To: delacoert
"You say, "$40 a ton or so," when feed stock was reported as $30 to $40 a ton, so it's more like "$30 a ton or so." (That nuance has a 20% favorable effect on the numbers.)"
I must be missing something here. If they pay $40 a ton for feedstock, the production cost would be higher than if they paid $30 a ton. I was assuming the worst case scenario for production costs, not the best. Still, you think the assumptions in the article I linked to were out of whack, you need to go back to the 2002 article where they estimated production costs of $15 a barrel after subsidies. It may not be snake oil, but the guy who sold this to the investors must have been a heck of a talker. Still, even at $90 a barrel, or a more realistic $100, they are only one big attack on a Saudi oil facility away from turning a profit.
Mind you, I won't rush out and invest my money in this project, but if someone wants to risk their own money on it, I would certainly wish them success. The day may be coming when poultry producers have to pay big bucks to treat and then landfill their waste as the market for offal as feed may be regulated out of existence. If oil prices stay above $50 a barrel, that alone could push this process into profitability. I sure would appreciate it if Congress would keep my tax money entirely out of the equation, though.
To: Law is not justice but process
I sure would appreciate it if Congress would keep my tax money entirely out of the equation, though. Me too.
114 posted on
05/07/2005 10:24:58 PM PDT by
delacoert
(imperat animus corpori, et paretur statim: imperat animus sibi, et resistitur. -AUGUSTINI)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson