mfs
Hired Hand
Posts: 163
|
Post by mfs on Aug 13, 2011 22:39:48 GMT -5
I think it should revert to economics. Ethanol was brought on as consequence of import levies on corn in EU. We do not need 10% or 5% for mbte emisssions. Ethanol will work its own way into economic equation and that is the way it should be.
|
|
|
|
Post by looter on Aug 14, 2011 7:25:50 GMT -5
I think it should revert to economics. Ethanol was brought on as consequence of import levies on corn in EU. We do not need 10% or 5% for mbte emisssions. Ethanol will work its own way into economic equation and that is the way it should be. I'm almost positive that because the plants are now built, we will produce 6-7 billion gallons of ethanol per year (half what we are now) without any government support. I'm also certain that this is what we are going to do once the higher mandate kicks in next year. Greed. The Blenders Tax Credit was paying people to obey the law. Because it's mandated that blenders must buy X amount of ethanol each year, paying them to do it is like paying me to stop at a red light. It did make the fuel a lot cheaper for the consumer though. The ethanol/corn lobby spends boocoo bucks to keep the VEETC. Why? The mandate insures that 13.1 billion gallons are gonna get blended this year regardless. The issue is price. The corn lobby knows that if the VEETC subsidy is taken away, the consumer will feel the immediate effect. Thought you heard ethanol bashing before? Wait until Jan 1. The blenders tax credit expires. There is zero political support to keep it. The people who collect it, (oil companies) don't even want it. Will this finally shut up the ethanol bashing? No. In fact, I guarantee it will cause it to go to an unbelievable level. We are going to combine a shitty corn crop, with a huge boost in the mandate to nearly 14 billion gallons, with no more blenders tax credit. The pump price of E-10 will be higher than straight unleaded by Valentine's Day. A LOT higher. This sucks for me. While the price of corn will always remain a function of crude oil price, the acres depend on demand. Supply of corn will be set by input costs. The result will be corn acres returning to grazing. Sad day for me. I'm hedging the inevitable loss in seed corn sales by buying a bigger cow herd. |
|
|
|
Post by glowplug on Aug 14, 2011 17:21:06 GMT -5
Yeah, it's easy to cite nations where gas is high priced, until you look at the FACTs that much of their gas prices are taxes. In Great Britain, 70% of the fuel price is taxes, to support all their social programs. In Norway, socialist is supported by both high taxation and the North Sea oil incomes.
We could also look to Mexico where gas-diesel are dramatically cheaper than north of their border.
So much for the fuel price argument.
And as I've pointed out before, the US could de-couple from world oil pricing. We can price our own oil if we decide to. Yeah, I know you just don't like USA telling the rest of the work to KMA, but hey, you want us to withdraw militarily from the world, so hey ragheads, KMA we don't need you anymore...........
Yeah, when the Blenders' Credit expires, the refineries will no longer deduct the blending costs from the taxes they pay in. So they'll pass it along. But we have no military costs in protecting corn fields, elevators, ethanol plants. We do have military costs in protecting the free flow of world oil and the resulting world price of oil, you think we should be saddled with, looter. I'd love for those free loading on US military protection EU nations have to pay for what we do in insuring their free flowing oil supply. They can KMA, too.
Glowplug
|
|
|
|
Post by thirsty on Aug 14, 2011 18:46:09 GMT -5
Yeah, it's easy to cite nations where gas is high priced, until you look at the FACTs that much of their gas prices are taxes. In Great Britain, 70% of the fuel price is taxes, to support all their social programs. In Norway, socialist is supported by both high taxation and the North Sea oil incomes. We could also look to Mexico where gas-diesel are dramatically cheaper than north of their border. So much for the fuel price argument. And as I've pointed out before, the US could de-couple from world oil pricing. We can price our own oil if we decide to. Yeah, I know you just don't like USA telling the rest of the work to KMA, but hey, you want us to withdraw militarily from the world, so hey ragheads, KMA we don't need you anymore........... Yeah, when the Blenders' Credit expires, the refineries will no longer deduct the blending costs from the taxes they pay in. So they'll pass it along. But we have no military costs in protecting corn fields, elevators, ethanol plants. We do have military costs in protecting the free flow of world oil and the resulting world price of oil, you think we should be saddled with, looter. I'd love for those free loading on US military protection EU nations have to pay for what we do in insuring their free flowing oil supply. They can KMA, too. Glowplug You are a moron. Countries with high gasoline prices tend to have first class, high quality transit infrastructure which not only takes the pressure off gasoline supplies, but also allows for people to do away with burning gasoline/automobile ownership altogether. Secondly, this idea that the US can price oil whatever it wants is even dumber. You import net 9 million barrels a day in oil/products. If you think that total wouldn't fall into negative territory in about a half a day flat after your new pricing regime, good luck running a country of 300 million people on 4 million barrels of oil a day. Like we're talking Cuba here, okay. Thirdly, your military doesn't protect anything except maybe New York corporate interests and the role the dollar plays as world trade currency. This idea that your military bases in foreign countries are some sort of altruisitic attempt to keep the world safe from evil doers is something I'd expect from a low IQ Faux news watching cheese eating blowhard. The world laughs at you, and I fart in your general direction.  |
|
|
|
Post by glowplug on Aug 14, 2011 20:11:23 GMT -5
Ah, that's the typical blowhard thirsty of olden days........even to the point of lacking original thought so the inferiorty complex Canuck has to steal a Monty Python line.
On MESS transit, you are totally clueless. It doesn't work in the sparesly populated "fly over states" where the bulk of US agriculture production is located. Oh yes, we should go ga-ga over 19th century technology, trains......ya right.
FACT is cheapest method of moving freight is barges. The USA is way past due for a lock and dam system moderization. Freight trains can work for non-perishable goods but most times those goods must be transferred to trucks to get to their final destination. Not everything is located on a rail siding.
I wouldn't mind seeing citiots switching to compressed air cars for metro travel. But we will need increased electric generation capacity to "air up" those cars. Battery cars are a joke. AmTrak can't run at a profit because they suck. Taxpayers end up subsidizing metro train failures.
And lastly, it is a good thing for you that there are zero targets of stategic importance in Canada. You're just not worth blowing up.......
Glowplug
no movie lines were plagerized to make my points nor animals harmed.
|
|
|
|
Post by linsal on Aug 14, 2011 20:23:13 GMT -5
Ok..so I'm a dumb, under-employed titty-tugger who's trying to figure out this whole ethanol picture. One question I have is when do corn-based ethanol plants book their corn supplies for the year? Or do they typically purchase what they need throughout the year? If I look at the following chart: futures.tradingcharts.com/hist_CN.htmlI see that corn was trading from $4-$5 through the harvest season last year. I would think that most big users (ethanol plants included) would have booked/purchased their corn for the year at that point. True or not? Crude oil during roughly the same time period last year was trading in the $75-$80 range: futures.tradingcharts.com/chart/CO/W?anticache=1313370861If ethanol is going to compete with crude oil/gasoline, and assuming corn (the necessary input to ethanol) is going to be priced roughly $2 per bushel higher (or a 50% increase over last year if I did my math correctly---$4.50 corn plus 50% ($2.25) equals $6.75 corn this fall for booking purposes), that would seem to put a real crimp in the profit margins for ethanol plants...unless their profit margins are significantly higher than I have thought. This is assuming crude continues to trade in the current range. Can anyone help me out here? Mandates or not, don't the ethanol plants have to turn a profit to keep the lights on? |
|
|
|
Post by glowplug on Aug 14, 2011 20:48:28 GMT -5
hotair.com/archives/2011/08/14/surprise-california-high-speed-rail-cost-explodes/Just throwing this FACT is to provide added proof that thirst is FOS on MESS transit. Doesn't even work in highly populated areas. If you want to cite how they function in the EU, last I checked EU nations other than Germany were in deep doo-doo financially. No doubt you and Bwarney Fwank need to control your methane emissions. Glowplug - no movies were plagerized nor animals harmed in making this post.
|
|
|
|
Post by looter on Aug 14, 2011 20:48:43 GMT -5
Yeah, it's easy to cite nations where gas is high priced, until you look at the FACTs that much of their gas prices are taxes. In Great Britain, 70% of the fuel price is taxes, to support all their social programs. In Norway, socialist is supported by both high taxation and the North Sea oil incomes. We could also look to Mexico where gas-diesel are dramatically cheaper than north of their border. So much for the fuel price argument. And as I've pointed out before, the US could de-couple from world oil pricing. We can price our own oil if we decide to. Yeah, I know you just don't like USA telling the rest of the work to KMA, but hey, you want us to withdraw militarily from the world, so hey ragheads, KMA we don't need you anymore........... Yeah, when the Blenders' Credit expires, the refineries will no longer deduct the blending costs from the taxes they pay in. So they'll pass it along. But we have no military costs in protecting corn fields, elevators, ethanol plants. We do have military costs in protecting the free flow of world oil and the resulting world price of oil, you think we should be saddled with, looter. I'd love for those free loading on US military protection EU nations have to pay for what we do in insuring their free flowing oil supply. They can KMA, too. Glowplug Please explain how the USA could de-couple from world oil prices. |
|
|
|
Post by glowplug on Aug 14, 2011 21:01:45 GMT -5
How does Mexico do it for their own in country gas-diesel consumers?
Anyhoooooo, the answer to ethanol's future is an adequate supply of corn. Again, I like the higher corn prices short term but long term, it does grain farmers no good to kill off their livestock, and ethanol plant customers. Nor does it do the US economy any good to further hurt lower and middle class working folks with high gas-diesel prices. Sending US dollars to Canada, to nasty foreign dictator nations, for our energy needs is just damn stupid.
Glowplug
|
|
|
|
Post by looter on Aug 14, 2011 21:23:36 GMT -5
Ok..so I'm a dumb, under-employed titty-tugger who's trying to figure out this whole ethanol picture. One question I have is when do corn-based ethanol plants book their corn supplies for the year? Or do they typically purchase what they need throughout the year? If I look at the following chart: futures.tradingcharts.com/hist_CN.htmlI see that corn was trading from $4-$5 through the harvest season last year. I would think that most big users (ethanol plants included) would have booked/purchased their corn for the year at that point. True or not? Crude oil during roughly the same time period last year was trading in the $75-$80 range: futures.tradingcharts.com/chart/CO/W?anticache=1313370861If ethanol is going to compete with crude oil/gasoline, and assuming corn (the necessary input to ethanol) is going to be priced roughly $2 per bushel higher (or a 50% increase over last year if I did my math correctly---$4.50 corn plus 50% ($2.25) equals $6.75 corn this fall for booking purposes), that would seem to put a real crimp in the profit margins for ethanol plants...unless their profit margins are significantly higher than I have thought. This is assuming crude continues to trade in the current range. Can anyone help me out here? Mandates or not, don't the ethanol plants have to turn a profit to keep the lights on? I dunno if yours are exactly the questions I'm answereing, but far be it from me to let not ramble ahead anyway.... 1) Take the RAC price of ethanol. Double it. Take that figure times 1.15. The resulting number is what ethanol plants can afford to pay for corn. 2) When do ethanol plants buy corn? Two answers; A) Most ethanol plants I personally visit with buy spot corn and sell spot ethanol/ddgs. When profits go negative, they simply slow/shut down. B) A year ago when corn was cheap, half of all market participants were bulls and the other half were bears. The same can be said for every given day of every year. Ethanol plants don't have any sharper crystal balls than anyone else. 3) The government can't mandate profits.... or can they? Here's how it works in a really tight corn market; A) Corn gets too expensive. B) The ethanol plants working on spot corn buys are forced to shut down. C) Ethanol production falls to the mandate. (Currently 13.1 billion gallons. Next year a ton more) D) More ethanol plants shut down. E) Blenders can't find product to fill their gov't quota. F) Blenders who submit monthly purchase records to govt take heat from EPA etc because they are failing to meet the mandate. G) Blenders get into bidding war over remaining production, sending the price of ethanol due north. H) The blenders pass the expensive fuel onto consumer. If the consumer rejects it and instead grabs the straight unleaded handle at the pump, then unleaded price gets jacked... Or unleaded becomes unavailable. I) The massive bull market in ethanol gets the shuttered ethanol plants humming again. J) With enough plants now running to meet the mandate, corn trucks all flow to ethanol plants. K) Because ethanol gets the FIRST bushels, the other endusers get the shaft. L) Corn gets priced by the marginal bushel, and by law, in a short corn crop, ethanol gets what it wants. So rationing, by law, must happen elsewhere. M) Livestock, export, grocers, and ESPECIALLY gas consumers all converge to hate on ethanol. N) Glowplug tells all the folks above that they don't know what is best for them. In 2008 we were producing like 25% more than the mandate. There was tons of room for demand destruction in the ethanol sector. Now there is not. What changed? The mandate grew. A lot. Google "RFS Mandate". |
|
|
|
Post by thirsty on Aug 14, 2011 21:32:31 GMT -5
Solipsism. Who gives a frick about the flyover states, that isn't where the problem is... pay attention here. And yes, we'll be going back to the 19th century soon enough. You do realize the US consumes 9 million barrels a day in gasoline, right? Freight isn't the issue, how are you gonna get people to work without that 9 million barrels of fuel, which incidentally is exactly what your net imports work out to now. Skittle shitting unicorns is not the correct answer. I wouldn't mind seeing faux news watching low IQ morons like you getting rendered into bio-diesel, it would help out in both the supply and demand department and do wonders for improving the gene pool on the continent. Amtrak does suck, DeutscheBahn doesn't, no big surprise. www.joc.com/logistics-economy/deutsche-bahn-revenue-profit-surged-2010Their ICE moves between cities at 250 km/h. Tarsands, potash, biggest gold district in north america, only a cheese headed troll would want to blow this up. |
|
|
|
Post by thirsty on Aug 14, 2011 21:34:59 GMT -5
Your link only proves that Californians drink their own urine and read the same books you do. What does Europe have to do with your own failures???
|
|
|
|
Post by thirsty on Aug 14, 2011 21:37:01 GMT -5
Mexico is semi failed shithole nation-state. Subsidizing consumers is called marxism and its the quickest way to equalizing poverty known to man.
|
|
|
|
Post by looter on Aug 14, 2011 21:44:53 GMT -5
How does Mexico do it for their own in country gas-diesel consumers? Anyhoooooo, the answer to ethanol's future is an adequate supply of corn. Again, I like the higher corn prices short term but long term, it does grain farmers no good to kill off their livestock, and ethanol plant customers. Nor does it do the US economy any good to further hurt lower and middle class working folks with high gas-diesel prices. Sending US dollars to Canada, to nasty foreign dictator nations, for our energy needs is just damn stupid. Glowplug There are examples from all over the world of countries that decouple from world oil prices. You are right, Mexico is just such a hell-hole that tries such stupidity. Let's take a look at real world examples; 1) Mexico: The average Mexican consumes 6 barrels per capita per year and rising fast. Mexico produces 8 barrels per person per year and falling fast. They have a National Oil Company that produces 100% of their oil. The Mexican Treasury makes up the difference between world price and domestic price. This is the main reason Mexico is broke. In order for the USA to follow the Mexican model, we would need to ramp up domestic oil production to 28 mbpd, so we have some for export. That's what all the worlds exporters combined produce. This would require over 20,000 drilling rigs. Plus we would need to maintain that production for eternity. Plus it wouldn't be enough for long because Americans burn more when offered cheap fuel. I can't believe I wasted my time with that, but I'm feeling windy so let's do another; Nepal: now this basket case is really a fun one. If you're in Nepal the good news is fuel is cheap. Maybe $2/gal. The bad news is you can't have none. Here's how this works. Nepal govt buys 100% of the fuel the country burns. They buy 100% of it from India. The government then sells the fuel at a staggering loss to the populace. Whenever their govt runs out of money, (which is most of the time) they stop buying fuel. So a bus ride across the country could take months because a town will just run out of fuel, standing commerce. Whenever Nepal govt tries to alleviate the problem by raising the price at the pump, the people riot. Google "Nepal fuel riot". It's hilarious. So they never raise the pump price. Every election in Nepal is centered on Petro prices/shortages. The challengers always accuse the incumbent of paying India too much. They believe that is the root problem. My Gawd are those people fricking stupid. |
|
|
|
Post by glowplug on Aug 14, 2011 21:48:20 GMT -5
Mexico doesn't hesitate to have their resources developed. They will grant permits to drill and do. obamunist won't. Simple as that.
USA is being held hostage by enviro-wackos who believe we can run on wind, solar and unicorn farts. Doesn't work.
Well I look forward to kicking your Canuck inferiority complex around.....just sitting here drinking beer (from Chippewa Falls, WI.) and eating WI aged cheddar cheese. Canada aint' got much, and you're it.
Glowplug
|
|
