Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I wonder if anyone has done or will do a study of the potentially adverse impact these subsidies have done to land in the upper widwest? For those who don't see it everyday. There is an ongoing drive to put more and more land under the plow to take advantage of elevated crop prices. Land that untill now has been considered substandard is being cleared off, tiled, terraced or otherwise made suitibale to plant. The impact to the pheasant population is obvious to anyone who hunts the bird. Of course on the other hand excavating, tileing companies etc are going like gangbusters! Particulary now with the easy winter we are seeing up here....
That's understood but in this case it's the government manipulating the market that makes it prosper or fail and companies are forced into making these investments. If we take Exxon for example they have been forced into investing into equipment because of the mandate. While there investment is now subsidized they are unwilling participants because they have fought against ethanol since it started. If the government removes the mandate they are left holding the bag.
Taking this a step further when we consider voluntary investment let's consider this quote from an Exxon CEO:
“If I wanted to kill [tax subsidies], the thing to do is for Exxon Mobil to go and invest heavily in them and then Congress would immediately cancel the tax subsidy. Actually what they would do is they would just cancel it for us,” said Mr.Tillerson, during the annual analyst meeting at the New York Stock Exchange.
He added: “In reality, that is what I fear would happen. So we are not going to go into investments that are dependent on a government providing a tax system to make them viable.”
You have the largest private energy company in the world with huge resources and knowledge unwilling to move into any fields where tax breaks make them profitable. This makes sense to have them on the sidelines?
I'll note that since this quote was made Exxon has made substantial investment into algae, if I remember correctly their initial investment was 600 million and 10X what the US government has spent. You can bet they have done some extensive research and have concluded ti doesn't require government involvement to make it profitable. If you want even yet another angle this product has to compete with heavily subsidized ehtanol....
So, our tax dollars are being indirectly used to subsidize investors? Gee...who would'a thunk that?:roll eyes:
It obvious subsidies help investors but that is not my point. My point is they have made this investment with a promise from our government it will be subsidized or their will be a market for it. If the government reneges on that promise it's really not their fault when the investment becomes worthless.
Yeah Jon Bon Jovi pays nothing on his land in NJ cause he raises bees. LOL
I believe that is same type program they have set up here in PA called Clean and Green. I support it because it's an excellent way to preserve rural areas, you can take land and place it into this program for a reduced property tax rate. There is a lot rules, once the land is in this program there is a very narrow set of the things you can do with it like open it up to public space, agriculture etc. If you use it for profit within the set of guidelines it has to produce X amount per acre so you can't just let it set idle either.
If you want to develop it in the future or sell it to someone who wants to develop it for things outside of this very narrow scope of things you're liable for the back taxes for the last seven years. It's a huge penalty to get it out of this program once it's enrolled.
That's understood but in this case it's the government manipulating the market that makes it prosper or fail and companies are forced into making these investments. If we take Exxon for example they have been forced into investing into equipment because of the mandate. While there investment is now subsidized they are unwilling participants because they have fought against ethanol since it started. If the government removes the mandate they are left holding the bag.
Taking this a step further when we consider voluntary investment let's consider this quote from an Exxon CEO:
You have the largest private energy company in the world with huge resources and knowledge unwilling to move into any fields where tax breaks make them profitable. This makes sense to have them on the sidelines?
I'll note that since this quote was made Exxon has made substantial investment into algae, if I remember correctly their initial investment was 600 million and 10X what the US government has spent. You can bet they have done some extensive research and have concluded ti doesn't require government involvement to make it profitable. If you want even yet another angle this product has to compete with heavily subsidized ehtanol....
Exxon isn't run by a bunch of dummies. Algae has a very promising future. They sure don't plan on sitting on the sidelines watching somebody else make money off it. Meanwhile the green boondoggle marches on with the solar panel, wind farm nonsense paid for by the taxpayers.
I believe that is same type program they have set up here in PA called Clean and Green. I support it because it's an excellent way to preserve rural areas, you can take land and place it into this program for a reduced property tax rate. There is a lot rules, once the land is in this program there is a very narrow set of the things you can do with it like open it up to public space, agriculture etc. If you use it for profit within the set of guidelines it has to produce X amount per acre so you can't just let it set idle either.
If you want to develop it in the future or sell it to someone who wants to develop it for things outside of this very narrow scope of things you're liable for the back taxes for the last seven years. It's a huge penalty to get it out of this program once it's enrolled.
Back in the mid nineties they started up a direct payment program that was supposed to wean folks off the gubmnt dole. As with most government programs it has outlived its lifetime and just continues on and is now another entitlement handed out to the tune of about 5 billion a year. It basically drives up the price of land and makes it harder for the small guy to expand or new guys to get in.
I just learned something today which explains why we're exporting ethanol to Brazil. I did not know this, and I suspect others don't either, so here it is:
Corn ethanol can't meet California's environmental standards, so Brazil has been exporting theirs to California and selling it at a premium price. Our own ethanol producers are back-filling Brazil's market to replace what they're exporting.
I just learned something today which explains why we're exporting ethanol to Brazil. I did not know this, and I suspect others don't either, so here it is:
Corn ethanol can't meet California's environmental standards, so Brazil has been exporting theirs to California and selling it at a premium price. Our own ethanol producers are back-filling Brazil's market to replace what they're exporting.
Now it makes sense.
ROFL...... nice find, apparently they have. The feedstock for ethanol in the US is corn which is not very productive compared to other feedstocks like sugar cane. There is very few growing areas in the US suitable for the feedstocks like sugar cane.
Quote:
California Approves Standard
Jan. 13 (Bloomberg) -- California regulators approved a carbon fuel standard yesterday that the U.S. ethanol industry says will bar domestic forms of the fuel from being used in the nation’s largest fuel-consuming state.
The state’s Office of Administrative Law yesterday approved the implementation of the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, or LCFS, which aims to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions. The regulations will count the emissions created when corn is planted, harvested and ground into fuel as part of ethanol’s carbon output.
This reminds me of how they have reduced sulfur emissions in coal plants, lower sulfur western coal and higher sulfur eastern coal literally pass each other on railways and barges heading west and east.
Last edited by thecoalman; 12-30-2011 at 11:52 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
