“advances in harvesting systems that reduce harvesting cost, carbon footprint, and conserve site...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: “Advances in harvesting systems that reduce harvesting cost, carbon footprint, and conserve site resources for the next rotation” Dale Greene, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a62eba1a28ab636d8b46b1/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Harvesting System Advancements
Dale Greene
University of Georgia
Southeastern Regional
Landowner & Manager Meeting
Valdosta, GA
October 29, 2014
![Page 2: “Advances in harvesting systems that reduce harvesting cost, carbon footprint, and conserve site resources for the next rotation” Dale Greene, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a62eba1a28ab636d8b46b1/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Recent Challenges
Equipment
Fuel
Timber
People
Capacity
Costs
![Page 3: “Advances in harvesting systems that reduce harvesting cost, carbon footprint, and conserve site resources for the next rotation” Dale Greene, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a62eba1a28ab636d8b46b1/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Equipment
Tier IV engines
Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (15 ppm)
NOx and PM 2.5 reductions targeted
Higher costs
Larger engines
Primary equipment company R&D focus
![Page 4: “Advances in harvesting systems that reduce harvesting cost, carbon footprint, and conserve site resources for the next rotation” Dale Greene, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a62eba1a28ab636d8b46b1/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Median Machine Age
0
2
4
6
8
10
FellerBuncher
Skidder Loader Trucks
Ag
e (
yrs.)
2007
2012
Source: UGA Georgia Logger Survey, 2012
![Page 5: “Advances in harvesting systems that reduce harvesting cost, carbon footprint, and conserve site resources for the next rotation” Dale Greene, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a62eba1a28ab636d8b46b1/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Tons per $1000 Capital – GA
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
1992 1997 2002 2007 2012
Tons/$1000
Clearcut Thinning
![Page 6: “Advances in harvesting systems that reduce harvesting cost, carbon footprint, and conserve site resources for the next rotation” Dale Greene, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a62eba1a28ab636d8b46b1/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Fuel – Diesel
![Page 7: “Advances in harvesting systems that reduce harvesting cost, carbon footprint, and conserve site resources for the next rotation” Dale Greene, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a62eba1a28ab636d8b46b1/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Fuel – Natural Gas
About ½ the cost of diesel on energy basis.
Electric utilities, trucking firms, railroads, etc. are switching to gas.
Log trucks fit this concept.
Prices can spike in winter due to heating demands.
Enormous new domestic supplies of this fuel.
![Page 8: “Advances in harvesting systems that reduce harvesting cost, carbon footprint, and conserve site resources for the next rotation” Dale Greene, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a62eba1a28ab636d8b46b1/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Fuel Options Compared
Source: DOE Alternative Fuels Data Center
![Page 9: “Advances in harvesting systems that reduce harvesting cost, carbon footprint, and conserve site resources for the next rotation” Dale Greene, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a62eba1a28ab636d8b46b1/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Fuel – Natural Gas
US natural gas supplies are at record levels due to fracking in tight shale formations.
Many shale gas plays are just being developed.
Over-supply & low price of gas is slowing development.
Killing biomass energy opportunities.
![Page 10: “Advances in harvesting systems that reduce harvesting cost, carbon footprint, and conserve site resources for the next rotation” Dale Greene, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a62eba1a28ab636d8b46b1/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Fuel Consumption
Fuel is ~20% of cut and load cost
Diesel range $1.50-$4.75 over past decade
2012 GA/SC logger survey:
21% track fuel use by machine
21% track fuel use by crew
19% do no tracking at all
Benchmarks lacking for comparison
![Page 11: “Advances in harvesting systems that reduce harvesting cost, carbon footprint, and conserve site resources for the next rotation” Dale Greene, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a62eba1a28ab636d8b46b1/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Fuel Consumption Study
![Page 12: “Advances in harvesting systems that reduce harvesting cost, carbon footprint, and conserve site resources for the next rotation” Dale Greene, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a62eba1a28ab636d8b46b1/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Objectives
long-term operational fuel consumption data
per operating hour
per ton produced
mechanized feller-buncher/grapple skidder
pine plantations (clearcut and thinning)
Southeastern coastal plain
![Page 13: “Advances in harvesting systems that reduce harvesting cost, carbon footprint, and conserve site resources for the next rotation” Dale Greene, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a62eba1a28ab636d8b46b1/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Receiving Mill
Buys ~2 million tons annually of pine pulpwood in southeastern Georgia coastal plain
Provided funding for the project
Provided a list of wood suppliers
Suggested 12-15 suppliers as candidates
Received periodic reports showing fuel consumption statistics with no identities of crews or statistics by crew
![Page 14: “Advances in harvesting systems that reduce harvesting cost, carbon footprint, and conserve site resources for the next rotation” Dale Greene, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a62eba1a28ab636d8b46b1/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
University of Georgia
Solicited the participation of each supplier
Provided forms, fuel meters, on-site training
Handled all data input and summary
Follow-up calls, email, site visits with suppliers
Periodic reports back to cooperators and funding company
![Page 15: “Advances in harvesting systems that reduce harvesting cost, carbon footprint, and conserve site resources for the next rotation” Dale Greene, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a62eba1a28ab636d8b46b1/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Logging Contractor
Agreed to record & share:
Fuel consumption by machine
Hour meter reading at fill-up
Weekly production for the crew
Installed and maintained fuel meters
Mailed data to us on their schedule – monthly was most common
Received reports from UGA showing their fuel usage compared to others in the study
Fuel meters are theirs to keep
![Page 16: “Advances in harvesting systems that reduce harvesting cost, carbon footprint, and conserve site resources for the next rotation” Dale Greene, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a62eba1a28ab636d8b46b1/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Sample Size by Machine Type
Fellers Skidders Loaders
Tons 136,017 160,873 164,972
Hours 5,880 6,599 6,640
Gallons 38,877 41,156 26,923
We often received gallons and hours without production reports.
Data received from 1Q2013 through 1Q2014. Study ends 6/30/14.
![Page 17: “Advances in harvesting systems that reduce harvesting cost, carbon footprint, and conserve site resources for the next rotation” Dale Greene, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a62eba1a28ab636d8b46b1/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Fuel Use per Hour
6.46
5.05
3.65
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
Feller-Buncher Skidder Loader
Gallo
ns/
Ho
ur
CV = 20%
CV = 20%
CV = 24%
![Page 18: “Advances in harvesting systems that reduce harvesting cost, carbon footprint, and conserve site resources for the next rotation” Dale Greene, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a62eba1a28ab636d8b46b1/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Fuel Use per Ton
0.15
0.14
0.09
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
Feller-Buncher Skidder Loader
Gallo
ns/
To
n
CV = 37%
CV = 27%
CV = 31%
![Page 19: “Advances in harvesting systems that reduce harvesting cost, carbon footprint, and conserve site resources for the next rotation” Dale Greene, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a62eba1a28ab636d8b46b1/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Fuel Usage Conclusions
Fuel consumption to cut/skid/load wood averaged 0.38 gallons per ton.
These crews work flat (but often wet) ground harvesting pine plantations with a limited number of sorts.
These consumption rates likely set a floor rather than an average baseline.
![Page 20: “Advances in harvesting systems that reduce harvesting cost, carbon footprint, and conserve site resources for the next rotation” Dale Greene, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a62eba1a28ab636d8b46b1/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Timber – Recession Impacts
Lumber demand off by 40-50% at one point
Sawtimber prices down 35%
Landowners sitting on thinned sawtimberstands waiting for higher prices…?
Pulpwood demand holding due to pulp and wood pellet markets and shortage of lumber chips
Age class distribution impacts and reduced planting – where will future pulpwood be?
Less final harvest = less replanting
![Page 21: “Advances in harvesting systems that reduce harvesting cost, carbon footprint, and conserve site resources for the next rotation” Dale Greene, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a62eba1a28ab636d8b46b1/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
US South Total Annual Harvest
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
To
tal
Harvest
(M
illion
To
ns)
Pine Sawtimber Pine CNS Pine Pulp Hdwd Sawtimber Hdwd Pulp
Source: UGA Wood Demand Report, 2013
![Page 22: “Advances in harvesting systems that reduce harvesting cost, carbon footprint, and conserve site resources for the next rotation” Dale Greene, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a62eba1a28ab636d8b46b1/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Timber – Biomass Potential?
Liquid Fuels 30% of US energy use Still an infant technology
Wood Pellets Technology here today
Driven by EU subsidies
Pulpwood not forest residues Production up sharply
Electricity Generation 40% of US energy use Technology here today Natural gas has advantage
Chart source: Forisk Consulting 2011, RISI 2013
0
50,000,000
100,000,000
150,000,000
200,000,000
250,000,000
300,000,000
350,000,000
400,000,000
Demand: Bioenergy total Demand: Industry
Non-traditional materials Growth
![Page 23: “Advances in harvesting systems that reduce harvesting cost, carbon footprint, and conserve site resources for the next rotation” Dale Greene, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a62eba1a28ab636d8b46b1/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Biomass
Piled residues through grinders –ash content too high for pellets (>5%)
Chipped tops/slash without piling or WTC <2% ash
Residues rely on demand for other primary products
Roundwood (pulpwood) preferred due to control, cost, low ash, etc.
![Page 24: “Advances in harvesting systems that reduce harvesting cost, carbon footprint, and conserve site resources for the next rotation” Dale Greene, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a62eba1a28ab636d8b46b1/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
100 - 249
50 - 99
20 - 49
10 - 19
5 - 9
1 - 4
AL/FL/GA Logging Businesses
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2012
No. of Employees
![Page 25: “Advances in harvesting systems that reduce harvesting cost, carbon footprint, and conserve site resources for the next rotation” Dale Greene, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a62eba1a28ab636d8b46b1/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
AL/FL/GA Logging Workforce
Total employment in logging declined 31% since 2000
18% decline since start of recession
Greater decline in businesses than employees
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
2000Q
1
2001Q
1
2002Q
1
2003Q
1
2004Q
1
2005Q
1
2006Q
1
2007Q
1
2008Q
1
2009Q
1
2010Q
1
2011Q
1
2012Q
1
2013Q
1
Logging Employmentin AL, FL, and GA
![Page 26: “Advances in harvesting systems that reduce harvesting cost, carbon footprint, and conserve site resources for the next rotation” Dale Greene, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a62eba1a28ab636d8b46b1/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Firms Shift to Higher Production
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1987 1992 1997 2002 2007 2012
> 2500 T/wk
1000-2500 T/wk
< 1000 T/wk
Source: UGA Georgia Logger Survey, 2012
![Page 27: “Advances in harvesting systems that reduce harvesting cost, carbon footprint, and conserve site resources for the next rotation” Dale Greene, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a62eba1a28ab636d8b46b1/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Total Volume Produced
51%
39%
10%
2011 Total Tons
> 2500 Tons 1000 - 2500 Tons
< 1000 Tons
50% of production by 20% of firms
Doubling of larger firms in last 10 years
Source: UGA Georgia Logger Survey, 2012
![Page 28: “Advances in harvesting systems that reduce harvesting cost, carbon footprint, and conserve site resources for the next rotation” Dale Greene, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a62eba1a28ab636d8b46b1/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Production per Man-Hour
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
1992 1997 2002 2007 2012
To
ns p
er M
an
-ho
ur
Consistent improvement in production per employee
No significant changes in technology
Source: UGA Georgia Logger Survey, 2012
![Page 29: “Advances in harvesting systems that reduce harvesting cost, carbon footprint, and conserve site resources for the next rotation” Dale Greene, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a62eba1a28ab636d8b46b1/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Owner Age – Georgia
0
5
10
15
20
25
25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
Pe
rce
nt
Age
1992
1997
2002
2007
2012
Source: UGA Georgia Logger Survey, 2012
![Page 30: “Advances in harvesting systems that reduce harvesting cost, carbon footprint, and conserve site resources for the next rotation” Dale Greene, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a62eba1a28ab636d8b46b1/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
AL/FL/GA Logging Capacity
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Million
To
ns
Logging Capacity Actual Harvest
![Page 31: “Advances in harvesting systems that reduce harvesting cost, carbon footprint, and conserve site resources for the next rotation” Dale Greene, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a62eba1a28ab636d8b46b1/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Southern Capacity Declines
![Page 32: “Advances in harvesting systems that reduce harvesting cost, carbon footprint, and conserve site resources for the next rotation” Dale Greene, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a62eba1a28ab636d8b46b1/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
UGA Logging Cost Index
![Page 33: “Advances in harvesting systems that reduce harvesting cost, carbon footprint, and conserve site resources for the next rotation” Dale Greene, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a62eba1a28ab636d8b46b1/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Southern Cut & Load Cost Components
35%
18%14%
22%
1%5%
5%
Labor
Depreciation
Repair and
MaintenanceFuel
Interest Expense
Administrative
Insurance
Range: $9 - $15 per ton
![Page 34: “Advances in harvesting systems that reduce harvesting cost, carbon footprint, and conserve site resources for the next rotation” Dale Greene, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a62eba1a28ab636d8b46b1/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
UGA Logging Cost Index
Cut & load cost/ton
No hauling cost
Reported quarterly in Timber Mart-South
Replaces the index reported by Stuart on an annual basis
Re-validation underway in 2014
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
Stuart
UGA CostIndex
![Page 35: “Advances in harvesting systems that reduce harvesting cost, carbon footprint, and conserve site resources for the next rotation” Dale Greene, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a62eba1a28ab636d8b46b1/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
The Future?
It is hard to make predictions, especially about the future – Yogi Berra
We have problems, but very few that stronger markets and higher prices would not solve.
Our logging contractors are becoming even more efficient to survive.
Given access to capital, harvesting capacity can rebound rather quickly.
Trucking can be made more efficient with scales, scheduling, and de-linking from logging.
![Page 36: “Advances in harvesting systems that reduce harvesting cost, carbon footprint, and conserve site resources for the next rotation” Dale Greene, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022032421/55a62eba1a28ab636d8b46b1/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Questions?
Thanks to Shawn Baker, Samantha Marchman, Cory Dukes, Jason Cutshall for their work shown here.