A Brief History• 1818: Founded in Amsterdam by Johann Peter

Bunge• 1884: Bunge y Born established in Argentina

by grandson, Ernest Bunge• 1905: Bunge y Born expanded into Brazil• 1923: Bunge North American Grain

Corporation founded in New York City to trade raw agricultural commodities

• 2001: Changed our name to Bunge North America prior to the initial public offering of our parent company, Bunge Limited

• 2002: Bunge Limited acquired Cereol, which included Central Soya in the United States and CanAmera Foods in Canada

Corporate Organization

• Bunge Limited– Traded on NYSE: BG (IPO: 8/2/2001)– Global Headquarters: White Plains, NY– 22,000 employees– Offices in 32 countries– 2005 Net Sales: $24 Billion

Vertically Integrated

• World’s leading oilseed processor and seller of bottled oils• Leading miller of wheat in South America and corn in

North America• South America’s leading fertilizer producer

Nutrients

AgribusinessFertilizer Food Products

RetailProducts & Services

GrainOrigination

OilseedProcessing

Food Processing

Retail and ConsumerDistributionNutrients

AgribusinessFertilizer Food Products

RetailProducts & Services

GrainOrigination

OilseedProcessing

Food Processing

Retail and ConsumerDistribution

Bunge North America

Oilseed Processing Grain

MillingMillingOils

Bunge North America, Inc., is the North American operating arm of Bunge Limited (NYSE: BG),with facilities in the U.S., Canada and Mexico.

Bunge North America

Waterways & the U.S. Economy

• One in every four acres of U.S. ag production is exported – worth over $60 billion a year.

• In 2005, the U.S. exported over 111 million metric tons of grain and oilseed products valued at over $20 billion.

• Close to 60 percent of that moves through New Orleans to the Gulf.

• Our best natural comparative advantage in ag trade –

the Mississippi River and its tributaries!

Waterways & the U.S. Economy

• The New Orleans Customs District handled $32.4 billion of U.S. exports and $97.3 billion in imports in 2005.

• The largest agricultural exports by value passing through these ports were:– $3.3 billion of soybeans (52 percent of total soybean

exports)– $2.8 billion of corn (58 percent of total corn exports)– $784 million of wheat (18 percent of total wheat exports)

Factors Impacting Barge Freight

• Strong demand for both traditional southbound and increased northbound barge traffic – 2003 to 2004: inbound tonnage through New Orleans

increased by more than 42 percent. – 2004 to 2005: increased by more than 23 percent. – New demand for northbound movements to interior locations

lengthens turn-around times and barge availability for southbound movements of agricultural commodities.

– Significant increases in major commodity imports such as crude petroleum and petroleum products; chemicals; sand, gravel and stone; primary manufacturing goods and manufacturing equipment.

Factors Impacting Barge Freight

• Reduction in the number of barges in the river fleet– 2005 covered hopper barge fleet at 11,300 barges. – 2 percent less than the number of barges available in 2004;

8.9 percent less than 1998.• Low water levels

– Naturally occurring– Lack of routine, federal maintenance

Factors Impacting Barge Freight

• Rail & truck transportation often not viable.– Rail shipping is already at full capacity.– Labor shortage of certified truck drivers.

Shipping by barge remains the lowest cost and most overall efficient method of transporting agricultural commodities to export!

Global Competitiveness

• Value of public infrastructure investments– Foresight of previous generations paying dividends today

• Federal government’s role– Multi-state implications– Legal liability for private investors– Absolute neutrality benefits all sectors

Global Competitiveness

• Freight cost advantage of our waterways system – Many international competitors maintain an overall lower cost

of production in commodities such as corn and soybeans. The U.S. makes up the difference through efficient handling and shipping.

– Deterioration of our river system and investments in foreign transportation infrastructure has diminished the U.S. freight advantage over global competitors such as Brazil.

– Investments in public infrastructure are key to maintaining U.S. competitiveness.

– We must renew our commitment to maintaining the entire waterways system.

Origination & Destination - “Low-Use” Waterways

• Tributary waterways are a vital transportation system linking agricultural production to the Mississippi River system and export markets beyond.

• 65 percent of commerce moving on the Mississippi River stems from tributary waterways.

• Fewer miles = fewer ton-miles • Tributaries are part of a waterways system.

– Nearly 99% of tributary ton-miles derived from traffic moving to or from an origin or destination on another waterway.

– Without access to terminals on that tributary waterway, the entire movement and total ton-miles would not occur.

The Funding Crisis

• Tributaries and other “low-use” waterways have been targeted for budget savings over the years.– The President’s FY ‘04, ‘05, ‘06 & ’07 Budgets completely eliminate

funds for Mississippi River tributaries & ports – setting a 1 million ton/1 billion ton-mile threshold.

• Consequently, the bases of these channels are rising and their navigability is at risk.

Impact on Agriculture

• Aging infrastructure and deferred maintenance created by insufficient investment levels will result in – degraded system performance– safety concerns – increased delays– higher transportation costs – negative impacts on GDP and employment

Impact on Agriculture

• Inability to load barges to full capacity because shallow depths limit navigation.

• Direct correspondence to commodity “basis” deterioration– Loss of barge freight = 10¢ to 25¢ per bushel lost revenue

500 acres of corn planted = avg trendline yield of 150 bushels/acre150 bushels/acre = 75,000 bushels of corn

Loss of barge transportation = $7,500 to $18,750 lost revenue

The Road Ahead

• Integrate tributaries & shallow ports into larger campaign to maintain the system.

• National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) Coalition• Waterways inclusion in intermodal transportation system• Bridge gap between authorization commitments and

appropriations– WRDA final action– Operations & Maintenance appropriations