Posted on 06/17/2007 5:17:13 AM PDT by Flavius
They were created by government to mitigate the risk in building a new plant in St Charles Parish, and to give incentives to locate in St Charles instead of elsewhere.
Some folks still understand the concept of job creation.
I also think that this is a way to bring in new business without providing a 10 year pass on local and state taxes.
They are in business to make money not supply you with gasoline.
“so tortilla chips will be high along side the oil we get from our friends overseas”
It’s not just tortillas, bud.
Beef, dairy, chicken, any corn-based feed stock is experiencing price hikes due to the morons who grow food for cars instead of for people and livestock.
Since so many people are now growing corn, expect other agricultural commodities like cotton, soybeans and such to be more expensive as fewer farmers are growing them.
Thanks to this ethanol nonsense, not only will fuel still be highly priced, so will almost everything else. What a boondoggle.
Gasoline at the pump is estimated to carry a $.12 to $.15/gallon premium to support ethanol subsidies.
All those initiatives you cited, wind, ethanol, bio diesel are feel good palliatives. They’re not effective. If that’s Bush’s legacy it’s a poor one.
Since gasoline imports are up, I assume the rest of the information in the article is probably wrong as well.
U.S. Weekly Total Gasoline Imports
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/hist/wgtimus24.htm
“President Bush has called for a 20 percent decline in gasoline use by 2017”
No problem. With all the increased spending under Clinton/Bush the economy and dollar will collapse and people won’t have the money for gas. A 50 percent decline in gas usage is more like it.
Ethanol is absolutely uncompetitive as a mass-mkt motor fuel when corn is higher than $4.00/bushel. And, bar some fairly heavy rains in the ECB in the next 3-4 weeks, corn is apt to be closer to $5 than $4.
If the gooberment dingbats were serious about ethanol as a mass-mkt fuel, the first thing they'd do is eliminate the tariffs on both imported sugar and imported ethanol. The fact that neither of these actions has even been proposed (and won't be, courtesy of the sugar lobby) shows they aren't even remotely close to being serious.
A rare combination of idiocy, freelunchism and fecklessness has now become pretty much SOP for gooberment energy ''policy''.
Not sure what coker means. It’s an oil refinery expansion. The locals are all for it. 900 new permanent jobs which would be huge in that town.
Maybe this article was, but the issue was all over the MSM a week ago.
There is nothing fixed about $4 corn. A couple of years ago, corn was $2. The ethanol boom has pushed up demand, which has created a windfall for farmers. In the long run, however, corn will be priced at its fuel equivalent value. Right now that may be $4. If the price of oil drops significantly, corn will drop commensurately.
On the other hand, when oil hits $150 you'll be saving your grass clippings and selling them to a biofuels operation.
A coker uses the heaviest output of distillation, the residue or residuum, to produce a lighter feedstock for further processing, as well as petroleum coke.
If you are curious, more information at:
Oil Market Basics, Refining
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/oil_market_basics/refining_text.htm
Corn based ethanol is on track to supply the equivalent of about 10% of U.S. gasoline usage within the next couple of years. That's significant.
Cellulosic ethanol still needs to be demonstrated at a commercial scale. I expect that within two years. (I ain't an expert but I've talked to some who are.) The first generation plants, which are under construction now, may not be worldbeaters but they will be viable.
Where it gets interesting, however, is that the underlying cellulosic technology -- both on the feedstocks and the enzymes -- has open-ended potential for improvement. There's a multi-billion dollar market just now opening up. The bioengineers are working on cheaper to grow/higher energy yield/easier to convert feedstocks as well as cheaper and more efficient enzymes. I wouldn't bet against them.
Wind's potential is limited mainly by the esthetic objections to turbines. Given the current, relatively modest subsidy structure, the economics are there. We can do it if we want to.
Wind is limited by a lot more than aesthetics. Since electricity is produced by windmills at about 33% of installed capacity those gaudy figures you quote overstate the current contribution from wind by 300%.
Ethanol has been proven repeatedly to consume more energy than it produces, pollute more than gasoline and it drives up the price of feed stocks for livestock. Altogether a bust, except George Bush thinks it’s a good idea to subsidize his business buddies. Don’t tell me that ain’t happening. That’s what this immigration bill is all about.
A coker unit allows the refinery to run very heavy crude containing a lot of asphaltines. Western Canada is full of these crudes, including Lloydminster, which requires some gas molecules to be added before it can flow down the pipe. The coker processes the asphalt component and makes a cut of gasoline and coker gas oil which can be upgraded to N2 fuel. The remainder from this process looks like coal and is called petroleum coke and is used as solid fuel. Murphy/Superior runs a lot of LSB (heavy/light blend.) With a coker, they could run 100 percent heavy/sour and still meet their gasoline requirements, plus have a cheaper crude slate.
Ethanol-from-corn is enormously water-intensive. If farmers have a choice between high prices for corn and diminished access to water, or lower prices for corn and ''normal'' access to water, the majority of them will choose the latter every time. The ones who won't are, of course, those with above-average access to surface, not aquiferic, water, and these are just a small fraction of the total corn-raising farmers.
You note: '' If the price of oil drops significantly, corn will drop commensurately.''
Perhaps, but irrelevant. Because the demand for crude is rising much more sharply than the boffins had thought it would, the only way to enforce a price drop in crude is to open up new supply, and lots of it. Which won't occur in the short or middle run -- too many people have too much to lose if we go full-tilt into production either of the Bakken formations or the in situ technique in the Colorado shales. Politicans will lose the fear factor. the Saudis et al. will lose a huge portion of their revenue stream. Oil companies will see their margins sizeably diminished, and several other groups will suffer, also.
Ah, yes, ethanol -- the darling of the free-lunchers.
''TANSTAAFL'' -- Robt A. Heinlein.
Good luck to you. Cherish your fantasies.
Thanks for the info. I hope the idiot governor doesn’t screw this up. We need this plant for many reasons.
Ethanol alone cannot do the job. This is counter to what we really need. WE need to be producing more of our own oil and refining it into gasoline.
Can’t argue with you since it is way out of my field. Apparently the management of Murphy thinks it’s a good investment. I see their first quarter earnings are a bit lower than last year. Good company to short perhaps.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.