View
226
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
8/4/2019 Sugar Sector CRISIL[1]
1/34
CRISIL RESEARCH SUGAR ANNUAL REVIEW A-i
Sections
Executive summary A-1
1.0 Domestic demand-supply outlook A-3
- Demand-supply overview A-3
- Supply A-4
- Demand A-6
- Exports A-8
2.0 Global demand-supply outlook A-11
3.0 Prices A-15
4.0 Profitability A-19
5.0 Business model analysis A-23
6.0 Ethanol-blending programme A-27
Boxes
1.0 Domestic demand-supply outlook
01 Domestic sugar consumption forecast Methodology A-702 Alternate methodologies A-7
03 Raw sugar A-9
6.0 Ethanol-blending programme
01 Background A-27
Figures
1.0 Domestic demand-supply outlook
01 Sugar Demand-supply A-3
02 State wise sugar production, inventory and prices A-4
03 Indexed MSPs of alternative crops A-4
04 Historical zone wise sugar production in Maharashtra A-5
05 Domestic and export realisations for white sugar A-8
06 Domestic and export realisations for raw sugar A-8
2.0 Global demand-supply outlook
01 Global demand-supply and inventory A-11
02 Global inventory levels and prices A-11
03 Per cent age diversion of sugarcane to sugar and ethanol in Brazil A-1204 Indexed domestic prices of sugar and ethanol in Brazil A-12
Continued
Opinion September 2008
8/4/2019 Sugar Sector CRISIL[1]
2/34
A-ii CRISIL RESEARCH SUGAR ANNUAL REVIEW
continued
Figures
3.0 Prices
01 Domestic and international sugar prices A-15
02 Open interest and net non commercial long positions in sugar A-16
03 Net non commercial long positions and sugar prices A-17
04 Indexed raw sugar prices in USD and BRL A-17
05 Raw sugar prices in USD and BRL A-18
06 Appreciation of BRL against the USD A-18
4.0 Profitability
01 Profitabilit y of sugar companies in North India (UP, Bihar) A-19
02 Profitabilit y of sugar companies in South India (TN, Kar, Maha) A-19
Tables
1.0 Domestic demand-supply outlook
01 Sugar - Domestic consumption A-7
3.0 Prices
01 Domestic demand-supply situation to tighten A-16
4.0 Profitability01 North India Key financial ratios A-20
02 South India Key financial ratios A-20
03 Profitability of North Indian companies in 9M SS 2007-08 A-20
04 Profitability of South Indian companies in 9M SS 2007-08 A-20
05 Comparative sugar prices Mumbai S-30 A-21
5.0 Business model analysis
01 Integrated model has higher returns over the complete cycle A-24
6.0 Ethanol-blending programme
01 Alcohol surplus/(deficit) situation A-28
02 Comparison of profitability of ethanol production under C vs. B'
molasses route A-29
03 Surplus/ (deficit) under B' Molasses route A-30
04 Ethanol prices at which C' molasses route and B' molasses route are
equally profitable A-30
05 Comparison of ethanol production via C' molasses vs direct route
(cane to ethanol) A-31
06 Ethanol prices at which C' molasses route and direct route are
equally profitable A-31
8/4/2019 Sugar Sector CRISIL[1]
3/34
CRISIL RESEARCH SUGAR ANNUAL REVIEW A-1
CRISIL Research expects profitability of sugar companies to improve over the next 2 sugar seasons (SS 2008-09
and SS 2009-10) on account of higher sugar prices. Lower sugar production and increasing consumption will lead
to a fall in inventory levels causing prices to rise. CRISIL Research forecasts sugar prices (Mumbai S-30) in SS
2008-09 to be between Rs 17,000 18,500 per tonne, a rise of 13 23 per cent over the average levels of SS
2007-08. Prices are expected to rise further in SS 2008-09 and be in the range of Rs 18,500 20,000 per tonne.
Sugar production, in SS 2008-09, is expected to fall by 18 per cent from its levels of SS 2007-08 and be at 21.4
million tonnes. Sugar production in SS 2009-10 is expected to fall by a further 6 per cent and be at 20.2 million
tonnes. Production is expected to decline on account of a decline in area under sugar cane as sugarcane farmers,whose earnings have fallen on account of lower sugar prices, switch to alternate crops. Maharashtra will see the
largest decline in production, with production declining by 30 per cent to 6.3 million tonnes in SS 2008-09. Uttar
Pradesh will emerge as the top sugar producing state in the country due to the dramatic fall in Maharashtras sugar
production.
In this report, we have revised upwards our consumption numbers (please refer Chapter 1 Domestic demand-
supply outlook for further details); we expect consumption, over the period 2007-08 to 2012-13, to grow at a
CAGR of 4.3 per cent and be at 26 million tonnes in 2012-13.
Sugar exports from India are forecast to fall sharply to 0.5 million tonnes in SS 2008-09, down from 4.3 million
tonnes in SS 2007-08. The withdrawal of sugar export subsidies coupled with the rise in domestic prices will
make sugar sales in the domestic market more attractive as compared to sugar sales in the international market.
The global demand supply situation is expected to tighten on account of steady consumption growth coupled with
low production in India, the EU and Thailand. Also, Brazil is diverting a higher portion (60 per cent in 2008-09 as
compared to 56 per cent in 2007-08) of its 2008-09 sugar cane crop to the manufacture of ethanol. These facts are
expected to support international sugar prices which are likely to remain firm in the medium term. Appreciation of
the Brazilian Real, against the US Dollar, has pushed up sugar prices in US Dollar terms; the strength of the
Brazilian currency will be a key monitorable.
Mandatory ethanol blending is to come into effect from 1st
October 2008. However, we expect that the target of
10 per cent ethanol blending will not be met on account of lower sugarcane production in the next 2 sugar seasons
translating into lower ethanol production. Even 5 per cent blending will not be possible given the lower ethanol
production. Blending would only be possible through the use of alternative feedstocks such as B heavy molasses
and cane juice. On the other hand, we do not expect ethanol to be manufactured from these feedstocks as it is
unprofitable at current levels of sugar and ethanol prices. We conclude that the ethanol-blending programme
cannot succeed in its present form.
Executive summary
8/4/2019 Sugar Sector CRISIL[1]
4/34
This page is intentionally left blank
8/4/2019 Sugar Sector CRISIL[1]
5/34
CRISIL RESEARCH SUGAR ANNUAL REVIEW A-3
Demand-supply overview
After 2 years of surplus production in SS 2006-07 and SS 2007-08, CRISIL Research expects sugar consumption
to exceed production in the next 2 years, leading to a fall in inventories and support to sugar prices. Inventory
levels are forecast to fall to 3.7 months of off take (consumption + exports) at the end of the SS 2009-10, from
levels of 5.9 months at the end of SS 2007-08.
Sugar production, in the SS 2008-09, is expected to fall by 18 per cent from its levels of SS 2007-08 and be at
21.4 million tonnes. Production is expected to fall by a further 6 per cent in SS 2009-10 and be at 20.2 million
tonnes. We expect consumption to grow steadily at 4.3-4.4 per cent and be at 22.9 million tonnes in SS 2009-10.
Exports are expected to fall dramatically from 4.3 million tonnes in SS 2007-08 to 0.5 million tonnes in SS 2008-
09 on account of the expiry of exports subsidies (Central government subsidy of Rs 1,350 per tonne and
Maharashtra and Karnataka state government additional subsidy of Rs 1,000 per tonne) at the end of the SS 2007-
08.
Figure 1: Sugar Demand-supply
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 E 2008-09 F 2009-10 F
1,200
1,300
1,400
1,500
1,600
1,700
1,800
1,900
2,000
Consumption Production Prices (RHS) Inventory
(million tonnes) (Rs / quintal)
E: Estimate; F: Forecast
Note
Figures are for the sugar season (October to September)
Source: Indian Sugar Mills Association (ISMA) and CRISIL Research
1.0 Domestic demand-supply outlook
8/4/2019 Sugar Sector CRISIL[1]
6/34
A-4 CRISIL RESEARCH SUGAR ANNUAL REVIEW
Supply
Sugar production, in India, is forecast to decline by 18 per cent in SS 2008-09 and be at 21.4 million tonnes.
Historically, Maharashtra has been the most volatile state in sugar production and we expect this trend to
continue. 55 per cent of the drop in sugar production in SS 2008-09 is expected to come from Maharashtra. Thedrop in sugar prices, witnessed in the SS 2006-07 and SS 2007-08, led to arrears building up and caused farmers
to switch to alternative crops such as wheat, rice, maize, soybean, etc. Minimum support prices (MSPs) of
alternative crops, especially those of wheat and rice, have been hiked substantially further increasing their
attractiveness vis--vis sugarcane.
Figure 2: State wise sugar production, inventory and prices
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
1,200
1,300
1,400
1,500
1,600
1,700
1,800
1,900
2,000
Maharashtra UP Tamil Nadu Karnataka
Others Prices (RHS) Inventory
(million tonnes) (Rs / quintal)
Source: Ministry of Agriculture and CRISIL Research
Figure 3: Indexed MSPs of alternative crops
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
Wheat Rice Cane - SMP
Cane - UP - SAP Maize
Note
Figures are the UP SAP for 2007-08 is based on a price of Rs 110 per quintal.
Source: Ministry of Agriculture and CRISIL Research
8/4/2019 Sugar Sector CRISIL[1]
7/34
CRISIL RESEARCH SUGAR ANNUAL REVIEW A-5
Sugar prices (Mumbai S-30) rose sharply by about 20 per cent in August 2008 and are at average levels of Rs
1,900 per quintal. While in the short term, sugar prices are expected to decline from current levels, the long term
trend is upwards. However, the supply response (that is, higher production) to the high prices will manifest itself
only in the SS 2010-11 and not in SS 2009-10. This is because of sugarcane being a 12-18 month crop and most
of the plantings for SS 2009-10 have been completed. The above factors combined with poor rains in the crucial
months of June and July in Maharashtra (the key producing state) will see production in SS 2009-10 falling by a
further 5 per cent to 20.2 million tonnes.
Maharashtra
We forecast sugar production in Maharashtra, in SS 2008-09, to decline by 30 per cent from its levels of SS 2007-
08 and be at 6.3 million tonnes. Production in SS 2009-10 is expected to fall by a further 12 per cent to 5.5 million
tonnes.
Historically, sugar production in Maharashtra has been extremely volatile moving from 2.2 million tonnes in SS
2004-05 to 9.1 million tonnes in SS 2006-07. Maharashtra can broadly be divided into three main sugar producing
zones South zone (core sugar producing region), the Central zone and the North Zone. The Central and North
zone are the areas in Maharashtra witnessing the largest swing in terms of sugar production.
South zone (core region) Comprises districts of Satara, Sangli and Kolhapur
Central Zone (swing region) Comprises districts of Nashik, Ahmadnagar, Pune and Solapur
North zone (swing region) Comprises districts of Dhule, Nandurbar, Jalgaon, Aurangabad, Jalna, Beed,
Parbhani, Latur, Dharashi, Nanded, Hingoli, Washim, Buldhana, Akola, Amravati, Yavatmal, Wardha, Nagpur
and Bhandara.
Figure 4: Historical zone wise sugar production in Maharashtra
2.4 1.9 2.21.1 1.2
2.12.8
2.9
2.3
2.6
1.30.7
2.4
3.9
1.5
1.41.4
0.8
0.4
0.8
2.4
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07
10,000
11,000
12,000
13,000
14,000
15,000
16,000
17,000
18,000
19,000
20,000
South zone Central zone North zone Sugar prices (RHS)
(Million tonnes) (Rs per tonne)
Source: Maharashtra Federation of Cooperative Sugar Factories and CRISIL Research
As can clearly be witnessed from the above graph, sugar production is most stable in Maharashtras South zone,
while being extremely volatile in the North and Central zones. Our interactions with industry sources lead us to
believe that the bulk of the fall in Maharashtras sugar production, in SS 2008-09 and SS 2009-10, will come fromthe Central and North zones of the state.
8/4/2019 Sugar Sector CRISIL[1]
8/34
A-6 CRISIL RESEARCH SUGAR ANNUAL REVIEW
Lack of sufficient rainfall in the third and fourth week of June and July has severely affected the planting of the
15-month cane crop, due to be harvested in SS 2009-10. The planting of the 12-month cane crop will take place
towards the end of 2009; with sugar prices expected to remain firm, it is our expectation that plantings will not
decline drastically. Keeping in mind the above facts, we expect sugar production in SS 2009-10 to fall by a further
12 per cent from its levels of SS 2008-09 and be at 5.5 million tonnes.
Uttar Pradesh
We expect sugar production, in Uttar Pradesh (UP) in SS 2008-09, to decline by 8 per cent to 6.7 million tonnes
and by a further 2 per cent in SS 2009-10 to 6.6 million tonnes.
Sugar production, in UP in SS 2007-08, was down by 14 per cent to 7.3 million tonnes despite only a 3.4 per cent
drop in cane production in UP. This was on account of the late starting of the crushing season in UP (due to
disputes over cane pricing) leading farmers to sell more cane to manufacturers of gur and khandsari.
As sugarcane crushing, in SS 2008-09, is expected to start as per normal towards the end of October 2008,
diversion of cane to alternative sweeteners is expected to be lower and thus while sugar cane production in SS
2008-09 is expected to be down by 12.9 per cent, sugar production is expected to be down only 8 per cent.
Demand
In this report, we have revised upwards our estimates on sugar consumption. Our earlier estimate put sugar
consumption, for the SS 2007-08, at 20.2 million tonnes which we have now revised upwards to 21.1 million
tonnes. We are also revising upwards our estimate for consumption for SS 2009-10 from 20.8 million tonnes to 22
million tonnes. We have made this upward revision in our consumption estimate by revising upwards our
estimates for the growth rate of per capita sugar consumption based on the growth of end use sectors (our
methodology for forecasting sugar consumption looks at population growth and per capita consumption growth).
Based on our interactions with industry sources, we estimate that about 70 per cent of sugar consumption is in the
indirect form (that is in sweetmeats, processed foods, soft drinks, chocolates, etc). We have revised upwards on
per capita sugar consumption, based on the growth rates of the end use sectors. Lack of availability of
comprehensive and reliable data, for all end use sectors, due their highly fragmented nature, is a constraint in this
approach. Though, intuitively, a large part of sugar consumption will be in the form of sweetmeats. However,
there is no data available on this large segment due to its unorganised and fragmented nature.
8/4/2019 Sugar Sector CRISIL[1]
9/34
CRISIL RESEARCH SUGAR ANNUAL REVIEW A-7
Box 1: Domestic sugar consumption forecast Methodology
Population growth and rise in per capita consumption primarily drive sugar consumption.
We have assumed that population will increase at a CAGR of 1.52 per cent between 2007-08 and 2012-13. As
incomes rise and awareness increases, the population growth rate is expected to slow down. Between 1986-87 and
1995-96, population growth in India was at 2.0-2.2 per cent. Thereafter, during the subsequent 5 years, growth
slowed down to 1.6-1.8 per cent.
Per capita consumption of sugar in India, at around 18.4 kgs, is one of the lowest in the world. From 18.4 kgs
during the 2007-08 SS, the per capita sugar consumption is expected to increase and reach 21 kgs by 2012-13.
We believe that rising income levels and the increasing penetration of processed food and other retail products
such as soft drinks and chocolates, would be the drivers for the increasing per capita consumption of sugar.
Table 1: Sugar - Domestic consumption
Sugar consumption Population Per capita consumption
(million tonnes) (millions) (Kg)
2002-03 17.4 1,058 16.5
2003-04 17.7 1,075 16.5
2004-05 18.5 1,094 16.9
2005-06 19.3 1,112 17.4
2006-07 20.2 1,130 17.9
2007-08 21.1 1,148 18.4
2008-09 22.0 1,166 18.9
2009-10 22.9 1,184 19.4
2010-11 23.9 1,202 19.9
2011-12 25.0 1,220 20.5
2012-13 26.0 1,238 21.0
Source: CRISIL Research
Box 2: Alternate methodologies
As a part of our review of sugar consumption, we attempted to forecast consumption using alternate
methodologies such as basing our estimates on data from the NSSO and the relatively simple method of looking at
consumption as the difference between opening and closing inventory after considering production, imports and
exports. However, neither of these approaches produced satisfactory results. While data from the National sample
survey organisation (NSSO) on per capita sugar consumption is available, this data point would only capture
direct sugar consumption which would be about 30 per cent of sugar consumption; hence, this method is not
feasible. Disappearance of stocks (Opening stock + Production + Imports Exports Closing stock) would be a
reliable method of estimating consumption; however, this method fails as the official data on inventories in
inconsistent due to stock adjustments made as per excise certificates. These adjustments will only capture sugar
inventory with sugar factories and will not capture inventory with the trade.
Thus, in this report, we have forecasted consumption using a method of growth in population and per capita
consumption.
8/4/2019 Sugar Sector CRISIL[1]
10/34
A-8 CRISIL RESEARCH SUGAR ANNUAL REVIEW
Exports
We forecast sugar exports, in the SS 2008-09, to fall to 0.5 million tonnes from levels of about 4.3 million tonnes
in SS 2007-08, on account of the withdrawal of sugar export subsidies by the government and the rise in domestic
prices.
The Central government, in April 2007, in an effort to lend support to falling sugar prices, had announced a sugar
export subsidy of Rs 1,350 per tonne for mills in coastal India and Rs 1,450 per tonne for mills in the interiors.
Additionally, the state governments of Maharashtra and Karnataka had announced an additional export subsidy of
Rs 1,000 per tonne for sugar exported from those two states. The subsidy extended to exports of both raw sugar
and white sugar. As per our analysis, exports have only been viable on account of the subsidies and without the
subsidies only a small quantum of exports would have taken place. In the graphs below, we have plotted the
domestic and export realisations for both white and raw sugar, clearly depicting that export realisations without
subsidies have been consistently lower than domestic realisations by an average of Rs 1.8 per Kg in SS 2007-08.
Figure 5: Domestic and export realisations for white sugar
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
Oct-05
Dec-05
Feb-06
Apr-06
Jun-06
Aug-06
Oct-06
Dec-06
Feb-07
Apr-07
Jun-07
Aug-07
Oct-07
Dec-07
Feb-08
Apr-08
Jun-08
Aug-08
Domestic realisation Export realisation (no subsidies)
Export real isation (both subsidies) Export real isation (only central subsidy)
(Rs / Kg)
Source: CRISIL Research and Bloomberg
Figure 6: Domestic and export realisations for raw sugar
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Oct-05
Dec-05
Feb-06
Apr-06
Jun-06
Aug-06
Oct-06
Dec-06
Feb-07
Apr-07
Jun-07
Aug-07
Oct-07
Dec-07
Feb-08
Apr-08
Jun-08
Domestic real isat ion Export realisati on (no subsi di es)
Ex por t re alis atio n (b ot h s ub si d ie s) E xp or t r ea lis ati on ( only ce ntr al s ub sid y)
(Rs / Kg)
Source: CRISIL Research and Bloomberg
8/4/2019 Sugar Sector CRISIL[1]
11/34
CRISIL RESEARCH SUGAR ANNUAL REVIEW A-9
Of the 4.3 million tonnes of sugar exported in SS 2007-08, about 2.5 million tonnes has been raw sugar with the
balance being plantation white sugar. Most of the raw sugar exported by the country has been to the Al Khaelej
refinery in Dubai. India has a competitive advantage in sugar exports to the Middle East on account of freight
advantages enjoyed by Indian raw sugar as compared to raw sugar from alternative suppliers such as Brazil and
Thailand.
Sugar prices have risen by about 20 per cent in August 2008 from their levels of July 2008. Selling sugar at
current prices, in the domestic market, is more attractive for mills as compared to exporting, even after
considering the subsidies. Both the Central and state government subsidies will be withdrawn at the end of the
current (2007-08) sugar season. Thus, with rising domestic sugar prices and the withdrawal of the export
subsidies, we expect sugar exports to fall to 0.5 million tonnes in SS 2008-09. We expect no sugar to be exported
in the SS 2009-10.
Box 3: Raw sugar
Raw sugar is an intermediate in the production of sugar. It is a moist, coarsely crystalline mass with sucrose
content of 95-97 per cent. The solid cores of the raw sugar crystals are still covered with a layer of syrup. These
accompanying substances make raw sugar moist and tacky and give it its typical yellowish-brown colour and
malty and burnt flavour. As raw sugar is an intermediate product in the sugar manufacturing process all existing
plants can make raw sugar without additional capital expenditure. Raw sugar is about 92 per cent processed.
India has emerged as a raw sugar exporter for the first time in SS 2007-08. Most of the global trade in sugar, of
about 50 million tonnes, is in the form of raw sugar; 33 million tonnes is in the form of raw sugar with the balance
being in the form of white sugar.
India has generally exported white sugar but the market for Indian white sugar is limited due to its inferior quality.
The sugar produced in India is known as plantation white sugar (150 International Commission for Uniform
Methods of Sugar analysis -ICUMSA), while the global trade is mainly in the form of refined white sugar (45
ICUMSA). The export market for plantation white sugar, which India produces, is limited to about 4 million
tonnes. There is intense competition from Brazil and Thailand in this market. Thus, if India is to be a large
exporter of sugar it needs to produce either refined white sugar (45 ICUMSA) or export raw sugar. Mills would
need to incur additional capital expenditure for producing refined white sugar. Raw sugar is an intermediate step
in the sugar production process and thus no additional capital expenditure is required for producing raw sugar.Therefore, mills are better placed to export raw sugar.
8/4/2019 Sugar Sector CRISIL[1]
12/34
This page is intentionally left blank
8/4/2019 Sugar Sector CRISIL[1]
13/34
CRISIL RESEARCH SUGAR ANNUAL REVIEW A-11
After 2 years of large surpluses, CRISIL Research expects global demand to exceed global production in 2008-09,
leading to a fall in global inventory levels. Sugar consumption is expected to exceed production by about 4
million tonnes leading to inventory declining from about 5 months of consumption at the end of 2007-08 to about
4.7 months of consumption at the end of 2008-09.
Figure 1: Global demand-supply and inventory
125
130
135
140
145
150
155
160
165
170
175
2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08E 2008-09F
50
52
54
56
58
60
62
64
66
68
Product ion Consum ption Closing st ock (RHS)
(million t onnes)(million t o nnes)
Source: ISO & CRISIL Research
Figure 2: Global inventory levels and prices
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08E 2008-09F
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Inventory (months consumption) White prices (RHS) Raw pr ices (RHS)
($ / tonne)(months consumption)
Source: ISO, CRISIL Research & Bloomberg
Global consumption is expected to exceed production on account of the following:
Lower production in India (for details refer Chapter 1 Domestic demand-supply outlook)
Higher diversion of cane to ethanol in Brazil
Lower production in the EU (European Union) and Thailand
2.0 Global demand-supply outlook
8/4/2019 Sugar Sector CRISIL[1]
14/34
A-12 CRISIL RESEARCH SUGAR ANNUAL REVIEW
High diversion of cane to ethanol in Brazil
In 2008-09, Brazil is expected to divert 60 per cent of its sugarcane crop for ethanol manufacture as compared to
56 per cent in 2007-08. The high diversion, to ethanol, is due to the fact that manufacturing ethanol is more
attractive as compared to manufacturing sugar. Brazils ethanol demand has been growing strongly on the back of
strong sales of flex fuel vehicles (vehicles which can run on any combination of petrol and ethanol). In the first 6
months of 2008, flex fuel vehicles accounted for 83 per cent of vehicle sales. Flex fuel vehicles account for 23 per
cent of Brazils total vehicle fleet.
Strong ethanol exports to US support Brazils demand for ethanol. Surging corn prices in USA have pushed up
feedstock costs for US-based corn ethanol manufacturers, making Brazilian ethanol competitive in USA even
after the import duty of 54 cents per gallon.
Figure 3: Per cent age diversion of sugarcane to sugar and ethanol in Brazil
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1996-97
1997-98
1998-99
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
Per cent of cane for sugar Per cent of cane for ethanol
Source: IBGE, USDA & CRISIL Research
Figure 4: Indexed domestic prices of sugar and ethanol in Brazil
75
95
115
135
155
175
195
215
May-05
Jul-05
Sep-05
Nov-05
Jan-06
Mar-06
May-06
Jul-06
Sep-06
Nov-06
Jan-07
Mar-07
M
ay-07
Jul-07
Sep-07
Nov-07
Jan-08
Mar-08
M
ay-08
Jul-08
Sugar Et hanol
Source: CEPEA & CRISIL Research
8/4/2019 Sugar Sector CRISIL[1]
15/34
CRISIL RESEARCH SUGAR ANNUAL REVIEW A-13
Lower production in the EU and Thailand
Sugar production in Thailand, in 2008-09, is expected to decline by 6 per cent to 7.2 million tonnes. The decline is
on account of a 5.1 per cent decline in area under sugarcane production. As Thailand exports about 67 per cent of
its sugar production, it is vulnerable to swings in global prices. The low sugar prices, witnessed globally in 2006-
07 and the first half of 2007-08, have caused farmers to plant alternative crops resulting in a decline in area under
cane cultivation.
EU member states are cutting sugar production as per reforms agreed by the EU commission (please refer to
Chapter 8 International Scenario in Part B of this report for background information on EU sugar policy) As a
part of the ongoing reform process, sugar production, in the EU in 2008-09, is expected to decline by 5.2 per cent
to 16.8 million tonnes.
8/4/2019 Sugar Sector CRISIL[1]
16/34
This page is intentionally left blank
8/4/2019 Sugar Sector CRISIL[1]
17/34
CRISIL RESEARCH SUGAR ANNUAL REVIEW A-15
Domestic sugar prices have been consistently moving upwards since November 2007 on account of an improving
demand-supply situation. In August 2008, prices shot up by 20 per cent from their levels of July 2008 and were at
Rs 1,900 per quintal.
Tightness of sugar supply, in the physical market despite a high level of inventory, caused this dramatic price rise.
The government had created a buffer stock of 5 million tonnes for supporting the industry when sugar prices were
low. Out of the total buffer stock of 5 million tonnes, 2.75 million tonnes were to be sold in SS 2007-08 with the
balance being sold in SS 2008-09.
Considering that sugar from the buffer stock would be available in the market, the government declared a lower
release order for August 2008. The free sale quota for August 2008 was initially set at 0.9 million tonnes as
against 1.3 million tonnes in August 2007. Prices spiked on the news of the lower quota and in an effort to contain
the price rise the government hiked the free sale quota from 0.9 million tonnes to 1.1 million tonnes. It has been
discerned that mills have been selling less sugar from the buffer stock on expectations of better prices going
forward. Thus, the lower release order and fewer sales from the buffer stock caused tightness in the physical
market. We expect prices to fall from current levels in the short term. In the long term, however, prices are
expected to continue their upward move.
We expect domestic sugar prices in SS 2008-09 to remain between Rs 1,700 and Rs 1,850 per quintal. Prices in
SS 2009-10 are expected to remain between Rs 1,850 Rs 2,000 per quintal.
International prices too have moved up in the past 3 months on expectation of a global deficit in SS 2008-09.
Figure 1: Domestic and international sugar prices
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
2,200
Oct-03
Jan-04
Apr-04
Jul-04
Oct-04
Jan-05
Apr-05
Jul-05
Oct-05
Jan-06
Apr-06
Jul-06
Oct-06
Jan-07
Apr-07
Jul-07
Oct-07
Jan-08
Apr-08
Jul-08
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
Mumbai S-30 Raw (RHS) White (RHS)
(USD / tonne)(INR / tonne)
Source: Bloomberg and CRISIL Research
3.0 Prices
8/4/2019 Sugar Sector CRISIL[1]
18/34
A-16 CRISIL RESEARCH SUGAR ANNUAL REVIEW
Table 1: Domestic demand-supply situation to tighten
(million tonnes) 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 E 2008-09 F 2009-10 F
Opening stock 10.6 11.2 12.5 8.5 4.9 3.7 10.1 11.0 9.9
Production 18.5 20.1 13.5 12.7 19.3 28.3 26.3 21.4 20.2
Imports - 0.0 0.4 2.1 - - - - -
Consumption (CRISIL) 16.8 17.4 17.7 18.5 19.3 20.2 21.1 22.0 22.9
Exports 1.1 1.5 0.2 0.0 1.1 1.7 4.3 0.5 -
Closing stock 11.2 12.5 8.5 4.9 3.7 10.1 11.0 9.9 7.2
Closing stock as months offtake 7.1 8.4 5.5 2.8 2.0 4.8 5.9 5.2 3.7
Closing stock as months consumption 7.7 8.5 5.5 3.0 2.2 5.7 6.0 5.2 3.7
Sugar prices - Mumbai S-30 (Rs / tonne) 12,474 14,642 17,651 18,696 14,879 14,890
Note: Prices for 2007-08 are average prices from Oct 07 - Aug 07
Source: CRISIL Research, ISMA, NFCSF & Bloomberg
Speculative activitySpeculative activity, in sugar, witnessed peak levels in March 2008 with net non commercial long positions
accounting for 23.4 per cent of world trade and raw sugar prices being about $318 / tonne. However, speculative
activity, in sugar, has declined presently. As of 26th
August 2008, prices were at $323 per tonne but net non
commercial long positions had declined to 16.9 per cent of world trade. Thus, higher prices, despite lower
speculative involvement, leads to the conclusion that fundamentals support present levels of international prices.
Figure 2: Open interest and net non commercial long positions in sugar
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.3
1.5
1.7
Jan-06
Mar-06
May-06
Jul-06
Sep-06
Nov-06
Jan-07
Mar-07
May-07
Jul-07
Sep-07
Nov-07
Jan-08
Mar-08
May-08
Jul-08
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
Open interest Net non commercial long posit ion (RHS)
(thousand contracts)(million contracts)
Source: CFTC and CRISIL Research
8/4/2019 Sugar Sector CRISIL[1]
19/34
CRISIL RESEARCH SUGAR ANNUAL REVIEW A-17
Figure 3: Net non commercial long positions and sugar prices
175
225
275
325
375
425
Jan-06
M
ar-06
May-06
Jul-06
Sep-06
Nov-06
Jan-07
Mar-07
M
ay-07
Jul-07
Sep-07
Nov-07
Jan-08
Mar-08
May-08
Jul-08
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
Raw sugar prices Net non commerc ia l l ong pos itions (RHS)
(USD/ ton ne) (tho usand con tracts)
Source: CFTC, Bloomberg and CRISIL Research
Currency movements
The appreciation of the Brazilian Real against the US Dollar has caused earnings for Brazilian firms in Real terms
to decline. Despite the increase in dollar prices since June 2008, prices in Real terms have actually remained flat.
The appreciation of the Real against the dollar has pushed up prices in dollar terms.
Figure 4: Indexed raw sugar prices in USD and BRL
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
Jan-06
M
ar-06
M
ay-06
Jul-06
Sep-06
Nov-06
Jan-07
Mar-07
May-07
Jul-07
Sep-07
Nov-07
Jan-08
M
ar-08
M
ay-08
Jul-08
Indexed raw sugar pr ices in BRL Indexed raw sugar pr ices in USD
Source: Bloomberg and CRISIL Research
8/4/2019 Sugar Sector CRISIL[1]
20/34
A-18 CRISIL RESEARCH SUGAR ANNUAL REVIEW
Figure 5: Raw sugar prices in USD and BRL
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Jan-06
M
ar-06
May-06
Jul-06
Sep-06
Nov-06
Jan-07
Mar-07
M
ay-07
Jul-07
Sep-07
Nov-07
Jan-08
Mar-08
May-08
Jul-08
350
450
550
650
750
850
950
Raw sugar pr ices in USD Raw sugar pr ices in BRL (RHS)
USD / tonne (BRL / tonne)
Source: Bloomberg and CRISIL Research
Figure 6: Appreciation of BRL against the USD
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
Jan-06
Mar-06
M
ay-06
Jul-06
Sep-06
Nov-06
Jan-07
Mar-07
M
ay-07
Jul-07
Sep-07
Nov-07
Jan-08
Mar-08
M
ay-08
Jul-08
BRLvis-a- vis the USD
Source: Bloomberg and CRISIL Research
8/4/2019 Sugar Sector CRISIL[1]
21/34
CRISIL RESEARCH SUGAR ANNUAL REVIEW A-19
CRISIL Research expects profitability of sugar companies to improve over the next 2 sugar seasons on account
of the expected rise in sugar prices. The fall in sugar prices, witnessed in SS 2007-08, significantly eroded the
profitability of Indian sugar companies (especially in Uttar Pradesh). Sugar prices, in SS 2006-07, fell by about 20
per cent to Rs 1,488 per quintal. The situation was even worse for sugar companies in Uttar Pradesh where in
addition to the 20 per cent decline in prices, the SAP (State Advised Price) for sugar cane was hiked by 9 per cent
to Rs 125 per quintal.
Figure 1: Profitability of sugar companies in North India (UP, Bihar)
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Sep-00 Sep-01 Sep-02 Sep-03 Sep-04 Sep-05 Sep-06 Sep-07
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
OPM NPM ROCE Sugar - cane price gap (RHS)
(Per cent) (Rs)
Source: Prowess and CRISIL Research
Figure 2: Profitability of sugar companies in South India (TN, Kar, Maha)
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
Sep-00 Sep-01 Sep-02 Sep-03 Sep-04 Sep-05 Sep-06 Sep-07
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
OPM NPM ROCE Sugar - cane price gap (RHS)
(Per cent) (Rs)
Source: Prowess and CRISIL Research
4.0 Profitability
8/4/2019 Sugar Sector CRISIL[1]
22/34
A-20 CRISIL RESEARCH SUGAR ANNUAL REVIEW
Table 1: North India Key financial ratios
Parameter Unit Max Min Range Average
OPM Per cent 23.9 4.4 19.5 15.0
NPM Per cent 11.7 -3.6 15.2 3.9
ROCE Per cent 20.6 0.3 20.3 10.8Sugar & cane price gap Rs 5.5 2.3 3.2 4.3
Source: Prowess and CRISIL Research
Table 2: South India Key financial ratios
Parameter Unit Max Min Range Average
OPM Per cent 19.7 12.1 7.6 16.9
NPM Per cent 8.9 -1.0 9.9 4.6
ROCE Per cent 20.4 6.6 13.8 12.6
Sugar & cane price gap Rs 5.9 3.8 2.1 4.9
Source: Prowess and CRISIL Research
As can be seen from the above tables, the volatility in operating margins, net margins and RoCE, is lower for
companies in South India. This is on account of the differing regulatory regimes in North and South India. North
India (predominantly UP) has a fixed cane pricing regime which is not linked to the sugar price. Companies in
South India have limited flexibility with regards to cane prices. When sugar prices rise, they pay higher prices to
cane growers and, subsequently, when sugar prices come down, they are able to pay less to cane growers.
Profitability, of sugar companies, in the first 3 quarters of SS 2007-08, has improved, for both companies in North
and South India; companies have benefited from higher sugar prices. Companies in North India (UP) have
profited to a large extent on account of lower cane prices.
Table 3: Profitability of North Indian companies in 9M SS 2007-08
Parameter 2006-07 9M 2007-08 9M
Net sales 100 100
Change in stock -44.4 -53.3
Raw materials, stores & spares 122.0 111.7
Salaries and wages 6.4 8.4
Other expenses 11.7 14.0
Total operating expenses 95.8 80.9
OPBDIT 4.2 19.1
Source: Prowess and CRISIL Research
Table 4: Profitability of South Indian companies in 9M SS 2007-08
Parameter 2006-07 9M 2007-08 9M
Net sales 100 100
Change in stock -9.8 -9.2
Raw materials, stores & spares 71.0 72.1
Salaries and wages 4.6 4.3
Other expenses 25.1 21.6
Total operating expenses 91.0 88.8
OPBDIT 9.0 11.2
Source: Prowess and CRISIL Research
8/4/2019 Sugar Sector CRISIL[1]
23/34
CRISIL RESEARCH SUGAR ANNUAL REVIEW A-21
Table 5: Comparative sugar prices Mumbai S-30
Month SS 2006-07 SS 2007-08 Difference
October 1,780 1,377 -403
November 1,747 1,362 -385
December 1,644 1,357 -287
January 1,538 1,420 -118
February 1,471 1,407 -64
March 1,496 1,508 12
April 1,451 1,499 47
May 1,329 1,481 152
June 1,331 1,484 154
July 1,374 1,585 211
August 1,335 1,900 565
September 1,360 NA
Source: Bloomberg and CRISIL Research
Low sugarcane prices in Uttar Pradesh are one of the key reasons for higher profitability of North Indian sugar
companies. The Uttar Pradesh state government had announced the SAP for sugar cane at Rs 125 per quintal for
SS 2007-08 (unchanged from its levels of SS 2006-07). Mills in Uttar Pradesh have contested, in the Supreme
Court, for the state governments methodology in fixing sugar cane prices.. The matter is presently sub judice.
The quarterly results, announced by sugar companies, are based on a sugar cane price of Rs 110 per quintal.
Profitability will decline from stated levels if the matter in the courts goes against the UP-based sugar companies
and they are ordered to pay higher than Rs 110 per quintal..
The outcome of court cases relating to withdrawal of the UP Sugar Industry Promotion Policy, 2004 is another
concern for UP-based sugar companies. On June 1, 2007, the new state government in Uttar Pradesh withdrew the
states Sugar Industry Promotion Policy, 2004 with immediate effect.
The following are the main features of the Sugar Industry Promotion Policy, 2004:
Fixed concessions: A 10 per cent subsidy on capital invested and a remission in stamp duty and registration
charges on land purchase.
Variable concessions: Exemption of 1) cane purchase tax 2) entry tax on sugar 3) administrative charge on
molasses and 4) trade tax on molasses. There would also be re-imbursement of the following expenses:
1) Cane transport expenses 2) sugar transport expenses 3) cane society commission. According to industrysources, the benefit of the variable component of the subsidy worked out to Rs 1 per kg of sugar produced.
It is clear that removing the scheme will negatively impact the profitability of sugar companies in the state.
However, the outlook for sugar companies in Uttar Pradesh is uncertain and will be clear only when the outcome
of the court cases, relating to the withdrawal of the Sugar Industry Promotion Policy, is known.
8/4/2019 Sugar Sector CRISIL[1]
24/34
This page is intentionally left blank
8/4/2019 Sugar Sector CRISIL[1]
25/34
CRISIL RESEARCH SUGAR ANNUAL REVIEW A-23
Four possible business models for a sugar company
Sugar companies are increasingly diversifying and de-risking their revenue streams by manufacturing ethanol
from molasses and co-generating power from bagasse.
At present, there are four possible business models for a sugar company. These are as follows:
A company can be a plain vanilla sugar manufacturer, that is, manufacture sugar and sell the by-products
(molasses and bagasse) obtained in the course of manufacture without any value addition. This is the sugar-
molasses-bagasse model.
A company can convert molasses into alcohol and further process the same into ethanol. It may opt not to
forward integrate into the manufacture of power. This is called the sugar-ethanol-bagasse model. A company can go in for bagasse-based cogeneration of power, but decide not to convert molasses into
alcohol/ethanol. This could be referred to as the sugar-molasses-power model.
A company may opt to forward integrate into complete value addition of by-products, that is, produce sugar,
alcohol/ethanol and power. It may continue to sell a certain quantum of molasses and bagasse in the open
market, but it will also have the facilities for processing molasses into alcohol/ethanol and bagasse into
power. This could be termed the sugar-ethanol-power model.
Returns from alternative business models
Sugar companies have been diversifying their business models and derisking their revenue streams by setting
up facilities for producing alcohol/ethanol (from molasses) and for co-generating power (utilising bagasse).After conducting a detailed analysis of the four possible business models a sugar company can follow,CRISIL Research concludes that forward integration into power and ethanol enables mills to generate higheraverage profits over the length of the sugar cycle.
We have analysed the incremental profitability and returns from alternative business models in three possible
scenarios an upward cycle in the industry, that is, sugar supply is low and prices are high; a normal scenario of
moderate supply and prices; and a cyclical downturn in the industry, that is, supply is high and prices are low.
We have made product pricing and cost assumptions for each of these three scenarios. We have assumed that
realisations earned on the sale of sugar would be at Rs 13,500-18,500 per tonne, molasses prices would vary
between Rs 500-3,500 per tonne,alcohol/ethanol sales realisations would be at Rs 18,500-24,000 per kilo litre,
while bagasse prices would be Rs 100-800 per tonne.
In a normal scenario, we have assumed sugar sales realisation of Rs 16,000 per tonne, molasses prices of Rs 1,500
per tonne, average alcohol prices of Rs 21,500 per tonne, and bagasse prices of Rs 400 per tonne. The realisation
per unit of power sold has been taken as Rs 3.2 per unit, and the price of sugarcane has been assumed at Rs 1,200
per tonne.
It is to be noted that the prices and costs we have assumed are indicative in nature. Actual figures would vary from
region to region and from company to company.
5.0 Business model analysis
8/4/2019 Sugar Sector CRISIL[1]
26/34
A-24 CRISIL RESEARCH SUGAR ANNUAL REVIEW
In addition, sugar mills are entitled to receive tradable carbon credits (certified emission reductions (CERs)) under
the clean development mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol, since power cogeneration plants produce renewable
energy through the non-carbon route. We have not considered this in our calculations, as mills have to obtain
several approvals before they are eligible to receive CERs.
In the normal scenario, we have assumed that a plant with a capacity to crush 5,000 tonnes of sugarcane per day
(5,000 tcd), will operate for 156 days at 90 per cent capacity utilisation, crushing a total of 702,000 tonnes of
sugarcane. Further, we have assumed that the upcycle mills will crush 8 per cent more as compared to the normal
scenario; the downcycle mills will crush 8 per cent more cane as compared to the normal scenario.
Recovery and other input-output ratios have been considered at standard industry norms. Further, we have
assumed that a mill forward integrating into the manufacture of alcohol/ethanol and/or power will process 100 per
cent of its molasses production into alcohol/ethanol and 100 per cent of its bagasse output into power.
Table 1: Integrated model has higher returns over the complete cycle
SMB SEB SMP SEP
PBIT Margins
Upcycle 18% 20% 20% 22%
Normal 7% 12% 14% 18%
Downcycle -9% -1% 4% 10%
Average margin (weighted) 5% 10% 12% 16%
Return on capital employed
Upcycle 15% 15% 13% 13%Normal 5% 8% 8% 10%
Downcycle -6% 0% 2% 5%
Average RoCE (weighted) 5% 7% 7% 9%
SMB: Sugar-molasses-bagasse;SEB: Sugar-ethanol-bagasse;SMP: Sugar-molasses-power;
SEP: Sugar-ethanol-power
Note:
This is a hypothetical example. Actuals may vary.
Weights for calculating average: Upcycle (2 years), Normal (1 year), Downcycle (2 years)
Source: Industry and CRISIL Research
We can conclude the following from the above table:
It makes sound business sense to opt for an integrated business model, where a mill produces not only sugar
but also alcohol, ethanol and power; average profits are higher (over a complete cycle) and variation in profits
is also lower than that of a plain vanilla sugar mill producing sugar, molasses and bagasse. This is because
earnings from the sale of alcohol/ethanol and power are relatively stable and are non-cyclical compared to the
core sugar business (power prices are not volatile since they are decided on the basis of long-term agreements.
The price of ethanol sold to oil-marketing companies, for the ethanol-blending programme, is fixed on the
basis of quantity-based tenders).
8/4/2019 Sugar Sector CRISIL[1]
27/34
CRISIL RESEARCH SUGAR ANNUAL REVIEW A-25
Processing molasses into alcohol/ethanol and undertaking bagasse-based co-generation of power helps, to
some extent, in protecting revenues and improving profitability during periods of downturn in the core sugar
business. For example, in 2006-07, sugar prices fell sharply due to oversupply in the market, but alcohol and
power prices were relatively stable. During this period, when the sugar business was doing badly, these
products contributed heavily to profitability.
However, opting for value addition of bagasse and molasses, could generate lower returns on incremental
capital employed (compared to a standalone sugar mill) when the industry is in an upturn. For instance, during
a period sugar shortage in 2004-05, several sugar mills were finding the sale of molasses and bagasse more
profitable than the sale of alcohol or power.
Opting for a sugar-molasses-power or sugar-alcohol-power model would generate higher profits for sugar
companies over a cycle. The business risk in opting for these models is also lower, given the lesser variation
in profits. However, sugar mills could prefer to set up a distillery unit first rather than a co-generation plant,
due to the lower capital expenditure requirement for establishing a distillery unit.
Our conclusions must, however, be viewed in the light of the following:
The decision of a sugar mill to opt for an integrated business model or to remain a standalone plain vanilla
sugar mill is often a function of its long-term strategy and vision. Prices and costs at particular point of time
do not necessarily influence business decisions, which are taken with a long-term view.
Past experiences or future expectations also govern decisions. For example, several mills are hesitant to opt
for power co-generation in view of the unpleasant experiences that some of them had in the form of delay inreceiving payments from state electricity boards against supply of power. There is also a fear among some
mills that realisations on power sales may drop in the coming years.
8/4/2019 Sugar Sector CRISIL[1]
28/34
This page is intentionally left blank
8/4/2019 Sugar Sector CRISIL[1]
29/34
CRISIL RESEARCH SUGAR ANNUAL REVIEW A-27
Blending programme not to succeed in the present form
Mandatory 10 per cent ethanol blending is scheduled to come into effect from 1st
October 2008. Presently, 5 per
cent ethanol blending is mandatory. However, as per our understanding, the actual level of blending is between 2
3 per cent.
It is our opinion that the ethanol-blending programme, in its present form, cannot succeed on account of the
following factors:
Attractiveness of ethanol vis--vis other alcohols
Cyclical feedstock availability
Alternative feedstocks unprofitable
Pricing and tendering system
Box 1: Background
The ethanol-blending programme started in October 2003. Under this, the Central government had made the sale
of petrol, blended with 5 per cent ethanol, mandatory in nine states (Andhra Pradesh, Goa, Gujarat, Haryana,
Karnataka, Maharashtra, Punjab, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh) and four union territories (Daman & Diu, Dadra &
Nagar Haveli, Pondicherry and Chandigarh).
The programme had come to an abrupt halt in October 2004, due to the decline in molasses and alcohol
availability (following the steep fall in sugarcane output) and the inability of sugar mills and oil marketing
companies to arrive at a consensus on economic pricing for ethanol.
However, the programme was revived and a national programme to blend 5 per cent ethanol with petrol had been
implemented from November 1, 2006. The programme was extended to the entire country except states in the
Northeast, Jammu & Kashmir, Lakshadweep and Andaman and Nicobar Islands. However, the government had
not made the programme mandatory, and oil companies had been given the freedom to protect their commercial
interests for arriving at a viable pricing for ethanol.
In October 2007, 5 per cent blending was made mandatory with immediate effect.
Attractiveness of ethanol vis--vis other alcohols
At present, mills have contracted tenders from the OMCs for supplying ethanol for a 3-year period, at a fixed
price of Rs 21.5 per litre. The price was acceptable to sugar companies when the tenders were made. Currently,
the price of Rs 21.5 is unacceptable to sugar companies. This is because prices of lower grades of alcohol such as
rectified spirit, costing less to produce, are selling at Rs 26 27 per litre. Thus, in the current environment, mills
would rather sell rectified spirit as compared to ethanol. However, as they are locked into tenders, they are selling
ethanol at Rs 21.5 per litre when they could sell rectified spirit in the open market at Rs 26 27 per litre.
6.0 Ethanol-blending programme
8/4/2019 Sugar Sector CRISIL[1]
30/34
A-28 CRISIL RESEARCH SUGAR ANNUAL REVIEW
Cyclical feedstock availability
Table 1: Alcohol surplus/(deficit) situation
Year Cane Unblended Potable Industrial and Ethanol
crushed petrol demand alcohol other uses demand at 5%
(mn litres) (mn tonnes) A B C D = A*0.05
2002-03 194 10,682 747 722 534
2003-04 133 11,143 775 764 557
2004-05 125 11,642 832 802 582
2005-06 189 12,201 868 824 610
2006-07 279 14,020 911 846 701
2007-08E 255 15,056 972 863 753
2008-09F 211 16,093 1,037 880 805
2009-10F 202 17,224 1,100 898 861
Year Ethanol Total Alcohol production Excess/Deficit Excess/Deficit
demand at 10% demand from molasses @ 5 per cent blending @ 10 per cent blending
(mn litres) E = A*0.1 F=B+C+D G H = G - F I = G - A - B -E
2002-03 1,068 2,002 1,968 -35 -569
2003-04 1,114 2,096 1,342 -754 -1311
2004-05 1,164 2,216 1,263 -952 -1534
2005-06 1,220 2,302 1,910 -392 -1002
2006-07 1,402 2,458 2,824 365 -336
2007-08E 1,506 2,588 2,584 -3 -756
2008-09F 1,609 2,722 2,137 -584 -1389
2009-10F 1,722 2,859 2,043 -817 -1678
Source: CRISIL Research
As can be observed from the table above, in 2007-08, around 753 million litres of ethanol are needed to blend
petrol with 5 per cent ethanol. By 2008-09, the quantum of ethanol, required for blending purposes, will shoot up
to 861 million litres. At 10 per cent blending level, the demand for ethanol for blending will double.
Industrial alcohol-based chemical manufacturers and potable alcohol manufacturers also use the alcohol/ethanol
made by sugar mills as a raw material. We estimate that the total demand for alcohol, for other than blending
purposes, is expected to increase from 1.8 billion litres during 2007-08 to about 2.0 billion by 2008-09.
Thus, by 2008-09, around 2,900 million litres of alcohol/ethanol will be required for meeting the demand for 5 per
cent blending and for industrial, potable and other purposes. In the event of 10 per cent ethanol blending, around
3,700 million litres of alcohol/ethanol will be required to meet the demand.
As can be seen from the table, post 2007-08, the estimated alcohol production will not be enough to meet total
alcohol demand even at 5 per cent blending. This is on account of the fact that sugar cane and consequently sugar
and molasses production is expected to decline in the 2008-09 and 2009-10 SSs. Thus, if the blending programme
is to be successful, alternative feedstocks will need to be used to meet ethanol demand.
8/4/2019 Sugar Sector CRISIL[1]
31/34
CRISIL RESEARCH SUGAR ANNUAL REVIEW A-29
Alternative feedstocks unprofitable
As discussed above, the ethanol-blending programme cannot be successful unless alternative feedstocks are used
for ethanol production. The alternative feedstocks that can be used for ethanol production are as folows:
B heavy molasses
Sugar cane juice
However, it is our opinion that ethanol will not be manufactured from these alternative feedstocks, as it will be
unprofitable at the current ethanol price of Rs 21.5 per litre.
B heavy molasses route
In sugar factories, sugar is crystallised from a concentrated juice in three separate crystallisation stages wherein
each stage results in the production of a crystallised sugar fraction (called the A sugar, B sugar and C sugar,
respectively) and a non-crystalline fraction or molasses fraction called A molasses, B molasses and C molasses.
The A molasses which is the non-crystalline portion resulting from the first stage, is fed into the second
crystallisation stage and further crystallisation occurs to form B sugar. The non-crystalline portion of this stage
(the B molasses) is fed into the third crystallisation stage and further crystallisation takes place to give a C sugar
fraction and a C molasses. The C sugar fraction is of relatively low quality and is used as seed crystals to facilitate
crystallisation in the first and second crystallisation stages. The C molasses (also called final molasses) is not
refined further and instead used as a stock feed in the fermentation industry.
In case of B molasses, sugar recovery rate would drop by about 150 basis points to about 8.5 per cent while the
B molasses recovery goes up by similar amount to about 6 per cent. Further, as against 225 litres of alcohol
produced from one tonne of C molasses, one tonne of B molasses would recover as much as about 350 litres
of alcohol due to higher sucrose content remaining in B molasses.
Table 2: Comparison of profitability of ethanol production under 'C' vs. 'B' molasses route
Particulars Calculations Units 'C' Molasses 'B' Molasses Incremental
Current position Potential profit
Sugarcane available A tonnes 100 100
Cost per tonne B Rs 1,350 1,350
Cost of sugarcane C= A x B Rs 135,000 135,000
Sugar production D tonnes 10.0 8.5Cost of conversion of sugarcane into sugar E Rs per tonne 3,500 3,800
Selling price of sugar F Rs per tonne 15,000 15,000
Molasses production G tonnes 4.50 6.00
Ethanol production H= G x 350* litres 1,013 2,100
Cost of processing molasses into ethanol I Rs per litre 6.0 6.0
Realisation from sale of ethanol J Rs per litre 21.5 21.5
Total cost K=C+(DxE)+ (H x I) Rs 176,075 179,900 3,825
Total revenue L Rs 171,769 172,650 881
Profit M = K - L Rs (4,306) (7,250) (2,944)
Assumption: We have assumed one tonne of cane yields 6 % 'B' molasses and 8.5 % sugar.One tonne of B molasses yields
350 litres of alcohol
Note:
1) The above figures are indicative. Actual figures will vary from company to company
Source: CRISIL Research and Industry
8/4/2019 Sugar Sector CRISIL[1]
32/34
A-30 CRISIL RESEARCH SUGAR ANNUAL REVIEW
Table 3: Surplus/ (deficit) under 'B' Molasses route
Year Cane Unblended Potable Industrial and
crushed petrol demand alcohol other uses
(mn litres) (mn tonnes) A B C
2002-03 194 10,682 747 722
2003-04 133 11,143 775 764
2004-05 125 11,642 832 802
2005-06 189 12,201 868 824
2006-07 279 14,020 911 846
2007-08E 255 15,056 972 863
2008-09F 211 16,093 1,037 880
2009-10F 202 17,224 1,100 898
Year Ethanol Total demand Alcohol production Excess/Deficit
demand at 10% from molasses @ 10 per cent blending(mn litres) D = A*0.1 E=B+C+D G H = G - F
2002-03 1,068 2,537 4,082 1545
2003-04 1,114 2,653 2,783 130
2004-05 1,164 2,798 2,620 -178
2005-06 1,220 2,912 3,962 1050
2006-07 1,402 3,159 5,856 2697
2007-08E 1,506 3,341 5,360 2020
2008-09F 1,609 3,526 4,433 906
2009-10F 1,722 3,721 4,237 516
Source: CRISIL Research
As can be seen from the above table, B molasses will be able to meet requirements of alcohol towards potable and
industrial purposes and ethanol requirement for even 10 per cent blending. However, new capacities would be
required for producing these volumes of alcohol. It is our estimate that total alcohol manufacturing capacity in the
country is about 3.2 billion litres with ethanol capacity being 1.5 billion litres.
Table 4: Ethanol prices at which 'C' molasses route and 'B' molasses route are equally profitable
Sugar price Ethanol price
15,000 24.2
16,000 25.6
17,000 27.0
18,000 28.3
19,000 29.7
Source: CRISIL Research
However, we do not expect any ethanol to be manufactured from B molasses in the next two sugar seasons as it
is unprofitable. For ethanol production, from B heavy molasses, to be profitable at sugar realisation of Rs 15,000
per tonne, the ethanol price would need to be Rs 24.2 per litre. As sugar prices rise, ethanol price will also have to
rise for ethanol manufacture, from B heavy molasses, to remain profitable.
8/4/2019 Sugar Sector CRISIL[1]
33/34
CRISIL RESEARCH SUGAR ANNUAL REVIEW A-31
Sugar cane juice route (Direct route)
The sugarcane juice route yields seven to eight times the alcohol that can be produced from C molasses.
However, our study on ethanol production cost comparison between molasses route and sugarcane juice route
indicates that the production of ethanol directly from sugarcane juice is not viable at the current realisations.
Table 5: Comparison of ethanol production via 'C' molasses vs direct route (cane to ethanol)
Calculations Unit Sugar and Cane to Incremental
C Molasses Ethanol profit/(loss)
Sugarcane available A tonnes 100 100
Cost per tonne of cane B Rs 1,350 1,350
Total cane cost C=A x B Rs 135,000 135,000
Sugar production D tonnes 10 0
Molasses production E tonnes 4.5 14.5
Ethanol production F litres 1,013 7,600
Cost of conversion of sugarcane into sugar G Rs per tonne 3,500 0
Cost of processing for ethanol H. Rs per litre 6 8
Realisation from sale of sugar I Rs per tonne 15,000 0
Realisation from sale of ethanol J Rs per litre 21.5 21.5
Total Revenue K=(D x I) +( F x J) Rs 171,769 163,400 (8,369)
Total cost L= C+ (D x G) +( F x J) Rs 176,075 195,800 19,725
Profit /(Loss) M= K-L Rs (4,306) (32,400) (28,094)
Note:
1) The above figures are indicative. Actual figures will vary from company to company
Source: CRISIL Research and Industry
Table 6: Ethanol prices at which 'C' molasses route and direct route are equally profitable
Sugar price Ethanol price
15,000 25.8
16,000 27.3
17,000 28.8
18,000 30.3
19,000 31.8
Source: CRISIL Research
As manufacture of ethanol from cane juice is unprofitable at current sugar and ethanol prices, we do not expectethanol to be manufactured from cane juice over the next two sugar seasons. Ethanol price would need to be Rs
25.8 per litre for ethanol production from cane juice to be profitable at sugar realisation of Rs 15,000 per tonne.
As sugar prices rise, ethanol price will also have torise for ethanol manufacture, from direct route, to remain
profitable.
The direct route has been a feasible alternative for manufacturing ethanol in Brazil, primarily due to the lower cost
of sugarcane in addition to the low processing cost. Sugarcane cost is estimated to be about Rs 600 per tonne in
Brazil as against Rs 1,250-1,350 per tonne in India. In addition, Brazil enjoys economies of scale benefit for
producing ethanol. The overall cost of producing one litre of ethanol is about Rs 15 in Brazil as against Rs 26-28
per litre in India.
8/4/2019 Sugar Sector CRISIL[1]
34/34
It may be noted that cane to juice route would not have any major impact on sugar production and consequently,
on sugar prices. For example, alcohol demand for ethanol blend at 10 per cent would be about 1,722 million litres
in 2009-10; only about 22.7 million tonnes of sugarcane is required for satisfying this requirement. This would
result in a loss of sugar production of only 2.3 million tonnes.
Pricing and tendering system
It is our opinion that it is not feasible to fix ethanol prices for a three year period (as is presently done) given that
the prices of related products (sugar, rectified spirit and crude oil) are volatile in nature. There are two possible
solutions to this problem, either ethanol prices must be market determined or a pricing mechanism must be
evolved wherein ethanol prices are periodically reset given the prevailing prices of the related products.
Recommended