Biodiesel Boom a Disaster for Investors
By Victor
Bivell
Eco Investor,
April 2008 Edition
The boom in
the Australian biofuels sector of less than two years ago was short lived
and the aftermath of the bust is now coming into focus with over $200
million of new capital lost in share price value and seven brand new biodiesel
plants sitting idle as they wait for the market to improve.
Six Australian
biodiesel businesses raised around $402 million of equity through IPOs,
placements, and convertible notes, almost all of it between 2005 and 2007.
Shareholders in only one of these companies, Mission Biofuels, are ahead.
Shareholders in the other five companies invested around $297 million
including $158 million in four IPOs. The shares in these companies are
currently worth well under 10 per cent of their IPO price.
The lost capital
helped build eight biodiesel plants of which seven are fully or mostly
idle, with some of them not having produced any biodiesel yet. Six of
the plants are in Narangba (Qld), Adelaide, Perth, Darwin, Singapore,
and Malaysia. The seventh plant, in Nebraska, USA, has just been completed
but is being sold for roughly its construction cost and before it has
produced any biodiesel. The eighth plant, belonging to Mission Biofuels,
is in Malaysia and it is hoped will start profitable biodiesel production
imminently.
The extent
of the carnage can be seen by looking at Australia's leading biofuels
stocks and where they are now.
Australian Biofuel IPOs
| Firm |
IPO Date |
IPO Share Price $ |
31 Jan 08 Price $
|
Gain Loss % |
| Australian Renewable Fuels |
May-05 |
1.00 |
0.045 |
-95.5 |
| Australian Biodiesel Group |
Dec-05 |
1.00 |
0.021 |
-97.9 |
| Mission Biofuels |
May-06 |
1.00 |
1.295 |
29.5 |
| Sterling Biofuels International |
Sep-06 |
1.00 |
0.079 |
-92.1 |
| Axiom Energy |
Sep 06 |
IPO withdrawn |
|
|
| Natural Fuel |
Dec-06 |
1.50 |
0.11 |
-92.7 |
| Agri Energy (formerly Australian Ethanol Ltd) |
NA |
0.45* |
0.035 |
-92.2 |
| * Share price on 16 Dec 04 when name changed to Australian Ethanol |
|
|
|
|
Source: Eco Investor Magazine
The chart shows
there was a boom in biodiesel IPOs between 2005 and 2006, but the financial
boom quickly turned into a catastrophic kaboom. Five of the six companies
including four of the five IPOs are showing capital losses of over 90
per cent, with Australian Biodiesel Group the worst hit with only 2 cents
left in the IPO dollar.
Only one of
the companies is ahead, with Mission Biofuels showing a 29.5 per cent
gain on its IPO price.
How could the
emerging biodiesel industry go so badly wrong? Is there is a future for
biodiesel in Australia, and if so when it will happen and which stocks
will deliver?
In terms of
the big picture, Brazil has long proven that biofuels and ethanol in particular
can be a major transport fuel.
Internationally
the sector has many positives - key ones are the potential reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions, increased fuel security through less reliance
on oil, and new agricultural industries for developing economies. But
it seems everyone is having trouble emulating Brazil. Internationally,
the main problems have been in implementation by governments and rising
feedstock prices rather than the product itself or the strategic, economic
and environmental need for biofuels. In the US, the choice of corn as
a feedstock was a poor one and combined with subsidies has raised the
prices of many foods. In South East Asia the key issues are rising feedstock
prices, and the clearing of tropical forests to produce plantation palm
oil which negates the environmental benefits of biofuels through habitat
destruction and the creation of a major new environmental problem. In
Europe and elsewhere the feedstocks for biofuels compete for valuable
farmland and become a competitor to food production.
Some of these
problems are being addressed. In SE Asia, for example, biodiesel producers
are moving upstream into feedstock production to secure supply and capture
a greater share of the profits, and some are moving away from plantation
palm oil to Jatropha Curcas, a tree that grows on poor soil and is non-edible.
But the development of sustainable biofuels through alternative feedstock
crops and new technology will take time.
The Australian
industry shares some but not all of the overseas problems. Less than two
years ago Australia was awash with hope for a new biofuels industry that
would help to lower greenhouse gas emissions, reduce dependence on imported
oil, and give local farmers new cash crops.
But it all
went wrong very quickly. Does the rot date from the Howard's Government's
July 2006 changes to the Fuel Tax Bill 2006, as many of the biofuel companies
say? At the time, this Bill was widely criticized by State Governments,
the biofuels industry and the Greens Party, among others, for taxing biofuels
and removing incentives to encourage the industry. The timing, with the
end of the boom following soon after, is very suspicious, but are the
problems more complex than that?
In explaining
their losses, the biodiesel companies have certainly blamed the Fuel Tax
Bill changes, but other key issues that emerge are rising feedstock prices,
the lack of interest and cooperation from the major oil companies, ambitious
but underfunded overseas expansion plans, construction and engineering
issues with new plants, failure to deliver on business plans, and a growing
army of scorched and disillusioned investors.
Fixing the
mixed Federal policy signals to the sector should be a major priority
for the new Rudd government. Although so far it has yet to make any moves,
there is some hope it may be friendlier to the industry than the Howard
Government.
Governments
can also assist with the problem of rising feedstock prices, which could
be and should be tackled through new uses for declining agricultural products,
for example Queensland sugar cane as promoted by the Queensland Government,
and through the cultivation of new agricultural products in new agricultural
areas, for example sugar cane in the Ord River Dam region as promoted
by the WA Government. Both are viable options for ethanol and these principles
could be applied to biodiesel. Elsewhere in Australia it should not be
difficult to encourage the use of new crops for biodiesel that are neither
food nor fibre and diversify income for farmers.
The Government
can also assist with cooperation from oil companies in the take-up of
biodiesel, as the Howard Government did with ethanol.
But the rest
is really up to the industry itself, keeping their expansion ambitions
under control and within their financial capacity, and delivering on their
business plans. Even if they can do those, winning back investor confidence
will take some time. Unless the Rudd Government can act quickly, or feedstock
prices suddenly come down, a turnaround in the industry is not imminent.
Unfortunately
for biodiesel investors, they backed the one horse in the renewable and
alternative fuels race that went backwards. The others - wind, coal seam
gas, solar, geothermal, wave power and others are charging forward.
Should feedstock
prices come down or diesel prices rise so that some or all of the idle
plants can begin biodiesel production and generate revenue, it is possible
that the share prices may start to move in the right direction. But until
some certainty returns to the market, buying on the hope of a rebound
would be for brave or speculative investors only.
This article
was also published in The Australian newspaper
|