Good post Zardof. Being able to keep my eye on things, transit times have been quite good for units to Sewaren and Albany. I am sure UP could do better with trains to Peach, TX, but it is not horrible. The empties however from TX are doing quite well, and they came up with an innovative way to parcel them out at an intermediate station north of Ft. Worth. This allows the Marketing company rebill empties where they need them. Right now they use two stations, Harrington, KS and Council Bluffs, IA. From there if they are singles, they go out as such. However units tend to stay together.
A round trip from Minnesota/Iowa to Sewaren takes 10 to 11 days from release in Lake Chrystal / Hanlontown, unloading at Swearen, and spotting empties back to Lake Chrystal / Hanlontown. Singles can take longer, especially if there is an interchange involved. As an example, UP Ashton, IA to Council Bluffs, then via BNSF to Watson, CA. On top of that, end terminals have had their share of issues, one such case resulting in an embargo because of the backlog of cars. During that time, cars billed out from the plant would wait days to be pulled due to those backlogs. I believe that has been since fixed.
And your item about Golden Grain is quite true. We have not the terminal facilities to hold cars for them. For one industry to hold 40 tanks in our 16 track yard, is asking too much (sometimes more). I do believe however the Iowa Northern Project will help with capacity issues at both Golden Grain as well as Lakota. (both stations are cramped for track capacity.)
RRKen wrote: wallyworld wrote: Union Pacific, the largest US railroad, plans to nearly double its annual tonnage of ethanol shipments by 2008, a company official said in May. Jerry Finan, senior product manager for corn refining at Union Pacific Railroad (UP), told a an ethanol industry conference that UP expects to transport 2.8 billion gallons of ethanol a year by 2008. It currently transports 1.5-1.7 billion gallons per year, he said. " I can see that happening quite easy. There is a lot of competition from CN, BNSF, and regionals for this traffic. Rates, infrastructure, and service will all be the deciding factor. It is not the plants which cause this, but the Marketers who pit carrier versus carrier to maintain their competitive edge against the other Marketers. UP's Iowa/Minnesota district is the place where this is really happening. And I know every person who works the jobs that service these plants, know darn well what can happen if they do not give the customer what they need, within reason. The options for the producers are easy, too easy to divert traffic, and our jobs all depend upon them. Just as their jobs depend upon us getting it right the first time in the yard and on the locals. We have all watched this industry grow from nothing, and would be very upset to see any of it go away, for any reason.
wallyworld wrote: Union Pacific, the largest US railroad, plans to nearly double its annual tonnage of ethanol shipments by 2008, a company official said in May. Jerry Finan, senior product manager for corn refining at Union Pacific Railroad (UP), told a an ethanol industry conference that UP expects to transport 2.8 billion gallons of ethanol a year by 2008. It currently transports 1.5-1.7 billion gallons per year, he said. "
Jerry Finan, senior product manager for corn refining at Union Pacific Railroad (UP), told a an ethanol industry conference that UP expects to transport 2.8 billion gallons of ethanol a year by 2008. It currently transports 1.5-1.7 billion gallons per year, he said. "
I can see that happening quite easy. There is a lot of competition from CN, BNSF, and regionals for this traffic. Rates, infrastructure, and service will all be the deciding factor. It is not the plants which cause this, but the Marketers who pit carrier versus carrier to maintain their competitive edge against the other Marketers.
UP's Iowa/Minnesota district is the place where this is really happening. And I know every person who works the jobs that service these plants, know darn well what can happen if they do not give the customer what they need, within reason. The options for the producers are easy, too easy to divert traffic, and our jobs all depend upon them. Just as their jobs depend upon us getting it right the first time in the yard and on the locals. We have all watched this industry grow from nothing, and would be very upset to see any of it go away, for any reason.
(highlights mine)
Like the corn it's made from, ethanol is largely a product of the small-town Midwest, distilled in places like Nevada, Iowa, and shipped to market by train.
Now, as ethanol producers ramp up production, they are straining railroads already taxed by burgeoning shipments of coal, containers and grain. And they worry that the transportation crunch could make it difficult for ethanol, despite its surge of support in Washington, to compete with energy rivals.
Rail and transportation logistics for the ethanol industry is "the mountain to climb ... as we go forward," says Ken Eriksen, a senior vice president of Informa Economics Inc., an agricultural and renewable fuels consulting firm in Memphis, Tenn.
Unlike gasoline, natural gas and oil, ethanol attracts water and other chemicals, so it can't be sent through the long-established pipelines that move those fuels. That means the ethanol industry has been forced into a marriage with the already groaning railroads.
"It's supply and demand," says Walt Wendland, president and CEO of Golden Grain Energy LLC in Mason City, Iowa. "We're a captive market for them."
Few people think the strains will derail the boom, fueled first when it became a popular replacement for the gasoline additive methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) and boosted by President Bush's call for more homegrown energy alternatives. But ethanol's popularity has meant that producers have had to struggle to upgrade their rail yards and secure enough tank and grain cars to efficiently ship both ethanol and its byproducts. Railroads are prodding them to make the changes while also rushing to expand their own tracks and freight yards to handle the increasing shipments. Even though some parts of the economy have slowed recently, rail freight volumes are still near record highs.
Despite the concern about the rail system, producers aren't flocking to the waterways. Barges are considered too slow to handle ethanol's rush to market, most plants aren't located near bodies of water and other liquid commodities already have soaked up the majority of the tank-barge capacity.
Railroad executives say ethanol, though still a small part of their total freight traffic, promises to be a lucrative growth opportunity. Shipments of ethanol have nearly tripled since 2001 to about 106,000 rail carloads last year and are projected to increase to at least 140,000 in 2007, according to the Association of American Railroads in Washington. Each tank car has a capacity of 30,000 gallons.
"We had a hiccup here and there, absolutely," says David Lawson, vice president of industrial products at Norfolk Southern Corp., a large railroad based in Norfolk, Va. "But we feel like we handled the growth very well."
Railroads have been pushing producers toward shipping by longer, more-efficient trains, called unit trains. Such trains carry 75 to 95 tank cars of ethanol and provide a faster and more economical alternative to shipping a few ethanol cars at a time. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. in October 2003 began running its Ethanol Express to shuttle ethanol to California from the Midwest. It now runs two to three times a week. But some producers have chafed under the industry's initiatives.
After the corn is distilled into ethanol, it's mixed with a small amount of gasoline at the production plant before being shipped by train to a petroleum terminal, where it is blended with gasoline. Large petroleum terminals are accustomed to receiving their product by pipeline and then distributing locally by truck. Most terminals haven't developed the infrastructure of tracks, storage tanks and rapid unloading to receive ethanol by unit trains, says Kevin Kaufman, group vice president of agricultural products of BNSF's rail unit. Expanding is difficult because they are sometimes hemmed in by buildings, highways and bodies of water.
On the other end of the line in ethanol country, many of the producing plants aren't large enough or lack the track and facilities to fill unit trains themselves. That is forcing the producers to shell out millions on tracks and equipment they hadn't planned to spend. Engineers from rail giant Union Pacific Corp. in Omaha, Neb., are requiring Mr. Wendland to triple the size of Golden Grain's rail yard even though he is only doubling the size of the 65 million-gallon ethanol plant in land-locked Mason City.
The 24,000-foot track expansion will push him over his $2 million budget by $1.5 million. He also had to purchase 55 acres of nearby land for $500,000. Mr. Wendland says Union Pacific told him their freight yards were too strapped for space to store his cars, so he'll have to store them himself. "It's a huge commitment, to say the least," he says. The railroad confirmed Mr. Wendland's account.
Lately, large railroads have used their newfound market power to raise prices on many commodities they carry. For producers it comes at a time when high corn prices are squeezing their margins.
To cope with the price increases, Rick Brehm has started packing tight every car of distillers dried grain, an ethanol byproduct sold as cattle feed, he ships out. The 50-million-gallon-a-year Lincolnway Energy LLC ethanol plant in Nevada, Iowa, sits beside Union Pacific's mainline. Mr. Brehm is having an employee shovel the grain into every corner of his rail cars. That way he can fill up an extra 3 percent to 4 percent of space that was lost to air pockets before.
Union Pacific is ratcheting up investment to expand its own yards and track lines to handle the extra shipments in ethanol producing areas in Iowa, Minnesota a
Bucyrus wrote: StillGrande wrote: Brazil is now self sufficient in enegy. Last year they exported 600,000 barrels of ethanol to the US. They expect to increase this to 2.1 million barrels this year. I think there is a bit of a misperception being generally put forth in the celebration of Brazil's so-called energy self sufficiency. I have heard that Brazil has recently installed the world's largest offshore oil drilling platform with the capacity to provide the country with 100% of of its energy needs from oil. Others may refute or varify this. They may be a pioneer in sugar cane ethanol, but they are not self sufficient with it.
StillGrande wrote: Brazil is now self sufficient in enegy. Last year they exported 600,000 barrels of ethanol to the US. They expect to increase this to 2.1 million barrels this year.
Brazil is now self sufficient in enegy. Last year they exported 600,000 barrels of ethanol to the US. They expect to increase this to 2.1 million barrels this year.
I think there is a bit of a misperception being generally put forth in the celebration of Brazil's so-called energy self sufficiency. I have heard that Brazil has recently installed the world's largest offshore oil drilling platform with the capacity to provide the country with 100% of of its energy needs from oil. Others may refute or varify this. They may be a pioneer in sugar cane ethanol, but they are not self sufficient with it.
I doubt that they are trying to (or could) provide 100% of their energy needs with oil. They do however subsidize their ethanal economy with oil. They set an artifically low price for the ethanol used in Brazil and a high price for the gasolene. They also subsidize the ethanol economy with foreign oil sales. At one point, some years ago, when oil prices dropped, the Brazilian economy was in dire straights until the oil prices increased again.
By the way, Environmentalists, much of the devistation of the Rain Forests has been due to converting the land to sugarcane production.
However, according to this artlcle they may have learned from past mistakes:
http://www.climateark.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=55870
Here is a contrary view, from a citizen not a scientest:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/desousa1.html
By the way he has railroad maps of Brazil on his website. The links to them on his English site aren't working but the links on his Porguese site are. There are railroad photo too.
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.
Note: I just saw your post in regards to the Pimental piece. If you thought I didn't read that post, you were correct.
RRKen wrote: We had/have more corn than beets or cane. The technology followed existing available feed stocks. It was ready and waiting and did not have to wait for research and development.
as opposed to cane already being used? does not compute. and jsut because something is there, doesn't make it a godo idea to use it. I have a gun, that doesn't mean I shoudl take the law into my own hands.
RRKen wrote:Not sure why you link corn directly to ethanol, since as a base commodity, if not sold to a plant, corn would sell eleswhere. Year 2005 saw supports go down to $8.6 million, the five year trend has been a steady downward move. This follows the trend in higher corn yields and prices.
RRKen wrote:I offer this from the USDA late last year:Factors impactingsugar to ethanol viabilityCorn is currently the least-cost feedstock available for ethanol production. Ethanol from sugarcane or sugar beet feedstocks costs twice as much. USDA's recent sugar/ethanol report provides these comparative production costs.
Factors impactingsugar to ethanol viabilityCorn is currently the least-cost feedstock available for ethanol production. Ethanol from sugarcane or sugar beet feedstocks costs twice as much. USDA's recent sugar/ethanol report provides these comparative production costs.
the one and the same USDA in charge of setting sugar import quotas effectively setting the price of sugar? If this is true, why the 54 cent per gal tariff?
If what you implied and used the USDA is true, then there is no need for imported ethanol tariffs (or sugar guarantees-(if other than ensuring that southern sugar farmers remains multimillionaires) and it will solve our "corn problem-(paying people to grow corn we don't need). I have not seen such research. However, that of course woudl alleviate my concerns about corn ethanol. Please post these studies when they come out, although I hope they make the news. However, these are my concerns...
Ethanol cost $2.04 a gallon in the United States on Jan. 17, based on data from wholesale distributors in Des Moines, Iowa, and other Midwest locations, 41 per cent more than unleaded gasoline, before taxes. What's more, ethanol produces only 70 per cent as much energy as petroleum....The U.S. government gives refiners and wholesalers a 51-cent tax break for every gallon of ethanol that's blended with gasoline. To limit supplies and bolster prices, a 54-cent-a-gallon U.S. tariff on imports blocks shipments from countries outside the Caribbean and Central America.
The U.S. government gives refiners and wholesalers a 51-cent tax break for every gallon of ethanol that's blended with gasoline. To limit supplies and bolster prices, a 54-cent-a-gallon U.S. tariff on imports blocks shipments from countries outside the Caribbean and Central America.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070130.RETHANOL30/TPStory/Business
Suburban Station wrote:4) If market forces in ethanol woudl be allwoed to work, we wouldn't buy corn but import ethanol from Brazil (not that I'm arguing that importing ethanol from Brazil isn't preferrable to importing oil from venezuela and the middle east but it wouldn;t benefit Archer Daniels Midland or RRKen's other friends, so we stamp a 54 cent per per gallon tariff on imports. What's the purpose here? improving the environment or providing the cornbelt with welfare?
Guess you did understand one word I put to this thread.
Suburban Station wrote:As mentioned earlier, other forms of alternative fuels may eventually be the answer, corn based ethanol is pure politics.
We had/have more corn than beets or cane. The technology followed existing available feed stocks. It was ready and waiting and did not have to wait for research and development.
Suburban Station wrote: The US has cut subsidies for corn from $8.1 billion to $2 billion this year. If prices remain high, they expect to be able to cut the subsidy this year almost entirely, which would also end complaints from several nations who complain about the price assistance US growers get.Let's start with subsidies. A subsidy was developed to help a farmer make up money lost between the cost to produce a product, and the higher market cost. For example, if it cost me 1 dollar to grow a bushel of corn, and the market demanded only 80 cents, the government would make up the difference and pay me 20 cents, plus a little more so that I can make a profit and give me a reason to keep growing corn. A nice idea in theory, but in practice it essentially ends up paying a farmer both when they produce too much and when their crop prices are too low. As anyone with a passing grade in Econ 101 can tell you, making too much of a product is one cause of lower prices, the government ends up giving out a lot of money. To the cost of $22.7 billion in 2005.
The US has cut subsidies for corn from $8.1 billion to $2 billion this year. If prices remain high, they expect to be able to cut the subsidy this year almost entirely, which would also end complaints from several nations who complain about the price assistance US growers get.
Let's start with subsidies. A subsidy was developed to help a farmer make up money lost between the cost to produce a product, and the higher market cost. For example, if it cost me 1 dollar to grow a bushel of corn, and the market demanded only 80 cents, the government would make up the difference and pay me 20 cents, plus a little more so that I can make a profit and give me a reason to keep growing corn. A nice idea in theory, but in practice it essentially ends up paying a farmer both when they produce too much and when their crop prices are too low. As anyone with a passing grade in Econ 101 can tell you, making too much of a product is one cause of lower prices, the government ends up giving out a lot of money. To the cost of $22.7 billion in 2005.
Not sure why you link corn directly to ethanol, since as a base commodity, if not sold to a plant, corn would sell eleswhere. Year 2005 saw supports go down to $8.6 million, the five year trend has been a steady downward move. This follows the trend in higher corn yields and prices.
Again I go back to the premis, if a farmer knew in advance what to plant and how much, not to mention the weather in that growing season, we would not need these programs. But the farmer needs income every year in order to survive, and to skip a year or two because stocks are too high in one commodity or another, is folly. Since the loans on the land, equipment and such do not go away because the producer cannot make a living off the current prices. What then? I am not talking about giving away the bank either.
Suburban Station wrote: Sure there will be other products which will be impacted, but do you really need to use corn syrup as a sweetener in everything. There are alternative products. yeah, like sugar which ADM and co have been artificially keeping out of the market for years. (although honestly, we've been dabbling in sugar tariffs since 1873 but the switch to HFCS happened in the 1970's, I posted a blurb on that already). So, the same lobby that keeps us form buying cheaper ethanol, keeps us from using real sugar in our products.
Sure there will be other products which will be impacted, but do you really need to use corn syrup as a sweetener in everything. There are alternative products.
yeah, like sugar which ADM and co have been artificially keeping out of the market for years. (although honestly, we've been dabbling in sugar tariffs since 1873 but the switch to HFCS happened in the 1970's, I posted a blurb on that already). So, the same lobby that keeps us form buying cheaper ethanol, keeps us from using real sugar in our products.
I offer this from the USDA late last year:
Suburban Station wrote: The big cost for anything new is the startup. Have to build the infrastructure. which is why it's important not to blow our wad on the wrong product.
The big cost for anything new is the startup. Have to build the infrastructure.
I am sure as there has been billions of dollars of private money invested in corn Ethanol, there will be more for cellulostic Ethanol, F-T fuels, and other alternative sources of energy.
Suburban Station wrote: Most research seems to point at a net loss of energy for the process.
Sorry, there are so many holes in the so-called research from Pimentel & Company, that it is a laugh to even bring it up. Old data, lack of understanding of currnet farming practices (only 15% of corn acres use irrigation, which Pimentel bases his costs upon), and current efficiencies in dry mill plants, not wet mill types that such research has based upon. 81% of Ethanol produced in the U.S. is from dry mill type plants.
Folks, what I have put forth here is the reality I see every day about farming and the Ethanol industry. I have spent years reading pro and con about it, talking with producers, people in the industry, and marketing types. As someone said in an earlier post, Ethanol is not perfect by any means. However it is here and now, not something that we have to wait 5, 10, or even 15 years for. It easily replaces MBTE which was banned for ground water issues. And as was posted today, it also helps my employer, and fellow employees. Yet in talking about this industry, I have to step back from my wallet, and look objectively and balance all that is out there. I make those decisions, based not on "my friends", or some industry shill, but my own thoughtful observations. In none of what I have written, except to provide direct quotations, have I referred to the pile of documentation I have or the internet.
The facility will be the largest biodiesel refinery in North America, able to produce 100,000 tonnes of premium biodiesel annually from more than 355,000 acres (144,000 hectares) of canola. Construction on the plant is expected to begin in August, with the first sale of biodiesel products likely in December 2006.
Union Pacific, the largest US railroad, plans to nearly double its annual tonnage of ethanol shipments by 2008, a company official said in May.
Nothing is more fairly distributed than common sense: no one thinks he needs more of it than he already has.
Using brazil as a model example is misleading at best, IMO, for the following reasons:
1) It's a largely undeveloped country with much smaller energy needs. Much of Brazil only recently got access to fresh water (not in their homes, but nearby).
2) It has led to spikes in food costs, although whether this is a long term or short term phenomenon is not clear.
3) Sugar is cheaper to use for ethanol than corn, which is what I'm opposing here (I'm not against viable forms of alternative fuels, I just don't think that corn based ethanol is it and there's very little evidence that it is). Worse, farming is one fo the top contributors to pollution. Kind of like American outsourced much of its manufacturing (and therefore pollution), drivers woudl merely be outsourcing pollution to farms. Most research seems to point at a net loss of energy for the process.
4) If market forces in ethanol woudl be allwoed to work, we wouldn't buy corn but import ethanol from Brazil (not that I'm arguing that importing ethanol from Brazil isn't preferrable to importing oil from venezuela and the middle east but it wouldn;t benefit Archer Daniels Midland or RRKen's other friends, so we stamp a 54 cent per per gallon tariff on imports. What's the purpose here? improving the environment or providing the cornbelt with welfare?
StillGrande wrote: The ethanol industry can actually get more product out of the rest of the corn plant than the seed corn head. The real target is switch grasses, which are something like 8 times more efficient for production.
The ethanol industry can actually get more product out of the rest of the corn plant than the seed corn head. The real target is switch grasses, which are something like 8 times more efficient for production.
As mentioned earlier, other forms of alternative fuels may eventually be the answer, corn based ethanol is pure politics (not that sugar wasn't in brazil, it just happens to be a better source than corn).
StillGrande wrote: The US has cut subsidies for corn from $8.1 billion to $2 billion this year. If prices remain high, they expect to be able to cut the subsidy this year almost entirely, which would also end complaints from several nations who complain about the price assistance US growers get.
http://www.accidentalhedonist.com/index.php/2006/01/24/tariffs_and_subsidies_the_literal_cost_o
It also has a good rundown of how the sugar tariff works. Additionally, when referring to reduced corn tariffs you need to account for subsidies paid for ethanol and sugar.
StillGrande wrote: $350 billion sent to people who hate us could be redirected to fuels we make here as alternatives are developed.
or deficit reduction but that won't happen. many people hate us because of the money we send. the drug war. propping up unpopular governments because we prefer them. Only an American coudl be baffled as to why peopel hate us. We give them money, they shoudl kiss our ***. (of course, we borrowed the money, we didn't make it).
StillGrande wrote: Sure there will be other products which will be impacted, but do you really need to use corn syrup as a sweetener in everything. There are alternative products.
StillGrande wrote: The big cost for anything new is the startup. Have to build the infrastructure.
Way of the Wolf wrote: Coal and oil are not renewable which means that in time we will run out.
Coal and oil are not renewable which means that in time we will run out.
Not necessarily.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin
Thus, if we ever "run out" of hydrocarbon fuels, it'll be for political reasons, not because of physical limitations.
spokyone wrote: Ken. If we add 10% ethanol to our gasoline, and we lose 10% fuel milage, I think the only benefit we see is less polutants at the tailpipe. I Googled for ethanol research. I found studies that claim a 67% energy increase to produce a gallon of ethanol. Others claim 25% increase. Then this one by Cornell and Berkely that show negative increase.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8607389/ This is older, but newer than the Minnesota study. So I am confused by all of this.My 96 Dodge Ram loses 5% mpg. A new Toyota Matrix show only a 2% decrease when using ethanol. This difference is too little to measure accurately. I really want to learn more about recent advances in the production of ethanol.
I really want to learn more about recent advances in the production of ethanol.
First off, Dr. Pimentel's research at Cornell was based on Ag practices from 1979 and earlier. As an example, farmers now a days use manure as a fertilizer instead of other sources of nitrogen. Second it was his assumption that all farmers used irrigation, which plainly they do not. Third his basis for ethanol production process is quite out of date. Modern dry mill plants are quite efficient.
There is a new paper out by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory I have yet to digest. In it they go further in bio-mass to ethanol processes. Coal use in Ethanol plants has been approved by MN, IL, IA, OH, and TN. Anerobic Bio-Methanators have been approved in NE, IA, MN, OH, IL, IN and TN.
I have found so much research on-going I cannot keep up with it. Stay tuned.
RRKen wrote: BNSFrailfan wrote:Ethanol sucks big time. It may be cleaner but it does nothing for gas milage. I burn 10 times more gas with this ethanol junk than Regular gas. Gee, it's made in your back yard, provides jobs for your neighbors, pays taxes, adds value to the corn your rural neighbors produce. Several things you can do to improve milage. Cleaning the injectors oxygen sensor make the biggest impact. Your average loss due to the smaller BTU numbers should be about 5-10%.
BNSFrailfan wrote:Ethanol sucks big time. It may be cleaner but it does nothing for gas milage. I burn 10 times more gas with this ethanol junk than Regular gas.
Gee, it's made in your back yard, provides jobs for your neighbors, pays taxes, adds value to the corn your rural neighbors produce. Several things you can do to improve milage. Cleaning the injectors oxygen sensor make the biggest impact. Your average loss due to the smaller BTU numbers should be about 5-10%.
PBenham wrote: vsmith wrote: If no one likes the solar powered trolley idea....how about wind powered monorails?I can think of five places that would be perfect for the wind powered monorails. Albany NYSSR, Austin, TX, Boston, MASSR, Sacramento, CA, and Washington DC! Close, but no cigar:Columbus, OH, Harrisburg, PA, Lansing, MI, Springfield, IL (Home of the world's only RS1325s)Talahassee, FL, and Montpielier, VT!
vsmith wrote: If no one likes the solar powered trolley idea....how about wind powered monorails?
I can think of five places that would be perfect for the wind powered monorails. Albany NYSSR, Austin, TX, Boston, MASSR, Sacramento, CA, and Washington DC! Close, but no cigar:Columbus, OH, Harrisburg, PA, Lansing, MI, Springfield, IL (Home of the world's only RS1325s)Talahassee, FL, and Montpielier, VT!
While Washington, DC would seem to be perfect for wind powered monorails, there is the possibility that the power source of wind would be so great that braking would be impossible!
Have fun with your trains
Suburban Station wrote:3)causes a better unssubsidized alternative to be overlooked
3)causes a better unssubsidized alternative to be overlooked
Are you suggesting that there is an energy alternative that is currently being overlooked that would not need subsidization to be profitable?
zugmann wrote: Ethanol is not the proverbial silver bullet. There is no silver bullet for our energy needs. But ethanol may be a part of the solution. (and being a home grown fuel is an advantage to this american). So what if it is subsidized - there are so many other things in our country so oversubsidized, I can not get all worked up about ethanol. Unfortunately, this country will only really address their energy problems when the price goes sky-high. When it levels off, many new initiatives will be abandoned if not for the continuous influx of government money.
Ethanol is not the proverbial silver bullet. There is no silver bullet for our energy needs. But ethanol may be a part of the solution. (and being a home grown fuel is an advantage to this american). So what if it is subsidized - there are so many other things in our country so oversubsidized, I can not get all worked up about ethanol. Unfortunately, this country will only really address their energy problems when the price goes sky-high. When it levels off, many new initiatives will be abandoned if not for the continuous influx of government money.
it's a problem if you are subsidizing something that
1) makes the energy problem worse
2) makes food more expensive
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
RRKen wrote: Not about Ethanol, cannot comment.
you asked if I knew how farm subsidies worked.
RRKen wrote: Do we know how much Mr. Richardson got for his commodities? How did he qualify under the LDP or price support programs? If he plants in 2007, and the bottom drops out of the market, what will become of his farm? What incentive will he have to continue farming? Might you be suggesting we let the land go fallow, and import corn and other grains? What social and economic impact will that have on the U.S. as a whole? Are you perhaps suggesting that producers in other countries should be the producers of choice, and our farmers go broke?
pure speculation with teh intent on scaring people into paying farmers to produce something we are obviously not in need of (extra corn). from a country's perspective, we don't care if it's corn or widgets.
RRKen wrote:One cannot have it both ways. It is called competition. The reason that other countries are not selling grain, is they have none to sell.
so the US is the only country with grain? with farm production?competition is called subsidizing farmers? man, i really fell asleep in class.
RRKen wrote: The price in the world market is set depending on the supply, not the U.S. farmer or Government.
nice theory, but if the government sets the supply, then it sets the price. by incentiving crops that have little value on the open market, they are effectively lowering the price.
RRKen wrote: If the U.S. ran out of corn tomorrow, I am sure China and Argentina would gladly sell what they have at the same prices that U.S. farmers are getting now, and other countries would pay that price.
woudl they be eligible for the subsidies as well?
RRKen wrote: You missed my point completely. ADM is a small portion of Ethanol production. 18 percent. Less than one fifth. They could not tell congress how to legislate an Ethanol when the legislation has been there since 1973. In 1973, ADM did not own the facility in Clinton, and Cedar Rapids had not even been planned, much less built. Hence, their only facility was in Decatur, IL. Did ADM bend Jimmy Carter's arm into asking for that legislation?
huh? influence is measure with dollars, not market share. however, since you asked about 1973
The preference for high fructose corn syrup over cane sugar amongst the vast majority of American food and beverage manufacturers is largely due to U.S. import quotas and tariffs of sugar, supported with the campaign finance courtesy of agricultural corporations. Most predominantly, the Archer Daniels Midland corporation is currently amongst the leading contributors of such campaign finance.[7] Since local and federal laws often put a limit on how much money one particular lobbyist can contribute, Archer Daniels Midland's contributions are often given by numerous smaller entities under the authority of Archer Daniels Midland. This is commonly called bundling political contributions.
RRKen wrote:Two thoughts. First, Ethanol has about 6% of the total automobile fuel market. If you take that away, what will the remaining gasoline cost? Well what happens when fuel supply gets lower? Price goes up.
why would price go up? ethanol is more expensive than gas. government expenditures would also decrease as well as transportation costs.
RRKen wrote:How does one stimulate someone to invest in a bio-fuel with such variation of price? Or is your line of thinking, we don't need no stinking Ethanol, or the investment and jobs it has brought to rural America?
not if it means wasting billions on a technology that offers no beenfit outside of the few "farmers" who benefit leading us down a dead end road. will it reduce our oil dependence more than additional rail infrastructure? heavy transit in urban areas? one of the largest users of energy (and therefore foreign oil) are rural farmers who also contribute a large portion to greenhouse gases.
RRKen wrote: Well then bring it on. And when you become dependant on foreign food, cattle feed, and fuel, it will be justice in your eyes I am supposing.
I already am. where was you tractor built? hwo about the parts in your car? how abou tyour clothes?
RRKen wrote:But the aftermath of such thinkin Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 3:07 PM Tharmeni wrote: This thread is a good argument for not posting any topic that is "OT". Do they discuss railroads on the Ethanol forums? I suspect not. Let's get back to railroading. Or you could merely go skip this and go on to a rail-releated thread that strikes your fancy. Your choice. Reply Edit StillGrande Member sinceSeptember 2003 From: Alexandria, VA 847 posts Posted by StillGrande on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 2:46 PM There have been a bunch of similar articles recently in a bunch of newspapers. I guess it is the easiest story this week to hype. Just to hit on some of the items brought up on this chat:Prices of corn used by Mexicans has increased dramatically in recent weeks, even though the corn used by Mexicans to make tortillas is white corn, not the yellow corn used in the US. The only reason it is rising is because the markets are color blind for the corn. White corn prices are tied to yellow corn prices, even though the supply of white corn has not changed. Brazil is now self sufficient in enegy. Last year they exported 600,000 barrels of ethanol to the US. They expect to increase this to 2.1 million barrels this year. The ethanol industry can actually get more product out of the rest of the corn plant than the seed corn head. The real target is switch grasses, which are something like 8 times more efficient for production. The US has cut subsidies for corn from $8.1 billion to $2 billion this year. If prices remain high, they expect to be able to cut the subsidy this year almost entirely, which would also end complaints from several nations who complain about the price assistance US growers get. The US still stores more grain than they use. Now they just store less. $350 billion sent to people who hate us could be redirected to fuels we make here as alternatives are developed. I doubt any growers are crying that the prices they get are too high, and I also doubt that anyone who could grow corn is not going to grow more just because they might actually get more money for the crops. Sure there will be other products which will be impacted, but do you really need to use corn syrup as a sweetener in everything. There are alternative products. Coal isn't going anywhere. There is a 300 year supply in the US. We have more than the rest of the planet. We could use it better. Lots of people are working on just that. The big cost for anything new is the startup. Have to build the infrastructure. Big oil and our "friends" overseas get nervous when prices approach the point where alternatives look more attractive. They can't eat the stuff and can't produce their own food. They may have gone too far last year. The issue has not dropped with the falling prices for fuel. Might even see real progress in growing the alternative market this time. People and industry are showing real interest in the hybrid and alternative fuel car market, even if the price of the car does not show an economic benefit to the individual (pay more for the car than you save, but it is the principal of sticking it to the man!!!) Dewey "Facts are meaningless; you can use facts to prove anything that is even remotely true! Facts, schmacks!" - Homer Simpson "The problem is there are so many stupid people and nothing eats them." Reply Tharmeni Member sinceJuly 2003 From: Southwestern Florida 501 posts Posted by Tharmeni on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 2:33 PM This thread is a good argument for not posting any topic that is "OT". Do they discuss railroads on the Ethanol forums? I suspect not. Let's get back to railroading. Reply RRKen Member sinceMay 2004 From: Mason City, Iowa 901 posts Posted by RRKen on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 2:27 PM I did say for the record, that other programs are something which I cannot speak to, and not a part of this threads topic. Not about Ethanol, cannot comment.Do we know how much Mr. Richardson got for his commodities? How did he qualify under the LDP or price support programs? If he plants in 2007, and the bottom drops out of the market, what will become of his farm? What incentive will he have to continue farming? Might you be suggesting we let the land go fallow, and import corn and other grains? What social and economic impact will that have on the U.S. as a whole? Are you perhaps suggesting that producers in other countries should be the producers of choice, and our farmers go broke? One cannot have it both ways. It is called competition. The reason that other countries are not selling grain, is they have none to sell. The price in the world market is set depending on the supply, not the U.S. farmer or Government. If the U.S. ran out of corn tomorrow, I am sure China and Argentina would gladly sell what they have at the same prices that U.S. farmers are getting now, and other countries would pay that price. Again, not about Ethanol, so I will not comment.You missed my point completely. ADM is a small portion of Ethanol production. 18 percent. Less than one fifth. They could not tell congress how to legislate an Ethanol when the legislation has been there since 1973. In 1973, ADM did not own the facility in Clinton, and Cedar Rapids had not even been planned, much less built. Hence, their only facility was in Decatur, IL. Did ADM bend Jimmy Carter's arm into asking for that legislation?Two thoughts. First, Ethanol has about 6% of the total automobile fuel market. If you take that away, what will the remaining gasoline cost? Well what happens when fuel supply gets lower? Price goes up. How much is hard to guess, much less figure. Suffice it to say, it will not be a bargain. Second, and just as important, ethanol is part of a very price volatile commodity, gasoline. In less than a year, gasoline pump prices have varied well over $1.50 per gallon. How does one stimulate someone to invest in a bio-fuel with such variation of price? Or is your line of thinking, we don't need no stinking Ethanol, or the investment and jobs it has brought to rural America? Well then bring it on. And when you become dependant on foreign food, cattle feed, and fuel, it will be justice in your eyes I am supposing. But the aftermath of such thinking will extend to all Americans, not just those who invested in Ethanol, or agriculture. Let me restate again, price supports only kick in when corn prices reach a certain threshold. After that, there are no payments. You also must not understand agriculture markets either. In March, when a farmer looks at the forecasts for grain, and makes his decision to plant, there is no guarantee the price at harvest will be sufficient to cover his costs. He has to gamble with the loan, and other payments that price will cover his needs. And what if it does not? Does he quit farming? He surely cannot make up those loans at a total liquidation. And what happens to him, happens to the county, region and state. Land prices fall, and those loans can become due. What then? He cannot even afford to plant the next season, and gamble on that crop's fate. And in your closing quote, you bring up big bad ADM again. Well what about Lyle & Tate? ConAgra? Deere & Co.? Cargill? DeBruce Grain? CHS? FCStone, LLC? KMA Consulting? Lubrizol? Union Pacific? Arent Fox PLLC? CoBank? WR Grace? They all contribute to the sin of Ethanol. They and others should be targeted as well. Lets not leave any guilty party out as long as we are pointing fingers. I never drink water. I'm afraid it will become habit-forming. W. C. Fields I never met a Moderator I liked Reply Suburban Station Member sinceAugust 2006 72 posts Posted by Suburban Station on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 12:52 PM RRKen wrote: Do you even understand how the farm program works for producers? not as much as you do, but I do understand a few things.Even though Donald R. Matthews put his sprawling new residence in the heart of rice country, he is no farmer. He is a 67-year-old asphalt contractor who wanted to build a dream house for his wife of 40 years. Yet under a federal agriculture program approved by Congress, his 18-acre suburban lot receives about $1,300 in annual "direct payments," because years ago the land was used to grow rice...Matthews is not alone. Nationwide, the federal government has paid at least $1.3 billion in subsidies for rice and other crops since 2000 to individuals who do no farming at all, according to an analysis of government records by The Washington Post....The checks to Matthews and other landowners were intended 10 years ago as a first step toward eventually eliminating costly, decades-old farm subsidies. Instead, the payments have grown into an even larger subsidy that benefits millionaire landowners, foreign speculators and absentee landlords, as well as farmers...Most of the money goes to real farmers who grow crops on their land, but they are under no obligation to grow the crop being subsidized. They can switch to a different crop or raise cattle or even grow a stand of timber -- and still get the government payments. The cash comes with so few restrictions that subdivision developers who buy farmland advertise that homeowners can collect farm subsidies on their new back yards.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/01/AR2006070100962.html EDEN, Md. -- Roger L. Richardson, a vigorous 72-year-old who grows corn on 1,500 acres of prime Eastern Shore farmland, had a good year in 2005. Thanks to smart planning, shrewd investing and a little luck, he grossed a healthy $500,000 for his crop.But the federal government treated him as if he needed help and paid him $75,000...Since September, the program has cost taxpayers $4.8 billion.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/02/AR2006070200691.html Weeks later, de Boer was startled to learn that he was one of hundreds of East Texas ranchers entitled to up to $40,000 in disaster compensation from the federal government, even though the nearest debris landed 10 to 20 miles from his cattle. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/17/AR2006071701237.htmlneed i go on? why do you think it's okay to subsidize a crop that encourages farmers to grow too much, then dump it on the world market and send smaller economies into a tailspin and their farmers into starvation? because they've never done anything for us? why woudl they do anything for us when folks like you just want to screw them? RRKen wrote: I can almost assure you that the producers who got payments last year, will not this year due to market prices... Also, I state again, the farmer is not setting the price of commodities. It is simple supply and demand plus transportation. Any farmer who sells his grain for a better price cannot be faulted. If he chooses the local ethanol plant, so be it. And if he is a member/investor of the plant, it becomes a win-win situation. ADM has nothing to do with his decision, as I said in a previous post, ADM is only 18% of the total production, and only markets for a few other small plants. ADM does not influence Eco-Energy, Renewable Products Marketing Group, Murex, or the other ethanol marketing companies. Instead, the compete for each and every contract with petroleum distributors. ADM may not influence other companies, but they do influence uncle sam, which has made them obscenely rich. just so there is no misunderstanding that the market for ethanol is subdized: The "blender" buys gasoline and ethanol at their "rack" (wholesale) prices and blends them. The blender then gets the 51¢ credit for each gallon of ethanol purchased. Hence, if the wholesale price of ethanol is $3.51 and the bender gets a $0.51 subsidy, the blender figures the ethanol really costs only $3.00. So we save $0.51 because the blender passes on a lower price of ethanol, but we have to pay the $0.51 subsidy in our taxes, so it's just the same as if the ethanol really did cost $3.51 and there were no subsisdy.The subsidy for ethanol production is $0.51/gallon, plus a small-producers credit of $0.10/gallon for producers of up to 60 million gallons per year (up from 30 with new energy bill). This is reported in the CRS Issue Brief for Congress, IB10041, Energy Tax Policy, June 17, 2005, page 14. The total subsidy per year is estimated at $1.49 billion for FY2005 and rising.http://zfacts.com/p/63.html RRKen wrote:I have no idea of what you are trying to say. Is it that the producer has no right to make a buck, to seek higher payments for what he has grown? The same can be applied to other industries too. he has a right, just not the right to sell at subsidized prices and then claim it's market demand. RRKen wrote: Who praised it? I was stating fact, that both the consumer, who in most markets pays less for E-10 than Unleaded clear, even considering the lost BTU's does ok, and producers get better prices at the plant. They did not have to import oil to run their vehicle. Ethanol replaced a product, MTBE that spoiled groundwater when leaked. As far as my "buddies", they have weathered many years of production with low prices. In 2001, they sold corn for less than it cost to produce. It put many other producers Reply OldBNfan Member sinceJuly 2006 43 posts Posted by OldBNfan on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 11:24 AM I've been burning corn to heat my house for the last four years, saving $100's of dollars a year versus propane (I live in Michigan). Since corn burns so cleanly compared to fossil fuels, does anyone know if we've ever tried corn in a coal boiler? Reply RRKen Member sinceMay 2004 From: Mason City, Iowa 901 posts Posted by RRKen on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 10:40 AM Suburban Station wrote: RRKen wrote: I personally get quite tired of folks spouting off about ADM and ethanol, without knowing what percentage they hold in the market. They only account for 18% of the total production as of today. what's your point? ADM, Monsanto, et al will undoubtedly benefit the most. just as 85% of farm subsidies go to agribusiness. as if we shoudl be paying for their farms to begin with. let's not bring up folks living in nyc and DC who receive farm welfare. Do you even understand how the farm program works for producers? I can almost assure you that the producers who got payments last year, will not this year due to market prices. RRKen wrote:While ADM has been the largest single company involved in Ethanol since the 1970's, they hardly control the market today. The industry has added billions of dollars of new revenue that did not exist in 1999. Billions. who said it was a government conspiracy? or is that your underhanded way of discounting my point? the way the government works isn't a conspiracy, special interests are of act of life. It's always been that way in the US for better and for worse. Ethanol isn;t a sham, it's a market distorted by government subsidies. why a few farmers have benefitted, it will be companies like ADM who win out in the long run at the expense of US taxpayers. ( not that subsidizing an inefficient fuel source or paying farmers' to raise the cost of food production are good ideas). The way it read, your disdain for government was clear to me, they are working behind the scenes to screw the consumer. I will not argue that there is a lot of behind the scenes arm twisting on Capital Hill, and always has been, not just for agriculture either. Also, I state again, the farmer is not setting the price of commodities. It is simple supply and demand plus transportation. Any farmer who sells his grain for a better price cannot be faulted. If he chooses the local ethanol plant, so be it. And if he is a member/investor of the plant, it becomes a win-win situation. ADM has nothing to do with his decision, as I said in a previous post, ADM is only 18% of the total production, and only markets for a few other small plants. ADM does not influence Eco-Energy, Renewable Products Marketing Group, Murex, or the other ethanol marketing companies. Instead, the compete for each and every contract with petroleum distributors. I will not hang a halo on ADM, to do so would be ignoring fact and past practices. Yet I do not view them as evil either. RRKen wrote:It cost them money to ship grain (or the price the elevator was lower because of transportation), as well, they had contracts just in case the market that year went belly up. Now, they can sell they grain to the local ethanol plant, and get a better price without having to pay shipping costs associated with other markets. Prices are usually .15 to .20 cents higher than other markets. So how can they not afford to? good for them, bad for everyone else. that's okay I guess, for them. I have no idea of what you are trying to say. Is it that the producer has no right to make a buck, to seek higher payments for what he has grown? The same can be applied to other industries too. RRKen wrote:And what about other markets? Well they just have to ante up or go out of business. And that is just the point. Demand is up world wide, not just in the U.S. either. Other producing countries have the same opportunity to sell their grain if they are competitive. Do you think for one moment a farmer in North Iowa will sell his grain for less just because other countries cannot compete? Would you? The answer to both questions is, of course not. Who profits? Everyone involved from the producer, the marketer, and the processor. what's the point? that poor countries that don't have uncle sam subsidizing their crop will have to "up the ante?" Or that american consumers woudl have to pay more so your buddies can make more money? do other producing countries have an opportunity or will the same farmers who push for trade protection on everything they can't produce as well as other countries push for the same subsidies that protect them in such markets as cotton or sugar which they dump on the open market? I realize you have a lot of farm friends, but it seems somewhat contradictory to me for your to espouse the free market and competition but then turn around and praise farm welfare be it in the form of ethanol, parity, or tariffs. Who praised it? I was stating fact, that both the consumer, who in most markets pays less for E-10 than Unleaded clear, even considering the lost BTU's does ok, and producers get better prices at the plant. They did not have to import oil to run their vehicle. Ethanol replaced a product, MTBE that spoiled groundwater when leaked. As far as my "buddies", they have weathered many years of production with low prices. In 2001, they sold corn for less than it cost to produce. It put many other producers in a tight spot financially. Since we do no longer produce sugar beets out this way, I have no idea the impact of those programs. Same holds true for rice and cotton. Besides, they are not used for ethanol production. Overall, ADM's fourth-quarter profit rose 18 percent, as compared to the same quarter of the previous year -- a substantial rise but not quite enough to make Wall Street analysts gush forth with Exxon comparisons. I never drink water. I'm afraid it will become habit-forming. W. C. Fields I never met a Moderator I liked Reply RRKen Member sinceMay 2004 From: Mason City, Iowa 901 posts Posted by RRKen on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 9:52 AM Way of the Wolf wrote: Coal and oil are not renewable which means that in time we will run out. If we don't have an alternative fuel what do we do then?As far as the ethenol operations cutting into our economy, and other nations, I can say that up here in Pennsylvania there are a lot of farmland growing weeds and I am sure that is pretty true across the nation.Not true at all unless you are talking about conservation acreage. http://users.dwx.com/~kcschmidt/Jan_07/Glennville_MN.jpg Not all land is tillable. That includes wetlands, low ground, and natural topography. Even in the most productive areas of corn production, some producers will use buffer zones instead of "fence post to fence post" practices. http://users.dwx.com/~kcschmidt/Jan_07/Farmland_a.jpg By installing drainage, some low lands can become productive, however it depends on the producer to make that choice. Most like to have buffer or CRP land to encourage wildlife such as pheasant. It is my personal opinion that more land can be set aside for conservation or buffers as they make great places for absorbtion and prohibit certain run-offs. I believe this can be done without a significant impact on crop numbers, and may improve yields. In looking at the local numbers, there was still ample crop to divide between ethanol and other uses such as exports, although we were left with much less carry over than in previous years. With the current expansion of new plants, the carry over from previous crop years may become a thing of the past, and the current practice of crop rotation may also change with some producers and I have previously mentioned in other posts. But in my opinion, the sky is not falling. I never drink water. I'm afraid it will become habit-forming. W. C. Fields I never met a Moderator I liked Reply penncentral2002 Member sinceMay 2006 From: Richmond, VA 200 posts Posted by penncentral2002 on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 9:37 AM Given ADM's history with regard to price fixing and anti-trust violations (remember the choice quote "our competitors are our friends, our customers are the enemy"?), I don't think that their percentage of market share tells the full story of their influence in the market place. Zack http://penncentral2002.rrpicturearchives.net/ Reply 1234 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Tharmeni wrote: This thread is a good argument for not posting any topic that is "OT". Do they discuss railroads on the Ethanol forums? I suspect not. Let's get back to railroading.
This thread is a good argument for not posting any topic that is "OT". Do they discuss railroads on the Ethanol forums? I suspect not. Let's get back to railroading.
Or you could merely go skip this and go on to a rail-releated thread that strikes your fancy.
Your choice.
There have been a bunch of similar articles recently in a bunch of newspapers. I guess it is the easiest story this week to hype.
Just to hit on some of the items brought up on this chat:
Prices of corn used by Mexicans has increased dramatically in recent weeks, even though the corn used by Mexicans to make tortillas is white corn, not the yellow corn used in the US. The only reason it is rising is because the markets are color blind for the corn. White corn prices are tied to yellow corn prices, even though the supply of white corn has not changed.
The US still stores more grain than they use. Now they just store less.
$350 billion sent to people who hate us could be redirected to fuels we make here as alternatives are developed.
I doubt any growers are crying that the prices they get are too high, and I also doubt that anyone who could grow corn is not going to grow more just because they might actually get more money for the crops.
Coal isn't going anywhere. There is a 300 year supply in the US. We have more than the rest of the planet. We could use it better. Lots of people are working on just that.
The big cost for anything new is the startup. Have to build the infrastructure. Big oil and our "friends" overseas get nervous when prices approach the point where alternatives look more attractive. They can't eat the stuff and can't produce their own food. They may have gone too far last year. The issue has not dropped with the falling prices for fuel. Might even see real progress in growing the alternative market this time. People and industry are showing real interest in the hybrid and alternative fuel car market, even if the price of the car does not show an economic benefit to the individual (pay more for the car than you save, but it is the principal of sticking it to the man!!!)
I did say for the record, that other programs are something which I cannot speak to, and not a part of this threads topic.
And in your closing quote, you bring up big bad ADM again. Well what about Lyle & Tate? ConAgra? Deere & Co.? Cargill? DeBruce Grain? CHS? FCStone, LLC? KMA Consulting? Lubrizol? Union Pacific? Arent Fox PLLC? CoBank? WR Grace? They all contribute to the sin of Ethanol. They and others should be targeted as well. Lets not leave any guilty party out as long as we are pointing fingers.
RRKen wrote: Do you even understand how the farm program works for producers?
not as much as you do, but I do understand a few things.
Even though Donald R. Matthews put his sprawling new residence in the heart of rice country, he is no farmer. He is a 67-year-old asphalt contractor who wanted to build a dream house for his wife of 40 years. Yet under a federal agriculture program approved by Congress, his 18-acre suburban lot receives about $1,300 in annual "direct payments," because years ago the land was used to grow rice...Matthews is not alone. Nationwide, the federal government has paid at least $1.3 billion in subsidies for rice and other crops since 2000 to individuals who do no farming at all, according to an analysis of government records by The Washington Post....The checks to Matthews and other landowners were intended 10 years ago as a first step toward eventually eliminating costly, decades-old farm subsidies. Instead, the payments have grown into an even larger subsidy that benefits millionaire landowners, foreign speculators and absentee landlords, as well as farmers...Most of the money goes to real farmers who grow crops on their land, but they are under no obligation to grow the crop being subsidized. They can switch to a different crop or raise cattle or even grow a stand of timber -- and still get the government payments. The cash comes with so few restrictions that subdivision developers who buy farmland advertise that homeowners can collect farm subsidies on their new back yards.
Even though Donald R. Matthews put his sprawling new residence in the heart of rice country, he is no farmer. He is a 67-year-old asphalt contractor who wanted to build a dream house for his wife of 40 years.
Yet under a federal agriculture program approved by Congress, his 18-acre suburban lot receives about $1,300 in annual "direct payments," because years ago the land was used to grow rice...
Matthews is not alone. Nationwide, the federal government has paid at least $1.3 billion in subsidies for rice and other crops since 2000 to individuals who do no farming at all, according to an analysis of government records by The Washington Post.
...
The checks to Matthews and other landowners were intended 10 years ago as a first step toward eventually eliminating costly, decades-old farm subsidies. Instead, the payments have grown into an even larger subsidy that benefits millionaire landowners, foreign speculators and absentee landlords, as well as farmers...
Most of the money goes to real farmers who grow crops on their land, but they are under no obligation to grow the crop being subsidized. They can switch to a different crop or raise cattle or even grow a stand of timber -- and still get the government payments. The cash comes with so few restrictions that subdivision developers who buy farmland advertise that homeowners can collect farm subsidies on their new back yards.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/01/AR2006070100962.html
EDEN, Md. -- Roger L. Richardson, a vigorous 72-year-old who grows corn on 1,500 acres of prime Eastern Shore farmland, had a good year in 2005. Thanks to smart planning, shrewd investing and a little luck, he grossed a healthy $500,000 for his crop.But the federal government treated him as if he needed help and paid him $75,000...Since September, the program has cost taxpayers $4.8 billion.
EDEN, Md. -- Roger L. Richardson, a vigorous 72-year-old who grows corn on 1,500 acres of prime Eastern Shore farmland, had a good year in 2005. Thanks to smart planning, shrewd investing and a little luck, he grossed a healthy $500,000 for his crop.
But the federal government treated him as if he needed help and paid him $75,000...Since September, the program has cost taxpayers $4.8 billion.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/02/AR2006070200691.html
Weeks later, de Boer was startled to learn that he was one of hundreds of East Texas ranchers entitled to up to $40,000 in disaster compensation from the federal government, even though the nearest debris landed 10 to 20 miles from his cattle.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/17/AR2006071701237.html
need i go on? why do you think it's okay to subsidize a crop that encourages farmers to grow too much, then dump it on the world market and send smaller economies into a tailspin and their farmers into starvation? because they've never done anything for us? why woudl they do anything for us when folks like you just want to screw them?
RRKen wrote: I can almost assure you that the producers who got payments last year, will not this year due to market prices... Also, I state again, the farmer is not setting the price of commodities. It is simple supply and demand plus transportation. Any farmer who sells his grain for a better price cannot be faulted. If he chooses the local ethanol plant, so be it. And if he is a member/investor of the plant, it becomes a win-win situation. ADM has nothing to do with his decision, as I said in a previous post, ADM is only 18% of the total production, and only markets for a few other small plants. ADM does not influence Eco-Energy, Renewable Products Marketing Group, Murex, or the other ethanol marketing companies. Instead, the compete for each and every contract with petroleum distributors.
ADM may not influence other companies, but they do influence uncle sam, which has made them obscenely rich. just so there is no misunderstanding that the market for ethanol is subdized:
The "blender" buys gasoline and ethanol at their "rack" (wholesale) prices and blends them. The blender then gets the 51¢ credit for each gallon of ethanol purchased. Hence, if the wholesale price of ethanol is $3.51 and the bender gets a $0.51 subsidy, the blender figures the ethanol really costs only $3.00. So we save $0.51 because the blender passes on a lower price of ethanol, but we have to pay the $0.51 subsidy in our taxes, so it's just the same as if the ethanol really did cost $3.51 and there were no subsisdy.The subsidy for ethanol production is $0.51/gallon, plus a small-producers credit of $0.10/gallon for producers of up to 60 million gallons per year (up from 30 with new energy bill). This is reported in the CRS Issue Brief for Congress, IB10041, Energy Tax Policy, June 17, 2005, page 14. The total subsidy per year is estimated at $1.49 billion for FY2005 and rising.
http://zfacts.com/p/63.html
RRKen wrote:I have no idea of what you are trying to say. Is it that the producer has no right to make a buck, to seek higher payments for what he has grown? The same can be applied to other industries too.
he has a right, just not the right to sell at subsidized prices and then claim it's market demand.
RRKen wrote: Who praised it? I was stating fact, that both the consumer, who in most markets pays less for E-10 than Unleaded clear, even considering the lost BTU's does ok, and producers get better prices at the plant. They did not have to import oil to run their vehicle. Ethanol replaced a product, MTBE that spoiled groundwater when leaked. As far as my "buddies", they have weathered many years of production with low prices. In 2001, they sold corn for less than it cost to produce. It put many other producers Reply OldBNfan Member sinceJuly 2006 43 posts Posted by OldBNfan on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 11:24 AM I've been burning corn to heat my house for the last four years, saving $100's of dollars a year versus propane (I live in Michigan). Since corn burns so cleanly compared to fossil fuels, does anyone know if we've ever tried corn in a coal boiler? Reply RRKen Member sinceMay 2004 From: Mason City, Iowa 901 posts Posted by RRKen on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 10:40 AM Suburban Station wrote: RRKen wrote: I personally get quite tired of folks spouting off about ADM and ethanol, without knowing what percentage they hold in the market. They only account for 18% of the total production as of today. what's your point? ADM, Monsanto, et al will undoubtedly benefit the most. just as 85% of farm subsidies go to agribusiness. as if we shoudl be paying for their farms to begin with. let's not bring up folks living in nyc and DC who receive farm welfare. Do you even understand how the farm program works for producers? I can almost assure you that the producers who got payments last year, will not this year due to market prices. RRKen wrote:While ADM has been the largest single company involved in Ethanol since the 1970's, they hardly control the market today. The industry has added billions of dollars of new revenue that did not exist in 1999. Billions. who said it was a government conspiracy? or is that your underhanded way of discounting my point? the way the government works isn't a conspiracy, special interests are of act of life. It's always been that way in the US for better and for worse. Ethanol isn;t a sham, it's a market distorted by government subsidies. why a few farmers have benefitted, it will be companies like ADM who win out in the long run at the expense of US taxpayers. ( not that subsidizing an inefficient fuel source or paying farmers' to raise the cost of food production are good ideas). The way it read, your disdain for government was clear to me, they are working behind the scenes to screw the consumer. I will not argue that there is a lot of behind the scenes arm twisting on Capital Hill, and always has been, not just for agriculture either. Also, I state again, the farmer is not setting the price of commodities. It is simple supply and demand plus transportation. Any farmer who sells his grain for a better price cannot be faulted. If he chooses the local ethanol plant, so be it. And if he is a member/investor of the plant, it becomes a win-win situation. ADM has nothing to do with his decision, as I said in a previous post, ADM is only 18% of the total production, and only markets for a few other small plants. ADM does not influence Eco-Energy, Renewable Products Marketing Group, Murex, or the other ethanol marketing companies. Instead, the compete for each and every contract with petroleum distributors. I will not hang a halo on ADM, to do so would be ignoring fact and past practices. Yet I do not view them as evil either. RRKen wrote:It cost them money to ship grain (or the price the elevator was lower because of transportation), as well, they had contracts just in case the market that year went belly up. Now, they can sell they grain to the local ethanol plant, and get a better price without having to pay shipping costs associated with other markets. Prices are usually .15 to .20 cents higher than other markets. So how can they not afford to? good for them, bad for everyone else. that's okay I guess, for them. I have no idea of what you are trying to say. Is it that the producer has no right to make a buck, to seek higher payments for what he has grown? The same can be applied to other industries too. RRKen wrote:And what about other markets? Well they just have to ante up or go out of business. And that is just the point. Demand is up world wide, not just in the U.S. either. Other producing countries have the same opportunity to sell their grain if they are competitive. Do you think for one moment a farmer in North Iowa will sell his grain for less just because other countries cannot compete? Would you? The answer to both questions is, of course not. Who profits? Everyone involved from the producer, the marketer, and the processor. what's the point? that poor countries that don't have uncle sam subsidizing their crop will have to "up the ante?" Or that american consumers woudl have to pay more so your buddies can make more money? do other producing countries have an opportunity or will the same farmers who push for trade protection on everything they can't produce as well as other countries push for the same subsidies that protect them in such markets as cotton or sugar which they dump on the open market? I realize you have a lot of farm friends, but it seems somewhat contradictory to me for your to espouse the free market and competition but then turn around and praise farm welfare be it in the form of ethanol, parity, or tariffs. Who praised it? I was stating fact, that both the consumer, who in most markets pays less for E-10 than Unleaded clear, even considering the lost BTU's does ok, and producers get better prices at the plant. They did not have to import oil to run their vehicle. Ethanol replaced a product, MTBE that spoiled groundwater when leaked. As far as my "buddies", they have weathered many years of production with low prices. In 2001, they sold corn for less than it cost to produce. It put many other producers in a tight spot financially. Since we do no longer produce sugar beets out this way, I have no idea the impact of those programs. Same holds true for rice and cotton. Besides, they are not used for ethanol production. Overall, ADM's fourth-quarter profit rose 18 percent, as compared to the same quarter of the previous year -- a substantial rise but not quite enough to make Wall Street analysts gush forth with Exxon comparisons. I never drink water. I'm afraid it will become habit-forming. W. C. Fields I never met a Moderator I liked Reply RRKen Member sinceMay 2004 From: Mason City, Iowa 901 posts Posted by RRKen on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 9:52 AM Way of the Wolf wrote: Coal and oil are not renewable which means that in time we will run out. If we don't have an alternative fuel what do we do then?As far as the ethenol operations cutting into our economy, and other nations, I can say that up here in Pennsylvania there are a lot of farmland growing weeds and I am sure that is pretty true across the nation.Not true at all unless you are talking about conservation acreage. http://users.dwx.com/~kcschmidt/Jan_07/Glennville_MN.jpg Not all land is tillable. That includes wetlands, low ground, and natural topography. Even in the most productive areas of corn production, some producers will use buffer zones instead of "fence post to fence post" practices. http://users.dwx.com/~kcschmidt/Jan_07/Farmland_a.jpg By installing drainage, some low lands can become productive, however it depends on the producer to make that choice. Most like to have buffer or CRP land to encourage wildlife such as pheasant. It is my personal opinion that more land can be set aside for conservation or buffers as they make great places for absorbtion and prohibit certain run-offs. I believe this can be done without a significant impact on crop numbers, and may improve yields. In looking at the local numbers, there was still ample crop to divide between ethanol and other uses such as exports, although we were left with much less carry over than in previous years. With the current expansion of new plants, the carry over from previous crop years may become a thing of the past, and the current practice of crop rotation may also change with some producers and I have previously mentioned in other posts. But in my opinion, the sky is not falling. I never drink water. I'm afraid it will become habit-forming. W. C. Fields I never met a Moderator I liked Reply penncentral2002 Member sinceMay 2006 From: Richmond, VA 200 posts Posted by penncentral2002 on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 9:37 AM Given ADM's history with regard to price fixing and anti-trust violations (remember the choice quote "our competitors are our friends, our customers are the enemy"?), I don't think that their percentage of market share tells the full story of their influence in the market place. Zack http://penncentral2002.rrpicturearchives.net/ Reply 1234 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Suburban Station wrote: RRKen wrote: I personally get quite tired of folks spouting off about ADM and ethanol, without knowing what percentage they hold in the market. They only account for 18% of the total production as of today. what's your point? ADM, Monsanto, et al will undoubtedly benefit the most. just as 85% of farm subsidies go to agribusiness. as if we shoudl be paying for their farms to begin with. let's not bring up folks living in nyc and DC who receive farm welfare.
RRKen wrote: I personally get quite tired of folks spouting off about ADM and ethanol, without knowing what percentage they hold in the market. They only account for 18% of the total production as of today.
what's your point? ADM, Monsanto, et al will undoubtedly benefit the most. just as 85% of farm subsidies go to agribusiness. as if we shoudl be paying for their farms to begin with. let's not bring up folks living in nyc and DC who receive farm welfare.
Do you even understand how the farm program works for producers? I can almost assure you that the producers who got payments last year, will not this year due to market prices.
RRKen wrote:While ADM has been the largest single company involved in Ethanol since the 1970's, they hardly control the market today. The industry has added billions of dollars of new revenue that did not exist in 1999. Billions. who said it was a government conspiracy? or is that your underhanded way of discounting my point? the way the government works isn't a conspiracy, special interests are of act of life. It's always been that way in the US for better and for worse. Ethanol isn;t a sham, it's a market distorted by government subsidies. why a few farmers have benefitted, it will be companies like ADM who win out in the long run at the expense of US taxpayers. ( not that subsidizing an inefficient fuel source or paying farmers' to raise the cost of food production are good ideas).
RRKen wrote:While ADM has been the largest single company involved in Ethanol since the 1970's, they hardly control the market today. The industry has added billions of dollars of new revenue that did not exist in 1999. Billions.
who said it was a government conspiracy? or is that your underhanded way of discounting my point? the way the government works isn't a conspiracy, special interests are of act of life. It's always been that way in the US for better and for worse. Ethanol isn;t a sham, it's a market distorted by government subsidies. why a few farmers have benefitted, it will be companies like ADM who win out in the long run at the expense of US taxpayers. ( not that subsidizing an inefficient fuel source or paying farmers' to raise the cost of food production are good ideas).
The way it read, your disdain for government was clear to me, they are working behind the scenes to screw the consumer. I will not argue that there is a lot of behind the scenes arm twisting on Capital Hill, and always has been, not just for agriculture either. Also, I state again, the farmer is not setting the price of commodities. It is simple supply and demand plus transportation. Any farmer who sells his grain for a better price cannot be faulted. If he chooses the local ethanol plant, so be it. And if he is a member/investor of the plant, it becomes a win-win situation. ADM has nothing to do with his decision, as I said in a previous post, ADM is only 18% of the total production, and only markets for a few other small plants. ADM does not influence Eco-Energy, Renewable Products Marketing Group, Murex, or the other ethanol marketing companies. Instead, the compete for each and every contract with petroleum distributors.
I will not hang a halo on ADM, to do so would be ignoring fact and past practices. Yet I do not view them as evil either.
RRKen wrote:It cost them money to ship grain (or the price the elevator was lower because of transportation), as well, they had contracts just in case the market that year went belly up. Now, they can sell they grain to the local ethanol plant, and get a better price without having to pay shipping costs associated with other markets. Prices are usually .15 to .20 cents higher than other markets. So how can they not afford to? good for them, bad for everyone else. that's okay I guess, for them.
RRKen wrote:It cost them money to ship grain (or the price the elevator was lower because of transportation), as well, they had contracts just in case the market that year went belly up. Now, they can sell they grain to the local ethanol plant, and get a better price without having to pay shipping costs associated with other markets. Prices are usually .15 to .20 cents higher than other markets. So how can they not afford to?
good for them, bad for everyone else. that's okay I guess, for them.
I have no idea of what you are trying to say. Is it that the producer has no right to make a buck, to seek higher payments for what he has grown? The same can be applied to other industries too.
RRKen wrote:And what about other markets? Well they just have to ante up or go out of business. And that is just the point. Demand is up world wide, not just in the U.S. either. Other producing countries have the same opportunity to sell their grain if they are competitive. Do you think for one moment a farmer in North Iowa will sell his grain for less just because other countries cannot compete? Would you? The answer to both questions is, of course not. Who profits? Everyone involved from the producer, the marketer, and the processor. what's the point? that poor countries that don't have uncle sam subsidizing their crop will have to "up the ante?" Or that american consumers woudl have to pay more so your buddies can make more money? do other producing countries have an opportunity or will the same farmers who push for trade protection on everything they can't produce as well as other countries push for the same subsidies that protect them in such markets as cotton or sugar which they dump on the open market? I realize you have a lot of farm friends, but it seems somewhat contradictory to me for your to espouse the free market and competition but then turn around and praise farm welfare be it in the form of ethanol, parity, or tariffs.
RRKen wrote:And what about other markets? Well they just have to ante up or go out of business. And that is just the point. Demand is up world wide, not just in the U.S. either. Other producing countries have the same opportunity to sell their grain if they are competitive. Do you think for one moment a farmer in North Iowa will sell his grain for less just because other countries cannot compete? Would you? The answer to both questions is, of course not. Who profits? Everyone involved from the producer, the marketer, and the processor.
what's the point? that poor countries that don't have uncle sam subsidizing their crop will have to "up the ante?" Or that american consumers woudl have to pay more so your buddies can make more money? do other producing countries have an opportunity or will the same farmers who push for trade protection on everything they can't produce as well as other countries push for the same subsidies that protect them in such markets as cotton or sugar which they dump on the open market? I realize you have a lot of farm friends, but it seems somewhat contradictory to me for your to espouse the free market and competition but then turn around and praise farm welfare be it in the form of ethanol, parity, or tariffs.
Who praised it? I was stating fact, that both the consumer, who in most markets pays less for E-10 than Unleaded clear, even considering the lost BTU's does ok, and producers get better prices at the plant. They did not have to import oil to run their vehicle. Ethanol replaced a product, MTBE that spoiled groundwater when leaked. As far as my "buddies", they have weathered many years of production with low prices. In 2001, they sold corn for less than it cost to produce. It put many other producers in a tight spot financially.
Since we do no longer produce sugar beets out this way, I have no idea the impact of those programs. Same holds true for rice and cotton. Besides, they are not used for ethanol production.
Overall, ADM's fourth-quarter profit rose 18 percent, as compared to the same quarter of the previous year -- a substantial rise but not quite enough to make Wall Street analysts gush forth with Exxon comparisons. I never drink water. I'm afraid it will become habit-forming. W. C. Fields I never met a Moderator I liked Reply RRKen Member sinceMay 2004 From: Mason City, Iowa 901 posts Posted by RRKen on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 9:52 AM Way of the Wolf wrote: Coal and oil are not renewable which means that in time we will run out. If we don't have an alternative fuel what do we do then?As far as the ethenol operations cutting into our economy, and other nations, I can say that up here in Pennsylvania there are a lot of farmland growing weeds and I am sure that is pretty true across the nation.Not true at all unless you are talking about conservation acreage. http://users.dwx.com/~kcschmidt/Jan_07/Glennville_MN.jpg Not all land is tillable. That includes wetlands, low ground, and natural topography. Even in the most productive areas of corn production, some producers will use buffer zones instead of "fence post to fence post" practices. http://users.dwx.com/~kcschmidt/Jan_07/Farmland_a.jpg By installing drainage, some low lands can become productive, however it depends on the producer to make that choice. Most like to have buffer or CRP land to encourage wildlife such as pheasant. It is my personal opinion that more land can be set aside for conservation or buffers as they make great places for absorbtion and prohibit certain run-offs. I believe this can be done without a significant impact on crop numbers, and may improve yields. In looking at the local numbers, there was still ample crop to divide between ethanol and other uses such as exports, although we were left with much less carry over than in previous years. With the current expansion of new plants, the carry over from previous crop years may become a thing of the past, and the current practice of crop rotation may also change with some producers and I have previously mentioned in other posts. But in my opinion, the sky is not falling. I never drink water. I'm afraid it will become habit-forming. W. C. Fields I never met a Moderator I liked Reply penncentral2002 Member sinceMay 2006 From: Richmond, VA 200 posts Posted by penncentral2002 on Tuesday, January 30, 2007 9:37 AM Given ADM's history with regard to price fixing and anti-trust violations (remember the choice quote "our competitors are our friends, our customers are the enemy"?), I don't think that their percentage of market share tells the full story of their influence in the market place. Zack http://penncentral2002.rrpicturearchives.net/ Reply 1234 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
Way of the Wolf wrote: Coal and oil are not renewable which means that in time we will run out. If we don't have an alternative fuel what do we do then?As far as the ethenol operations cutting into our economy, and other nations, I can say that up here in Pennsylvania there are a lot of farmland growing weeds and I am sure that is pretty true across the nation.
Coal and oil are not renewable which means that in time we will run out. If we don't have an alternative fuel what do we do then?
As far as the ethenol operations cutting into our economy, and other nations, I can say that up here in Pennsylvania there are a lot of farmland growing weeds and I am sure that is pretty true across the nation.
Not true at all unless you are talking about conservation acreage. http://users.dwx.com/~kcschmidt/Jan_07/Glennville_MN.jpg Not all land is tillable. That includes wetlands, low ground, and natural topography. Even in the most productive areas of corn production, some producers will use buffer zones instead of "fence post to fence post" practices. http://users.dwx.com/~kcschmidt/Jan_07/Farmland_a.jpg By installing drainage, some low lands can become productive, however it depends on the producer to make that choice. Most like to have buffer or CRP land to encourage wildlife such as pheasant. It is my personal opinion that more land can be set aside for conservation or buffers as they make great places for absorbtion and prohibit certain run-offs. I believe this can be done without a significant impact on crop numbers, and may improve yields.
In looking at the local numbers, there was still ample crop to divide between ethanol and other uses such as exports, although we were left with much less carry over than in previous years. With the current expansion of new plants, the carry over from previous crop years may become a thing of the past, and the current practice of crop rotation may also change with some producers and I have previously mentioned in other posts. But in my opinion, the sky is not falling.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.