Ha project, NPV at 15% discounted rate for 30 years
Initial investment in year 1 in industrial

estate facilities, a torrified pellet plant,
energy generation (steam boiler), a
cassava plant, portable biochar oven etc.
Revenue is generated from year 1 by
cassava starch, torrified pellets and a
basket of forest goods
In year 5 accumulated cash is positive
In year 7 there is a
large investment in
an Ethanol plant,
and membrane
distillation units for
each farmer plots
Accumulated Cash (scale on right)
Net Cash Flow (scale on left)
From year 7, an annual investment of ~$25m a

year is required for membrane separators; this
reduces to ~$20m a year afterwards but has to
occur every year
From year 8 ethanol production and sale begin,
and net cash flow turns positive by year 10
1,600
6,000
NPV1
1,400
~800 M USD
1,200
4,000
1,000
800
523
600
557
553
549
542
622
200
54
51
62
76
116
79
3,000
2,000
374
400
201
1,000
-200
-400
5,000
-1,000
-228
-2,000
-600
-800
-3,000
-749
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
1 Large agricultural projects in Indonesia typically require 10%-12% WACC, leading to the use of 15% in the section to take into account extra risk due to the absence of large-scale test
16
BUSINESS CASE
39
Even if more capital-intensive initially, the concept has the potential to be

more profitable than palm oil
NPV in USD/Ha at
x
Cumulated cash flows for Palm oil vs. Rebuild

Thousands USD per Hectare, not actualized, best in class examples
30
Key metrics
Palm oil
25
15% WACC
Rebuild
20
1000 USD/Ha
Palm oil
IRR 18%
Max cash out of 5,000
USD/Ha
Positive cash position
in year 9
15
10
5
8000 USD/Ha
0
-5
10 11 12 13 14 15
Sugar palm ethanol

IRR 31%
Max cash out of 6,300
USD/Ha
Positive cash position
in year 11
-10
Under current assumptions, the Rebuild concept would have the potential to be more
profitable than Palm oil over 15 years even if requiring more cash out before year 11
That fact, if confirmed by maturation of the concept and go to market would have the
potential to significantly disrupt land use in Indonesia
Note: Palm oil cash flows based on industry expert model, based on the economics of a large estate based on mineral soil, assuming 136 trees per hectare
SOURCE: Industry expert model (Palm oil); ITCI model (Rebuild)
BUSINESS CASE
40
The business case relies on high investments, then high EBITDA that will
lead to a ~20% IRR1
Operational costs, investments, and revenue

USD thousand
Operations cost
Investments
Revenue
1,000,000
Investments need to
be made in year 1
and year 6,
operational costs,
and revenue
increase as more
assets are brought
online
800,000
600,000
400,000
200,000
0
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
Year
EBITDA and IRR

EBITDA %
IRR to date
The EBITDA
80%
remains high at
~60% throughout
the period,
demonstrating the
consistent
profitability of
the project
60%
40%
20%
0%
-20%
-40%
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
Year
1 Numbers here are for the entire 104,000 Ha

IRR stays near

0% till year 12,
and reaches
~20% by year 15
BUSINESS CASE
41
Sensitivities to Ethanol prices show robustness of the model to the market

Assumptions in model
risk
Net present value in USD Billion

Sensitivity to Ethanol price
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
Sensitivity to torrefied pellets price

1.5
1.0
0.78
The assumed
0.5
price of
ethanol has a
large impact
on NPV
166
425
-0.5 0
0.78
200
400
600
800
1000
FOB Ethanol price (USD/m3)
50
100
150
1.5
0.5
250
300
FOB torrified pellets price (USD/ton)
Sensitivity to Cassava starch price
1.0
200
0.78
The project
maintains a
positive NPV
even when
Ethanol
prices are low
Torrified pellet
430
250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650

FOB cassava starch price (USD/ton)
1 NPV is calculated the entire 104,000 Ha assuming a 15% rate for the first 30 years of Rebuild
and cassava
prices do not
have a
significant
impact on NPV
BUSINESS CASE
42
NPV1,2 remains positive under most assumptions, but turns negative if the
sugar palm density falls to 100 plants/ha
Negative NPV
If external events (e.g. social tensions) impair

Rebuild's ability to harvest all trees, the downside
is significant assuming half of the palm tappers
are unavailable and a 25% decrease in yield
would wash out all profits
NPV below assumption case

NPV at base case
NPV above assumption case
Yield per plant, liter per day
30 year NPV (15% rate) under different sugar palm assumptions

USD Bn
Sugar palm density (plants/ ha)3
100
150
200
300
370
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
10 -0.31 -0.23 -0.14 0.03
0.15
0.20
0.29
0.37
0.46
0.54
0.63
0.71
0.80
0.89
0.97
1.06
15 -0.23 -0.10 0.03
0.29
0.47
0.54
0.67
0.80
0.93
1.06
1.19
1.31
1.44
1.57
1.70
1.83
20 -0.14 0.03
0.20
0.54
0.78
0.89
1.06
1.23
1.40
1.57
1.74
1.91
2.08
2.25
2.43
2.60
25 -0.06 0.16
0.37
0.80
1.10
1.23
1.44
1.66
1.87
2.08
2.30
2.51
2.73
2.94
3.15
3.37
30
0.54
1.06
1.42
1.57
1.83
2.08
2.34
2.60
2.85
3.11
3.37
3.62
3.88
4.14
0.03
0.29
The model does not remain profitable

at currently observed tree densities
(100 per hectare), showing the whole
concept relies on the application of new
denser recipes
A 10 liter increase in
yield/tree can lead to
a ~$0.6bn increase
in NPV
2 Rough calculation not taking into account decrease in other revenue streams in case more sugar palm trees are planted
3 This assumes that a yield per tappable tree of 25% in year 8, 52% in year 9 and 10 and 15% in year 11
Note: Focus on sugar palm assumptions as ethanol generates ~85% of revenue over the first 30 years of the program
The implementation of an intensive

plantation would triple NPV2, which
highlights the risk that investors will seek
the implementation of intense
monocultures
BUSINESS CASE
43
When capex is doubled or opex is increased up to 70%, the NPV remains

positive
Sensitivity of NPV to investment overrun

USD Bn
30% over-run on
capex typical of largescale projects
NPV (USD Bn)
0.8
0.6
0.4
Even with an overrun

of 100% NPV remains
positive
0.2
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
% Increase in investment overrun
NPV (USD Bn)
Sensitivity of NPV to Opex overrun

USD Bn
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2 0%
-0.4
Even with an overrun

of 100% NPV remains
positive
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
% Increase in Opex
SOURCE:; Rebuild Business Case Model v8.5
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
BUSINESS CASE
44
Delaying ethanol production and sale by 3 years still results in a positive

NPV1 demonstrating the robustness of the business case
Impact of delaying sugar juice production and ethanol sale on NPV and cash flow 2
(USD Bn)
Current assumption
Delaying ethanol income and opex by 2 years
Delaying ethanol income and opex by 1 year
Delaying ethanol income and opex by 3 years

XX NPV (USD Bn)
0.78
The program
maintains a
positive NPV,
even if the
Ethanol
production were
to be delayed by
up to 3 years
The stress
test shows the
robustness of the
case, however
would require
liquidity from
investors if it
occurs
0.66
0.8
0.53
0.6
Cash flow (USD Bn)
0.43
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Year from project kickoff
-0.6
-0.8
2 This is an estimate where both the income from ethanol and the opex directly from ethanol have been delayed, however general shared opex and investments are unchanged
Note: does not take into account cost of produce storage or destruction, assumes no Ethanol production for the time where it is delayed
BUSINESS CASE
45
3 The model assumptions are relatively conservative (1/3)

Revenue
Assumption in
Risk of
model (per block
downside Weight - 30,000 ha)
100
Ethanol - Number
3 of plants
(plants/ha)
370
Ethanol yield per

productive plant
Ethanol - Sugar
5 juice yield per plant
(liters/plant/day)
6
Ethanol - sale price

(USD/litre, FOB)
460
Moderate
Low
1003
Commercial yields were 42.7 t/ha in Sumatera Barat in 2010, the highest of any
district
A consultant report (Tetas Gagas Mulia) presents benchmark yields of 40
t/ha/year1 for Rebuild, but yields of 120-140 (with a maximum of 200) have been
observed in Kalimantan using the Gajah variety of Cassava, and ~5 tons of organic
fertilizer/ha
460 is the median import price of cassava starch into Indonesia according to
UNCOMTRADE 2014 data
Import, and export prices have stayed between 440-490 $/ton over 2013 and 20142
Anecdotal evidence from multiple experiments on a 80 ha field in Tomohon,
North Sulawesi show that it is possible to plant up to 1000 sugar palm/ha,
however yield decreases when there is limited space
There has been no industrial scale plantation of sugar palm to test against
According to the ITCI analysis, any further sugar juice extraction will reduce the
future yield of sugar palm- this is a biological constraint
Ecofys (2012) report observes that the number of productive trees varies by region
with only 10% of sugar palms in Lumban Lobu becoming productive, however
this varies with selection and management techniques, the trees mentioned in
Ecofys remain productive for ~10 years suggesting less intensive tapping
Year 8: 25%;
Year 9,10: 52%;
Year 11: 15%
Up to
50%3
20
8 to 503
Anecdotal evidence from the Masarang foundation

The maximum ever observed consistently over a year in the area is 120 l/day
Selective breeding of high yield trees will ensure that yield continues to improve
0.42
0.425
The estimate of $0.425/litre is the lowest in the last 5 years, a reduction of ~50%
from the September 2011 price of ~0.85$
There is a chance that price will increase compared to the assumption in the model
166
Torrified Pellets 7 Price

(USD/ton FOB)
430
40-200
Cassava - Yield
(t/ha/year)
Cassava - Starch
2 price
(USD/Ton, FOB)
High
Observed
in real
Comments
world
166
The assumption in the model is from multiplying the energy price per GJ for normal
wood pellets with the energy content of a torrified pellet
Since no significant sale of torrified pellets allow for a market price, the
'observed' 166 USD is a result of using the median energy price/GJ from current
exports of US wood pellets over the last 4 years
1 This is before a loss of 10% due to handling, transport etc.

2 This includes imports and exports to and from South East Asia, the US, and the rest of the world
3 We have not been able to verify sugar palm yield assumptions with data, we have only heard anecdotal evidence of this
Source: Rebuild Business Case Model v8.3, Expert interviews, press/academic paper/white paper search
BUSINESS CASE
46

Capex
Moderate
Low
Observed
in real
Comments
world
6.90
2.9
ITCI requires a plant with 100t of tapioca output a day

FAO data on establishing a cassava plant in a tropical forest suggest an
investment of 0.75 m for a 24 ton plant observed number is from scaling this
up1
25 m a year for 4
years and 20m a
year for 16 years
NA
Technology for membrane is not mature, there is a real risk that prices change
or that this does not materialize; this is a significant investment and no previous
sale exists as a benchmark
200
70-170
The plant is designed for a capacity of 30,000 ha (450m liters of Ethanol)
Cassava plant
($m)
Sugar juice
2 membrane + pipes
($m)
Assumption in
Risk of
model (per block
High
Ethanol plant
($m)
Need to create a bottom up plan to test the real costs, with the assumption that it
could likely be less expensive than in current plans
32
20-60
~$32m corresponds to a single quote, received from Torrcoal and seems in line
with prices observed in adjacent industries (wood pellets) - Additional quotes
needed to refine assumption
4.12
42
This is an early estimate of capacity required, the mix of energy production is

yet to be defined
ITCI estimate that ~5.5MW steam boiler will be required for the entire project, and
estimated that this will cost ~USD 15 million- or ~4,12 per block of 30k Ha
Observed estimate for larger plants in Indonesia (14 and12 MW) lead to similar
estimates
Torrefied pellet
plant ($m)
Steam boiler
($m)
1 To ensure we are conservative we assumed no economies of scale

2.This is an estimate based on two plants in Indonesia >2x the size required by ITCI
BUSINESS CASE
47

Opex
Assumption in
Risk of
model (per block
1.4
11.0
3
2.1
Refinement labor
costs
Low
The Cassava plant investment number in the Rebuild model is still work in
progress
FAO data on operating a cassava plant in a tropical country suggest an Opex of
USD ~500 for a 24 ton plant1 which would translate to 2,1 M USD at the target
capacity
$0.0383/
liter
Assumptions based on Iowa state university model, considered a good reference
3.4 - 16.7
Torrified pellet2
plant ($m)
Agricultural labor
costs ($/year)
Ethanol plant2
($m/year)
Moderate
Observed
in real
Comments
world
Cassava plant2
($m/year)
$0.0376/liter
High
for Ethanol economics
Since data on opex of torrefied pellet plants is limited, wood pellet plants have
been used as a comparison
ITCIs value seems conservative as it is towards the upper end of observed
opex
2238 increasing
at 9% for first 5
years, then 1%
indefinitely
2150
The Agricultural wage is above the minimum wage, and quickly increases over
the first 5 years
5280 increasing
at 9% for first 5
years, then 1%
indefinitely
NA
Mean of salaries for jobs in refining plants

These are higher than agriculture wages
1 This does not include depreciation

2 Opex values in the model do not include labor costs
BUSINESS CASE
48
Sugar starch based biochemical represent an additional market, smaller

in volumes than Ethanol but with higher value products
Use of sugar/starch (corn, cane and cassava)
Bio-based outputs (non-food)
Million tons, 2011, rough estimates

Segment
100%
4%
Biochemicals2
16%
Ethanol
17%
Sugar
Product examples/comments
Biofuels
Ethanol, biodiesel
Bulk/polymers
Natural rubber, biopolymers, biobased polyols
Plant extracts
Hydrocolloids (gums, industrial

starches...), essential oils, botanicals
Biodependent sales
2010/11, USD Billion
95
41
33
Pharmaceutical Biocatalytically produced APIs,

ingredients
antibiotics, therapeutic proteins2
63%
Sugar/ starch use
Food/feed
26
Food/feed
ingredients
Citric acid, lysine, glutamic acid,

vitamin B12
Oleochemicals
Fatty acids, fatty alcohols,

surfactants, glycerol
Enzymes
Detergent enzymes, textile processing aids, grain processing enzymes
Others
Other specialties, R&D services
Total bio
1 Assuming ~60% starch content in corn, 11% sugar content in cane, and 25% starch content in cassava
2 Including amino acids, citric acid, enzymes, vitamins; excluding ethanol-derived biochemicals such as bio-PE
3 Current chemical industry sales excluding B2C sales in pharma and personal care
4 Top-down estimate based on industry interviews
SOURCE: SRI; BCC; IEA 2009; F.O. Licht; FO Licht; Frost and Sullivan; press clippings;
15
12
228
BUSINESS CASE
50
Thank You

Hashim Rebuild Presentation Nyc 22 Sept

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hashim Rebuild Presentation Nyc 22 Sept

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REBUILD PROGRAM

What is Rebuild Program?

Rebuild the Economy, Society

How Much Money?

The project has overall a NPV close to 800 M USD at

How Much Money?

Tree cover and cover loss in M Ha

Rebuild offers a production-protection solution that

Total concession -170,000 Ha

Land-use for Rebuild

Replacement of degraded land

Protection of existing primary forest

Creation of biodiversity corridors

Creation of natural forest when none pre-exists

The Economics of Rebuild

The economics of the Rebuild project correspond to 2 successive investments,

The Economics of Rebuild

Rebuild Business in Four Steps

The Rebuild concept was modelled in four steps by ITCI

To prepare for the concept

Model key inputs and structure

Avg salary refinement

FOB Biological value,

FOB Ethanol value,

Carbon value, USD/Ton

Torrified pellet sales

Sugar Palm SAP

Avg salary core

Tapioca value, USD/Ton

Key commercial input parameters

Projected annual net cash flows and accumulated cash

Initial investment in year 1 in industrial

Accumulated Cash (scale on right)

Net Cash Flow (scale on left)

From year 7, an annual investment of ~$25m a

Even if more capital-intensive initially, the concept has the potential to be

Cumulated cash flows for Palm oil vs. Rebuild

Sugar palm ethanol

Operational costs, investments, and revenue

EBITDA and IRR

1 Numbers here are for the entire 104,000 Ha

IRR stays near

Sensitivities to Ethanol prices show robustness of the model to the market

Net present value in USD Billion

Sensitivity to torrefied pellets price

FOB Ethanol price (USD/m3)

FOB torrified pellets price (USD/ton)

Sensitivity to Cassava starch price

250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650

If external events (e.g. social tensions) impair

NPV below assumption case

Yield per plant, liter per day

30 year NPV (15% rate) under different sugar palm assumptions

10 -0.31 -0.23 -0.14 0.03

15 -0.23 -0.10 0.03

The model does not remain profitable

The implementation of an intensive

When capex is doubled or opex is increased up to 70%, the NPV remains

Sensitivity of NPV to investment overrun

NPV (USD Bn)

Even with an overrun

% Increase in investment overrun

NPV (USD Bn)