You are on page 1of 68

Page |1



Santa Rosa de Cabal. Octubre de 2011


Page |2

JATRO engages in non-food oil crops that offer not only a positive energy balance but also economic prospects for impoverished and disadvantaged rural areas. JATRO believes jatropha curcas to be the most favorable feedstock and to offer the best opportunity for responsible and sustainable biofuel production without undermining food production and diverting arable farmland. Jatropha is an underutilized, oil-bearing crop. It produces a seed that can be processed into nonpolluting biodiesel and green aviation fuel that, if well exploited, can provide opportunities for good returns and rural development. Interest in Jatropha curcas as a source of oil for producing biodiesel and alternative aviation fuel has arisen as a consequence of its perceived ability to grow in semi-arid regions with low nutrient requirements and little care. Unlike other major biofuel crops, jatropha is not a food crop since the oil is non-edible and is, in fact, poisonous. It is a low growing oil-seed-bearing tree that is common in tropical and subtropical regions. Although optimum ecological conditions for jatropha production are in the warm subhumid tropics and subtropics, jatrophas ability to grow in dry areas on degraded soils that are marginally suited for agriculture makes it especially attractive. In addition to growing on degraded and marginal lands, this crop has special appeal, in that it grows under drought conditions and animals do not graze on it. However, many of the actual investments and policy decisions on developing jatropha as an oil crop have been made without the backing of sufficient science-based knowledge. Realizing the true potential of jatropha requires separating facts from the claims and halftruths. There are many knowledge gaps concerning the best production practices and the potential benefits and risks to the environment. Equally troubling is that the plant is in an early stage of domestication with very few improved varieties. Identifying the true potential of jatropha requires separating the evidence from the hyped claims and half-truths. The Fruit Jatropha fruits are ellipsoidal, green and fleshy, turning yellow and then brown as they age. Fruits are mature and ready to harvest around 90 days after flowering which is usually triggered by rainfall. Seeds will be produced following the end of the rainy season. Jatropha is a perennial shrub. Thus, flowering and, therefore, fruiting are continuous, meaning that mature and immature fruits are borne together. Each fruit contains three black seeds, around 2 cm x 1 cm in size. She seeds typically contain 35 48 percent of non-edible oil. Jatropha trees are believed to have a lifespan of 30 years.


Page 2

Page |3

Yield and Breeding Maximizing oil yield per ha requires:

breeding for seed size and weight, oil content and quality as well as. improving all parameters that affect the number of branches, flowers and ultimately fruits and seeds produced.

The goal for crop improvement is to produce superior cloned material by scaling up tissue culture techniques or, at least, using micro-cuttings. However, due to the genetic-environment interaction, superior performance may not transpose to other growing sites and plantation management regimes. Improved varieties are being developed based on provenance trials, the selection of superior accessions and by breeding inter-specific hybrids for a range of production practices and agro-ecological and socio-economic conditions. Jatro will continue to focus its efforts on optimizing yield to maximize return on investment. Plausible estimates from international institutions for global annual yield increases s in the next decade are 1.7% p.a. for oilseeds and vegetable oils. JATRO is well on track to beat these yield increase forecasts by a substantial multiple.

Genetics Genetic variation among known Jatropha curcas accessions may be less than previously thought, and breeding inter-specific hybrids may offer a promising route to crop improvement. Jatropha displays considerable geneticenvironment interaction, meaning that different clones may appear and perform very differently under different environmental conditions. Short-term goals should aim at producing superior clonal plants using cuttings and/or cell culture techniques, with longer term goals aimed at developing improved varieties with reliable trait expression and with a seed production system that ensures farmer access to productive and reliable planting materials.

Advantages Jatropha has a number of strengths: the oil is highly suitable for producing alternative aviation fuel and biodiesel but can also be used directly to power suitably adapted diesel engines and to provide light and heat for cooking, it is fast growing and quick to start bearing fruit, and the seed is storable making it suited to cultivation in remote areas. Jatropha could eventually evolve into a high yielding oil crop and may well be productive on degraded and saline soils in low rainfall areas. Its by-products may possibly be valuable as fertilizer, livestock feed, or as a biogas feedstock, its oil can have other markets such as for soap, pesticides and medicines, and jatropha can help reverse land degradation.


Page 3

Page |4

While there are various possibilities for utilizing the by-products of jatropha which would add value for the producers and reduce the carbon cost of the oil as a biofuel there is an important trade-off between adding value and utilizing the byproducts as soil ameliorants to reverse land degradation. Local utilization of jatropha oil is one of a number of strategies that may be used to address energy poverty in remote areas.

Key Strengths

Jatropha has the potential, through varietal improvement and good farming practices, for a high level of oil production per unit area in the subhumid tropical and subtropical environments. Jatropha grows and is potentially productive in semi-arid areas on degraded and saline soils. Jatropha can be used for halting and reversing land degradation. Jatropha grows fast, as compared to many other tree-borne oilseeds. Jatropha remain small, enabling ease of management. Jatropha has periodic leaf shedding which facilitates nutrient recycling and dry season irrigated intercropping with short-term crops. Jatropha oil has physical and chemical properties that makes it highly suitable for processing into biodiesel. Jatropha oil can be used directly in suitable engines and turbines in the transportation and power-plant sector. Jatropha by-products have potential value, such as using seed cake as fertilizer, animal feed (non-toxic varieties) or biogas, and using fruit shells and seed husks for biogas and combustion. Jatropha seeds are storable and processing can be delayed, which makes production suited to remote areas. Continuous Jatropha plant breeding increases the likelihood of developing Jatropha varieties with improved and stable oil yields.


Page 4

Page |5

With the right plantation model and parameters in place CJO can be produced sustainably while minimizing impacts on food crops and fresh water usage. JATRO promotes and implements a well balanced plantation model which achieves social and economic goals in addition to fulfilling reforestation mandates. Usually, local farming communities are involved as laborers to plant Jatropha on non-arable, marginal and waste land as well as degraded forest lands. In return for their labor, they are allowed to cultivate food crops in between rows of trees of Jatropha saplings for 2 -3 years before the denser Jatropha canopy forms. It provides both,

a means of self-sustaining poverty eradication for landless farmers through the cultivation of organically-grown short-term cash crops, as well as a means of ensuring a beneficial and controlled cultivation of jatropha in the pre-cropping phase with no on-going cost to the developer.

The Companys fully integrated energy crop plantation model covers all aspects of the jatropha value chain. The seamless integration of large scale jatropha cultivation, efficient oil milling capacity and the production of premium biofuel, together with downstream waste recycling activities in a single enterprise are key components.


Page 5

Page |6

At the same time, this plantation model offers advantages to investors as it has been designed to achieve the commercial cultivation of Jatropha in the least capital intensive way.


Page 6

Page |7


1. JATROs plantation activities do not contribute to de-forestation, desertification or land degradation. 2. JATRO seeks to reverse soil degradation. 3. JATROs balanced cultivation practices respect the fragile ecosystem, boost land rehabilitation, ensure the durability of water resources and enhance biodiversity. 4. JATRO adds value to the forest eco-system, the environment and the local community alike. 5. JATRO avoids competition with the production of food crops. The Companys core jatropha plantation land banks are strategically located in areas where Management believes the climate and soil conditions are optimal for large scale jatropha cultivation. INTERCROPPING Jatropha offers the best proposition of all biofuel crops as it is a toxic crop that does not compete with food production. Jatropha actually augments the food chain because food crops may be interbred between the trees on the plantations. A well balanced intercropping scheme enhances a symbiotic and complimentary plant relationship to the benefit of both, food and fuel crops. Intercropping allows planting of food crops before first harvesting of oil crops. By intercropping oil crops and cash crops in a balanced mix, we promote the symbiosis of food and fuel while supporting biodiversity and respecting the ecological balance. The intercropping methodology involving fruits, vegetables, herbs and spices contributes significantly to sustainable food production and generates short term job and business opportunities for impoverished rural communities. While the Jatropha plants are in the growing stage until seeds can be harvested cash crops generate early cash flow from food sales. Intercropping is also important because bio-diversity reduces plant diseases and provides pestcontrol, protecting the saplings during the critical growth phase.


Page 7

Page |8

Mutual catalytic impact of food and fuel crops. JATROPHA`s DOUBLE IMPACT


Page 8

Page |9

The WWFs latest Forests & Energy report focuses on bioenergy a potentially renewable and carbon-neutral energy source, but also a potential threat to world forests, food production and, ironically, the climate. The WWF report uses the Living Forests Model, created in collaboration with the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, to examine the land use implications of two key WWF targets: reducing deforestation to near zero by 2020 and meeting 100% of the worlds energy needs from renewable sources by 2050. The results show that *we can successfully switch to renewable energy and still protect forests*. The report also focuses on the New Generation Plantations framework as a valuable tool for energy companies looking into fast-growing plantations. New Generation Plantations stick to the principles of ecosystem integrity, protecting and enhancing high conservation values, ensuring effective stakeholder involvement, and contributing to economic development. JATRO is pleased that the WWF explicitly recognizes that: Well managed plantations in the right places can play a positive role in a future renewable energy strategy


Page 9

P a g e | 10

Sustainable Bio Energy

Efficiency, Equity and Energy Demand


Page 10

P a g e | 11

The Bio Energy Plus Scenario I

The Bio Energy Plus Scenario II


Page 11

P a g e | 12

Jatropha Crude Oil has significantly better fuel characteristics with a higher calorific value yielding more fuel per hectare than most other tree borne oil seeds and is more sustainable as it can be grown on land that is unsuitable for other crops.

Oil Price Forecast 2008 to 2050 Note: Price projection for 2020 has already been achieved as of TODAY. Source: German Government. Whatever the debate about the ultimate total physical hydrocarbon resources on this planet, using technology we have, equipment and infrastructure that exists or could be built under any scenario in a few years, 2010 probably marks the peak production of oil as we know it today. You dont have to be an economist or expert to know the implications of demand continuing to grow against an essentially fixed supply base. With no short-term dramatic growth in oil production in sight, then all the world has to do to avoid the next oil price apocalypse is cut demand with technology-driven efficiency, or find appropriate alternatives such as sustainable biofuels. Declining reserves of fossil fuels plus recognition that growing carbon dioxide emissions are driving climate change have focused world attention on the need to reduce fossil fuel dependence. In turn, this has increased interest in promoting bioenergy, including biofuels, as one of the prime renewable energy sources.

P a g e | 13

The sustainable production of biofuels, which is compatible and complementary to the production of ample, affordable and safe food supplies, is a valuable and necessary tool in stemming climate change; boosting local economies, particularly in lesser-developed parts of the world; and enhancing energy security for all. Its a reality that is sometimes overlooked in the quest for the perfect fuel to support the quality of life we so often take for granted. Biofuels have recently taken center stage at the Copenhagen summit. The two-week climate change event highlighted the critically important role biofuels can play in addressing the multiple challenges that must be addressed in a rapidly changing world. The Copenhagen summit underscored how renewable, clean fuels sustainably created from current and next generation bioenergy feedstocks can reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), improve food security, stimulate economic development and reduce global poverty. The forecast world biodiesel production of 16.4 billion litres is calculated to result in a reduction of GHG emissions of 35.9 million tonnes. The combined biofuels GHG emission reduction is 123.5 million tonnes, an average reduction of about 57% compared to the emissions that would have occurred from the production and use of equivalent quantities of petroleum fuels. This is almost equal to the national GHG emissions of Belgium (131.3 million tonnes) or Greece (131.8 million tonnes). Not all biofuels are created equal Compatible with many conventional engines and blendable with current transport fuels, biofuels have the potential to contribute to energy security by diversifying supply sources for transport and to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. However, the economic, environmental and social benefits of the current generation of biofuels vary enormously. Though there are important uncertainties about their efficacy in reducing GHG emissions, biofuels can be classified on the basis of their well-to-wheel performance with respect to conventional fossil fuels. Second generation biofuels, derived from non-food crops such as trees and perennial grasses, have the potential to dramatically expand the scope for very low-carbon biofuels production.

Land Use The global potential of conventional biofuels is limited by the availability of suitable land. The availability of arable land represents a natural limitation to biofuel production. The type of land used for biofuel production naturally affects the environmental performance of these fuels. JATRO favors the use of tropical and subtropical areas not currently used for crop production, i.e. either degraded land or land with low nurture values. JATRO believes that the land availability and food needs will limit the growth in conventional European and US based biofuels production based on sugar, cereals (wheat, corn), soybeans, and seed crops (rape, sunflower). European biodiesel production based on rapeseed and sunflower seeds cultivated on arable land is not economically viable. However, Jatropha crude oil produced in tropical regions

P a g e | 14

has a considerable comparative advantage over those biofuels derived from agricultural crops in temperate zones.

Fuel characteristics and advantages The specific fuel properties of Crude Jatropha Oil (CJO) and Jatropha based biodiesel outperform most other oil seeds and make it highly suitable for unmodified diesel engines and combined heat and power plants. Jatropha oil is renewable and biodegradable and reduces carbon dioxide emissions by up to 90% and sulphur dioxide emissions by 100%. The oil yield per ha is among the highest for any tree-borne oil seeds. Jatropha trees have their first harvest within the 2nd year of planting, taking approx. 5 years to reach maturity and are productive for at least 25 years.


Page 14

P a g e | 15

World biofuel production has now surpassed 100 billion litres of annual production. After accounting for energy contents, this is displacing 1.15 million barrels of crude oil derived petroleum products per day. If all of the biofuel were produced in one country, that country would effectively be the worlds 24th largest crude oil producer, after Qatar but ahead of Indonesia. Biofuels will have to play a significant role if the world is to make meaningful reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. It is expected that advanced biofuels supply about 700 million tonnes of oil equivalent, representing 26% of total transport fuel demand, by 2050. Global annual production of biodiesel around 6.5 billion litres is small compared to bioethanol. The main biodiesel feedstocks are soybean and rapeseed, with the main producers in the Americas and the EU respectively. The EU is by far the largest producer of biodiesel, responsible for 95 percent of world output. In humid tropics, oil palm is the most important biodiesel feedstock, with Indonesia leading in production followed by Malaysia. Indonesia is projected to increase biodiesel production from 600 million litres in 2007 to 3 billion litres by 2017, which will make it the worlds largest producer of palm oil and the second largest producer of biodiesel.


Page 15

P a g e | 16

Policies and targets for biofuels have been set in several countries around the globe. The main drivers for the setting of such policies are potential contributions to energy security, climate change mitigation and rural development. Currently, at least 50 countries have mandated or promoted biofuels blending standards on the national level to displace oil in domestic transport supply. Most mandates require blending 1015% ethanol with gasoline or blending 27% biodiesel with diesel fuel. In addition, recent targets define higher levels of envisaged biofuel use in various countries. Brazil Ethanol policies have been implemented in Brazil since the mid-70s and today blending obligations for ethanol are up to 20-25% for gasoline. More recently, Brazil has introduced biodiesel blending targets of 2% in 2008 and 5% in 2013, similar to the EUs. In order to reach these obligations, Brazilian federal and state governments grant tax reductions / exemptions. The level of advantage varies on the basis of the size of the agro-producers and the level of development of each Brazilian region. In Brazil, 95% of the cars purchased in 2008 can run on either 100% ethanol or on the gasoline / ethanol blend. With recent high oil prices, most drivers are choosing to operate these vehicles mainly on ethanol. In 2006, the United States introduced mandatory standards and these were extended in 2007 under the EISA law. Blending requirements will reach 12.9 billion gallons in 2010 and 36 billion gallons by 2022 (of which more than half will be required to be advanced biofuels and about one-third cellulosic).

European Union Several years ago the European Union introduced a target for biofuels use equivalent to 2 % of the market share of motor fuel by 2005 (although it was not reached) and 5.75% by the end of 2010, while the target for renewable energy sources in transport for 2020 is now set at 10%. The current legislation also requires sustainability criteria favouring biofuels derived from waste, residues, non-food cellulosic material, and lignocellulosic material in order to prevent mass investment in potentially environmentally harmful biofuels. The adoption of targets for the use of biofuels in road transport fuels is a key component of the European Unions response to achieving its Kyoto targets of GHG emissions. In 2003 the European Union first set a target of 5.75% biofuels use in all road transport fuels by the end of 2010. The proposal to adopt a 10% target for a combination of first and second generation biofuels use in road transport fuels by 2020 was made in the Renewable Energy Roadmap (CEC, 2006) as part of an overall binding target for renewable energy to represent 20% of the total EU energy mix by the same date. On 23 April 2009, the European Union adopted the Renewable Energy Directive (RED) which includes a 10% binding target for renewable energy use in road transport fuels and also establishes the environmental sustainability criteria for biofuels consumed in the EU (CEC, 2008).

P a g e | 17

A minimum rate of GHG emission savings (35% in 2009 and rising over time to 50% in 2017), rules for calculating GHG impact, and restrictions on land where biofuels may be grown are part of the environmental sustainability scheme that biofuel production must adhere to under the RED. The revised Fuel Quality Directive (FQD), adopted at the same time as the RED, includes identical sustainability criteria and it targets a reduction in lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from fuels consumed in the EU by 6% by 2020.

India [Under revision] Australia (New South Wales and Queensland) and Canada are also mandating the use of biofuels, as are a number of OECD non-member countries. For the future, it is crucial that policies foster innovation and support the most sustainable biofuels only, through a continuous monitoring and assessment of their effectiveness in reducing GHG emissions and in providing benefits for rural workers. Suitable land availability and potential influence of biofuel production on global food prices also need to be carefully monitored, taking into account all global food, fibre and energy needs for the growing world population. However, barriers to the commercial viability of biofuels shrink as technologies evolve and as prices of conventional fossil fuels remain high. Moreover, if well managed and coordinated with investments in infrastructures and agriculture, biofuels can provide an opportunity for increasing land productivity and creating economic development, in particular in rural areas.


Page 17

P a g e | 18


The energy content (heating value) of petroleum products per unit mass is fairly constant, but their density differs significantly hence the energy content of a liter, gallon, etc. varies between gasoline, diesel, kerosene. Net calorific value is the quantity of heat liberated by the complete combustion of a unit of fuel when the water produced is assumed to remain as a vapor and the heat is not recovered. Fuels and Petroleum Products Specific Gravity/ Density Range Naphta Light 0.66 0.70 Crude Oils 0.8 0.97 Aviation gasoline 0.7 0.78 Kerosene 0.78 0.84 Diesel oil 0.82 0.92 Barrels per metric ton 9.55 9.01 8.0 6.6 9.1 8.2 8.2 7.6 7.8 6.9

Energy Density & Rough gross values Specific Energy Density by mass (MJ/kg) Crude Oil Diesel Gasoline Jet Aviation Fuel Kerosene Biodiesel Jatropha based Biodiesel Jatropha Oil (CJO) Rapeseed oil Sunflower oil Gas Oil Fuel Oil (Bunker) 41 46 45 46 45 42 45 46 38 43 34 43 46 39 Energy Density by volume (MJ/liter) 29 37 37 38 32 35 33 35 38 33 36 36.4 39.5 34 36 33 19,200 18,300
Page 18

in Btu per In BTU per lb US gallon 18,300 19,500 19,300 139,000 20,500 19,800

124,000 120,200 135,000 127.000



P a g e | 19

Coal (Bituminous) 27 Charcoal 30 Wood 15 18 Dry cow (camel) 10 15 dung

10,200 14,600 6,000

1) Gasoline is formed from shorter and lighter chains of hydrocarbons than either diesel or fuel oil. Gasoline is lightweight, extremely volatile and evaporates quickly. These qualities contribute to gasoline powered engines having more horsepower and acceleration than an equivalent diesel engine. Fuel comparison Barrel of oil equivalent (boe) The barrel of oil equivalent (BOE) is a unit of energy based on the approximate energy released by burning one barrel (42 US gallons or 158.9873 litres) of crude oil. The value is necessarily approximate as various grades of oil have slightly different heating values. 1 MT of oil Petro-diesel Density (average) = 0.84 g/ml ( = metric tonnes/m3) coal (average) 1.0 MT coal oil (average) 1.0 US gallon gasoline (0.833 Imperial gallon, 3.79 liter) 1.0 US gallon diesel/fuel oil (0.833 Imperial gallon, 3.79 liter) Natural gas (methane) 1.0 cubic meter natural gas (methane) Bioenergy feedstocks approx. 6.1 GJ = 5.8 million Btu, equivalent to 1,700 kWh or 1.7MWh Equivalent to about 7.2 barrels oil = 42-45 GJ. = 130,500 Btu/gallon = 36.4 MJ/liter or = 42.8 GJ/t = 25.4 MT carbon per terajoule (TJ) = 746 kg carbon = 19.9 MT carbon per terajoule (TJ) = 2.42 kg carbon = 2.77 kg carbon = 14.4 metric tonnes carbon / TJ = 0.49 kg carbon 50% for woody crops or wood waste; approx. 45% for graminaceous (grass) crops or agricultural residues


Page 19

P a g e | 20

Heat, Energy and Power Units 1 megajoule (MJ) 238.8 kilocalories 1 MJ is equal to the kinetic energy = 947.8 Btu of a one tonne vehicle moving at = 0.278 kilowatt hours 160 km/h (100 mph) = 1 million joules 1000 MJ 1 GJ 1 kilocalorie 3.968 Btu 1,000 kilocalories 3,968 Btu 1 Gigajoule (GJ) 109 joules = 0.948 million Btu = 239 million calories = 278 kWh 1 British thermal unit (Btu) 1055 joules (1.055 kJ) 1 kilowatt hour = 859.8 kilocalories = 3411 Btu 1 million Btu 1055 megajoules = 2520 megacalories = 293.1 kilowatt hours 1.0 watt 1.0 joule/second = 3.413 Btu/hr 1.0 kilowatt (kW) 3413 Btu/hr = 1.341 horsepower

P a g e | 21

1.0 kilowatt-hour (kWh) 3.6 MJ = 3413 Btu 1.0 horsepower (hp) 550 foot-pounds per second = 2545 Btu per hour = 745.7 watts = 0.746 Kw


Page 21

P a g e | 22


Composition of Jatropha Fruit and fraction by weight in % of fruit weight Shell Seed Husk Kernel Oil a) Expelling ratio of 25% b) Expelling ratio of 34% 16% 22% 25% 34% 250g 340g 35% 65% 29% 36% in% of seed weight N.A. N.A. 44.6% 55.4% assumed fruit weight of 1,538g 538 1,000g 446g 554g


Page 22

P a g e | 23

Seedcake a) Expelling ratio of 25% b) Expelling ratio of 34% 48.8% 43% 75% 66% 750g 660g

Depending on the expelling efficiency of the hardware, 1 metric ton of seeds will produce between 250 and 340 kg of Jatropha crude oil. With a density of 0.91kg/l (in comparison to mineral diesel with a density of 0.84kg/l), this translates into a yield of 275 to 374 l of CJO per MT of seeds. Based on an average harvest of 7 MT of seeds per ha, a single ha of jatropha plantation will yield 1,750 to 2,380 kg of CJO, equaling 1923 to 2,615 l per ha.


Page 23

P a g e | 24

Energy Value of Indivisual Jatropha plant components SpecificEnergy Density by mass in Mj/kg Mj/kg Jatropha plant Fruit Fruit Shell Husks Seeds Scenario l: Low expelling efficiency (25%)/seed weight to oil ratio 4:1 Seed Cake (incl. husks) (750g) Oil (250g) Scenario ll: High expelling efficiency (34%)/seed weight to oil ratio 3:1 Seed Cake (incl. husks) (660g) Oil (340g) 17 45 11.25 15.4 21 45 15.75 11.25 15.5 21.1 10 17 21-23 32.4 5.38 7.58 Calculated for sample of 1538g of fruits (1000g of seeds)

Gross energetic value Once the oil is extracted, about 66 to 75 % of the original seed weight remains as seed cake residue, mainly in the form of protein and carbohydrates. The amount of oil left in the seed cake depends on the extraction process. 1. Expelling ratio 4:1 a. Energy content Jatropha Crude Oil: 11.25 Mj/kg = 35%


Page 24

P a g e | 25

b. Energy content of remaining non-oil biomass 21.15 Mj/kg = 65% (seed cake + fruit shells)

2. Expelling ratio 3:1 a. Energy content Jatropha Crude Oil: 15.4 Mj/kg = 48%

b. Energy content of remaining non-oil biomass 16.8 Mj/kg = 52% (seed cake + fruit shells)

Energetic value The energy content of the remaining parts of the fruit after oil extraction exceeds the energy content of the oil Energy conversion and value formula per 1 ha of jatropha plantation: A) Oil component Step 1: 7 MT of seeds/ha x expelling ratio of 30% = 2,100 kg of CJO/ha (= 2,307 l) Step 2: 2,100 kg of CJO x 45MJ/kg Step 3: 94.5 GJ Step 4: 15.5 boe / 6.1 boe/GJ x 75 USD/bl = 94,500 MJ (= 94.5 GJ) = 15.5 boe = 1,162.5 USD

B) Seed cake component Step 1: 7 MT of seeds/ha x expelling ratio of 30% = 4,900 kg seed cake/ha Step 2: 4,900 kg seed cake x 21MJ/kg Step 3: 103 GJ Step 4: 16.9 boe / 6.1 boe/GJ x 75 USD/boe = 102,900 MJ (= 103 GJ) = 16.9 boe = 1,267.5 USD


Page 25

P a g e | 26

C) Combined energy value 94.5 GJ (oil) + 103 GJ (seed cake) = 197.5 GJ oil to seed cake ratio D) Combined commercial value 15.5 boe 32.4 boe + 16.9 boe =32.4 boe

x 75 USD/boe = 2,430 USD

Computation for 20, 000 ha plantation:

1,890,000 GJ (oil) 2,060,000 GJ (seed cake) Total: 3,950,000 GJ = 647,540 boe


Page 26

P a g e | 27


JATROs predominant focus is the cultivation of jatropha for the production of biofuel as an alternative to aviation Jet A1 fuel. Through a resolute and extensive build out of its network of industry, government and scientific relationships, JATRO is rapidly positioning itself as the network orchestrator for sustainable bio-kerosene. By synchronizing multiple stakeholders involved along the entire value chain of biofuel production, refinement and distribution, JATRO both bridges and optimizes the gap from crop to end user. In addition to plantation roll out and crude jatropha oil production, JATRO integrates supply and demand side from plant to fuel nozzle. JATRO bridges the gap between land rights & production and commercial demand, creating a vertically integrated, one-stop shop for airlines that guarantees delivery, sustainability and best all-in price. Positioning itself as a catalyst, JATRO sees co-ordination and collaboration across the value chain as the most promising way forward.


With bio jet fuels past the PR testing stage, the future of aviation growth is predicated on flying being safe, efficient and environmentally responsible. As a consequence, sustainable aviation fuels are required to meet the most rigorous feedstock selection and quality criteria, including life-cycle-assessment (LCA), positive net energy balance and minimal impact on eco-systems. In addition, bio jet fuel will have to be compliant with existing aircraft engines and hardware infrastructure for distribution, storage and fuelling systems with no or just minimal modifications required. Crude Jatropha Oil (CJO) processed into bio-kerosene is a superior and sustainable form of fuel for the Aviation and Shipping industries. Engine tests and test flights have demonstrated that the use of biofuels from Jatropha as drop-in fuels is technically sound and works on all commonly used engine types properly and efficiently. It does not require any retro-fitting or costly modifications to aircraft, engine or fuelling equipment. Together with its international industry partners JATRO has developed and commercialized agronomic practices and technology that convert non-edible, second-generation CJO into high quality renewable green Jet Fuel that meets all critical specifications for flight and reduces your greenhouse gas emissions. In short, JATROs CJO is the safe, tested, proven and certified answer to the Aviation Industrys need for cost effective green fuel.

P a g e | 28

Jatropha derived on-spec Green Jet Fuel offers several advantages: 1. Drop-in replacement fuel at a 50% blend requires no changes to fleet technology or fuel infrastructure. 2. Made from non-food, second generation feedstocks that dont interfere with food, land or water resources. 3. Meets or exceeds all critical jet fuel specifications. 4. Has shown higher energy density in flight, which allows aircraft to fly further on less fuel 5. Can offer up to 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions relative to petroleum-based fuels. 6. Our Green Jet Fuel is successfully powering a number of commercial biofuel flights, proving that this fuel meets all relevant industry specifications without any aircraft modifications.

Airline sector endorses commercialization The first renewable alternatives to kerosene (the predominant jet fuel) are on the verge of commercial availability. In recent months, jatropha blends, now governed by a global standard, have fueled jet flights over the Atlantic and even powered fighter planes. For selected European carriers, biofuel is becoming part of the everyday operation, in particular at Deutsche Lufthansa AG and KLM Royal Dutch Airlines.The Sustainable Aviation Fuel Users Group, comprised of 23 major airlines, has pledged to only use biofuels that perform as well as kerosene but have a lower carbon impact. The long term use of jatropha based bio-kerosene on scheduled commercial flights will see 1.400 test flights over a six month period by Lufthansa alone. Formal approval and official industry certification have been received by the US American Certification Institute ASTM. ASTMs official seal of approval for use of hydro-treated bio-kerosene in commercial aviation and increasingly strong demand pave the way for jatropha based aviation fuel to be scaled up to commercially viable levels. With technical and demand issues largely solved what is needed now is commercial availability. The value chain needs to prove, scalability, sustainability and economic feasibility. Accordingly, the key remaining barriers to commercialization of renewable jet fuels and their rapid uptake in the marketplace are:

Accelerated Path to Market

As feedstock supplier and aggregator, JATRO engages and aligns key demand-side stakeholders to accelerate renewable jet fuels path to market and scale up.


Page 28

P a g e | 29

Commercial Scale Production

JATRO seeks to facilitate the financing of commercial scale production of renewable aviation fuels through innovative finance structures, vertical partnerships and long-term contract development.

Competitive Pricing

Depending on the underlying variables JATRO is in a position to offer CJO-based jet fuel solutions at prices that are competitive to petroleum-based kerosene. With more plantations reaching production status, JATRO is well prepared to overcome the identified barriers and meet the aviation industrys demand. While demand for CJO is increasing every day, the biggest challenge lies in scaling up economically viable feedstock production to meet the demand. Scaling up production of aviation biofuels to the point of achieving a clean energy win informally recognized to be roughly 20 percent of the fuel volume consumed by the industry offers a near-term breakout opportunity for the broader biofuels industry if it succeeds. That would equal roughly 22 billion gallons (or 71 million metric tons) per year of aviation biofuels produced worldwide by 2020. Because demand centers around the largest international airports, the aviation biofuels pathway is smoother than other forms of transportation, where demand is fragmented across different fuel specs and distributed infrastructure. JATRO has secured multiple call options which grant the Company access to suitable land banks of several hundred thousand hectares. The majority of these land banks are available for immediate cultivation and reforestation. The right feedstock, access to qualified and abundant labour, advanced conversion technologies and a unique plantation methodology enable the Company to significantly expand its plantation base and increase the production of CJO over the next several years. JATROs core plantation land banks are strategically located in areas where Management believes the climate and soil conditions are optimal for large scale jatropha cultivation. JATRO has developed a safe, tested and proven feedstock for conversion into certified renewable Green aviation fuel that can seamlessly replace kerosene Jet A1 fuel, and be priced competitively with it. In line with production being scaled up Jatropha will prove to be the most cost-effective and sustainable feedstock for renewable jet fuel. The more plantations are launched and the sooner they become productive, the higher the chances of achieving price stability and mitigating the airlines long term fuel cost risk. Price tags will start to drop once yield increases and production is scaled up. When commercial

P a g e | 30

quantities of CJO will finally become available in 2014/2015 JATRO is confident that its CJO will be priced competitively with kerosene Jet A1 fuel.


Page 30

P a g e | 31

China embraces Jatropha Jet Fuel

In October 2011, Chinas flag carrier Air China became the first Chinese carrier to conduct a successful demonstration flight powered partly by jatropha based biofuel, paving the way for future biofuel use on commercial flights in the country. The one-hour trial used 13.1 tons of biofuel blend half conventional jet fuel and half China-grown, jatropha-based biofuel to power one of four engines on an Air China 747-400 jet. The jatropha plants were cultivated by PetroChina, a state-owned oil company, on a plantation in southwest China in the mountains of Yunnan province and refined by Honeywell. For China, the demonstration flight was a significant step toward establishing the aviation biofuels industry in the country. It will certainly create public awareness, stimulate upstream investment into feedstock production and promote the commercialization of bio jet fuel in China. Further test flights across the Pacific Ocean to a North American city are planned for the next few months. Air Chinas maiden jatropha flight is a result of a broader effort kicked-off in 2010 by Chinas National Energy Administration and the U.S. Trade and Development Agency to address the technical, economic and institutional factors required for the development of a new biofuels industry in China. The team wich includes various government agencies and associations, was to address feedstock harvesting and processing, the establishment of refining capacity for commercial production, and the development of the infrastructure to store, deliver and dispense biofuels. The use of jatropha-based fuel could have particular appeal in China, which has plentiful swathes of dry and barren land to devote to growing the plant. In line with soil and climate conditions, Jatropha is grown on low-quality farmland and wastelands in Southwest Chinas Sichuan, Yunnan and Jiangxi provinces since 2007.


Page 31

P a g e | 32

PetroChina, the listed arm of the countries largest oil and gas producer and distributor, China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), is planning to build a refinery by 2014 to produce 60,000 tons of jatropha biofuel annually. However, that amount is still minimal compared to the estimated 28 million tons of biofuel China will use annually by 2015. The biggest challenge going forward is the availability of sufficient jatropha feedstock. According to PetroChina estimates. The country boasts about 800 million mu (i.e. 53.4 million hectares) of barren hills suitable for growing jatropha seeds. The Chinese airlines have realized that feedstock supply security is essentially linked to investments into the source. Over the next four years alone, the mainlands aviation industry is expected to inject as much as US$300 million to expand its supply of biofuels. By 2015, China targets to replace 1 per cent of the countrys annual jet fuel usage with biofuels. Establishing a domestic biofuel supply chain would help meet China demand for jet fuel, which according to the Civil Aviation University of China (see reference below) is projected to increase to 23.7 million tons in 2015, from 15.3 million tons in 2010, and to 35.8 million tons in 2020. Biofuel would also help Chinese aviation meet its target of reducing CO2 emissions by 3% a year. At the 15th United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in 2009, the Chinese government committed to a 40 to 45 percent reduction in overall carbon dioxide emissions per GDP unit by 2020 compared to the 2005 emissions level. Additionally, the Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC) has committed to a 22 percent reduction in aviation emissions within this same time period.

Source/ Author: Prof. Xingwu, Zheng, Civil Aviation University of China.


P a g e | 33

Source/ Author: Prof. Xingwu, Zheng, Civil Aviation University of China.

Source/ Author: Prof. Xingwu, Zheng, Civil Aviation University of China. Based on the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Aviation is accountable for approximately 3% of global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, which is about 13% of CO2 emissions from total transportation. Between 1990 and 2005, annual CO2 emissions from global aviation grew 42%; and by 2025, emissions are forecasted to grow by 50-70% to between 1.2

P a g e | 34

and 1.5 billion tons. Similarly, the IEA projects that emissions from the aviation sector will increase by 300% by 2050 to more than 2.3 billion tons. This is a three-fold increase in comparison to current levels, and it would be about 20% of all CO2 permitted under a global agreement. Global aviation is traditionally among the fastest growing polluters. Furthermore, CO2 emitted by aircrafts high above the ground level remains in the atmosphere, and the warming effect is twice as serious as CO2 emissions on the ground. However, the aviation industry is going green and airlines are required to measure their own carbon footprint and cut emissions. The industry is taking responsibility by formulating and committing significant emission reduction initiatives based on concrete targets. Airlines have embarked on a steady campaign to stabilize emissions with carbon-neutral growth by 2020, and to reduce emissions by 50 percent by 2050. In an industry where, according to the IEA, CO2 emissions are estimated to increase 3.1 percent per year over the next 40 years, resulting in a 300 percent increase in emissions by 2050, this would be no small feat. Internationally the industry has made a voluntary commitment to zero emission growth, but the only mandatory limits on GHG emissions from aviation were enacted by Europe, Australia, and New Zealand. Aviation will be included in the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) beginning in 2012. The European Unions Aviation Amendments to its GHG ETS, which are set to be binding on the airline industry beginning in 2012, give those ambitious goals teeth. Under the Amendments, aircraft operators that fly into or out of EU airports will be required to participate in the ETS, and surrender emissions allowances equivalent to the GHG emissions associated with their flights into and out of EU airports, regardless of whether the emissions occurred inside or outside of EU airspace.


Page 34

P a g e | 35

Aviation Emissions Break-Down


Page 35

P a g e | 36

Carbon Life Cycle from Field to Flight


Page 36

P a g e | 37

AVIATION BIOFUELS ARE A REALITY The environment once seen as marginal or optional to the aviation industry is now firmly established as a mainstream issue. Sustainable aviation biofuels are an emerging reality. Biofuels are past the PR testing stage. And the notion of achieving carbon neutral growth is firmly embedded into the aviation sectors strategic thinking. The goal now is to commercialize the supply. Crude Jatropha Oil processed into bio-kerosene is a sustainable solution for the supply of renewable jet fuel to the Aviation Industry. The challenge lies in the scale-up of economically viable feedstock production at a competitive price. CLOSING THE LOOP Jatro AG, a European based company has built its main infrastructure in South East Asia in preparation for the large-scale production of jatropha, closing the loop between feedstock cultivation and total market integration. JATRO is dedicated to produce premium grade Jatropha biofuels and derivative products. The Company is positioned to capitalize on the global shift to sustainable energy solutions and become a dominant player in biofuels and a key fuel supplier to the Aviation Industry. While the Companys main focus is the commercialization of Crude Jatropha oil, Jatro is determined to become a fully integrated renewable energy enterprise that incorporates a range of lucrative, value adding downstream activities. With unparalleled access to suitable land banks in all across Asia, Jatro is focused and dedicated to growing high yielding jatropha biofuel feedstock on an industrial scale and at competitive cost to meet ever increasing international demand for sustainable, renewable non-food biofuel feed stocks. Our underlying business model embodies elements of economic, environmental and social benefits as it creates multiple jobs and alleviates poverty (large scale rural employment programme), converts marginal lands into thriving plantations, combines food and fuel in a sustainable way, ensures sustainable economic development, and provides the rural population with decentralized access to electricity and energy.


Page 37

P a g e | 38

JATRO is determined to become a fully integrated renewable energy enterprise that incorporates a range of lucrative, value adding downstream activities. The jatropha oil recovered is suitable for many applications:

Crude plant oil for stationary heat and power cogeneration. Feedstock for conversion to biodiesel that conforms to EU quality norm EN 14214. Crude plant oil for suitable vehicle engines. Crude plant oil for conversion into certified bio-kerosene for the aviation sector.

In addition to crude plant oil, jatropha plants offer further energy solutions, including

The fermentation of the seedcake into biogas. The subsequent sale of green electricity produced as a result of the above, and The sale of the residue of the press-seed cake as bio-fertilizer.

Corresponding revenue streams include auxiliary renewable energy and rural electrification, in particular electric and thermal power generation from residual jatropha biomass and biogas, cancer fighting extracts, and jatropha protein based animal feed. On average, a plot of 20000 ha will generate 40000 metric tons of oil, 63000 metric tons of organic fertilizer and at least 2 MW of electric power yearly.


Page 38

P a g e | 39

The Companys fully integrated energy crop plantation model covers all aspects of the jatropha value chain. The seamless integration of large scale jatropha cultivation, efficient oil milling capacity and the production of premium biofuel, together with downstream waste recycling activities in a single enterprise are key components. JATRO believes in vertical partnership models along the biofuel value chain. To mitigate and balance risk and increase time to market, cross-sectoral partnerships between biofuel producers, airline off-takers and financial players are actively promoted. JATRO is well positioned to leverage over a decade of work on breeding and cultivating premium Jatropha strains and developing economically viable agronomic systems to grow Jatropha efficiently, with a yield well exceeding 2 tons of oil per hectare upon plant maturity. During that time JATRO has gained valuable experience of both the agricultural and the financial aspects of jatropha farming and the renewable energy value chain. JATRO is fortunate to draw upon the agronomic expertise and the well proven on-the-ground plantation management experience of its core founders and partners. Jatro has developed a vertically integrated model from seed to engine where every phase of production is painstakingly controlled to maximize its value and economic benefits. Combining genetic, agricultural and technological innovations, intellectual property rights and filed patents, JATRO controls all aspects of scientific research, development and cultivation including genetic and bio- engineering, high-tech conversion technologies, commercialization of by-products and the processing of high grade biodiesel and green jet-fuel. With a replicable and cost competitive blueprint for large scale plantation roll-out in hand, JATRO is ready for expansion and grow jatropha economically on marginal land.


Page 39

P a g e | 40

FROM SEED TO ENGINE The integrated Jatropha value chain.


Page 40

P a g e | 41


Transport accounts for more than 27% of all final energy consumed, according to the International Energy Agency, and 23% of global CO2 emissions. Biofuels are playing an increasingly important role in meeting growing transport fuel demand. Considering that transportation is responsible for some 30 percent of current energy usage and that biofuels can be used in transportation with only few changes to the existing distribution infrastructure, biofuels become an extremely important form of bioenergy. Using current technology, biofuels offer the most convenient renewable alternative to fossil transport fuels since they require the fewest changes to the distribution infrastructure. Biofuels produced in sufficient volume could make a significant impact on global warming since it is estimated that transport accounts for 21 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions. When blended with petroleum-based diesel to be used as a transportation fuel jatropha based biodiesel reduces the emission of harmful gases from vehicles thus contributing towards creating a pollution free environment and helping to meet emission targets. Global demand for transport appears unlikely to decrease in the foreseeable future; the World Energy Outlook projects that transport will grow by 45% by 2030. To limit the emissions from this sector, policy makers first and foremost should consider measures to encourage or require improved vehicle efficiency and low-carbon fuels. These include electricity (e.g. electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles), hydrogen (e.g. through the introduction of fuel cell vehicles) and greater use of biofuels (e.g. as a blend in gasoline and diesel fuel). Brazil is pioneering one of the worlds largest biofuels industries and 90 percent of its new car sales have flex-fuel technology, enabling them to run solely on its cane-derived ethanol, gasoline or any mixture of both.


Page 41

P a g e | 42

FIRST BIOFUEL ENGINES FULLY OPERATIONAL IN 1893 While many people tend to believe that biofuel cars and other biomass-powered engines are a modern trend in fact they date back to even before petroleum-based vehicles and machinery established themselves as the primary mode of transportation and source or power in our modern societies. Debuting in Augsburg, Germany on August 10, 1893, engineer Rudolph Diesel unveiled his first biofuel engine and a mere seven years later received Grand Prix at the Paris World Fair (the highest prize attainable at that time) for his adaptation of his design to a readily usable motor vehicle. At that time the car ran primarily on peanut oil, though a number of different vegetable oils were seen as compatible with the vehicles engine designs. Later on in the 1920s Rudolph Diesels original design was modified to utilize petroleum-based fuel rather than the original vegetable oils due to the fact that petroleum at that time was highly affordable and readily available on the market. This led to the boon of the usage of the Diesel engine in the market and in 1023 the first even diesel truck was seen on the streets. The viability of utilizing vegetable oils and other natural fuels was never lose to Rudolph Diesel, however. In fact in his 1912 speech about the viability of utilizing biofuels rather than relying purely on petroleum his stated that he foresaw that one day biofuels may come to be as important as or even more important than the petroleum and tar-based fuels commonly used at that time despite its then rather seeming insignificance. Today diesel engines are still the most readily adaptable engine designs, though most still have difficulties in handling the crude biofuels originally used by Diesels earlier engines. Instead they tend to work better with the more refined biofuel products that can be attributed to G. Chavanne from the University of Brussels, Belgium in 1937 with his patent of what was referred to as the transesterification of vegetable oils. Specifically this referred to the generation of alcohol substances from biomass, including the production of ethanol and methanol, and is generally seen as the foundation upon which modern biofuel production are founded. Today biofuel production and focus is drawing a large crowd from around the world, and with the even growing concern of depleting petroleum reserves it is only expected to continue to grow in the future as the market shifts away from its once readily available fuel source and back to the original fuel that has provided the backbone for many industries around the world. As concerns mount about global warming, oil dependence and urban traffic pollution, automotive manufacturers and policymakers are intensifying their efforts to make batterypowered vehicles a viable alternative to conventional oil-fueled cars. Electrical drives are not new in transport: Trams and trains have been running on electricity for a long time. Electrically driven vehicles have been around since the 1830s. Today the electric car in combination with renewable energy and 2nd generation biofuels is experiencing its comeback: Quiet, efficient and without CO2 emissions, thanks to advances in battery technology, it offers a cost-saving alternative to conventional combustion engines. As a dream team for mobility without oil,


Page 42

P a g e | 43

renewable energy and electric cars ideally complement each other, for example as intelligent storage battery. The launch of electric mobility promises climate protection provided that the power source is mainly from renewable energies. A major advantage of e-mobility combined with green power: Emissions are avoided, not just relocated. The dominant technologies to improve transportation efficiency are plug-in vehicles both plugin hybrids (PHEVs) and full battery electric vehicles (BEVs). Over 80% of people travel less than 40 miles per day, well within the 100-mile range offered by todays electric vehicles (EVs). The desire for range tends to far exceed the need, and range extension is an issue common cited by EV opponents. As batteries improve and EVs become more prevalent this will subside, but in the near term it must be addressed. PHEVs are a form of range extension. The critical enabling technology for vehicle electrification has been lithium-ion batteries, giving electric cars minimum ranges of 100 miles and top speeds of at least 90mph. Electric vehicles are a nascent industry being accelerated by government support. The Boston Consulting Group has estimated that up to November 2009 governments had pledged over US$ 15 billion to support the electric vehicles ecosystem. Examples of this support include direct vehicle subsidies (e.g. US$ 7,500 in the US, 5,000 EUR in France, 60,000 RMB in China), support for battery manufacturing and infrastructure (France has pledged 1.5 billion EUR). This is all in addition to tax incentives. In Denmark, there is a 170% registration tax on gas-powered vehicles. In Israel the sales or value-added vehicle tax is lowered from 78% to 10% for electric vehicles. Any and all gas taxes can also be seen as support for EVs. The political wildcard is the introduction of regulatory emission/fuel economy standards. European and Japanese governments have proposed emissions standards with punitive financial penalties that car companies are unlikely to be able to meet without sizable EV penetration. If passed, and matched by US-based legislation, this legislation will ensure meaningful EV deployments by 2020. For the time being, the main bottleneck issues for electric vehicles are (i) infrastructure (e.g. the availability of recharging stations); (ii) range extension; and (iii) availability and cost competitiveness of electric vehicles. Electric vehicles need plug-in infrastructure and a smart charging network that protects grid integrity through local load management. The cost for EV and gas powered vehicles is equivalent except for the battery. From a total cost of ownership perspective, EVs are already cheaper as the lower cost per mile more than offsets the upfront costs of the battery. Fuel costs tend to vary widely. On average, fuel costs per mile move inside a range of 13 to 40 US$ cents after the impact of government taxes or subsidies. In comparison, an electric mile costs around 11 US$ cents per mile. Current electric vehicles are getting 5 miles per kWh. Assuming a cost of 11 US$ cents per kWh that is equivalent to a fuel cost of only 2.2 US$ cents per mile. However, the disparity in upfront costs for electric vehicles, with their expensive batteries, must also be included in the cost per mile. Given a depreciation over their useful life span (2500-4000 charge cycles on average) and a resulting depreciation cost of around 9 US$ cents per mile, the

P a g e | 44

total electric mile cost adds up to 11 US$ cents per mile. Even with the current technology in place, this is already a highly competitive scenario that speaks in favor of electric mobility. With government incentives, the total cost of ownership for an electric vehicle will soon be on par with the cost of owning a car with traditional internal combustion engine (ICE) technology. Electric vehicle technology and operations advances will continue to bring the cost down, and innovative battery financing will make purchase prices more attractive, even after government incentives end. As this gap closes, demand for EVs will grow. In the future, electro-mobility will account for an increasing share of transportation. Electricity from renewable energy will drive clean and efficient electric motors in cars and motorbikes, in buses and railways. According to various studies, renewable energys share in the traffic sector could rise to 40 % by 2030. The first mass market electric cars have already hit the showroom. In 2008, Israel became the first nation in the world to commit to an all-electric car infrastructure, followed by Denmark. Both have since begun installing charging stations. Electric vehicles role in a low-carbon future goes beyond pure transport many experts see mass penetration of electric vehicles as the key for higher levels of renewable energy generation, and the most powerful driver for a smart grid. In addition to the positive climate contributions, still standing electric vehicles are able to store power surplus from the grid. And after driving home or to the next station, parts of the stored power can be reloaded into the grid, if needed. The amount of power realized from renewable sources fluctuates widely on a daily basis. This prevents renewables from participating in base-load power generation. Another impact of the variability in supply is that unexpectedly large yielding days produce power that gets wasted. Electric vehicles are a solution to this problem as they act as distributed large scale storage devices. Current utility scale storage solutions come in 2MW increments; 50,000 EVs would offer 1GW worth of storage, 500 times that amount. The benefits to the grid are that EVs provide load by leveling night-time electricity demand. However, at present the cost of a battery cycle for Lithium-ion batteries makes vehicle-to-grid prohibitively expensive. There is a strong symbiotic economic argument for the parallel deployments of renewable, biofuels and electric vehicles. Integrating the smart grid, e-mobility and renewable energies become an imperative unity.


Page 44

P a g e | 45



Page 45

P a g e | 46

Jatropha plants have the added advantage of being able to grow on degraded land and in areas considered marginal for arable use. Jatropha biofuel production improves soil health, respects water resources and reverses land degradation. Jatropha enjoys a cost and carbon efficiency superior to all other biofuels and is an important solution for the substitution of fossil fuels and the self-sustainability of village communities. Jatropha biofuel plantations contribute to climate change mitigation by significantly reducing lifecycle GHG emissions as compared to fossil fuels. Jatros unique plantation model optimizes land use and promotes the symbiosis of food and fuel while supporting bio-diversity and respecting the ecological balance.


Page 46

P a g e | 47

JATROs sustainability model has been developed in accordance with all environmental and social regulations. Accordingly, JATROs feedstock is produced and handled in a sustainable and ethically acceptable way using good industrial and agricultural practices and in accordance with all applicable laws and guidelines, incl. those relating to labour rights, as well as health, safety and environment. JATRO carefully oversees its sustainability practices ensuring the delivery of (1) economically, (2) socially and (3) environmentally sustainable bio-energy products and green aviation fuel. JATROs production process seeks to minimize adverse effects on the natural environment. The Companys practices are in full compliance with the EUs biofuel mandate and the high sustainability standards set by the European Commission under the Renewable Energy Directive. JATROs model has been chosen as an international reference case to demonstrate compliance with the multiple layers of sustainability. The Company has undergone months of in depth sustainability audits on site and is one of the few jatropha plantation companies that has passed all sustainability criteria requested from the airline and refining industries. The multi facets of sustainability apply to every aspect of the value chain. JATRO ensures that not only the main end product, i.e. Crude Jatropha Oil, but the entire bio-fuels production and supply chain is sustainable. Our Jatropha seeds and Crude Jatropha Oil (CJO) are fully traceable and can be tracked all the way back to the original source; produced in compliance with the EU Renewable Energy Directives (2009/28/EC) (RED) sustainability requirements; in accordance with strict ISCC (International and Carbon Certification) requirements. The following represent the basic tenets of the agro-forestry model employed by the Company: 1. JATRO avoids competition with the production of food crops. 2. JATRO contributes positively to the participating village communitys economical and social growth. Major benefits include large scale job creation, infrastructure development, enhanced living standards and ancillary business opportunities for landless farmers. 3. JATRO ensures that not only the main end product crude jatropha oil but the entire biofuel production and supply chain is sustainable, including local electricity production from jatropha seedcake and biomass. 4. JATROs plantation activities do not contribute to de-forestation, desertification or land degradation. To the contrary, JATRO seeks to reverse soil degradation. 5. JATROs balanced cultivation practices respect the fragile ecosystem, boost land rehabilitation, ensure the durability of water resources and enhance biodiversity. 6. JATRO adds value to the forest eco-system, the environment and the local community alike.


Page 47

P a g e | 48

Just as there are good and bad biofuels, the current practice of automatically classifying all biofuels as green or renewable (regardless of underlying feedstock and regardless of how and where they are produced) is counter-productive. There are no green labels specifically tailored to biofuels. Depending on the type and source of biofuel und underlying feedstock, the benefits and environmental impacts vary significantly. Of equal importance are country specific agroeconomic and climatic conditions. As a consequence, biofuels are facing many sustainability challenges, impacting the overall energy, environmental and social balance of different biofuel products. This calls for a clear differentiation and ultimately for biofuels to receive independent certification. Recognizing the challenges of sustainability, biodiversity and delicate eco-systems, it is important to differentiate between the various types of biofuels. As for sustainability compliance and the Green House Gas (GHG) reduction potential of biofuels, there are huge differences depending on the feedstock, cultivation method and other factors. Leaving aside the potential impact of land use change, the best options can reduce GHG emissions by between 70-100%. Advanced biofuels from jatropha hold considerable promise for eventually providing more sustainable types of biofuels, with GHG emission savings better than palm oil or sugarcane ethanol. JATRO provides a genuine life cycle assessment of jatropha-based biofuels. While more and more government agencies, non-governmental organizations and scientific think tanks offer interpretation aid for the term sustainability, there is no defined and undisputed single formula in place. Nevertheless, determining factors tend to include at least some of the following ingredients:

Land clearing and preparation. Feedstock costs. Processing costs. Water consumption. Application of fertilizers and pesticides. Intercropping. Biodiversity and wildlife habitat. Harvesting method and technology. Co-product value. Energy balance and net-energy contribution. Social implications. Rural development. Environmental implications. Specific carbon credit footprint. Carbon sequestration potential. Impact on labor conditions. Impact on land use.
Page 48


P a g e | 49

Reforestation potential. Impact on agricultural products and food crops. Independence of biofuel support policies. Efficiency in reducing Green House Gas (GHG) emissions. Impact on commodity prices.

Since not all biofuels and biofuel crops are created equal we need to distinguish between the various biofuel options, looking carefully at the different feedstocks, agricultural practices and production processes to ensure that only the most sustainable biofuels are promoted: the ones that offer economic viability and climate benefits while protecting biodiversity and food security. Long term sustainability of the bioenergy sector can only be achieved with sound policies and planning that take into consideration a range of global trends, including population growth, yield improvements, changing diet patterns and climate change. On 23 April 2009, the European Union adopted the Renewable Energy Directive (RED) which included a 10% target for the use of renewable energy in road transport fuels by 2020. It also established the environmental sustainability criteria that biofuels consumed in the EU have to comply with. This includes a minimum rate of direct GHG emission savings (35% in 2009 and rising over time to 50% in 2017) and restrictions on the types of land that may be converted to production of biofuels feedstock crops. The latter criterion covers direct land use changes only. The revised Fuel Quality Directive (FQD), adopted at the same time as the RED, includes identical sustainability criteria and targets a reduction in lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from fuels consumed in the EU by 6% by 2020. Moreover, the Parliament and Council asked the Commission to examine the question of indirect land use change (ILUC), including possible measures to avoid this, and report back on this issue by the end of 2010. Independent of all biofuel support policies and blending targets there is intense debate over whether biofuels are really capable of meeting expectations. In particular, the sustainability profile of biofuels is being questioned. The most frequently cited issues of concern include direct and indirect land use impacts, carbon stock decreases, water depletion and pollution, biodiversity loss, and air quality degradation. In addition to these environmental problems, critics point to potential economic and social conflicts deriving from energy/ food source competition. Obviously, not all biofuels are created equal and thus require a different and distinct assessment.


Page 49

P a g e | 50

Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels

A good example for a neutral and transparent certification system has been put together by the Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels (RSB). Its mission is to ensure that biofuels deliver on their promises of climate change mitigation, economic development & energy security without causing environmental and/or social damages, such as deforestation and food insecurity. The standards developed by the RSB cover the entire biofuel value chain and consist of a set of normative Principles & Criteria for Sustainable Biofuels. They provide guidelines on best practices in the production and processing of biofuel feedstock. Accordingly, biofuels shall contribute to climate change mitigation by significantly reducing lifecycle GHG emissions as compared to fossil fuels, whereby the whole process from well to wheel (or cradle to grave) shall be considered for the biofuel lifecycle GHG emission calculation and takes into account GHG emissions from land use change and by-products like residues and organic waste. Key criteria include environmental and social impact assessment, incl. human and labor rights, rural and social development, food security, conservation of soil health, water consumption, fertilizer management and biodiversity. A detailed and comprehensive certification system is meant to facilitate verification of compliance with the RSB standards and assists in the implementation of the standards for production, processing, conversion, trade and use of biofuels. Of course, each certification of an individual plantation site has to be adapted to biofuel crop specific and geography specific conditions.

IDB Biofuels Sustainability Scorecard The Sustainable Energy and Climate Change Initiative (SECCI) and the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) have created the IDB Biofuels Sustainability Scorecard based on the sustainability criteria of the Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels (RSB). The primary objective of the Scorecard is to encourage higher levels of sustainability in biofuels projects by providing a tool to think through the range of complex issues associated with biofuels. Since the scientific debate around these issues continues to evolve, the Scorecard can be seen as a work-in-progress.

Indirect Impacts of Biofuel Production In order to assess the overall greenhouse gas (GHG) balance of biofuels, most attention was traditionally given to the direct impacts of biofuel production. However, stakeholders increasingly recognize that indirect impacts are an unintended consequence of biofuels expansion and market reach, and such effects must be included to properly account for biofuels impacts. The potential for negative indirect impacts is high and can lead to unintended consequences.

P a g e | 51

The two main negative indirect impacts are indirect land use change (ILUC) and competition with food. These indirect impacts have become one of the key challenges to large scale sustainable biofuel production from energy crops. ILUC occurs when the production of biomass feedstock displaces activities to other areas where they cause land use change and thus have potentially negative impacts on aspects such as carbon stocks and biodiversity. An example of this is when demand for palm oil for the biofuel market is supplied from existing plantations that used to supply to the food market. Indirect impacts on the greenhouse gas balance of biofuels through land use changes are predicted to be between 30 and 103 gCO2eq/MJ biofuel. When these indirect impacts are taken into account, GHG savings by biofuels compared to fossil fuels are about 60% lower than when indirect impacts are not taken into account.


Page 51

P a g e | 52

International Mitigation Initiatives

Increasingly, market regulations call for sustainability criteria for biofuels. Examples of biofuel policy and regulations include:

the European Union Renewable Energy Directive (EU RED) for biofuels entering the European Union market; the California Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) for biofuels entering the California market; the U.S. Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2) for biofuels entering the U.S. market; and the United Kingdom Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO). Typically, biofuel must meet minimum lifecycle Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emission reduction thresholds mandated by such policy and regulations. Sometimes, the policy or regulation includes incentives for minimum GHG emission reductions. Examples of incentives for behavioral change include tax exemptions, qualifying for minimum volume quotas, and market incentives within so called cap and trade systems. For example, a biofuel entering the California market must meet the carbon intensity requirements that the Low Carbon Fuel Standard requires for regulated parties (i.e., a 10% reduction in fuel lifecycle GHG emissions between 2010 and 2020); a biofuel entering the European Union market must meet the minimum GHG reduction requirements to be counted towards the quota of 10% target for energy from renewable sources in transport. Only biofuels that meet certain sustainability criteria count towards this target. These sustainability criteria primarily cover GHG emissions from the entire fuel chain, and carbon stock and biodiversity effects from direct land use change. Mitigating climate change is a global concern. Biofuels should, therefore, be produced in those parts of the world where they can make the most effective and efficient contribution to reducing Green House Gas (GHG) emissions. Jatropha biofuel plantations contribute to climate change mitigation by significantly reducing GHG emissions as compared to fossil fuels. Biodiesel reduces emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) by approximately 50 % and carbon dioxide (CO2) by 78 % on a net lifecycle basis because the carbon in biodiesel emissions is recycled from carbon that was already in the atmosphere, rather than being new carbon from petroleum that was sequestered in the earths crust. CO2 emitted during the combustion of biofuels does not contribute to net emissions of carbon dioxide because these emissions have already been absorbed by plants during growth. As a consequence, green house gas (GHG) emissions will be reduced as the fuel crops absorb the carbon dioxide (CO2) they emit through growing. The increased concentration of key greenhouse gases (GHG) is a direct consequence of human activities. Since anthropogenic greenhouse gases accumulate in the atmosphere, they produce net warming by strengthening the natural greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide (CO2) has been increasing over the past century compared to the rather steady level of the pre-industrial era (about 280 parts per million in volume, or ppmv). The 2005 concentration of CO2 (379 ppmv) was about 35% higher than a century and a half ago, with the fastest growth occurring in the last 10 years (1.9ppmv/year in the period 1995Page 52


P a g e | 53

2005). Comparable growth has also occurred in levels of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O).

Only two sectors, electricity and heat generation and transport, produce nearly two-thirds of the global CO2 emissions. The emissions of these same sectors also increased at faster rates than global emissions (69% and 45%, respectively, versus the average 38%, between 1990 and 2007). While electricity and heat generation draws from various energy sources, the transport sector relies almost entirely on oil (94% of the energy used for transport came from oil in 2007). The share of transport in global oil emissions was close to 60% in 2007. While CO2 emissions from oil consumption in most sectors remained nearly steady in absolute terms since 1971, those of transport more than doubled. Dominated by road traffic, this end-use sector is the strongest driver of world dependence on oil.


Page 53

P a g e | 54

Aviation & Climate Change Impact

Emissions from aviation have nearly twice the warming effect than carbon dioxide emissions on the ground. One kilogram of aviation fuel (kerosene) produces about three kilograms of CO2. According a 1999 report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, aviation is responsible for two percent of global CO2 emissions, and about 13 percent of CO2 emissions from transport. Those figures are continuously rising. A 2007 report by U.S., European, and British aviation agencies predicts that by 2025 annual global CO2 emissions from airplanes will grow by 50 to 70 percent to between 1.2 and 1.5 billion tons. To put that in perspective, the total annual CO2 emissions of the European Union in 2004 was 3.1 billion tons. The aviation sector is committed to achieve carbon neutral growth by 2020 and globally, airlines are looking to implement new initiatives and incentives to reduce their carbon footprint. The sector is primarily focusing on biofuels from second generation sources such as jatropha. Of the various CO2 abatement levers for the aviation industry, the phasing in of sustainable green biofuels offers the highest carbon reduction potential. Among the limited range of energy crops that do not compete with food crops for land and water, jatropha holds the most promising position. Challenge ahead

Power generation and transport challenge the sustainability of both the global economy and the environment. This is particularly pronounced for developing countries that increased their emissions from these two sectors, respectively, by three times and by one and a half times faster than the global average between 1990 and 2007. Access to modern energy services is crucial to eradicating poverty and for economic development of these countries and the challenge will be to help developing countries use energy in a rational way. Strong energy efficiency gains, the increased use of new technologies for road transport and the de-carbonization of electricity supply (both through a shift toward less carbonintensive fuels such as natural gas and renewable and through the introduction of CO2 capture and storage) are some of the potential means to achieve a more sustainable energy path. After years of industrialization, the world can only emit some 750 to 1000 gigatons of CO2 more until 2050, if we want to have a fair chance of keeping global warming below 2C. The question is how to share out this carbon budget? Industrialized countries would benefit from a GDP share-based allocation. An equal per capita allocation of CO2 permits would be more advantageous for developing countries. Developing countries, however, will need some headroom to allow them to catch up economically.


Page 54

P a g e | 55


The link between poverty alleviation and energy provision makes it critical to consider both when looking toward rural development. Availability of local energy and farm power is fundamental to intensifying agriculture, and agricultural development is essential to poverty alleviation. There is a growing consensus among policy-makers that energy is central to reducing poverty and hunger, improving health, increasing literacy and education, and improving the lives of women and children. Energy pervades all aspects of development it creates healthier cooking environments, extends work and study hours through the provision of electric light, provides power in remote regions to drive cellular communication equipment, and increases labor productivity and agricultural output by making mechanization possible.


Page 55

P a g e | 56

Clearing tropical forests for biodiesel production, and in particular those on peatlands leads to far greater carbon emissions than those saved by substituting biofuel for fossil fuel in vehicles. The total forest area of the world is just below 4 billion hectares, nearly 30 percent of Earths area. Russia contains the largest forested area, followed by Brazil, Canada, and the United States. Tropical rainforests cover an area larger than Europe.

It is estimated that about 13 million hectares of tropical forests are destroyed each year, an area nearly twice the size of Belgium.

Over 1 billion people rely on forests for their livelihoods. Around 60 million indigenous people, about the population of the United Kingdom, depend on forests. A third of the worlds people use biomass fuels, mainly firewood, for cooking and heating. The worlds rainforests are home to half of life on earth. The Amazon is the richest biodiversity hotspot in the world, holding about a quarter of land species. Tropical and temperate forests absorb around a ton of CO2 per hectare per year from the atmosphere. Due to the depth of peat, one hectare of tropical peat forest can store 3000 to 6000 tons of carbon per hectare. The highest levels of deforestation are in South America, with 4.3 million hectares lost per year. The fastest rates of deforestation are in Southeast Asia. Deforestation and forest degradation releases about 1.7 billion tons of carbon annually, about 20 percent of global carbon emissions. Total emissions from deforestation in 20082012 are expected to equal 40 billion tonnes of CO2.


Page 56

P a g e | 57

The biggest causes of deforestation and forest degradation are agricultural expansion, cattle ranching, road and urban infrastructure development, commercial logging, mining, subsistence farming, and collection of firewood. To halve emissions from the forest sector by 2030 through carbon markets would cost between 17 and 33 billion dollars a year, according to some observers. The EU reckons that it would cost 15 to 25 billion Euros every year to halve deforestation by 2020.


Page 57

P a g e | 58


Fact is that not all biofuels are created equal. They can be produced from a wide range of crops and thus vary significantly in terms of characteristics and environmental impacts. This built-in ambiguity means that biofuels must be analyzed and judged independently. Just as there are different types of biofuels, there are different species of underlying feedstock for them. While Bio-ethanol is generally derived through fermentation from crops such as sugar cane, corn or wheat, Bio-diesel is generally derived through trans-esterification of vegetable oils from crops such as soybean, rapeseed, palm or jatropha. Biofuels may make a difference in terms of achieving the different policy objectives pursued. However, not all biofuels perform equally well in terms of their impact on climate, energy security, and on ecosystems. Environmental and social impacts need to be assessed throughout the entire life-cycle. On one hand, most biofuels are attractive in that they may serve to replace imported oil and help diversify energy resources. However, some current (first generation) biofuels, such as ethanol from grains and biodiesel from oil seeds, may compete with food, fibre and feed production. Measuring the environmental, economic and energetic performance of biofuels requires the consideration of the full life cycle of these products, i.e. from agricultural production and its use of various inputs (e.g. fertilizer and water) to the conversion of agricultural feedstock to liquid fuels and to the use of the biofuel in combustion engines. In response to a call for considering all stages of biofuel production, the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology has been increasingly used to assess the potential benefits and/ or undesired side effects of biofuels. It studies and evaluates the environmental flows related to a product or a service during all life cycle stages, from the extraction of raw materials to the end of life. The green house gas balances of biofuels Quantifying how biofuels reduce GHG emissions and how energy efficient they are requires a life-cycle analyses (LCA). This holistic approach ideally takes full account of all stages of the production and use of a biofuel, including the GHG emissions and energy efficiencies associated with the resources required for its production. As a rule of thumb, the life-cycle energy balance improves and global warming potential decreases when cultivation is less intensive, particularly with less fertilizer and less irrigation, and if the end product is straight vegetable oil rather than biodiesel. The energy-efficient use of the by-products also significantly improves the sustainability and environmental impact of biofuels. Life-cycle-assessments (LCA) of biofuels show a wide range of net greenhouse gas balances compared to fossil fuels, depending on the feedstock and conversion technology, but also on other factors, including methodological assumptions. For ethanol, the highest GHG savings are recorded for sugar cane (70% to more than 100%), whereas corn can save up to 60% but may

P a g e | 59

also cause 5% more GHG emissions. The highest variations are observed for biodiesel from palm oil and soya. High savings of the former depend on high yields, those of the latter on credits of by-products. Life-cycle-assessments (LCA) of biofuels show a wide range of net greenhouse gas balances compared to fossil fuels, depending on the feedstock and conversion technology, but also on other factors, including methodological assumptions. For ethanol, the highest GHG savings are recorded for sugar cane (70% to more than 100%), whereas corn can save up to 60% but may also cause 5% more GHG emissions. The highest variations are observed for biodiesel from palm oil and soya. High savings of the former depend on high yields, those of the latter on credits of by-products. Negative GHG savings, i.e. increased emissions, may result in particular when production takes place on converted natural land and the associated mobilisation of carbon stocks is accounted for. Land conversion for biofuel crops can lead to negative environmental impacts including implications such as reduced biodiversity and increased GHG emissions. Efforts to find sustainable, renewable sources of energy are growing and at the center of that trend is the switch from fossil fuels to crop-based biofuels. However, there are big differences. While corn-derived ethanol is among the least efficient, most environmentally damaging, and overall least sustainable biofuel feedstock, jatropha in comparison earns green credentials and can be grown on marginal land without replacing food crops. Not all biofuels are created equal The main findings for soybean biodiesel show wide variation, ranging from significant improvements to considerable net worsening. The main reasons which explain such huge differences are the agricultural yields and the assumptions made on allocation of impacts and the fate of glycerine. Comparative figures for rapeseed range from a minimum benefit of approximately 20% to a maximum of about 80% compared to conventional diesel, with most studies converging around the 40-60% interval. Ethanol from sugar cane produced in the tropical/sub-tropical regions such as Brazil, southern Africa and India, has excellent characteristics in terms of economics, CO2 reductions and low land use requirements. Ethanol from sugar cane can allow GHG emission reduction of over 70% compared to conventional gasoline. Higher values (also beyond 100%) are due to credits for coproducts in the sugar cane industry. This reflects the recent trend in Brazilian industry towards more integrated concepts combining the production of ethanol with other non-energy products and selling surplus electricity to the grid. Palm oil based diesel compares favorably to conventional diesel, in terms of GHG emissions. However, if previously non-cultivated areas are converted for palm oil production, the net resulting balance can be dramatically negative. Results change from 80% improvement for palm


Page 59

P a g e | 60

oil from cropland to over -800 and even -2000% with palm oil from cleared rainforest and cleared peat forest respectively. In direct comparison, Jatropha planted on barren land in South East Asia scores significantly better than all biofuels referenced above. Growing jatropha on degraded wastelands with minimal fertilizers and irrigation will have the most positive environmental impact among all known biofuel crops. In terms of land use, energy input, production costs and by-products, Jatropha is the most efficient and sustainable non-food biodiesel crop. Given its specific characteristics, we believe that Jatropha is one of the best candidates for future biodiesel production and will become the plant of choice for renewable energy generation from biomass. The type of land used for biofuel production naturally affects the environmental performance of these fuels. JATRO favors the use of tropical and subtropical areas not currently used for crop production, i.e. either degraded land or land with low nurture values. Jatro only targets marginal, idle lands which are unsuitable for food production and poor in biodiversity. JATRO believes that the land availability and food needs will limit the growth in conventional European and US based biofuels production based on sugar, cereals (wheat, corn), soybeans, and seed crops (rape, sunflower). European biodiesel production based on rapeseed and sunflower seeds cultivated on arable land is not economically viable. The expansion of biodiesel production in wheat exporting countries has already diverted land from wheat and slowed the increase in wheat production. Indeed, biodiesel from rape and sunflower seeds in Europe and ethanol based biofuels in America are produced on land that alternatively could be used for food or feed production, and hence have the potential to negatively impact the supply of those products. In comparison, Jatropha crude oil produced in tropical regions has a considerable comparative advantage over those biofuels derived from agricultural crops in temperate zones.


Page 60

P a g e | 61

There exist two conceptually different categories of carbon transactions. The first is that of allowance-based transactions, where the carbon units are allowances, or units of right to pollute, created and assigned through various systems, including free allocation and auctioning, by regulators under cap-and-trade regimes. Noticeable examples of such regimes are, at country level, the Kyoto Protocol IET introduced above, which generates tradable carbon units known as Assigned Amount Units, and, at installation level, the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS), which deals in EU Allowances (EUAs). The second includes project-based transactions, where the carbon units are carbon credits, also referred to as carbon offsets or emission credits. These are units of carbon compensation, generated by so called offset (or emission reduction) projects with the overriding aim of negating, or neutralizing, a given amount of greenhouse gas emissions (in CO2 equivalent) released in one place by avoiding the release of the same amount of emissions elsewhere or by absorbing the equivalent amount of CO2 that would have otherwise remained in the atmosphere (in a process known as carbon sequestration). The Kyoto Protocol CDM and JI schemes are examples of project-based mechanisms and the carbon units traded within those market segments are known as Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) and Emission Reduction Units (ERUs), respectively. Cap-and-trade schemes, such as the emissions trading introduced by the Kyoto Protocol, allow for an additional and cost effective way for those purchasing tradable carbon allowances to meet their own legally binding emission reduction targets, alongside direct internal emission reduction measures. Compliance schemes are currently aimed at those responsible for the greatest damages. Similarly, project-based transactions allow for the introduction and trade of new and possibly cheaper assets that can be used for compliance in addition to the initial supply of allowances. In particular, the JI and CDM mechanisms generate carbon credits through implementation of emission reduction projects within Annex I (developed) and non-Annex I (developing) countries, respectively. An analogous market structure is observed in the EU carbon market segment, where the Linking Directive has established full equivalence of EUAs, CERs and ERUs as compliance units within the EU ETS regime, subject to certain rules, thereby governing the relationship between the EU ETS itself and the Kyoto Protocol. Low hanging fruits Major differences between the compliance and the voluntary carbon markets include the preferred type of emission credits being traded and the particular players active in the marketplace. Research has shown that non-CO2 greenhouse gas destruction projects represented the great majority of reductions traded in the compliance market. This is not surprising, as projects with emission reductions that can be generated quickly and at a cheaper price are developed first to meet Kyoto first commitment period requirements. As far as market participants are concerned, compliance schemes are currently aimed, at company level, at the most energy intensive emitters, those responsible for the greatest damages.

P a g e | 62

The voluntary market, on the contrary, serves the purpose of businesses (typically brand and service companies, intermediary type organizations), government departments, NGOs and single individuals coming to terms with their carbon footprint and managing it through compensation, And at the same time signaling to others their sense of personal or corporate social responsibility. For project-based mechanisms the additionality of the offset project and the adoption of rigorous monitoring, reporting and verification procedures for the generation of real and measurable emission reduction units are essential for the safeguard of the environmental integrity of the mechanism itself. For cap-and-trade schemes, based on the initial allocation and subsequent trade of carbon allowances, the scarcity of emission allowances is vital to the scheme if the resulting carbon price is to stimulate genuine dynamic incentives.


Page 62

P a g e | 63


The aviation industry is going green and airlines are required to measure their own carbon footprint and cut emissions. The industry is taking responsibility by formulating and committing significant emission reduction initiatives based on concrete targets. Internationally, the aviation industry has made a voluntary commitment and is striving towards carbon neutral growth by 2020 meaning that carbon emissions remain steady even as global air travel increases. So far, the only mandatory limits on GHG emissions from aviation were enacted by Europe, Australia, and New Zealand. European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) In addition to rising oil prices and increased pressure from global biofuel mandates, the aviation Industry faces new costs through a heightened increase in regulations pertaining to CO2 emissions. Starting in 2012, international air-traffic aviation will be included in the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS). The Scheme applies to all flights to and from the EU member countries. That means airlines operations and growths perspectives will be directly dependant on the fuel they consume and the related amount of CO2 they produce. Any excess volume of CO2 has to be traded against carbon credits based on the specific emission targets. In order to mitigate the climate impacts of aviation, the EU has decided to impose a cap on CO2 emissions from all international flights independent of provenance. Accordingly, emissions from all domestic and international flights from or to anywhere in the world that arrive at or depart from any EU airport will be covered by the new carbon regulations. Thus, from 1 January 2012, around 4.000 operators will face emission limits for any flights into and out of the 30 nations covered by the cap-and-trade scheme. As a consequence, aircraft touching down or taking off in the EU have to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 3% under 2004-2006 levels in 2012, and by 5% from 2013. All airlines will face a total cap of 212,9 million tons of CO2 in 2012, falling to 208,5 million per year between 2013 and 2020. Under the EU ETS, aircraft operators that fly into or out of EU airports will be required to participate in the ETS, and surrender emissions allowances equivalent to the GHG emissions associated with their flights into and out of EU airports, regardless of whether the emissions occurred inside or outside of EU airspace. Assuming the Aviation Amendments survive legal challenges and direct opposition from countries like the U.S., China, and India, it is estimated that carriers will have to spend around $15 billion between now and 2020 to comply with ETS quotas.


Page 63

P a g e | 64


Page 64

P a g e | 65

As jatropha absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, it also qualifies for carbon credits. sustainable jatropha plantations enjoy a high carbon credit potential. Possibilities to gain and commercialize carbon credits with Jatropha plantations and related biodiesel & jet fuel production are based on various scenarios, including:

Reforestation and rehabilitation of marginal and degraded land. Carbon sequestration in the plantations of jatropha trees whose seeds are used for biofuel and biodiesel production. Replacement of fossil fuel with biofue.l Auxiliary renewable energy, in particular electric and thermal power generation from residual jatropha biomass and biogas (via anaerobic digestion of seed cake), replacing fossil fuels and coal. Use of processed seed cake as an organic fertilizer to substitute nitrogen based fertilizer.


Page 65

P a g e | 66

JATRO is managed by a senior group of experienced executives, combining renewable energy industry, emerging markets, business development and investment banking expertise with extensive exposure to South East Asia and proprietary insight into local market conditions. JATROs strong management team is led by Founder and Chief Executive Officer, Dr. Christoph Weber. Joined by a talented group of executives, JATRO management possesses the relevant business acumen and a keen understanding of the conditions of the jatropha biofuel and sustainable energy industry. Execution and implementation partners with on-the-ground experience and operational skills further enhance JATROs value added plantation model.

ROLL OUT FUNDING & PARTNERSHIPS To further commercialize and scale up the production of Crude Jatropha Oil for conversion into sustainable green jet fuel JATRO is intensifying its funding efforts. Riding on a wave of high demand from the airline industry, JATRO is inviting strong, reliable partners to provide the follow-on capital needed for a large-scale rollout of jatropha plantations throughout select areas in South East Asia. JATRO is ready to expand and take a position as one of the major biofuel producers and marketers internationally. JATRO is offering strategic partners the opportunity to support the company in building out its position as a one-stop, fully integrated producer and marketer of sustainable energy solutions. To this end, JATRO is looking for investment capital to fund its continued plantation roll out. The Company is open to structures and crossindustry partnerships which compliment investor needs and highlight potential synergies in business models. JATRO believes in vertical partnership models along the biofuel value chain. To mitigate and balance risk and increase time to market, cross-sectoral partnerships between biofuel producers, airline off-takers and financial players are actively encouraged. Pending plant maturity, the anticipated production target is 200.000 metric tons of CJO per year, which at 7,33 barrels per metric ton, equates to 1,46 million barrels of oil per year. If our strategic agenda is in line with your corporate and investment priorities, kindly contact our financial advisors at UNISON CAPITAL.


Page 66

P a g e | 67

Michael O. Huebener Group Managing Director UNISON HOLDING LIMITED P.O. BOX 454 291 DUBAI UNITED ARAB EMIRATES Phone: +971 55498 5440 Mobile: +971 50101 0306 Mob EU: +49 172 452 8707 JATRO AG (Germany) Bockenheimer Landstr. 17/19 D-60325 Frankfurt Germany Phone: +49 6192 3092642 Fax: +49 6192 9794514 Mail & Inquiries: Jatro Singapore Pte. Ltd.(Singapore) 19 Keppel Road, #03-05, Jit Poh Building, Singapore 089058 Phone: +65 9388 2510 Phone: +65 83227610 Mail & Inquiries: JATRO Corporate Communications Peter Goebel Phone: +49 6174 96386 0 Phone: +49 171 8340794 Mail & Inquiries:

P a g e | 68


Page 68