Seeking Alpha

Biofuels defenders blast EPA plan to cut ethanol mandate

  • Ethanol producers vow to fight back against the EPA's proposal to lower the annual requirement for the biofuel used in gasoline.
  • Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) complained it had invested in renewable fuel projects "on the basis of firm legislative commitments" and across two presidential administrations.
  • Green Plains (GPRE) CEO Todd Becker calls the prospect of the U.S. turning away from a cheap and domestically produced fuel source "disgraceful."
  • Although "disappointed," Renewable Energy (REGI) CEO Daniel Oh says the company's scale would "allow us to continue to succeed."
  • "While we still think a large U.S. corn crop in 2013 will benefit other ADM businesses, we see the renewable fuel proposal as adding risk to the shares," says S&P Capital IQ's Tom Graves, who downgraded ADM shares to Sell from Hold after the announcement.
  • Also: PEIX, GEVO, BIOF, SZYM, SYNM, AMRS, KIOR.
  • ETF: CORN.
Comments (94)
  • TruffelPig
    , contributor
    Comments (4055) | Send Message
     
    Oh no! No more tax payer money for overpriced ethanol? No more destruction of valuable farm land by more and more corn? Why not commenting on the CO2 footprint of ethanol production from corn?
    16 Nov 2013, 08:29 AM Reply Like
  • MWinMD
    , contributor
    Comments (1854) | Send Message
     
    You're equally passionate about stopping the $41 billion we taxpayers are shoveling to the 100+ year-old oil & gas industries every year then, right TruffelPig? If ethanol has a less favorable CO2 footprint than was originally hoped (and it does), then digging up fossil fuels to combust them must REALLY irk you. Right?
    16 Nov 2013, 04:38 PM Reply Like
  • ComputerBlue
    , contributor
    Comments (681) | Send Message
     
    What I find interesting is we have no talk about all of the subsidies/tax breaks big oil receives..It'd be nice if people were just as vocal about these..
    http://bit.ly/NuX2yH
    16 Nov 2013, 05:41 PM Reply Like
  • TruffelPig
    , contributor
    Comments (4055) | Send Message
     
    @MWinMD - What a comment. You are completely wrong when you assume I am against renewable energy. But EtOH is a complete waste of money and resources and is actually harming any semi-intelligent solution to US energy politics and renewable energy. I think biogas, wind energy, solar and many other things are much better than EtOH. Whether we will be able to completely get rid of burning fossil fuels without nuclear power at least as an intermittent solution, however, is questionable.

     

    I am equally passionate about stopping shoveling tax payer money in the throat of the oil and gas industry, yes. Oil is much to valuable as a feed stock for the chemical industry to burn it. Also, the CO2 foot print must be reduced. There is actually a global increase in CO2 levels and this is most likely not a good thing (acidification of oceans, global warming etc.).
    16 Nov 2013, 06:17 PM Reply Like
  • MWinMD
    , contributor
    Comments (1854) | Send Message
     
    Sorry for the mistaken assumptions on my part, Truffel. So often I see those remarks from people who simultaneously think it's just fine that we're still subsidizing the mature industries that are seeding chaos in our future. My bad.
    17 Nov 2013, 12:58 AM Reply Like
  • TruffelPig
    , contributor
    Comments (4055) | Send Message
     
    All ok, this way everyone knows it :).
    17 Nov 2013, 07:57 AM Reply Like
  • Scott Adam ALF
    , contributor
    Comments (6) | Send Message
     
    Soy had a better carbon print instead. As does Hemp. ADM has also expanded its Bio-d production in MI where ADM dominates agricultural purchasing.
    18 Nov 2013, 11:52 AM Reply Like
  • SoldHigh
    , contributor
    Comments (995) | Send Message
     
    When even Al "Polar Bear" Gore admits ethanol has proven to be a disastrous idea, it's time to END ethanol in gasoline NOW!
    16 Nov 2013, 08:31 AM Reply Like
  • stocknerd
    , contributor
    Comments (1238) | Send Message
     
    Yea and polar bear won the Nobel prize as well as an Oscar. You will never see any conservatives win any awards like that and I can say no conservative will NEVER win a Nobel prize for peace.
    16 Nov 2013, 09:07 AM Reply Like
  • SoldHigh
    , contributor
    Comments (995) | Send Message
     
    And based on WHO gets the now politicized and discredited noble prize, it has been debased into more of a liability than asset. It's garbage. Keep it.
    16 Nov 2013, 10:20 AM Reply Like
  • Uncle Pie
    , contributor
    Comments (2666) | Send Message
     
    A "democratic" government should not be mandating what people put in their gas tanks. Let the marketplace decide that.
    16 Nov 2013, 08:37 AM Reply Like
  • engineman
    , contributor
    Comments (17) | Send Message
     
    yes as the marketplace decides what risks they should take in drilling for oil in everyone's ocean or what risks caused a huge financial meltdown. No thanks ,government sets the regulations, private sector delivers the service
    16 Nov 2013, 02:44 PM Reply Like
  • MWinMD
    , contributor
    Comments (1854) | Send Message
     
    Uncle, as soon as the "marketplace" starts to honestly price in to oil the many billions taxpayers and consumers are paying to recover from climate change-related damage, I will welcome having the "free market" determine what people put in their tank.

     

    Fossil fuels are being subsidized in so many dozens of ways right now beyond the $41 billion oil and gas companies get directly from us that it's not even funny.

     

    Yes, give us a free market. Where things cost what they actually COST.
    16 Nov 2013, 04:43 PM Reply Like
  • Joseph Toomey
    , contributor
    Comments (35) | Send Message
     
    Right. Let government decide for us.

     

    So government decides to follow an eco-extreme agenda blindly, and in so doing, ignores the eutrophication and anoxia from fertilizer runoff in rivers and the Gulf of Mexico that left a 10 thousand square mile dead zone in the Gulf in 2010, and ignores the nitrate poisoning in ground water from nitrate fertilizers that causes "blue baby" death, and ignores the atmospheric NOx pollution from nitrate fertilizer decomposition which is hundreds of times more potent of a GHG than CO2 is, and ignores the negative impact on food prices resulting from incineration of 40-45% of the nation's corn supply, and ignores the diversion of vital feedstocks — enough to feed 350 million people each year — to produce a low energy density fuel, and ignores the negative impact on fuel prices caused by ethanol blending mandates, and ignores the higher level of life-cycle GHG that results from biofuel policies, and ignores the economic inefficiencies and personal income degradation created by absurd biofuel policies, and ignores the loss of irreplaceable virgin prairie lands that are being plowed up and eroded to grow biofuel feedstock, and so on.

     

    Yes, by all means, let's have government expertise and competence, the kind that brought us Obamacare, work its magic on energy markets.

     

    Joseph Toomey
    Author: CHANGE YOU CAN REALLY BELIEVE IN: The Obama Legacy of Broken Promises and Failed Policies
    16 Nov 2013, 05:06 PM Reply Like
  • Jbgoose
    , contributor
    Comments (1008) | Send Message
     
    Uncle- Do you live within 'radius' of traditional refining clusters? On the right days one can clearly see we just can't do that, unfortunately. I DO happen to think firms such as XOM are a great trade to look into recently. I don't believe anyone is out to hurt or poison anybody. It's all about the money. I believe many refined products, such as the more well known 'BPA debate' and certain 1-7 plastics are a liability for many firms and their clients; food packagers and such from CPB, IP, WY. One reason why people are not buying as much canned soup and like products is industry and legislation has not yet caught up with main street consumers. Just now becoming educated. Why did almost all firms involved in previous production sell and move on to other processes?

     

    I agree with your point and the trades are staring us all in the face. Follow the legislation, or in this case much softer hands that will continue to guide phase out, then start phase in for 'innovative earth friendly' products and technologies. All with a quiet goal of removing past liability. This is happening now.
    19 Nov 2013, 10:46 AM Reply Like
  • Joseph Toomey
    , contributor
    Comments (35) | Send Message
     
    MWinMD, this is delusion in hyperdrive. If the numbers don't support the case you're trying to make, just make 'em up. There's no $41 billion that "oil and gas companies get directly from us." That figure is something you just made up unless you add eleven years together. And then they're not really even subsidies but ordinary tax deductions as described in an earlier post below.

     

    And if that's not enough, you can pretend there's some climate damage being caused. You can pretend that hurricanes, typhoons, tornadoes, droughts and dust bowls never occurred prior to the invention of global warming. That will help you make your case.
    20 Nov 2013, 11:44 AM Reply Like
  • MWinMD
    , contributor
    Comments (1854) | Send Message
     
    Joseph, I took that number directly from an article in the Christian Science Monitor (hardly a "greenie" newspaper).

     

    http://bit.ly/ZM1tWO

     

    "The number is significant, but still little more than one-tenth of the federal subsidies that oil and gas companies might receive over 10 years. Adjusted for inflation, they currently receive about $41 billion in annual subsidies annually. That amounts to more than half – 52 percent – of total benefits distributed to energy sectors by the federal government."

     

    Then you can add $8 billion annually for the coal industry (that number may be outdated since coal is thankfully being phased out).

     

    As for this:

     

    "And if that's not enough, you can pretend there's some climate damage being caused. You can pretend that hurricanes, typhoons, tornadoes, droughts and dust bowls never occurred prior to the invention of global warming. That will help you make your case."

     

    It's a nice strawman. Whenever someone points out that scientists have been warning us for years that warming the planet will bring more extreme weather (ie, warning us that the laws of physics can't be changed just because your fossil fuel lobby is powerful in this country), and indeed that appears to be happening, people like you come back with this nonsensical rejoinder. Since when does "will cause more" mean "will cause to happen for the first time in history"?
    21 Nov 2013, 06:05 PM Reply Like
  • Joseph Toomey
    , contributor
    Comments (35) | Send Message
     
    Leave the politics out of it. This source of yours is not authoritative. Obama went around the nation in 2011 and 2012 making a thousand speeches saying oil & gas subsidies were $4 billion a year, not $41 billion. Had the number been $41 billion, he would have jumped at the chance to say so since it would have buttressed his case. Consider just one of Obama's many speeches in Miami on Feb. 23, 2012:

     

    "Right now, $4 billion of your tax dollars subsidize the oil industry every year — $4 billion."

     

    http://1.usa.gov/I8jHB6

     

    Hilariously, almost 40% of that amount came from Section 199 deductions that were enacted in the 2005 Energy Policy Act that Obama voted for, but skip over that part. Obama detailed the $4 billion annual oil & gas subsidies he wanted eliminated in his 2013 Budget Plan. You can check it here:

     

    Fiscal Year 2013 Budget of the U.S. Government,' Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, February 13, 2012, Page 236

     

    http://1.usa.gov/QiaMew

     

    The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee requested the CBO to prepare a report of all energy subsidies granted by the federal government based upon fiscal year 2011 budget numbers. You can check it here:

     

    'How Much Does the Federal Government Support the Development and Production of Fuels and Energy Technologies? ,' The Congressional Budget Office, March 6, 2012

     

    http://1.usa.gov/I8jL3J

     

    Of the $24 billion in subsidies CBO identified, $16 billion went to renewable technologies while only $2.5 billion went to fossil fuel programs. Here's another source for that claim from a guy who, like me, actually read the CBO report:

     

    Steve Hargreaves, 'Energy Subsidies Total $24 Billion, Most to Renewables,' CNN Money, March 7, 2012

     

    http://cnnmon.ie/I8jHBb

     

    A year earlier from CBO's findings, the Department of Energy had performed a similar study at the request of Congress. You can check it here:

     

    'Direct Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies in Energy in Fiscal Year 2010,' Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, August 1, 2011

     

    http://1.usa.gov/zcVtgi

     

    Based upon fiscal year 2010 figures, the study determined that subsidies totaled $37.2 billion, of which only $2.8 billion or 7.6% of the total were targeted to producers of oil and natural gas. Based upon 2010 DoE total energy demand, the subsidy picture is thus:

     

    Oil & Gas: $77.30 per billion BTUs
    Biofuels: $1,916.30 per billion BTUs

     

    All of these authoritative sources speak to the same number for oil & gas, or close enough — about $3 to $4 billion per year. The numbers you cite are ridiculous. Sadly, you were misled by a single stray report from an unreliable source that doesn't bother to detail the subsidies it claims to exist or list its authority for its erroneous claim. It wasn't the first time media outlets print inaccuracy and it won't be the last. But now you'll have no excuse for repeating the falsehood.

     

    Lastly, if fossil fuel combustion will cause more hurricanes, we should already be seeing evidence since atmospheric concentrations have been increasing steadily. But exactly the opposite has been happening. Tropical storm intensity as measured by Accumulated Cyclone Energy is at or near a 33-year low. The U.S. has not seen a Cat. 3 or bigger landfall event since October 2005, the longest duration on record. The President who witnessed the fewest number of hurricanes on his watch in U.S. history is in the White House today, this year saw the fewest number of tropical cyclone events in the North Atlantic in over 45 years, October hurricanes that occurred once every 1.7 years in the 1880s now come once every 6 years, the frequency of hurricanes in the 81 years prior to 1931 was 12% higher than the frequency in the 81 years since, the 29 most deadly hurricanes on NOAA's list of deadly events ALL occurred prior to 1975, etc. If there was a shred of truth in your silly claims, the opposite would be the case, wouldn't it?
    22 Nov 2013, 01:39 PM Reply Like
  • Joseph Toomey
    , contributor
    Comments (35) | Send Message
     
    The reason for the dismissive rejoinder is because the one real growth industry in the economy that anyone can identify is the climate change attribution industry. Look for proof at all the stories filed attributing the cause of Cat. 1 Sandy last year to climate change. It was as if there had never been a hurricane until the invention of global warming.
    22 Nov 2013, 02:03 PM Reply Like
  • Alphareader60
    , contributor
    Comments (39) | Send Message
     
    Joe Toomey,
    Thank you for your well researched and pointed response to the
    myth of "41 billion dollar" subsidy to oil and gas. Saved me a whole lot of typing, as your info coincides with mine.
    Now if we could only dispel the myth that " big oil" pays no income tax or other taxes. Just the top ten paid well over $ 60 billion
    in the last 10 years. Not to mention the royalty fees, excise taxes,
    and others.
    While we are at it, lets talk about the huge number of jobs provided by oil and gas companies and the trickle down effect of
    those billions of dollars into local and state coffers and economies.

     

    Then lets do a truthful side by side comparison with the waste of subsidies to ethanol and other "dry hole" energy projects that
    cost the taxpayers huge sums of money with no true benefit to
    them. Just increases the cost of much of what everyday working people have to pay for gas, groceries, materials, etc.
    22 Nov 2013, 02:24 PM Reply Like
  • Joseph Toomey
    , contributor
    Comments (35) | Send Message
     
    Thanks Alpha. Consider the jobs aspect that you raise.

     

    Since the last full month of Bush's term until the July 2013 BLS jobs report, there had been an increase of 916,000 employed persons in the Household Survey. If you exclude the job growth impact from oil and gas producing states of Texas and North Dakota, there had been only 132,000 jobs created nationwide. In other words, the two oil-producing states had accounted for about 86% of all net job growth in the country.

     

    Consider the BLS Non-Farm Payroll Survey data. During those 55 months, the nation saw an increase of 875,000 payroll jobs. But only 251,100 occurred outside oil-producing states of Texas and North Dakota. In other words, the two oil-producing states accounted for 71% of job growth in the entire country.

     

    How about the quality of job creation during those years? Using the BLS Payroll Survey which compiles wage data also, of the 875,000 payroll jobs created nationwide, 865,000 were in the Leisure & Hospitality industry segment. In other words, nearly every net job creation that had occurred was in the Leisure & Hospitality segment.

     

    So what's wrong with that? In July 2013, Leisure & Hospitality jobs paid only 42% of the nationwide payroll average. Meanwhile, in the oil & gas producing segment, the average weekly wage rate was 156% of the national wage rate. So outside of the oil & gas segment, the U.S. was creating some jobs. But they were entirely in the lucrative burger-flipping industry.

     

    People can pour all the venom they can muster on fossil fuels. They can pretend that they cause hurricanes, floods, droughts, tornadoes, famines, hot weather, bad breath, ingrown toenails, the death of Princess Diana and every other ill known to mankind. But it's difficult to deny their usefulness to robust high-wage job creation.
    22 Nov 2013, 04:34 PM Reply Like
  • Alphareader60
    , contributor
    Comments (39) | Send Message
     
    Joseph,
    Thanks for the info on job creation activity. I have been looking at data in this area suggesting the same outcome.
    Nice to know that someone else is not only looking at the actual
    picture, but also understanding and interpreting the real situation and conclusion.
    I spent almost 25 years actively involved in politics, as an insurance regulator, lobbyist and advisor to numerous campaigns state and congressional level. Politicians and the media spin numbers and statistics to their own agenda - so as to focus people
    away from the truth. Finally got fed up with it all. Now just have a small business, with one employee, in a small community.
    The economy is really not improving very much.
    Appreciate your time and research on these important matters.
    23 Nov 2013, 02:25 PM Reply Like
  • wyostocks
    , contributor
    Comments (7614) | Send Message
     
    Joseph Toomey

     

    Very well stated.
    23 Nov 2013, 03:05 PM Reply Like
  • ComputerBlue
    , contributor
    Comments (681) | Send Message
     
    You think the "marketplace" will embrace any newcomers? If people are the marketplace, I don't see alot of options when I go to fuel my vehicle.
    16 Nov 2013, 08:40 AM Reply Like
  • tomlos
    , contributor
    Comments (1098) | Send Message
     
    That's because the other options are not affordable enough, work well enough, and a host of other reasons. People will decide with the pocket books when an alternative is viable.
    16 Nov 2013, 09:48 AM Reply Like
  • Joseph Toomey
    , contributor
    Comments (35) | Send Message
     
    An alternative is available but for EPA policy changes adopted in 2009. With natural gas priced at $4.00 per million BTUs, methanol can be produced at $1.30 per gallon-of-gasoline-equ... Natural gas settled at $3.68 per million BTUs on Thursday. Meanwhile, RBOB gasoline settled on the NYMEX on Thursday at $2.68 a gallon. That price could be cut in half today if EPA-Obama would get out of the way.

     

    http://1.usa.gov/14SQcYm

     

    California ran a methanol test program in the 1980s that was very successful. In 1997, there were 17,000 methanol-capable flex-fuel vehicles on the road in the state. It only died when fears about oil supply eased. Methanol offers an octane rating of about 105 compared to 87 for E10. Every vehicle sold in the past 5 years is flex-fuel capable but not flex-fuel enabled. A software upload and a ten dollar adjustment to the ignition system would remedy that problem.
    16 Nov 2013, 06:51 PM Reply Like
  • the_value_vulture
    , contributor
    Comments (157) | Send Message
     
    "Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) complained it had invested in renewable fuel projects "on the basis of firm legislative commitments" and across two presidential administrations."

     

    Three words ... "Too d*&^ bad"

     

    Welcome to the real world where guarantee's are a thing of fiction.
    16 Nov 2013, 08:49 AM Reply Like
  • TruffelPig
    , contributor
    Comments (4055) | Send Message
     
    LMAO, ROFL. Exactly!
    16 Nov 2013, 09:59 AM Reply Like
  • Tom in Texas
    , contributor
    Comments (352) | Send Message
     
    Especially political guarantees. If you like your insurance....etc.
    16 Nov 2013, 12:16 PM Reply Like
  • Joseph Toomey
    , contributor
    Comments (35) | Send Message
     
    Get ready for the same complaints to be aired by other 'green energy' promoters who invested in dubious projects predicated upon uninterrupted benefit streams derived from mandates and feed-in tariffs that will subsequently be altered when political will founders, as it has in Spain, South Africa, the Czech Republic, France, Japan, the UK, Germany, and Poland.
    16 Nov 2013, 05:15 PM Reply Like
  • Lakeaffect
    , contributor
    Comments (968) | Send Message
     
    For whatever reasons, the consumption of gasoline in our economy has declined for the past few years and may continue to do so. It has gotten so there's not enough gasoline consumption to absorb the ethanol 10% mandate.

     

    Ethanol producers would raise the mandate to 15%, which would be damaging to gasoline engines pretty much across the board. They would rather continue to line their own pockets and have consumers and businesses destroy their transport vehicles in the process. A very clear wealth transfer which would go on top of the already onerous ones surrounding this "green" fuel.

     

    The producer complex made a huge strategic mistake. They depended wholly on the government mandates to create the demand behind ethanol. They should have been marketing their product, educating the public, and promoting growth in flex fuel engines so that the 10% "blend wall" would become a non-issue. Instead they pocketed every penny of the profits, never giving thought to investing for the long term.

     

    Of course, the producers may have realized early on that there is nothing positive about ethanol that can be promoted, educated and marketed to an aware consumer. In that case they did the right thing. But, as history has shown over and over, business models that are founded on cartel, monopoly or market bending government mandates will always fail in the end. See Potash for a recent example.

     

    BTW, none of this is breaking news. It's been coming over the horizon for almost a year. Run a search on SA for "blend wall" and you will see that this has been a developing topic which finally culminated this week. There was plenty of time to phase out of the impacted businesses, (latest red flag on Oct 18) had an investor been paying attention to these developments.
    16 Nov 2013, 08:52 AM Reply Like
  • Michael Fitzsimmons
    , contributor
    Comments (8085) | Send Message
     
    Green Plains (GPRE) CEO Todd Becker calls the prospect of the U.S. turning away from a cheap and domestically produced fuel source "disgraceful."

     

    He's right - but the fuel we are turning away is natural gas! Why in the world is the government enforcing ethanol mandates of any size at all when we have abundant, clean, and cheap natural gas coming out our ears!

     

    The solution is natural gas transportation, not the massive distortions (i.e. inflation) across the entire food chain for using corn in our tanks. The ethanol mandates rank right up there with the billions blown on "clean coal" (an oxymoron if ever there was one) as examples of US government energy "policy" gone awry. Meanwhile, the obvious solution (natural gas transportation) get little more than lip service from Washington. What a country.
    16 Nov 2013, 08:56 AM Reply Like
  • Lakeaffect
    , contributor
    Comments (968) | Send Message
     
    Best to keep the government out of it. Look what they're doing to healthcare and look at what they did to the ethanol industry. Two huge areas with terrible misallocation of capital taking place. The Gov. can turn on a dime, leaving investors holding the bag.

     

    Leave the Gov. out of NG and let the market succeed or fail on it's own merits.
    16 Nov 2013, 11:58 AM Reply Like
  • ComputerBlue
    , contributor
    Comments (681) | Send Message
     
    What happens to natural gas as major transportation fuel when it reaches $5-6? Sounds good at $3-4. I'm not claiming to know, but I'd like to know. Gas will not be at these levels in 5 years let alone 10.
    16 Nov 2013, 09:00 AM Reply Like
  • Randal James
    , contributor
    Comments (2323) | Send Message
     
    Blue - one benefit for those of us who aren't truckers: their use of NG will keep gasoline prices lower. I'm sure you've read the stories as gas prices rise consumers feel pinched and spend less which makes for a moribund economy. Reverse that.
    16 Nov 2013, 04:02 PM Reply Like
  • Joseph Toomey
    , contributor
    Comments (35) | Send Message
     
    Here you forthrightly profess lack of understanding about the relative economics of gasoline vs. natural gas at various natural gas price points. So how do you know what levels natural gas will be in five years? Many producers in the Barnett and Eagle Ford are actually capping natural gas production to get at the more lucrative liquids.

     

    None of us know what will happen in the future. But most studies reliably forecast that natural gas prices will not likely be negatively impacted by new demand from natural gas exports. So why would natural gas for domestic fuel be any different?
    16 Nov 2013, 05:28 PM Reply Like
  • ComputerBlue
    , contributor
    Comments (681) | Send Message
     
    I understand supply and demand of a commodity and after reviewing numerous reports...very few oil execs seem t believe gas will stay at current levels. I'd take the over $4.50 bet in less than 5 years.
    16 Nov 2013, 10:47 PM Reply Like
  • Joseph Toomey
    , contributor
    Comments (35) | Send Message
     
    Which is exactly why fewer people by the minute take leftism seriously. They utilize their own wild predictions about future events — think climate hysteria — as a substitute for rational policy analysis.
    17 Nov 2013, 12:43 PM Reply Like
  • joe kelly
    , contributor
    Comments (1725) | Send Message
     
    Great irony. Big business and farmers who demand less government want more government.
    16 Nov 2013, 09:09 AM Reply Like
  • Bret Jensen
    , contributor
    Comments (9811) | Send Message
     
    Precisely, this mandate should be abolished completely along with every other government program that picks "winners and losers" instead of letting things work themselves in the marketplace which always results in better outcomes for taxpayers & consumers than centralized govt control.
    16 Nov 2013, 11:31 AM Reply Like
  • stocknerd
    , contributor
    Comments (1238) | Send Message
     
    The mandate will stay. Watch the power of special interests. All those mid western Congress folks will fight to keep the program that favors their constituents. Everyone talks about ending special favors and deals and pork, but we all suck pork from Congress. We elect people who are just like we are.
    16 Nov 2013, 09:11 AM Reply Like
  • Lakeaffect
    , contributor
    Comments (968) | Send Message
     
    It is close to impossible for the mandate to stay on the current ramp path. Unless, of course that Americans decide to start driving gas hogs again or start driving a lot more miles than they do now. I suppose either could happen, but it's not the trend we've been on for the past several years.

     

    Ethanol at 10% of gasoline is at a "blend wall" in that any increase in Ethanol above current levels would force more than 10% into the gasoline which we're currently consuming. Above 10%, gasoline engines start falling apart, due to the ethanol content messing up the engines' internals.

     

    The trends of declining gasoline consumption have been in place since 2009. It has been discussed here on SA and on many other websites and is disclosed monthly by the DOE. These ethanol producers who are now whining about getting stiffed should have seen this coming.

     

    My take is the industry would rather sell more ethanol, stuff a few more bucks in their pockets, even at the price of trashing their consumer's automobile and trucks. Alternatively, these whiners have taken a page from their brethren in the banking sector and are looking for a Federal handout.
    16 Nov 2013, 12:06 PM Reply Like
  • Joseph Toomey
    , contributor
    Comments (35) | Send Message
     
    The mandate will remain but the volumes mandated will change. They already have changed considerably.

     

    Motor gasoline demand in the U.S. topped out in 2007 at 142.4 billion gallons and has declined ever since. The country this year is on track to consume less than 133.1 billion. See the data here:

     

    http://1.usa.gov/1f12CH6

     

    The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 mandates 36 billion gallons of ethanol blending by the year 2022. This would consist of 15 billion gallons of corn ethanol with cellulosic ethanol and other advanced biofuels making up the difference. The only way that could ever happen is if E85 demand grew like topsy the way central planners expected. But it hasn't because E85 is too expensive on a mileage-adjusted basis.

     

    The ever-increasing thresholds for cellulosic biofuel have been waived every year since they went into effect 4 years ago. In 2010, EPA lowered the EISA mandated 100M gallon cellulosic threshold to 6.5 million. Zero was produced. In 2011, the 250M gallon threshold was lowered to 6.6 million. Zero was produced. In 2012, the 500 million gallon threshold was lowered to 8.7 million. Only 20K gallons were produced. In 2013, the 1 billion gallon threshold was lowered to 6 million. Through September, only 145K gallons have been produced. See the data here:

     

    http://1.usa.gov/18AkMYm

     

    In a sane world, this would be a humiliating track record. Unfortunately, like central planners everywhere, EPA is incapable of being embarrassed. EISA 2007 is just another government-enforced central planning train wreck. It will be repealed when and if the White House changes hands.
    16 Nov 2013, 06:16 PM Reply Like
  • norm903
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    "Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) complained it had invested in renewable fuel projects "on the basis of firm legislative commitments" and across two presidential administrations."

     

    Live off lobbied governmental mandates, die by their removal.
    16 Nov 2013, 09:17 AM Reply Like
  • Joseph Toomey
    , contributor
    Comments (35) | Send Message
     
    Couldn't have happened to a better bunch of guys.
    16 Nov 2013, 06:17 PM Reply Like
  • deercreekvols
    , contributor
    Comments (5139) | Send Message
     
    Ethanol destroys small engines, a nasty little side-effect that those who have benefited from ethanol being added to gasoline forgot to mention.
    Where was the disclaimer?:This gas contains 10% ethanol and a very good chance of ruining your small engine.

     

    I have lost several weed-eaters to ethanol and now run all of my small engine on premium gasoline. Premium gas to mow and trim my property. Premium gas to run my four-wheeler so I can plow my driveway/road. Unbelievable.

     

    The businesses involved with unclogging carburetors has loved ethanol. I have not.
    16 Nov 2013, 10:39 AM Reply Like
  • Lakeaffect
    , contributor
    Comments (968) | Send Message
     
    Agree with your comment. How green is a fuel that causes premature failure of engines, necessitating the manufacture and purchase of another one sooner than necessary?

     

    If the industry succeeds in pushing the blend to 15%, like they want, then you'll see the same thing happening to your automobile engine.

     

    A first step in getting our fiscal house in order, and returning the functionality of the market to it's proper place, funding for these kinds of programs and subsidies should be eliminated from the Federal budget.
    16 Nov 2013, 12:48 PM Reply Like
  • Joseph Toomey
    , contributor
    Comments (35) | Send Message
     
    Industry is not pushing the policy as much as EPA, also known as the Ethanol Promotion Agenda. EPA has already approved E15 for car models 2001 and later.
    16 Nov 2013, 06:20 PM Reply Like
  • Alphareader60
    , contributor
    Comments (39) | Send Message
     
    Using corn for a fuel source is a major factor in the increased price of
    food. Corn is the major component of feed for beef cattle, milk cows, hogs, chickens, etc. Meat products at the grocery store have gone sky high. Milk is sky high now as are any other corn related foods.
    Grocery prices increase steadily. Notice that packaging sizes are
    mostly the same -- there's just half as much in them as there used to be. That is really helping the "poor people", huh. Food stamps buy far less than they used to and food stamp program costs continue to increase.

     

    Ethanol gums up engines in vehicles, reduces gas mileage as well.
    My 4-cylinder 2001 Camry used to get 39 to 42 miles per gallon.
    Now, it averages at best about 25 to 30.
    Gas mileage can significantly improve across the board in vehicles
    by putting 4-cylinder engines in cars. The 6 and 8 cylinders use more gas. No sane person needs to be driving faster than the speed limit -- so it is ridiculous to build engines to run 100 + miles per hour. It is laughable that even the electric car makers ( a la
    Tesla ) boast the 100+ MPH of their vehicles.

     

    The government mandates the ethanol at levels greater than the amount produced, so that refiners have to purchase the RINs
    at ridiculous levels adding more expense to the cost of gasoline.
    All so that political favored companies can suck money out of the
    people to be in a business that could not survive without massive
    subsidies from the taxpayers.

     

    If we have to make bio-fuels -- make them use Kudzu - it grows
    3 feet or more per day, exceedingly hard to kill, and has really
    large and "green" leaves !!
    16 Nov 2013, 11:05 AM Reply Like
  • mungbean
    , contributor
    Comments (33) | Send Message
     
    Let's stop eating corn too. A way to tell the corn farmers that we are tired of subsidizing their life.
    16 Nov 2013, 12:50 PM Reply Like
  • wyostocks
    , contributor
    Comments (7614) | Send Message
     
    @mungbean
    I hope you are referring to the mega corporations and not the "little guy" farmer.

     

    If so, I totally agree.
    16 Nov 2013, 02:20 PM Reply Like
  • deercreekvols
    , contributor
    Comments (5139) | Send Message
     
    We regularly buy corn from road-side farm stands. Some are still on the "honors system." Take your corn and/or other produce and leave the money in a coffee can.
    Alas, the corn season is over for the year. Not a bad crop in western NY this season, however.
    16 Nov 2013, 06:52 PM Reply Like
  • wyostocks
    , contributor
    Comments (7614) | Send Message
     
    deerckeeks
    The honor system. A throwback to a bygone era in most of America.
    I wonder how that would work out today in any major city.
    Forget it. Wouldn't work.
    Go Jets tomorrow.
    16 Nov 2013, 08:37 PM Reply Like
  • deercreekvols
    , contributor
    Comments (5139) | Send Message
     
    Not sure that the honor system would work in most cities. There are some perks to living in a rural area after all!
    We buy our eggs using honor system too. Coffee can is the fridge which is in the barn. Walk in, take your eggs, and leave your money. $1.50/dozen and as fresh as we can find. Farm hands even gave us a tour of the farm when we first stopped there.
    This would never work in a city....

     

    Bills looked like a playoff team today vs. Jets...
    17 Nov 2013, 06:16 PM Reply Like
  • johncworth
    , contributor
    Comments (424) | Send Message
     
    It is really unusual to see such unanimity among the writers on SA. Usually there is a clearly defined line down the middle based on conservative or liberal orientation.
    Seems clear to me the only people that think ethanol is a good thing are those that are profiting from it. Everyone else, regardless of party affiliation, sees it for the rip off that it is. Yay us! We agree on something!
    16 Nov 2013, 01:08 PM Reply Like
  • medzjohn
    , contributor
    Comments (218) | Send Message
     
    When the farm state Senators threw their weight around and got corn ethanol included in the renewable fuels mandate (over the objections of environmentalists) they supercharged ADM earnings and sabotaged the best interests of the American people. Now they are blaming the EPA (as usual) for the belated remedy of their pork barrel bullying. Who outside the farm industry can have any sympathy?
    16 Nov 2013, 01:42 PM Reply Like
  • futuretrade
    , contributor
    Comments (578) | Send Message
     
    LONG ON SZYM>>>>So... tailored oils provide cost-effective, high-quality "drop-in" replacements for marine, motor vehicle, and jet fuels. Our fuels are compatible with existing infrastructure, meet industry specifications, and can be used with factory-standard engines, without modifications.

     

    We currently work with Chevron, UOP Honeywell, and additional industry leading refining partners, to produce SoladieselRD® renewable diesel, SoladieselHRF-76® renewable diesel for ships, and Solajet® renewable jet fuel for both military and commercial application testing.

     

    In 2010, we delivered over 80,000 liters of algal-derived marine diesel and jet fuel to the U.S. Navy, constituting the world's largest delivery of 100% microbial-derived, (NON-ETHANOL BIOFUEL.) Subsequently, we were awarded another contract with the U.S. Department of Defense for production of up to 550,000 additional liters of naval distillate (SoladieselHRF-76® marine fuel).
    16 Nov 2013, 03:16 PM Reply Like
  • Joseph Toomey
    , contributor
    Comments (35) | Send Message
     
    Solazyme used its crony connections with the Obama White House — the company relied upon an Obama transition team insider to grease the skids — to win a DoD contract to supply 450K gallons of algae-based jet fuel for $16 a gallon when the U.S. Navy was buying conventional jet fuel for about $4 a gallon. What a wonderful deal for the American taxpayer.

     

    See for instance 'Jet Fuel-Gate Is Obama's New Solyndra,' Investors Business Daily, December 13, 2011

     

    http://bit.ly/uBHYJO

     

    See also Andrew Stiles, 'Obama's Great Green Fleet,' National Review, December 19, 2011

     

    http://bit.ly/1ijU6mB

     

    Joseph Toomey
    Author: CHANGE YOU CAN REALLY BELIEVE IN: The Obama Legacy of Broken Promises and Failed Policies
    16 Nov 2013, 06:32 PM Reply Like
  • futuretrade
    , contributor
    Comments (578) | Send Message
     
    Joseph Toomey, What's the alternative keep burning crude?
    16 Nov 2013, 07:53 PM Reply Like
  • Joseph Toomey
    , contributor
    Comments (35) | Send Message
     
    Mysterious futuretrade who hides behind an indecipherable moniker to avoid disclosure, it is not and never will be $16 a gallon algae fuel that relies upon institutionalized political corruption. If you think algae fuel is a good deal, produce it without taxpayer subsidies, mandates or corrupt crony deal-making, sell it at a competitive price and let rational market actors, not deeply flawed politicians and their crony shysters who are enriching themselves by fleecing taxpayers, decide.
    17 Nov 2013, 12:48 PM Reply Like
  • futuretrade
    , contributor
    Comments (578) | Send Message
     
    "Mysterious futuretrade who hides behind an indecipherable moniker to avoid disclosure," What's this all about, Give me a break!. Shouldn't we stick to merits of the article or the lack there of, instead of political affiliation? Our government hands out all kinds of subsidies (Republican & Democrat) Shall we talk about the 25 year guaranteed subsidies for wind power, which will make it hard for BPA (cheap hydropower) to keep prices low. If you have a bone to pick with Obama, VOTE HIM OUT>
    17 Nov 2013, 02:54 PM Reply Like
  • futuretrade
    , contributor
    Comments (578) | Send Message
     
    "it is not and never will be $16 a gallon algae fuel that relies upon institutionalized political corruption" Better yet, lets talk about the huge subsidies given to BIG OIL. maybe your right, NO SUBSIDIES period. maybe company's should live or die by their own ability to produce profit ON THEIR OWN!
    17 Nov 2013, 03:30 PM Reply Like
  • futuretrade
    , contributor
    Comments (578) | Send Message
     
    Joseph Toomey, Republicans & Democrats>>> A case of Good Cop, Bad Cop, the only difference is that one uses Vaseline.
    17 Nov 2013, 03:51 PM Reply Like
  • Joseph Toomey
    , contributor
    Comments (35) | Send Message
     
    Mysterious futuretrade, this rant is typical of institutional ignorance on steroids. Obama budgets from 2010 onwards identify three oil industry "subsidies" it claims will deliver about $37 billion over 10 years if eliminated, or around $4 billion a year. The three "subsidy" categories are (1) Section 199 tax preferences for domestic producers available to any company that produces any product in the U.S., (2) percentage oil depletion allowance that is similar to depreciation allowances offered to any industrial company, and (3) expense deductions for intangible drilling costs that are identical to the site preparation and other indirect cost write-downs available to any industrial company.

     

    It is these "subsidies" amounting to about $4 billion a year that supposedly keep alive an industry whose top five companies accounted for $1.8 trillion in revenues in 2011. You don't really do arithmetic much, do you?

     

    But the hilarious aspect of it all is that two of those subsidy categories, intangible drilling costs and depletion allowance, don't even apply to "BIG OIL" as you shout it. Depletion allowance for integrated majors was eliminated in 1975. Intangible drilling costs can only be recouped over five years for "BIG OIL" rather than over a one year period that applies to small producers.

     

    When CBO measured federal energy subsidies in 2010, they found that the amount paid out to biofuel producers was 25 times larger on a per unit of energy basis that those accorded to oil and gas producers. And O&G "subsidies" weren't even subsidies but ordinary business expense deductions accorded to every taxpayer company. They certainly weren't cash payouts like those paid out to biofuel producers or wind farms operators or solar companies — or flim-flam algae fuel companies.

     

    Hilarious also is the fact that the CBO measure didn't include the taxpayer gift to crony-connected rent-seekers at Solazyme who hoodwinked taxpayers with $16 a gallon algae fuel since that was authorized under a DoD contract rather than through a tax allowance or credit.
    17 Nov 2013, 08:39 PM Reply Like
  • futuretrade
    , contributor
    Comments (578) | Send Message
     
    "Mysterious futuretrade"??? You are a rude little character aren't you. Are you this belligerent with anybody that may have differing opinions? I'm done conversing with you. Good luck with your Future trades!
    17 Nov 2013, 09:24 PM Reply Like
  • Joseph Toomey
    , contributor
    Comments (35) | Send Message
     
    Just to shysters ripping off taxpayers. Everyone else gets a pass.
    18 Nov 2013, 09:03 AM Reply Like
  • futuretrade
    , contributor
    Comments (578) | Send Message
     
    SOLAZYME IS THE ANSWER>> NO CORN, NO- ETHANOL, DROP IN FUEL, COMPATABLE WITH SMALL ENGINES> BUT IS NOT RELIANT ON BIOFUEL FOR COMPANY SURVIVAL. GREEN TECH. (PERFECT)
    16 Nov 2013, 03:38 PM Reply Like
  • Joseph Toomey
    , contributor
    Comments (35) | Send Message
     
    At $16 a gallon, it's perfect for the shysters ripping off taxpayers, lousy for everyone else.
    17 Nov 2013, 12:49 PM Reply Like
  • futuretrade
    , contributor
    Comments (578) | Send Message
     
    SOLAZYME>> DOES NOT TAKE AWAY FROM THE FOOD CHAIN. IT ADDS TO IT. ALGAE-FLOUR, COOKING OILS
    16 Nov 2013, 04:07 PM Reply Like
  • Joseph Toomey
    , contributor
    Comments (35) | Send Message
     
    Neither does crude oil.
    17 Nov 2013, 12:50 PM Reply Like
  • Randal James
    , contributor
    Comments (2323) | Send Message
     
    Should we follow a hunch that you like solazyme? Should we pitch in to buy you a keyboard where the capitalization keys don't get stuck?
    16 Nov 2013, 04:32 PM Reply Like
  • futuretrade
    , contributor
    Comments (578) | Send Message
     
    Randal, Just trying to emphasize that ethanol will have no effect on SZYM. And if you would like to buy me a new keyboard be my guest. LOL..
    16 Nov 2013, 04:46 PM Reply Like
  • TruffelPig
    , contributor
    Comments (4055) | Send Message
     
    $SZYM will not solve any energy problems. The technology is ok for cosmetics etc. but algal oil to burn? What a nonsense and do not believe that please. Calculate how many fermenters you have to build and run to replace the load of 1 oil tanker. They feed their algae sugar and do not use sun light to grow them. How clever is that? Where does the sugar come from? Why would the yield be much better than producing EtOH from sugar?
    16 Nov 2013, 06:21 PM Reply Like
  • futuretrade
    , contributor
    Comments (578) | Send Message
     
    Truffelpig, How many off shore oil rigs do you suppose there are? Off shore oil rigs are not small infrastructure and they are not clean. As far as sugar, Proterro can produce sugar at .05cents a pound. Sugar will not hold back SZYM, it's a none issue. The only thing that could possibly hold back Solazyme biofuel is the American Petroleum Institute, How many people make large amounts of money off dirty crude. I doubt that they will stop until they have pulled the last drop out of the ground, or they don't have enough people to run their oil rigs because they've choked to death. And one other thing, Biofuel won't solve our total energy needs, Electric cars, Nat gas, hydrogen? Our energy needs are growing and all sources will be needed. But Crude? there's better ways to fuel our automobiles!
    16 Nov 2013, 07:16 PM Reply Like
  • TruffelPig
    , contributor
    Comments (4055) | Send Message
     
    It is about the CO2 foot print. The SZYM biofuel isn't that great when you need sugar to produce it in algae. Algae should be open pond and use sun. When many people want sugar guess what happens to your sugar price? And the price of 0.05 cents/pound I do not believe. You are kidding.

     

    Other than that read my post above to larger scale view.
    16 Nov 2013, 08:20 PM Reply Like
  • futuretrade
    , contributor
    Comments (578) | Send Message
     
    "price of 0.05 cents/pound I do not believe. You are kidding".
    Proterro is the only biofeedstock company that makes sucrose instead of extracting it from crops or deconstructing cellulosic materials.

     

    Using CO2, sunlight and water, Proterro lowers the cost of sugar production to around $0.05/lb., unleashing the economic value of biofuels and biobased chemicals for industry partners.

     

    The company has functioning, highly productive, patented, sucrose-producing organisms and a patent-pending, novel photobioreactor system.(CO2, sunlight, and water) GET IT?
    16 Nov 2013, 08:59 PM Reply Like
  • TruffelPig
    , contributor
    Comments (4055) | Send Message
     
    With cyanobacteria they make it. In photobioreactors. Their large scale production I want to see and I still do NOT BELIEVE the 0.05 cents/pound sucrose. CO2 costs you more already since the air supply for such applications doesn't suffice. Why don't you look for how much they sell CO2 in Ohio where a lot of capturing is done. Algae need nutrients too and the nutrients (macro/trace) will cost you much more that 0.05 cents/pound of sucrose.

     

    But I am sure you know this all much better than me. Because the company website says so.
    16 Nov 2013, 09:23 PM Reply Like
  • futuretrade
    , contributor
    Comments (578) | Send Message
     
    Truffelpig, Well, all I can say is if SZYM isn't cranking out good profit by the 1st quarter of 2014 I'll buy into what your saying. Good luck in your trading!
    16 Nov 2013, 09:37 PM Reply Like
  • Randal James
    , contributor
    Comments (2323) | Send Message
     
    future/truffle

     

    My Dad was a cattleman and one of the abundant byproducts was manure. This was OK because the nearby farms needed fertilizer and if they had a truck we'd load it for free! These days you'd have to listen to Rush for 7 minutes... ooops! Off track for a second.

     

    Anyway, the manure was an industry-wide problem and there had been incidents in large-scale feeding operations where a flood would grab too much manure and the acidity could briefly be toxic to wildlife.

     

    A GE engineer was cross-country skiing in Yellowstone one winter and, being a nerdy scientist, noticed that the elk scat was decomposing around the thermal pools. He gathered samples and discovered a manure-eating bacteria. This has broader implications than the elk or cattle. Think of municipal waste or of possible uses for the bacteria.

     

    And GE studied it for years. In the lab it worked just as well as in the park. The insurmountable problem was trying to move it to an industrial-sized environment was far too costly and complicated.

     

    While it is fascinating that algae can produce oil, would it ever do so in a manner where the product was broadly available and competitively priced? One pretty good oil well can turn out 30,000 gallons a day. The math is tough to beat with the technology we have.
    16 Nov 2013, 11:10 PM Reply Like
  • futuretrade
    , contributor
    Comments (578) | Send Message
     
    Randal James, I have a few acres with a few horses and a lot of manure, you being a cattleman's son must know how algae grows without even helping it. Why I mention it is, Solazyme uses algae to make oil. Solazyme is a phenomenal technology,. Oil's for industry, that the petroleum industry can't create. But it's much, much, more, low cholesterol cooking oils, and Food, yes I said food, Algae flour. Then there is cosmetic uses. and yes, biofuel. I'm sure I'm leaving out a lot more, considering that every few months they apply for a new patent. Starting 2014 you're going to hear a lot about this amazing technology.
    17 Nov 2013, 12:00 AM Reply Like
  • Joseph Toomey
    , contributor
    Comments (35) | Send Message
     
    CAPITALIZING A POST is the internet equivalent of standing naked in the middle of the street shouting inanities until the police come and take them away for their safety and ours.
    17 Nov 2013, 12:52 PM Reply Like
  • MWinMD
    , contributor
    Comments (1854) | Send Message
     
    Here's hoping it finally dawns on the EPA that they should ramp up the biodiesel standard by as much as they decreased the ethanol one. Biodiesel is increasingly made from used cooking oils, animal fats and other non-food feedstocks, so there's no indirect land use (ILUC) issues. It has a much better greenhouse gas profile and the nation has unused production capacity.

     

    This should be a no brainer. Global warming - which has kept right on going the past 15 years despite the squawking of people who think our oceans are located on Mars - wont stop just because the American Petroleum Institute has more lobbyists than the other guys.
    16 Nov 2013, 04:52 PM Reply Like
  • rambler1
    , contributor
    Comments (395) | Send Message
     
    Good less of that crap for my boat!
    16 Nov 2013, 06:20 PM Reply Like
  • ccsqrd
    , contributor
    Comments (12) | Send Message
     
    I'm all in favor of enthusiasm and an open exchange of ideas (read heated disagreement) but the Solazyme discussion is academic. Solazyme has not had bio-fuels in its near to mid term strategy for almost 2 years now. That was one of the contributing reasons I have taken a strong long position in the company. The company has recognized that targeting the highest value/high margin portion of the tailored oils market is a much stronger business plan than going after the commodity segment. Now I am all for this continued misrepresentation as it keeps the stock price artificially depressed from where the progress of the company would put it, and provides me with additional opportunities to accumulate a larger stake. However, none of you are really contributing to the Seekingalpha followers understanding of the investment opportunities and real risks.
    17 Nov 2013, 12:08 PM Reply Like
  • bluegreen 33
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    I am an energy researcher without political bias..

     

    Gasoline consumption has been falling since 2006 in the US while the ethanol mandate has required ever more ethanol production.
    At this point, the ethanol mandated has no demand on the driving side.
    It's a matter of numbers. The EPA had no choice but to end the mandate. The EPA , in it's press release stated this as it's reason for freezing the growth.
    If the Ag companies are so confident that exports can take up the slack, then why are they worrying about the Mandate? Why do they care at all if they can export the difference?
    17 Nov 2013, 12:18 PM Reply Like
  • Joseph Toomey
    , contributor
    Comments (35) | Send Message
     
    Here's the reason:

     

    They know they can't export ethanol for fuel. Ethanol prices closed Thursday at $1.78 per gallon on the CBOT. As most of it originates in the Midwest and is unsuitable for pipeline delivery, it takes another $0.21 per gallon to get it to market mostly by rail tank cars. Ethanol has only 66% of the energy content of gasoline. That means the delivered price to a blend terminal on a gasoline thermodynamic-equivalent basis is around $3.01 per gallon. Compare that to Thursday's NYMEX closing price of $2.68 per gallon for RBOB gasoline and you'll see why nobody is rushing to buy ethanol. And this is one of the tightest spreads we've seen in years. Within the past two years, the spread has been as high as $1.35 a gallon. The numbers just don't work for ethanol. Put it in your mixed drinks, not your fuel tanks.
    17 Nov 2013, 01:04 PM Reply Like
  • MWinMD
    , contributor
    Comments (1854) | Send Message
     
    This is not meant to defend ethanol, which isn't what we thought it would be, but I'm wary of estimates for gasoline usage that assume the current decrease will continue indefinitely. A fair bit of that decrease (from the roaring "what housing bubble?" 2007 economy to the present) is due the economic downturn.
    17 Nov 2013, 06:06 PM Reply Like
  • futuretrade
    , contributor
    Comments (578) | Send Message
     
    When it comes to this mandate, I for one do not believe we should be putting corn in our gas tank. Those resources should be going to feed the nation and our cattle. I would like nothing better than to go and fill up with $.50 cent gasoline, but those days are gone. What I see in the future is a mix new ways of powering our vehicles, electric cars, Nat gas, Hydrogen, and for people that can't afford new vehicles, Biofuel. I know that Solazyme has better uses in store for it's oil, but I do see Biofuel as a way of using any over production that SZYM might have in the future.
    17 Nov 2013, 01:00 PM Reply Like
  • tjmckown
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    All we do is try to guess why the EPA does what it does. I feel like a mushroom, given all this crap and left in the dark.
    17 Nov 2013, 01:25 PM Reply Like
  • Truths
    , contributor
    Comments (2) | Send Message
     
    ADM has ripped off the public for years. They basically paid off politicians to pass ethanol favorable regulations which cost tax payers and consumers billions, and made ADM executives, shareholders and politicians wealthy.. Everyone now knows that ethanol damages the environment more than it helps, is energy intensive, and is another subsidy to farmers. The whole scheme is probably the biggest transfer of wealth in US history.
    Regarding Todd Becker... he is simply a dope.
    17 Nov 2013, 01:26 PM Reply Like
  • 1980XLS
    , contributor
    Comments (3314) | Send Message
     
    Ethanol is for human consumption,

     

    not motor fuel.
    17 Nov 2013, 01:26 PM Reply Like
  • futuretrade
    , contributor
    Comments (578) | Send Message
     
    14980XLS, Corn on the cob or corn liquor, I'm with ya. lol...
    17 Nov 2013, 04:30 PM Reply Like
  • 7612841
    , contributor
    Comments (46) | Send Message
     
    These ethanol turds will do anything to fill their own pockets at taxpayer expense. Using feed for cattle to make gasoline??? Who ever thought of this stupid idea. No wonder nobody can afford to buy meat anymore.
    17 Nov 2013, 08:17 PM Reply Like
  • PeteCal
    , contributor
    Comments (90) | Send Message
     
    85 comments so for. Why are we wasting our time. It is a case of who hires the best lobbyist. It has nothing to do with what makes sense.
    18 Nov 2013, 09:38 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector

Next headline on your portfolio:

|