Posted on 01/19/2016 12:47:48 PM PST by Nervous Tick
Donald Trump said Tuesday that federal regulators should increase the amount of ethanol blended into the nationâs gasoline supply.
Speaking at an event hosted by the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association, Trump, a real estate mogul and the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, said the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ought to follow the ethanol volumes Congress set in 2007.
âThe EPA should ensure that biofuel ... blend levels match the statutory level set by Congress under the [renewable fuel standard],â Trump said. The mandate is popular in Iowa, which hosts the nation's first caucuses.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
1932.....Mein Kamph
Becoming clearer by the minutes it seems to many, including myself.
They would never admit it......
That right there is a much bigger Problem for us than Ethanol and no one is talking more about it.
WE WANT TOTAL REPEAL......Day One of Ted Cruz's presidency among many many others. DAY ONE.....boom out of there.
I see Annie has left the building, turning the lights out now.....end of thread
It was a joke - for Pete’s sake. Cruz people need to lighten up.
He’s pandering for votes. IMHO, that’s on the basis of Cruz MUST win Iowa to stay in contention, so if Trump can defeat him there, Cruz will lose a lot of momentum and go back to Rubio levels. Before he can recover (if he can recover), Trump will have a commanding lead in delegates.
That said, I agree 100% with Cruz - alcohol belongs in a bottle, not in a gas tank. Using corn for fuel boosts food prices worldwide, and the alcohol isn’t any good for most engines (and virtually NO small engines). The ethanol mandate was ALWAYS about getting the farm vote, and should be ditched.
Indeed he is. We Constitutional Conservatives have been trying to warn people of this very type of thing, but they simply dig in their heels and refuse to listen. I truly do not understand it!
THANK YOU!! Best post here. I was loosing all faith in FR before that!
How about ditching the EPA and spending it on American Oil? We produce more than the Saudis. Of all the countries we import from we import the most from Canada.
-----------
When I hear statements like this I wonder if people know anything about the oil business. Do I know a lot? No. But I think I am on sound footing to know that American oil seems to cost more to extract than Saudi oil. At a certain dollar level American oil does not pay.
I know the oil patch, I may not be an economist, but people came up here to North Dakota from all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and from as far away as Liberia and Nigeria to work in the US oil patch. That money got spent, mostly in the US. The local economy boomed, and that reached from North Dakota to Texas, to industries in PA and California.
Spend it there (Saudi, etc.) and some one will buy a few slave girls and a silver (not the color, the metal) Mercedes.
You tell me what's better for America.
How is American made corn oil exporting to the Saudis?
That isn't the oil business I am in. Frankly, I do not understand your question.
I think you misread my point. As long as the Saudis have oil below a certain dollar amount then some oil wells in America will not be profitable at that level unless they are subsidized. That is what I was stating.
This isn't farming.
I'm just saying that if we use our own, our economy does well.
If we use theirs, we fund terrorism.
They may be selling it cheaply, but they are messing up their economy doing it and hoping they can outlast us (and the Russians).
For us, though, sometimes a lower price means a higher cost.
Where is the big economic boon from cheaper gasoline?
Gross domestic product expanded at a glacial 0.7% annual rate in the fourth quarter, down from gains of 2% in Q3 and 3.9% in Q2, the Commerce Department said Friday.
from U.S. Economy Ran Out Of Gas In Q4; Will Consumers Spend In 2016?
It doesn't seem to be present. US oil drilling dropped off by roughly 70% from 4th quarter 2014 to 4th quarter 2015. Maybe that had a ripple effect that helped cause the slump.
-----
I agree - but to use our own oil without subsidies is hard when oil is cheap. Maybe technology will make it cheaper to extract in the states.
To drill and complete some of the earlier Bakken wells was profitable at $40, but leases were substantially cheaper then.
When things got going, by 2010 there was a shift from the older, static rigs (had to be rigged down and reassembled at the next wellhead) and isolated wells (one well per drilling location) to pad wells (4 to eight wells drilled from a single pad) and 'walking' rigs--rigs that could move without taking them apart.
That cut downtime between wells from 2 weeks to 2 days, saved a lot of money on earthwork, had a smaller environmental footprint, and saved the cost of bringing in crews to rig down and rig up again for each of the wells on the pad.
Considering a rig move cost about 250K at the time, the savings on a 4 well pad was 750K or more, just in the rig move crew costs alone. (Of course, that wasn't a good deal for companies who specialize in moving rigs).
Drilling 9500 +/- ft. in the productive strata didn't hurt (especially when those layers are sometimes as little as 4-6 ft. thick), and the drilling (with casing strings) costs went from about 5 million to 3.5 million.
Completion costs varied, but were reduced to about 4 million dollars. (that's the cost of hydraulic fracturing, surface equipment, lines, valves, treaters, separators, and holding tanks, plus gas feeder pipelines to take raw wellhead gas to processing facilities).
Much of that drilling cost reduction came from increased drill rates, from 500 ft. a day at the start to 3000 ft. a day more recently.
So total well costs went from about 10 million to under 8 million.
I expect those costs will drop further as service company rates become more competitive.
It is a buyers market when in decline, a sellers market when expanding.
But the price of oil isn't set by the seller, it is set in the futures market by the buyers (and some speculators, granted).
That price depends on global supply and demand. With the current global economic malaise, demand is down, and with Iran, Libya, and ISIS selling oil along with everyone else, the supply exceeds demand.
There have been calls for OPEC meetings to cut back their production, but that has failed to happen.
Just today, the article Saudis to look at economy diversification due to oil price crash was posted, so ours isn't the only part of the oil patch that's hurting, and the Saudis heavily subsidize their economy (and have been putting a significant dent in their treasure continuing those subsidies) from oil revenues.
I expect US oil exploration will remain slower until we see oil pass $50, and pick up around $65 to $75/bbl.
Until then, most of us will be looking for other work to get by.
While there will be auctions of equipment and vehicles for dimes on the dollar, when you aren't sure when the flow of dollars will resume, you get pretty tight with your savings. Unless you can see where you can make money with something, you hang on to your money.
The effect is that vehicle fleet and truck purchases, along with heavy equipment are down and will lag the resurgence when it comes.
A lot will be scrapped, eventually, especially older equipment or equipment that cannot be refit to drill pad wells without complete rig downs.
The only way an acceptable price floor on oil might be set would be to place a sliding tariff on imported crude, which would phase out at a floor price. That would raise the price of imported crude oil to a floor price, which would be stable as a bottom price for domestic oil, and even select countries oil as well.
Recall, of all the countries we import oil from, we get the most from Canada.
The problem with that, although it would enable the development of considerably more resources (enough to survive without imports outside North America), is that the increase in price would cause hardship for those who would not benefit from the higher price, directly or indirectly.
At the same time, though, the tariff (which would be a Constitutional revenue means) would put money in the Federal Coffers which could be earmarked for anything from infrastructure to paying down the debt.
It would have to be carefully considered, and I can't say I support the idea, even though I find it personally attractive because it could enhance my income.
The Federal Government needs some discipline when it comes to spending, and the reduction in size and scope thereof would be getting back to what the Founders intended.
Fiscal responsibility has not been the Government's strong suit.
Good info thanks.
You’re Welcome.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.