1. Ramko Rolland Associates 12 Gotlieb Street, Tel Aviv Israel
This Document is Confidential and Proprietary August/Sept. 2010 Prepared by Haim R. Branisteanu Page 1
September 13, 2010
Mitigation of emission of Greenhouse gases (GHG) inducing Global Warming
One of the hot topics today on which wide consensus is achieved is the fact, that the earth
atmosphere is warming and in general the blame is put on human activities from intense agriculture
activities, farm animal husbandry, transportation activities and the power generation from fossil fuel
like coal etc. One of the aspects that are missing in those assumptions is the evidence of the
decreasing earth magnetic field and changes in solar activity and heat transport belts within the sun
which increase unwanted solar radiation. Even if those aspects of sun activity would be the main
reason for the fact of global warming it would not negate the need to invest substantial efforts and
money to lower the earth atmosphere temperature to levels of 20 to 25 years ago. Fact is, that
excessive use of coal for electricity generation in China has many negative side effects as reflected in
the air quality, smog and draughts, recently reoccurring with persistency, within China.
Bill Gates interesting and simplistic explanation related to the need to save on CO2 emissions can be
found at this link; ( http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/767)
One very important aspect of global warming and as a result of the thawing of glaciers around the
world is the thawing of the permafrost in the Northern Hemisphere in Alaska, Canadian Northern
Territories and Siberia. Similar situation is on the Antarctic continent.
Proposed solutions to lower world consumption of coal for power generation is the building of nuclear
power plants. Unfortunately as explained later, this solution even if implemented is around 15 years
away. Solar and wind as energy sources are in most cases carbon neutral and are intermittent energy
solution which is highly dependable on weather or the strength of winds, and could be very useful as a
complimentary source of energy within the concept of a smart grid.
The more simplistic and immediate solution is to find a renewable substitute for coal for the already
build electrical power stations and co-fire those “coal substitutes” with coal. The renewable coal
substitute is mostly based on organic matter or biomass, gathering its energy from the sun radiation.
My project proposal, the biomass-refinery, includes the use of agricultural waste, energy grasses of
the type C4 and forestry/woody residuals that will be processed into coal substitute to be co-fired
with coal with similar energy content per ton of product as coal (I don’t recommend the use of whole
trees). There are already several power plants around the world that use co-firing biomass with coal if
it is energy grasses as presented in my 2007 business plan or outright wood chips or wood pellets. To
mitigate GHG emission from agricultural activity and crop husbandry, a second product of the biomass
refinery will be produced, which will be used as soil enhancement in agriculture and forestry.
Pending Legislation and Regulations - Within the EU and US there are legal efforts that will impose
mandatory restriction on the amount of coal used in electrical power station. A law proposing a
reduction of up to 15% by 2021 within the US, and restrictions starting in 2012 may be introduced
within the next months (http://www.eenews.net/assets/2010/09/21/document_pm_01.pdf) and within the
EU a reduction of 20% by 2022 is contemplated. Within the EU starting in 2013, the power sector will
have to buy CO2-allowances for some €15 ($21) billion a year at current CO2-prices. Discussion on the

2. Ramko Rolland Associates 12 Gotlieb Street, Tel Aviv Israel
This Document is Confidential and Proprietary August/Sept. 2010 Prepared by Haim R. Branisteanu Page 2
EU directive can be found at; (http://www.europeanenergyreview.eu/index.php?id=2412), and the recent
energy needs analysis of Exxon Mobil and BP at (http://www.europeanenergyreview.eu/index.php?id=2719 )
In case the proposed Bingaman law passes, in the US alone, the amount of coals substitute will be well
above the range of 155 million ton/year as it must contain the same energy content as the bituminous
coal it replaces. At present prices the US market of coal substitutes is around $15 to $16 billion a year.
Very important for Russia – Russia will be one of the biggest losers from the global warming. The
global warming will slowly remove the permafrost from Northern Siberia and natural gas will start to
percolate (permeate) out of the underground reservoirs into the atmosphere and that will increase
even more the global warming. More so the frozen peat bogs and frozen marshes of Northern Russia
are huge depositories of methane gas that is 20 times more potent than CO2 as a GHG. If the
permafrost is gone substantial amounts of natural gas will be lost and you cannot turn back the
switch. When people will notice that natural gas is escaping from the underground reservoirs it will be
way too late.
The viability of CO-FIRING OF BIOMASS WITH COAL was established by the EU in a study summary
from 2006 and also by the US DOE and UK in various summarizing reports about the same time. As
mentioned before the co-firing with coal is practiced around the world in various programs that in
most cases are subsidized by the country governments. Furthermore long term agreements where
executed between local farmers and the utilities to supply biomass for co-firing with coal which in
most instances use energy grasses, but also wood chips and wood pellets.
Recent known efforts to secure Coal Substitute sources from utilities in the US and EU.
1. One of the biggest utilities within the EU is investing over 115 million in S.E. US to establish a
processing facility with a capacity of over 740,000 ton /year coal substitute which in all
likelihood will produce wood pellets.
2. One of the biggest utilities within the EU is investing over 14 million EUR within the EU to
produce 60,000 ton/year of coal substitute similar to the one proposed in the project
3. One of the biggest utilities within the EU entered into research agreement to produce coal
substitute and is presently targeting British Columbia Canada as a woody waste resource to
process into coal substitute at a rate of 250,000 ton/year per plant employing 30 to 40
employees in several locations and advertised an outstanding yearly demand of 10 million
ton/year
4. Other utilities within the EU UK and US are converting and establishing co-firing systems of
coal with energy grasses (see my 2007 business plan) or wood chips and wood pellets.
5. Within the first half of September 2010 the construction started on a processing plant for coal
substitute within N. America at an advertised cost of $30 million to produce over 110,000 ton
of coal substitute and employing 60 to 70 direct and indirect workers
The above efforts can be used as an indication of the investment needed for each plant. To add
and double capacity of a plant as mentioned in #2 around $12 million would be needed.
The economies of wood chips and pellets - woodchips and wood pellets were not economically viable
5 to 7 years ago due to the historical pricing of coal as reflected on the website of the World Coal
Institute at http://www.globalcoal.com/ .

3. Ramko Rolland Associates 12 Gotlieb Street, Tel Aviv Israel
This Document is Confidential and Proprietary August/Sept. 2010 Prepared by Haim R. Branisteanu Page 3
At the time the valuation for wood pellets economic viability was made in 2003/4 the price of a short
ton of coal was in the $30 to $35 range. More recently the price of coal is around $90 to $96 - ARA
Rotterdam. As I mentioned in the past wood pellets are easy to manufacture and aside from capital
investments the logistics are the main issue that define the CIF price to the electrical power station.
The same would apply for wood chips and energy grasses, all of which will need changes in the
feeding lines at the power station interested in co-firing the biomass. The heat content of the above
mentioned biomass is similar to wood in the 14MJ/kg to 17MJ/kg. The main drawback of using wood
pellets is the fact that they are machined wood particles that absorb moisture and degrade with time
if by rot or by infestation with wood consuming insects and emit flammable volatile organic
compounds (VOC’s). The main ingredients of emitted VOC’s from wood pellets are unsaturated fatty
acids of aldehydes, (such as pentanal and hexanal) and ketones. Other VOC’s emissions from wood
pellets have been reported to be CO and other one-carbon compounds, such as methane, methanol,
ethylene, formic acid and formaldehyde etc.,. Those toxic VOC’s can be lethal in closed spaces during
ocean or rail transportation or storage. In contrast, the proposed coal substitute does not emit such
VOC’s rendering a less dangerous and less expensive cost of storage, of the product, if compared to
“live” wood pellets (see relevant references below).
The proposed biomass refinery end product, has higher energy per ton than that of wood pellets and
is similar to the energy content of bituminous coal, is hydrophobic – repels water and can be stored
the same way as coal. As for the electrical power station the proposed product does not have many of
the chemicals that wood chips or wood pellets contain and pose a contamination problem to the
power stations, is brittle like coal and can be feed to the steam boiler by being mixed with coal.
Furthermore at the time 7 years ago the Kyoto protocol was not ratified by many countries and the EU
only started to establish a formal exchange for Carbon Credits and the other financial rules and
regulations for the offset of Carbon Credits. Presently the EUX Carbon Credits are priced around €15.5
per ton. Burning one tone of carbon results in 3.66 tons of CO2 (12 mol +2x16 mol=44 mol Carbon
molecular weight is 12 mol). As bituminous coal is only about 75% to 80% coal the equivalent CO2
emission is around 2.7 to 2.9 ton of CO2 for each ton of bituminous coal burned depending on the coal
quality and energy density.
Today the carbon credits that go along with one ton of the proposed substitute of coal are in the
range of €44 if calculated based on Carbon Credits prices and under €38, by the various CDM
allowances. Therefore the maximum economic value of the product CIF power station is €44+$96 or
over $157 in Europe. At present time $157 per ton of coal substitute, is the benchmark for the
calculation of economic viability of the biomass refinery. As those commodities are traded on public
exchanges, this price can be hedged in the future up to 5 years whereby the economic price rises to
around $190 to $200 per ton. See the pricing of coal and Carbon Credits on the Intercontinental
Exchange of ICE https://www.theice.com/marketdata/reports/ReportCenter.shtml?reportId=10
If compared to the wood pellets on an energy content basis per weight the proposed coal substitute
can be sold at a premium of around $25 to $30 per ton. The energy density in wood pellets is 10 GJ/m3
vs. 14.8 GJ/m3
of the propsed product. Certain utilities will accept the non-pelletized product due to
its brittle structure which enables pulverization by grinding, and that will further increase the
economic value of the product depending on increased transportation cost, due to its lower weight.

4. Ramko Rolland Associates 12 Gotlieb Street, Tel Aviv Israel
This Document is Confidential and Proprietary August/Sept. 2010 Prepared by Haim R. Branisteanu Page 4
Based on various historical information, during the period of 2002-2008, the CIF price of wood pellets
ARA Rotterdam was around $155 ± $10 per ton, and that price included around $50 ± $5 in ocean
shipping cost from North America to Europe.
Soil enhancement bio-refinery products from agricultural, forestry/woody waste
The soil enhancement product is chemically and physically different from the coal substitute as its use
is very different. The product induces enhanced soil microbial activity, which leads to the increased
soil nutrients availability, catalyzes cations (ion) mobility and CEC, lowers pH, decreases soil bulk
density, and increases water/moisture holding capacity, due to the capillary structure of the product.
The soil enhancement product also has indirect effects on mycorrhizae (AMF) through its effects on
other soil microbes, such as mycorrhization helper bacteria, resulting in more furan/ flavonoids
beneficial to germination of fungal spores and provides improved microbial habitat. Further it
positively influences the soil sorption/desorption of soil GHG and nutrients.
Technology of processing forestry/woody waste and paper mill woody waste is based on research that
started around year 2002 and the results of academic research as new as 2010, done by well-known
universities in the US, Germany Brazil and Australia and in all likelihood in other places. The process is
also occurring naturally and the equipment and planning will be the most modern and will include
scientific development in biology and microbial genetic engineering with the support of various
academic institutions if needed (see my August 19th
, 2010 letter to the Irkutsk Oblast).
Additionally, it has been shown that the soil enhancement product decrease N2O (Nitrous oxide) up to
80% and CH4 (methane) emissions from soil, thus further reducing GHG emissions. In fact the more
research is done related to this product, the more positive qualities are discovered.
The cost of a processing facility for soil enhancement is similar to the processing facility of the coal
substitute. The bio-refinery processing units will be within the same facility in order to take advantage
of the heat resulting from the processes and whose resulting gasses will be used for heat, steam and
electricity where warranted. It is anticipated that the market value of this product will compete with
various fertilizers used today in agriculture. It is anticipated that the market value of the processes soil
enhancement product will be around $200 to $250 per ton and the raw soil enhancement product
well over $150 per ton, not including Offset Carbon Credits values at around €38 ($53) per ton.
The markets for the soil enhancement products are; depleted soils from intensive agriculture,
(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703846604575447592896761732.html?) agricultural
regions in China, the Volga basin and west of Volga, Japan, S. Korea, and reclamation of marginal soil
or desert void of nutrients and organic soil humus like the projects in the ME
(http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64G4SU20100517?feedType=nl&feedName=usmorningdigest ), the
Sinai peninsula (http://www.mwri.gov.eg/En/project_sinai.html) and the Toshka project in Egypt
(http://www.mwri.gov.eg/En/project_toshka%20.html).
Raw processed soil enhancement will affect plant growth yield, but only for plants that love high
potash and elevated pH, improve water quality, reduce soil emissions of GHGs, reduce leaching of
nutrients, reduce soil acidity, and reduce irrigation and fertilizer requirements. The project intention is
not only to produce raw soil enhancement but also to adapt the product to various soils where the

5. Ramko Rolland Associates 12 Gotlieb Street, Tel Aviv Israel
This Document is Confidential and Proprietary August/Sept. 2010 Prepared by Haim R. Branisteanu Page 5
product will be used by adding the required nutrients. One important aspect not to be lost is the fact
that various trees have various chemical compositions and as a result the project will produce a
variety of soil enhancement products adaptable for various soils.
Justification for the business model for a biomass refinery for processing agricultural,
forestry/woody waste.
For more information on this 28 page white paper report kindly contact me via e-mail
Flammability and Toxicity of “live” wood products
Formation of Toxic Gases following Sea Transportation of Logs and Wood Chips
(http://annhyg.oxfordjournals.org/content/53/8/779.abstract) The mean CO2 and CO levels were
7.5% (n = 26) and 46 p.p.m. (n = 28), respectively. More than 90% of the hydrocarbons were explained
by monoterpenes, mainly α-pinene (mean 41 p.p.m., (n = 26). In conclusion, the measurements show
that transport of logs and wood chips in confined spaces may result in rapid and severe oxygen
depletion and CO2 formation. Thus, apparently harmless cargoes may create potentially life-
threatening conditions. The oxygen depletion and CO2 formation are seemingly primarily caused by
microbiological activity, in contrast to the oxidative processes with higher CO formation that
predominate in cargoes of wood pellets.
Hazardous Off-Gassing of Carbon Monoxide and Oxygen Depletion during Ocean Transportation of
Wood Pellets (http://annhyg.oxfordjournals.org/content/52/4/259.short)
The conclusions are that ocean transportation of wood pellets in confined spaces may produce an
oxygen deficient atmosphere and lethal levels of CO which may leak into adjacent access spaces. The
dangerous combination of extremely high levels of CO and reduced oxygen produces a fast-acting
toxic combination. The following compounds and ranges were detected in samples from the five ships:
carbon monoxide (CO) 1460–14650 ppm, carbon dioxide (CO2) 2960–21570 ppm, methane 79.9–956
ppm, butane equivalents 63–842 ppm, ethylene 2–21.2 ppm, propylene 5.3–36 ppm, ethane 0–25
ppm and aldehydes 2.3–35 ppm.
Gas Emissions from Wood Pellets during Marine Transportation.
(http://annhyg.oxfordjournals.org/content/54/7/833.abstract)
After a fatal accident during the discharge of wood pellets at Helsingborg, emissions from pellets
during marine transportation became a concern for the safe handling and storage of wood pellets
Concentrations of Off-Gas Emissions in Stored Wood Pellets
(http://annhyg.oxfordjournals.org/content/53/8/789.abstract)
Wood pellets emit CO, CO2, CH4, and other volatiles during storage. Increased concentration of these
gases in a sealed storage causes depletion of concentration of oxygen. The storage environment
becomes toxic to those who operate in and around these storages
US Wood residue pricings – which represents around 45% of wood pellet production costs
In the first quarter of 2009, bark-free, in-wood pine chips, excluding transport costs, were quoted in
the range of $31–$39 per green tone ($28–$35 per green short ton (1 ton =0.907 tone)) (Timber Mart-

6. Ramko Rolland Associates 12 Gotlieb Street, Tel Aviv Israel
This Document is Confidential and Proprietary August/Sept. 2010 Prepared by Haim R. Branisteanu Page 6
South 2009). Delivered residue fiber costs in 2008 among our respondents ranged from $56/ton
(green weight) in the U.S. West to $38/ton in the U.S. Northeast. We received too few Canadian
responses to estimate fiber costs in Canada. Responses on round-wood prices were also too few to
generalize. Delivered pulpwood prices in the U.S. south in 2008 averaged $30/green tone (Timber
Mart-South 2009) but, from the viewpoint of a pellet operation, costs for debarking, chipping, and
drying would increase that amount. Delivered pulpwood prices in the U.S. south in 2008 averaged
$30/green tone (Timber Mart-South 2009) but, from the viewpoint of a pellet operation, costs for
debarking, chipping, and drying would increase that amount.