|
|
Post by Glenn on Feb 13, 2011 13:31:13 GMT -6
FROM THE CATTLE REPORT:
DARK INVADER
We were told last week that Dark Invader, an unknown network of hackers, cracked computer security at major oil companies opening their datastores to infiltration and intelligence gatherings. Government computers have been a frequent target of espionage and nowhere would the information be more revealing than USDA. Dark Invader could mine information that would keep Wikileaks in business for years to come.
A hint of what is going on was disclosed this week when Secretary Vilsack was asked if he were concerned about the skyrocketing prices of corn. He replied he was not concerned and he comforted the questioner by asserting their was plenty of corn for food, feed, ethanol and other uses. This of course was consistent with other statements by the Secretary that have led the nation to conclude either that he is the dumbest Secretary of Agriculture to ever serve or he is a simply a puppet of an administration that was elected in part by strong financial support from the ethanol industry.
Dark Invader would find within the Department of Agriculture other views more conformed to rational thought. A hint of the intense debate within the Department was made public this week when a chief USDA economist was asked about the low corn stocks at a commodity conference in Florida. Reuters reported that Chief USDA economist Joe Glauber said ethanol demand is the major factor in the tightening of corn supplies and increase in price. He said there is no room for stocks to drop any lower.
USDA has now been accused of tweaking the numbers so stock reports are not as bad as reality. Future ethanol use and export estimates are minimized during this crisis. USDA in the past has not resorted to manipulating the numbers to manage the problem. Food has long been a national security issue and assuring a plentiful supply of food at affordable prices a legitimate goal of government policy. For years USDA held large corn stocks on storage at private grain elevators throughout the country much the same as the strategic petroleum underground storage today. USDA would release corn or other commodities from storage when national stocks were threatened.
Today there exists no government supplies of grain to release in an emergency. Abundant supplies created in the 1980s and 1990s caused government officials make the decision that those emergency stores of grain were unnecessary. Ethanol mandates and subsidies have proven that decision to be a big mistake. The ethanol mission of reducing our dependence on foreign oil has run amok. Today the government subsidies are so generous that U.S. ethanol producers are shipping ethanol to Europe and undercutting European suppliers.
The debate within the Department of Agriculture is how do they protect the food supply when stocks are dangerously low and a drought in the corn belt could leave the country without grain. Dark Invader will find inside USDA the debate hinging on those dealing in the real world of a looming crisis and those political forces from an unreal world that only seeks to create a false reality backed by spin and smoke and mirrors. Outside the Department of Agriculture is the world of commerce forced to deal with the ramifications of bad public policy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Glenn on Feb 13, 2011 14:50:36 GMT -6
LOL.....I bet some of you thought this thread might be about BLACK HEREFORDS!!!!!!
That would be a good name for a Black Hereford.....Black Invader......
|
|
|
|
Post by Glenn on Feb 13, 2011 17:23:48 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by smnherf on Feb 15, 2011 6:28:50 GMT -6
There is alot I disagree with the article and I don't know the author but he makes a lot of assumptions not based on reality of the big picture.
The USDA doesn't need to do anything. Let the market do its job of allocate the corn to the best end use of it. The biggest mistake USDA can do is manipulate the numbers and tell the market that there is more corn out there than there really is thus holding price down artificially.
We are expected to plant 93 million acres of corn this next growing season. Unless mother nature throws a huge wrinkle into production, there will be plenty of corn for feed, food, and ethanol. The american farmer when provided the right compensation can and will do a great job at responding to the market.
|
|
|
|
Post by Glenn on Feb 15, 2011 9:52:41 GMT -6
Ethanol is a boondoggle and will soon be abandoned by the wishy-washy politicians as a few votes in Iowa, Nebraska, and South Dakota will not compensate for the anger in the rest of America over higher and higher food costs.
|
|
|
|
Post by smnherf on Feb 15, 2011 12:34:29 GMT -6
Ethanol is not the reason for higher food prices in the world. Lots and lots of other factors.
|
|
|
|
Post by Glenn on Feb 15, 2011 12:48:48 GMT -6
Lots of factors and the Ethanol boondoggle is a big one.
Don't worry, the politicians are wising up as we type!
|
|
|
|
Post by smnherf on Feb 15, 2011 13:10:21 GMT -6
Actually it has very little to do with higher food prices. What
makes you believe it is? Using "politicians and wising up" in the same sentence is kind of an oxymoron.
|
|
|
|
Post by Glenn on Feb 15, 2011 13:34:06 GMT -6
Hee-Hee. You can sit there and talk your book all you like but as the story unfolds and the politicians kick ethanol to the curb don't act too surprised!
|
|
|
|
Post by smnherf on Feb 15, 2011 13:55:59 GMT -6
So you wouldn't recommend me to go out and buy an E-85 car then?
|
|
|
|
Post by Glenn on Feb 15, 2011 14:04:02 GMT -6
Honestly, I think the future is NGV. The shale gas plays from all over the US are a "game changer".
Of course, your world is different than mine. I am sure E15 is everywhere up there. We only have the 10% junk here. I can't think of a single station in my metro aread (150,000+ people) where you could possibly find E15.
In Utah where you can find a NG fueling station, NG is about 89 cents a gallon on an equivalency basis.
I don't mean to come off like a jerk, and I sure don't mind the farmer making more money. I just think there have been too many sources saying that without the tax subsidy that the ethanol plants get that they would mostly be boarding up the doors.
|
|
|
|
Post by smnherf on Feb 16, 2011 6:15:10 GMT -6
E15 isn't available here. Most all carry E10 and we are starting to see more and more stations carrying E30 and E85. I beleive that E10 will be replaced by E15 as an oxygenate in gas which reduces air pollution and smog in larger metro areas. It replaced the oxygenate MTBE which was leaking into groundwater.
I agree that natural gas resources should be developed. Why isn't that happening already? But NG has its problems too. There is about 135 million cars on the road and converting them to NG isn't very cost effective, plus safety is an issue too. 10% and now 15% ethanol can be used with no modifications. It wont be 89 cents either if you double demand.
You have to be very careful of your sources. How much does your sources say that ethanol is subsidized at in either $/Bu or $/gallon?
Lots and lots of misinformation and outright lies have been printed about ethanol. I am willing to write more about it if people are willing to listen. I don't intend to waste my time arguing with someone I don't know who seems to have his mind made up though.
For starters how many people know that the American Grocers Association and some other organizations hired a big PR firm to develope a campaing designed to blame ethanol for the higher food prices that occured in 2009 so that they could raise food prices and not be blamed for it. They did lots of bogus research that reached erronious conclusions by leaving out important facts such as no value of the byproduct, or did research that was based on the idea that all corn was irrigated. The idea of ethanol causing the runnup in higher food prices has been shredded by countless studies since then. But you wont hear the correction on the news though.
|
|
|
|
Post by George on Feb 16, 2011 10:43:42 GMT -6
Our local DFW "car guy", Ed Wallace, has been saying for quite a while now that 15% ethanol in the gas is going to ruin most car engines and create a huge problem. He says there is already proof where they didn't get the ethanol mixed properly and got more than 10% in it where it has ruined engines. Here's one article he wrote for BusinessWeek: www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/dec2010/bw20101221_927461.htm |
|
|
|
Post by Glenn on Feb 16, 2011 10:47:54 GMT -6
Another of the "hidden costs" that the Ethanol Cheerleaders want to ignore.
|
|
|
|
Post by George on Feb 17, 2011 15:45:40 GMT -6
Another of the "hidden costs" that the Ethanol Cheerleaders want to ignore. If I was a corn grower, I'm sure I'd be an ethanol cheerleader too! Since I have the Barnett Shale running under my property, I'm a very biased proponent of natural gas. Unfortunately, the price of natural gas cratered before they drilled on my place - or I'd be having a lot more fun in the cattle business - even at these low prices! ;D Politically, I'm about as dead center as a person can get. I've always viewed Ed Wallace as being much the same way. He's always presented his facts in a well thought out and well documented way and never showed a particular bias toward any political party or philosophy. One thing certain that Ed knows is cars and the car business. If he says the increased ethanol has created problems and is going to create significantly more engine problems in the future, I believe him. I can't afford to trade cars every time the warranty is going to expire - and a repair bill that runs into the thousands of dollars isn't something I want to pay - when it can be avoided. |
|
|
|
Post by Glenn on Feb 17, 2011 19:03:31 GMT -6
What'd you spend all that Lease Bonus money on? Lots of land down there was leased for $5000 per acre.
If I had land in Erath county. On the next round I would hold out for $5K + 27.5% RI. In the "old days" an "Eighth" was standard and all you would ever get but now days "A Quarter" is pretty standard and can be had very easily and from there it is a small negotiation to 27.5%.
Lots of Haynesville went for 27.5%. And wow the lease bonuses there were 10-15-20-25K per acre.
|
|
|
|
Post by George on Feb 17, 2011 23:14:45 GMT -6
What'd you spend all that Lease Bonus money on? Lots of land down there was leased for $5000 per acre. If I had land in Erath county. On the next round I would hold out for $5K + 27.5% RI. In the "old days" an "Eighth" was standard and all you would ever get but now days "A Quarter" is pretty standard and can be had very easily and from there it is a small negotiation to 27.5%. Lots of Haynesville went for 27.5%. And wow the lease bonuses there were 10-15-20-25K per acre. I don't think any Erath County land leased for $5000 an acre - although I heard that some in the eastern part of the county leased for $750 - $800 an acre - and 22.5/25%. The really high lease prices were in Johnson and Tarrant Counties. Me - I became debt-free! After the unexpected change in my wife's health, I'm sure thankful I took that route. |
|
|
|
Post by smnherf on Feb 18, 2011 8:41:11 GMT -6
Our local DFW "car guy", Ed Wallace, has been saying for quite a while now that 15% ethanol in the gas is going to ruin most car engines and create a huge problem. He says there is already proof where they didn't get the ethanol mixed properly and got more than 10% in it where it has ruined engines. Here's one article he wrote for BusinessWeek: www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/dec2010/bw20101221_927461.htmI keep losing what I type every time I try to ad a link. So for the 3rd time I dont' know Ed Wallce nor do I care about his politics. Left, right center makes no difference to me as there are people in all camps that are for or against ethanol. All I care about is his objectivity. Is he a mechanic or does he know anything about automotive engineering? It looks like he has been bashing ethanol for a long long time now. It is human nature to not want to change your mind about certain subjects no matter how much information has changed once you first came to your conclusion. I have to wonder if he isn't in this camp. THe ethanol industry has come a long ways in the last 10 years. THey have gone from 2.5 gal/bu to 2.8 gl/bu industry ave. where some plants are now getting near 3.0 gl/bu while using 30% less energy and 50% less water than origninally. These guys who continually parrot the negative messages never mention this nor is it accounted or in the biased studys that they parrot. The idea that E15 will ruin most car engines is a blatant falsehood. Every car since 2001 has been built with components in their fuel pumps, fuel lines and fuel tanks that are resistant to ethanol. Just because a fuel pump that failed had ethanol in the pump doe not make it true that the ethanol caused the failure. This conclusion makes me question his ability to think critically. Unless the pumps were taken to a clinician or engineer that is trained in diagnosing why the pump failed he is absoluely jumping to conclusions. We bought a slightly used tractor last winter that the camshaft went bad before we got it to the first field. Should I blame the fuel, the oil, or the operator. Pumps are a mechanical device and sometime they go bad for lots of reasons. I know of lots and lots of people who have burnt higher than 10% ethanol in their cars over the past years and have not had any trouble. Here is some information from Motor Trend wot.motortrend.com/report-e15-ethanol-blend-has-few-adverse-effects-on-older-vehicles-9604.htmlAnd I will edit it to include this information. www.zarco66.com/news.html |
|
|
|
Post by Glenn on Feb 18, 2011 9:02:28 GMT -6
>>The idea that E15 will ruin most car engines is a blatant falsehood. Every car since 2001 has been built with components in their fuel pumps, fuel lines and fuel tanks that are resistant to ethanol. <<
That makes no sense. Sounds like something the corn lobby put out. It is not the ethanol that ruins the engines. It is it's hygroscopic properties.
>>A common example where difference in this hygroscopic property can be seen is in a paperback book cover. Often, in a relatively moist environment, the book cover will curl away from the rest of the book. The unlaminated side of the cover absorbs more moisture than the laminated side and increases in area, causing a stress that curls the cover toward the laminated side. This is similar to the function of a bi-metallic strip. Inexpensive gauge-type hygrometers frequently seen domestically make use of this principle.
The similar-sounding but unrelated word hydroscopic is sometimes used in error for hygroscopic. A hydroscope is an optical device used for making observations deep under water.<<
|
|
|
|
Post by Glenn on Feb 18, 2011 9:06:14 GMT -6
And from the report you listed: >>An independent research study conducted by automotive engineering consulting firm Ricardo for the Renewable Fuels Association finds E15 blend fuel (15 percent ethanol, 85 percent gasoline) will have few unfavorable effects on vehicles from the 1994 to 2000 model years. Read more: wot.motortrend.com/report-e15-ethanol-blend-has-few-adverse-effects-on-older-vehicles-9604.html#ixzz1EK5lrJ2n<<Key words: FOR THE RENEWABLE FUELS ASSOCIATION. I bet Old Ricard knew who was buttering his bread. FEW. What the hay? Talk about vague. The only thing certain is that few means that there WAS SOME DAMAGE. "1994 to 2000 year model autos" Yeah nobody drives anything older than that. Also leaves out all the small motors on lawnmowers, weedeaters, BOATS, ect... Bogus. |
|
|
|
Post by George on Feb 18, 2011 10:12:14 GMT -6
I dont' know Ed Wallce nor do I care about his politics. Left, right center makes no difference to me as there are people in all camps that are for or against ethanol. All I care about is his objectivity. Is he a mechanic or does he know anything about automotive engineering? Brian, Ed Wallace is a former car salesman/sales manager who has been doing his "auto-based" radio show for about 20 years. I think he has about 35 years experience, total, in the automotive business. What he has at his disposal is probably the very elite group of new car dealers in the DFW metroplex, who sponsor his show, and countless other contacts in the automotive industry that he has developed over the years - including mechanics, car company executives, etc....etc. I don't think there's anyone that has better resources and access to all facets of the automotive industry - the ability to check the pulse of what is going on "in the trenches" of that industry. And Ed usually gets it right! I can't think of an issue, in the car industry, where he hasn't been on top of the issue and ultimately proven correct in his assessment. For instance, he's been saying that the well reported Toyota acceleration problem was going to be determined as bogus claims and driver errors for a LONG time now -despite all of the initial reports in the press - and that is what is NOW coming out. I'm usually out and about on Saturday mornings, so I get to listen to at least part of his weekly radio show - and have for many years. Ed's proven himself to be a man of integrity, to me, so I'm going to defer to his judgment here - an area where he's an expert and I'm not. I'm definitely not a "car-guy" - cars and trucks are simply a tool to me. I listen to Ed because he provides much more than car news in his radio broadcasts. They're entertaining! All I want is the ability to make a choice of whether I put ethanol in my car engines. Given that choice, I won't. |
|
|
|
Post by Glenn on Feb 18, 2011 10:24:04 GMT -6
Can you find Ethanol free gas down there? Almost impossible up here.
|
|
|
|
Post by George on Feb 18, 2011 10:38:28 GMT -6
Can you find Ethanol free gas down there? Almost impossible up here. I always try to avoid filling up in the metroplex, as they have the mandated ethanol there. I've been told the gasoline doesn't always contain ethanol here in this area. If the bulk of what I've heard about this, via Ed's radio show, is correct - the 10% isn't a huge problem unless you're unfortunate enough to get a higher mix. It's the higher percentage that's going to be the engine wrecker. When I'm in the metroplex and forced to fill up there, I try to gas up before my tank is half empty. And I vary the places I buy gasoline at - in an effort to avoid getting a huge dose of a high ethanol mix. I'm also glad my most heavily used pickup is a diesel. I made the mistake of getting one fill of biodiesel when going out to Ken's. Damn truck didn't run right until I refilled. I'll try to avoid doing that again! |
|
|
|
Post by smnherf on Feb 20, 2011 18:48:45 GMT -6
And from the report you listed: >>An independent research study conducted by automotive engineering consulting firm Ricardo for the Renewable Fuels Association finds E15 blend fuel (15 percent ethanol, 85 percent gasoline) will have few unfavorable effects on vehicles from the 1994 to 2000 model years. Read more: wot.motortrend.com/report-e15-ethanol-blend-has-few-adverse-effects-on-older-vehicles-9604.html#ixzz1EK5lrJ2n<<Key words: FOR THE RENEWABLE FUELS ASSOCIATION. I bet Old Ricard knew who was buttering his bread. FEW. What the hay? Talk about vague. The only thing certain is that few means that there WAS SOME DAMAGE. Bogus. Your response is pretty telling. Two post in 25 minutes. Did you even read it or check out the sources? You probably got to reneweble fuels association and it ended there. Ricardo isn't a person. It is a top notch engineering firm. Firms like that carry a lot more weight with me than some former car saleman turned radio host in TX. From their website. Ricardo is a leading global multi-industry engineering provider of technology, product innovation and strategic consulting. With almost a century of innovation and automotive heritage to its name, Ricardo has been responsible for many breakthrough technologies and products that have transformed the way we live today Here is the link to the actual study as proof to what the artilcle said in Motor Trend magazine. It was provided in the article that I linked to, unlike any of the sources that guys like Ed Wallace ever do after making their bogus claims. www.ricardo.com/Documents/PRs%20pdf/PRs%202010/FE405%20E15%20Summary%20Presentation%2015Sept10.pdf Go to page 11 for a chart on fuel system component compatibility with e10 vs E15 |
|
|
|
Post by Glenn on Feb 20, 2011 18:53:50 GMT -6
Naturally, no response to my points. Just a semi-veiled jab at me! LOL!
But you're damned right I pretty much stopped when I saw who was paying for the report. Like I said a person or organization knows where its bread is buttered!
|
|
