Thursday, November 24, 2011

HAPPY THANKSGIVING READERS!

Wishing all of our readers a very happy Thanksgiving Day! Despite all the difficulties in our Country these days, we still have lots to be thankful for.

Don't forget the "Game of the Century - Part 2" tomorrow between our #1 Ranked and undefeated LSU Tigers and the #3 Ranked Hogs of Arkansas. Should be a great game. This will be the 7th ranked team the Tigers will have played this year, and the third in the top 5! No other team in the Country has played a schedule like LSU and survived undefeated. An LSU win Friday propels the Tigers to the SEC Championship game against the Georgia Bulldogs on December 3rd in the Georgia Dome. A win there puts the Tigers in the BCS National Championship game in the Louisiana Superdome on January 9th, possibly in a "re-match" against Alabama!

Here's another article I ran across about cattle farmers against the ethanol industry. Continued increases in ethanol production is causing substantial and continued increases in feed prices for cattle farmers. There is increasing pressure from many corners about the increasing impact that ethanol is having on all food products.
==================================================


Livestock farmers say ethanol eats too much corn

By Associated Press on November 23rd, 2011

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Livestock farmers are demanding a change in the nation’s ethanol policy, claiming current rules could lead to spikes in meat prices and even shortages at supermarkets if corn growers have a bad year.

The amount of corn consumed by the ethanol industry combined with continued demand from overseas has cattle and hog farmers worried that if corn production drops due to drought or another natural disaster, the cost of feed could skyrocket, leaving them little choice but to reduce the size of their herds. A smaller supply could, in turn, mean higher meat prices and less selection at the grocery store.

The ethanol industry argues such scenarios are unlikely, but farmers have the backing of food manufacturers, who also fear that a federal mandate to increase production of ethanol will protect that industry from any kind of rationing amid a corn shortage.

The subject of debate is the Renewable Fuel Standard, a 2005 law requiring the nation to produce 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuel by 2012. The standard was changed in 2007 to gradually increase the requirement to 36 billion gallons by 2022.

While a $5 billion-a-year federal ethanol subsidy is scheduled to expire this year, the production requirement will remain, unless it’s changed by Congress.

That has other corn consumers worried that if production falls and rationing is needed, ethanol companies will be exempt. The U.S. Department of Agriculture recently reduced its estimate of this year’s corn crop because of flooding in the Midwest and drought in the southern plains, and corn reserves are expected to fall to a 20-day supply next year. A 30-day supply is considered healthy.

At the same time, the price of corn for livestock feed has risen from an average of just over $3 a bushel in 2006-07 to an average of more than $6 this year.

“If we get a short crop, the ethanol industry does not participate in rationing and the brunt will fall on livestock and poultry,” said Steve Meyer, president of Paragon Economics, a livestock and grain marketing and economic advisory company in Adel, Iowa.

A bill introduced last month by Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., would partially waive the ethanol goals when corn inventories are low.

The Grocery Manufacturers Association, which represents more than 300 food and beverage makers, also has endorsed the bill.

“We’re behind livestock producers on this issue,” said Geoff Moody, the association’s director of energy and environmental policy. “We believe if there is a need to ration that ethanol will eat first because of the mandate.”

About 5.9 billion bushels of corn were used for animal feed last year; 2.4 billion were exported; and about 4.9 billion were used for ethanol, up from about 630 million bushels in 2000, according to the National Corn Growers Association. About 1 billion bushels were eaten by humans in products such as cereal, sweeteners, and beverages.

U.S. corn farmers have steadily increased production over the years thanks to hybrid seeds and improved techniques, but Meyer said a 20 percent decline in the harvest would be enough to force corn rationing and lead to feed shortages. That would leave livestock farmers with little choice, he said.

“We can’t shut down feeding,” Meyer said. “The only way to do that is to kill the animals.”

Even if there’s no rationing, ethanol manufacturers generally have been better able to cope with high corn prices than livestock farmers because their business has bigger profit margins, said Darrel Good, an agricultural economist at the University of Illinois.

Randy Spronk, who raises corn and hogs in Edgerton, Minn., said farmers don’t want to attack the ethanol industry but they want a plan in place if the corn supply should drop significantly.

“We really don’t want to attack ethanol but wise people make plans,” he said.

Matt Hartwig, chief of staff for the Renewable Fuels Association, called the effort to rewrite the fuel standard law “little more than a Trojan horse effort” to weaken or even eliminate it. He said the farmers’ complaints were overblown and most livestock producers and meatpacking companies were making good profits.

Also, the ethanol industry now produces about 1 billion gallons of ethanol more than is required and if corn supplies fall short, it could cut back, he said.

The Environmental Protection Agency, which administers the fuel standard, said in a statement that states can already ask for a waiver “under certain circumstances, including inadequate domestic supply or harm to the economy or environment of a state.”

Texas Gov. Rick Perry did this in 2008, claiming rising corn prices were hurting ranchers in his state. The EPA said it denied the request because the quota for renewable fuel wasn’t causing severe economic harm to the state.

Meyer said many farmers are skeptical about a process that leaves such decisions to the EPA administrator, who “many in agriculture believe won’t consider the best interest of livestock.”

Good, the University of Illinois farm economist, said meat supplies could tighten if competing demands force corn prices higher. He said it boils down to a simple choice: “We’re going to have to reduce our rate of increase in corn consumption or we’re going to have to produce more corn.”

© 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

"Pete" Landry..............comments welcome..................at way2gopete@yahoo.com


Tuesday, November 15, 2011

HAVE A GREAT WEDNESDAY READERS!


MEMO TO ALL BLOG READERS:

The readership of my "Blog" page has dropped off so much it hardly justifies my time to do this anymore.

Therefore, effective today, Wednesday, November 16, 2011, I will post a blog ONLY when significant news on ethanol gas, regulations, or other important ethanol related matter developes.

Thank you for your readership.

Alton "Pete" Landry

Saturday, November 12, 2011

HAVE A GREAT SATURDAY READERS!

Saturday again..........several good football games on tap today that could affect the outcome of the rankings and the BCS. Standford plays at Oregon. Standford is a team, along with Oklahoma State that could possibly be LSU's BCS Championship competitor, presuming our Tigers win the rest of their regular season games. SO, let's all pull for Oregon!

Here's another interesting article on the impact that ethanol production is having on the cost of foods..........this time, turkey!







Turkey Sticker Shock









BY DENNIS WYATT Special to the Journal









POSTED November 11, 2011 11:27 p.m.





Have you checked out the price of turkey lately? You can thank Al Gore.

Actually you can thank Gore and the Midwest ethanol subsidy lobby consisting of Republican and Democrat lawmakers alike.
Gore was the leading cheerleader for ethanol as the elixir for all that ails America when it comes to energy.
He led the charge to put in place ethanol subsidies.
The end result: Ethanol gas that is not cost effective and has created a shortage of corn that in turn has sent food prices climbing.
The hardest hit is Third World countries that rely partially on buying grain from American farmers to feed poor people.
It is also hitting American consumers in the pocketbook. It is particularly noticeable as Thanksgiving approaches. Corn is the primary feed for turkeys. Ethanol subsidies have diverted much of the crop into fuel production essentially tripling the price of feed for turkeys. That puts the squeeze on turkey growers and ultimately you the consumer.

It’s the classic lose-lose scenario from the government meddling with the marketplace believing they know better than the private sector. Not only are you footing the bill for ethanol subsidies but you are paying more for food because those subsidies are being used to give farmers better prices than the market allows.

Farmers aren’t idiots. If Uncle Sam is willing to dole out bushels of more money at a set price for their corn crop why not go for it?
The tragedy of all of this is the fact ethanol isn’t really cost effective. There are studies that indicate energy consumed to make ethanol has produced a situation where more energy is burned per gallon by the time you factor in production with ethanol than with oil.
Here’s the math on the most cost effective year to date for corn ethanol subsidies.
Corn ethanol subsidies in 2006 hit $7 billion for 4.9 billion gallons produced. That means it cost taxpayers $1.45 per gallon of ethanol produced. What did we get for that? Based on government research we became 1.1 percent more energy efficient while greenhouse gases were reduced a whopping 1/19 of a percent. It gets better. Once the emissions from the ethanol manufacturing process is factored into the equation, ethanol is actually increasing greenhouse gases
By the way, not all of the subsidies in the program go to corn farmers. Oil companies will pocket $31 billion over the next five years to help them produce ethanol.
Given the amount of subsidies needed to make ethanol compete with gas prices, do you think the oil companies would have gotten into ethanol production on their own? And if they had, do you think whatever long-term contracts they entered into would send corn prices as high as the guaranteed subsidies have from Uncle Sam?
Gore, to his credit, admitted that the facts show that ethanol subsidies are a big mistake. And in a refreshing candor for a politician, he admitted at a European conference in December 2010 that the only reason he supported ethanol subsidies was political. He said, “One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee and I had a certain fondness for farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run for president.”
Several environmental groups have also urged Congress to drop the subsidies including Friends of the Earth.
But like any government program it has now morphed into an entitlement in the eyes of those receiving it. Good luck finding enough members of Congress willing to go cold turkey by dropping the notion that they should use tax dollars to build loyalty among special issue constituents in their bid to keep getting re-elected.
This Thanksgiving enjoy your artificially plumped up turkey in terms of price thanks to ethanol subsidies.
As you’re forking over more money to eat a slice of turkey rest assured that your tax dollars are making sure oil companies, real Midwest farmers, and corporate farmers will have plenty of pork on their tables.





Thursday, November 10, 2011

HAPPY FRIDAY READERS!


Sorry for being away from the "Blog" for a few days readers......I'm in the middle of a transition from my old 2003 Dell computer to a 2011 super fast HP new one with huge RAM memory and a HUGE hard drive. A local computer shop will transfer all of my data files from my old to the new computer tomorrow. I will be operating on the new computer tomorrow evening hopefully.

As you can surmise from the following article, the US Congress is no longer enamored by the government's ethanol program. There are more and more articles of late questioning not only the subsidies, which are set to expire on December 31st of this year, but also the substantial increases in the cost of food products. There is more and more convincing evidence that the tremendous rise in prices from all products made, directly or indirectly from corn is directly linked to ethanol production. We're in essence burning our food in fuel tanks of vehicles. I really believe this whole issue will come to a head soon.

Here's the article:

House hearing witnesses bash RFS, call for repeal of E15

By Kris Bevill | November 03, 2011

It was déjà vu all over again on Nov. 2 as representatives of the ethanol industry were forced to watch a House of Representatives Energy and Environment Subcommittee hearing on motor fuel standards from the sidelines. Earlier this year, the subcommittee held a hearing to discuss the scientific testing of E15, but failed to invite anyone from the ethanol industry to testify. On Nov. 2, the subcommittee again convened a panel to address the “Conflicts and Unintended Consequences of Motor Fuel Standards,” but declined to include any ethanol industry representatives. The petroleum industry was well-represented, however, as were several other witnesses who delivered remarks opposing the implementation of E15 and the RFS.

Committee Chairman Andy Harris, R-Md., opened the hearing by making clear his disapproval of the U.S. EPA and government policies to support biofuels and renewable energy. “Whether through government hand-outs, as in the case of Solyndra, or heavy-handed mandates as in the case of the RFS [renewable fuel standard], the picking of energy winners and losers by government fiat is an exercise in futility destined to fail miserably,” he said. He asserted that the EPA “continuously fails to do its homework” and said its approval of E15 based on one U.S. DOE study is an example of that failure.

Harris’s comments were echoed by Brendan Williams, senior director of advocacy for the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association. He testified that the E15 waiver approval puts refiners and consumers at risk for potential misfueling issues and urged Congress to repeal the EPA’s partial waiver for E15. Williams further stated that the concerns related to E15 provide an example of even greater issues associated with the RFS in general. “If the existing RFS program is carried out without changes, it will create great market and economic uncertainty, which will in turn threaten additional refining investment and job growth and harm consumers,” he stated. “Given the aggressive schedule of the mandate and the limits of what fuel and vehicle infrastructure can handle, our nation will soon face a practical limit [as to the amount of biofuels] that can be pushed into the fuel supply without causing significant consumer disruption.” He added that E85 could help to alleviate pressure on the blendwall, but said it has yet to become widely accepted by consumers and does not appear to be a viable compliance option for the RFS. “No small engines are designed for E85 and only a small fraction of the fleet of cars is designed for the fuel,” he stated. “E85 requires an expensive investment at retail stations because of the corrosive nature of ethanol. This issue is yet another in a panoply of problems associated with the current structure of the RFS.”

Margo Oge, the EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality director, came to the defense of the RFS in her testimony, stating that when the policy is fully implemented it could displace 13.6 billion gallons of gasoline and diesel in 2022. “We also estimate that the fully implemented program would decrease oil import expenditures by $41.5 billion, result in additional energy security benefits of $2.6 billion, and reduce GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions by an average annualized rate of 138 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent per year,” she stated.

Oge also noted that the EPA has not registered E15 as a new gasoline under the Clean Air Act, so it cannot yet be legally sold into the marketplace. According to her testimony, ethanol industry representatives submitted emissions and health effects information related to E15 earlier this year, to be used in completing registration applications, and they are now in the process of developing additional information for that purpose. “Once complete, the information will be helpful to fuel producers in submitting registration applications for E15,” she stated. “Until such time as EPA approves a complete registration application, E15 may not be lawfully sold for use in model year 2001 and newer light-duty motor vehicles.”

The recently released National Academy of Sciences report, “Renewable Fuel Standard: Potential Economic and Environmental Effects of U.S. Biofuel Policy,” was referenced frequently during the hearing as proof of the policy’s ineffectiveness. However, Ingrid Burke, co-chair of the committee who authored the report, offered extensive written testimony on the conclusions reached in the report, often stating that the end results were inconclusive. The effect of 36 billion gallons of biofuels on GHG emissions compared to the energy-equivalent amount of petroleum is “uncertain,” she stated. Also, the effects of increased biofuel production on soil and biodiversity are likely to vary depending upon which practices and feedstock are used. “Thus, the effects of achieving RFS2 on those two environmental variables cannot be readily quantified or qualified largely because of the uncertainty of the future,” she stated. Nonetheless, the committee majority appeared only to be interested in one of the items mentioned in Burke’s testimony, releasing a statement that repeated a comment made by her suggesting that increased ethanol use could have a negative impact on air quality due to higher concentrations of certain pollutants.

Meanwhile, Oge pointed out during the question and answer session of the hearing that ethanol plays a vital role in the transportation fuels sector and cannot be completely omitted from the supply. “Ethanol improves the octane of gasoline, so it’s a very important product in gasoline,” she said. “Ethanol reduces the amount of benzene in aromatics so you end up with somewhat less toxic substances in the gasoline make-up.”

Ethanol groups spoke out in advance of the hearing in an attempt to make their voices heard despite being left off of the witness list. Brian Jennings, executive vice president of the American Coalition for Ethanol, submitted a letter to committee leaders expressing his disappointment in the lop-sided hearing and pointing out the importance of ethanol in reducing America’s dependence on foreign oil and creating jobs. Growth Energy, the group responsible for initiating the E15 waiver request, said the hearing contained a “chorus of critics” who used the hearing as an excuse to promote and protect their own special interests. “We need serious discussion about a national energy policy, including domestically produced alternatives like ethanol and next-generation biofuels,” CEO Tom Buis stated. “Instead, we are seeing special favors tossed like candy to Big Oil, which doesn’t need any more sweeteners considering the billions in taxpayer giveaways they’re already getting.”


"Pete" Landry..............comments welcome............at way2gopete@yahoo.com


Sunday, November 6, 2011

HAVE A GREAT MONDAY READERS!


WOW.......what a great football game Saturday between unbeaten #1 LSU and #2 Alabama. It was a real old time "slugfest" if you like strong defensive football. But, it may not have offered the excitement for many with quick scoring offenses and lots of passing. It appears Coach Saban will have to really recruit a good punter and field goal kicker if he is to win in these types of games. And, what can you say about LSU's defense! Coach Miles gave the "game ball" to defensive coordinator "the Chief" John Chavis. And, he sure deserved it! Bama's Heisman Candidate Trent Richardson was only able to gain 89 yards running.

LSU remains #1 in both the USA Today/Coaches Poll, the Harris Interactive Poll and the BCS Poll. Alabama fell to #4 in the two polls, but only dropped to #3 in the BCS Poll. It seems the computers like them. Oklahoma State moved up to #2 in the BCS Poll.

If the Tigers can win the remaining three games, Arkansas being the toughest, they will likely play Georgia in the SEC Championship game in the Atlanta Dome on December 3rd. If they win the SEC Championship game, then on to the BCS national championship game in the Superdome in January. LSU won it 2 past National Championships in the Dome in New Orleans.......strange how fate has a way of repeating itself? At least, let's hope it repeats itself! If the Tigers continue winning, we'll find out in about 3 weeks who would be their opponent in the Championship game. It could be Oklahoma State, Standford or Alabama again.........

The Tigers play Western Kentucky on Saturday at 7:00 pm. It is their Homecoming and it will be broadcast on ESPNU. Then Ole Miss in Oxford before the last game of the regular season against Arkansas in "Death Valley". Not sure who will broadcast the Arkansas game yet and what time it will be. Will update when I get the info.

Now, back to ethanol related issues. Here's an article about shale oil and natural gas I thought you might find interesting.


Cheap Gas Is a Trap

Updated November 6, 2011, 07:00 PM

Matthew Kotchen is a professor of environmental economics and policy at Yale University.

New and efficient technologies for extracting oil and natural gas are increasing the supply of both fuels from North America. But the consequences will be different for oil than for natural gas. Oil is traded in a highly integrated world market, and the relatively small increases in North American oil will have virtually no effect on prices. The result is that our demand for oil will remain unaffected by the change in supply, though we may take comfort in knowing that more of the oil we use is produced closer to home.

Today's abundant fossil fuels should not distract us from tomorrow's renewable solutions.

Natural gas is a different story. The markets are far less integrated, so the increase in domestic supply will lower prices and increase demand. We will have more households switching from oil to natural gas for heating, and we will have relatively more electricity generated with natural gas than with coal. The lower prices will be a good thing for consumers paying their utility bills, and there will be health and environmental benefits because natural gas is a relatively clean fuel.

But more and cheaper natural gas does not help our prospects for bolstering renewable sources of energy, including solar, wind and biomass. History has shown repeatedly that nothing is worse for renewable energy — and the policies that support it — than cheap and abundant conventional energy. Without the urgency of high fuel prices, the United States has never sustained meaningful private and public investment in the technological innovation and deployment of renewables.

We should do our best to make sure this time is different. There has been meaningful investment — both public and private — in recent years, and despite our current economic challenges, it would be a mistake to turn back these efforts. Also, we must not throw out the baby with the bath water in response to the Solyndra bankruptcy. Instead, it is critical that we find ways to do better with the right economic incentives.

The expansion of oil and natural gas supplies in North America changes little about our long-term energy challenges. Beyond the growing demand for energy worldwide, climate change is an increasingly important and closely related problem. Conventional sources of energy generate greenhouse-gas emissions that cause global warming. While the burning of natural gas generates fewer emissions than oil and coal, its emissions are nevertheless substantial — and extraction using hydraulic fracturing raises other environmental concerns.

Renewable sources of energy provide a leading alternative, and we need a sustained commitment to improving these technologies with the aim of making them cost competitive. Indeed, it should be concerning that China is doing exactly this while we in the U.S. watch our former leadership in renewable energy continue to erode.

Topics: Technology, energy, oil



"Pete" Landry..........comments welcome ............at way2gopete@yahoo.com


Friday, November 4, 2011

HAPPY SATURDAY READERS! GEAUX TIGERS!

Well, the BIG day is here finally! The LSU vs Alabama "Game of the Century" as the media hypes it starts at 7:00 pm Central time on CBS. There will be a pre-game show before the game starting at 6:00 pm. The teams are so evenly matched, that the "Vegas" crowd gives Bama a 5 point advantage, which they admit is only because the game is played in Alabama.

You know that Coach Miles will bring several "trick plays" as he usually does for big games. LSU has the advantage in two experienced quarterbacks against a first year starter for Bama. That becomes important if the running game for LSU is stalled. It's sure to be a very exciting game..........with the winner likely playing in the BCS Championship in New Orleans. BUT, if Standord and Oklahoma State should lose, it is still possible that LSU and Bama could still face each other in the big game, provided the loser of today's game has only one loss.

Back to ethanol issues. Here's another article on how the huge amount of corn grown to make ethanol is affecting food prices. Somewhere soon I believe, the huge impact of corn prices on food prices will force the US Congress to take steps to stop or at least slow down this obsession with ethanol.


Ethanol’s Corn Grab Robs Holiday Budgets

Higher food prices are leading more than a third of U.S. consumers to cut back on holiday spending, according to a new survey by Americas Research Group for Reuters.

A total of 28.4% of the 1,000 people surveyed by Americas Research Group said that rising food costs would cause them to cut back on their Christmas shopping somewhat. Another 7.2% said they would most definitely cut back.

According to the American Meat Institute (AMI), approximately 40% of the U.S. corn crop is now devoted to ethanol production. This increase in corn demand has driven corn prices to record levels, putting tremendous pressure on the livestock and poultry industries that traditionally have been the major consumers of corn as feed.

In fact, corn prices have roughly tripled since the government in 2006 mandated that ethanol be blended into gasoline, and the Consumer Price Index for meat and poultry products has risen steadily with it.

AMI has advocated for a more balanced energy policy that would include federal energy policies that transcend corn-based ethanol and don’t pit food, feed and fuel needs against each other.

To sign a petition supporting a balanced energy policy, go to http://www.cornforfoodnotfuel.com/.

"Pete" Landry...............comments welcome........at way2gopete@yahoo.com

Thursday, November 3, 2011

HAVE A GREAT FRIDAY READERS!


Well, the "Game of the Century" as some in the media are hyping is only a day away. So far, both team coaches are "praising" their opponents. Both teams are also seemingly keeping "low key" and not trash talking. LSU Coach Les Miles had put a stop on his team using Twitter.

LSU has an advantage over Bama at the quarterback position. The Bama QB is a first year starting quarterback this year. He's probably not played in a high pressure game like this one. I saw that there were two tickets for sale on a website in the end zone of Bryant Denny stadium asking $10.000 per ticket! Can you imagine?

Back to ethanol issues. The "E-85" ethanol coalition is pushing to raise the stakes and find a way to get more and more E-85 stations opened across the country. The only vehicles that can use this "fuel" are vehicles that have the "Flex" decal on the back of the vehicle. We only have 3 E-85 stations in Louisiana. I was told by one distributor in Lake Charles area that had one of these stations, that the first time a customer filled up and learned they lose between 30 - 40% gas mileage on this fuel, then don't come back! Here's an article on the E-85 coalition's efforts to push for more stations:

Independent petroleum marketers group joins E85 coalition

By Holly Jessen | October 21, 2011

Just more than a week after announcing the formation of the Coalition for E85 the group said Oct. 21 that it had a new member. The Petroleum Marketers Association of America, which represents 8,000 independent petroleum marketers nationwide, will help spread the message that E85 is a true alternative fuel and should receive a 50-cent per gallon tax credit as part of the Alternative Fuel Credit. “If we don’t enable E85 to compete with gasoline, we could see the entire flex-fuel industry disappear,” said Dan Gilligan, PMAA president. “Our members, automakers, and 9 million American drivers have invested in E85 infrastructure and flex-fuel vehicles. With E85 so close to self-sustainability, these investments must be protected.”

Currently, compressed natural gas, propane and hydrogen are eligible for the Alternative Fuel Tax credit. The coalition is lobbying that E85, which is defined as an alternative fuel in the Energy Policy Act of 1992, should receive the same tax treatment. E85, unlike E10, is not a gasoline additive.

The group’s success depends on how quickly it can activate a grassroots network of stakeholders, said Jeff Trinca, vice president Van Scoyoc Associates, which has been hired as a lobbyist for the coalition. So far, the coalition’s members include Propel Fuels, Protec, Clean Fuels Development Coalition, Pearson Fuels, AMERigreen, Petro Serve USA, multiple ethanol industry associations, pump and tank companies and individual E85 retailers. The addition of PMAA is something to celebrate. “PMAA brings a motivated group of constituents to the table,” Trinca said. “We are very optimistic that once policymakers understand the difference between ethanol as an additive and E85–an alternative fuel–we can win this issue. Helping local folks deliver that message is what the E85 Coalition is all about.”

Current supplies of E85 are derived from first-generation ethanol, however, as the industry moves forward it can be produced from non-food sources such as agricultural and household waste, algae and biomass. “Without the E85 system, the federal government’s investment in the development and commercialization of next-generation biofuels may be wasted,” according to the coalition press release.

There are more than 9 million flex-fuel vehicles on the road today. The coalition says that, without the 50 cent Alternative Tax Credit and with the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit expiring at the end of 2011, FFV drivers will pay as much as 38 cents more per gallon for E85. The group predicts that small businesses that have invested more than $100 million in E85 infrastructure will have to close their pumps.

PMAA is a federation of 48 state and regional trade associations. A petroleum marketer is defined as wholesale or retail operations that operate in all or some of businesses that own “gasoline stations, convenience stores, heating oil businesses, truck stops, lubricant warehouses, petroleum trucking companies and bulk storage facilities.” PMAA marketers supply fuels to 40,000 independent retail fuel outlets and own a total of 60,000 outlets.

"Pete" Landry..........comments welcome at................way2gopete@yahoo.com


Wednesday, November 2, 2011

HAVE A GREAT THURSDAY READERS!


The European Union members are apparently "fuming" that they are importing ethanol in large quantities from the US, but due to large federal government subsidies, the prices of US made ethanol is killing the EU's production of ethanol in cost.

That may all change next year when the ethanol subsidies are stopped.

Here's the article:



Ethanol industry fights back against "unfair" US imports
Wednesday, 02 November 2011REM

ePURE, the association of European renewable ethanol producers has requested the European Commission to act against unfair imports of fuel ethanol from the United States.

Ethanol industry fights back against "unfair" US imports

The government of the United States has encouraged the production and use of ethanol as fuel without interruption for the last twenty years, notably through the provision of generous subsidies benefitting ethanol producers directly or indirectly through the obligation to blend ethanol with gasoline. The federal excise tax credit and the federal income tax credit represent only the most visible portion of a comprehensive subsidisation policy at all levels of government in the United States. As a result of this policy, the United States are, by far, the largest producer of fuel ethanol in the world.

The association of European renewable ethanol producers, ePURE, describes this policy as “legitimate”, but with a caveat: as long as it does not prejudice the development of ethanol for fuel use in other countries.

But US operators, which are faced with a domestic ethanol market that is nearing saturation, have chosen to allocate a growing share of their production to exports towards the European Union. From 2008 to 2010, US imports of fuel ethanol in Europe have surged by more than 500%. In 2011, these imports are expected to be twice as high as in 2010. This impressive trend is the direct result of US federal and sub federal subsidies, which allow US operators to adopt aggressive pricing practices on the European market.

According to ePURE; these very low prices have “a direct and negative impact on the EU industry,” especially as the European ethanol industry is very small in comparison to the US industry and a lot of ethanol producers are still in a take-off phase.

“Massive and sudden imports of US ethanol, combined with unfairly low prices over the last few years, have seriously damaged the economic situation of European producers” explains Rob Vierhout, Secretary General of ePURE. This situation is all the more critical as the market prospect for fuel ethanol in Europe is very bright, with a rapidly increasing consumption of renewable fuel in all EU countries.

“The unfair competition of US imports is simply depriving the EU industry from the benefit of this positive evolution on its own domestic market” Vierhout says.

ePURE has requested the European Commission to investigate US unfair trade practices and their impact on the EU industry. ePURE is confident that the Commission's investigation will confirm that these practices are causing a serious prejudice to European producers and will clearly establish the need to impose dissuasive du ties on US imports of fuel ethanol in order to restore fair conditions of competition as early as possible.

In the meantime, ePURE has also requested the European Commission to impose a registration of US imports so that du ties are imposed retroactively to take account of possible manipulation during the investigation period.

For additional information:

ePURE


"Pete" Landry........comments welcome at ..................way2gopete@yahoo.com


Tuesday, November 1, 2011

HAVE A GREAT WEDNESDAY READERS!


Some political candidates haven't learned that if you announce you don't support ethanol, particularly in the State of Iowa, is like defaming religion........Republican Presidential Candidate Rick Perry sure didn't win friends in Iowa this week. I'm sure there are a lot of us who most likely agree with Perry, but if you say this in Iowa as a Presidential candidate, you're not likely to get very many votes in Iowa............read this:

Perry Disses Ethanol in Iowa, Says Feds Shouldn’t Pick Energy Winners and Losers

by Wes Barrett | November 01, 2011

PELLA, IA --Texas Governor Rick Perry thrashed the ethanol issue in corn country Tuesday, arguing the federal government should get out of the business of picking winners and losers and end federal subsidies to energy businesses, including the ethanol industry that looms so large in Iowa.

"[W]hether you're in the oil and gas business, the tax credits they get, whether you're in the ethanol business and the renewable fuel standard or whether you're in the wind side, from Washington DC, I do not think it is the federal government's business to be picking winners and losers in frankly any of our energy sources," Perry said to a forum on manufacturing jobs in Pella, Iowa.

Perry brought up ethanol during a jobs forum in Pella in response to a question about whether wind energy subsidies should continue. Iowa's Republican Gov. Terry Branstad who moderated the forum noted that Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, supports federal funding for wind energy.

Ethanol advocates have expressed disagreement with Perry's energy plan since he unveiled it in October with one group saying Perry's rhetoric about winners and losers doesn't match his energy plan.

"He does pick a winner," said Monty Shaw, a spokesman for the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association. "Perry's energy plan leaves Iowa running on empty."

Shaw notes that Perry's plan calls for letting current subsidies for a variety of energy industries expire. And while federal subsidies for renewable fuels such as ethanol have expiration dates, Shaw says petroleum subsidies don't have an expiration date and thus, Perry's plan chooses the oil and gas industries as winners, while renewable fuels lose.

Perry's tough talk on ethanol Tuesday came in a politically delicate setting. The manufacturing facility at which the jobs forum was held is surrounded by corn fields and ethanol production is a boon to Iowa's economy. The state's farmers provide corn a raw ingredient in the production of 3.7 billion gallons of ethanol each year, nearly a third of America's output. The state is home to 41 ethanol processing plants.

But despite his second-tier status in Iowa polling and the popularity of ethanol here, Perry insisted that as president, he would put the federal government out of the ethanol business, noting that it should focus on other responsibilities.

"They ought to get back to what they ought to have been doing which is standing a good military and securing the border and then let the states work out most of the rest of these things," Perry said.

After forum moderators pressed further on the issue, Perry did leave an opening for some money to go to energy but said it should be limited to research and development.

"R and D is the one place that I would allow the federal government to be engaged," he said.

But that's not enough for those who support ethanol. They say despite Perry's claim that he looks at all energy industries as being equal, his plan gives an unfair advantage to the petroleum industry that creates so many jobs in Texas.

"He hasn't figured out that he's running for president of the United States instead of Texas," one ethanol advocate said.

Read more: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/11/01/perry-disses-ethanol-iowa-says-feds-shouldnt-pick-energy-winners-and-losers#ixzz1cVqO7kE6


"Pete" Landry.........comments welcome at.........way2gopete@yahoo.com