[biofuel] Fwd: Re: CALL TO ACTION- USDA CUTTING SUPPORTFORBIODIESEL PRODUCTION
>To: >From: "Appal Energy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 00:14:32 -0500 >Subject: Re: [biofuel] Re: [biofuels-biz] CALL TO ACTION- USDA >CUTTING SUPPORTFORBIODIESEL PRODUCTION >Reply-To: biofuels-biz@yahoogroups.com > >Keith, > >I appreciate your addressing the major, periphery and subsurface >issues that you have with Mr. Noyes, bringing them to the front. >I've seen few able to put the issues in such concise perspective. >Certainly short-windedness is not always a demonstrated virtue >here. > >My personal assessment of your response is that Mr. Noyes should >be either slightly taken aback or not exactly pleased with a >rebut of such dynamic proportions, or both. >Unfortunately, there is a bit more to the entire realm of market >forces and structural fabric behind oilseed production, and the >largely similar forces that impede the acceptance and expedited >distribution of biodiesel into a market with a curiously >insatiable appetite, than a simple farm or fuel subsidy can >redress. > >Perhaps someone should make mention of how his own firm has in >the recent past attempted to manipulate and take advantage of >small producers or firms preparing to go into production. Last >year World Energy extended to us an "offer" of $0.85 per gallon >once we were in production. The pipeline price for >petroleum diesel that week was $0.92 a gallon.. > >At the very same moment, World Energy was brokering biodiesel to >markets 2,600 miles distant, where the end user price was $2.50 - >$3.00 a gallon. > >During the same conversation the attempt was made to sway us away >from self-distribution of biodiesel, as the "paperwork and >legalities of such a practice are enormous and it would be a >considerably burdensome task in comparison to aligning with an >established distributor" (paraphrased). What the representative >from World Energy did not know during his >"presentation" was that we were already aware of the outside >costs of the regulation/paperwork that accompanies the >distribution of biodiesel, whether for on-road and off-road use. > >Using only the >$0.07 difference between the pipeline price of petroleum diesel >at the time and World Energy's offer of $0.85, the increased cost >of distributing on-road biodiesel ourselves could be quickly >covered within 30 - 45 days. The remainder of the year would >yield profits going to our coffers rather than theirs, not to >mention another $80,000 and more in annual profit derived from >local bulk and retail distribution at a price less than or equal >to market price for petroleum diesel, rather than selling all >inventory to such a distributor. > >It's rather easy to put the disparities that came out of that >conversation into a few simple points. > >1) World Energy at that time was less interested in paying a fair >market value for biodiesel than in garnering exceedingly high >margins. > >2) World Energy was at that time more interested in acquiring >inexpensive product to distribute than representing honestly the >relative ease with which biodiesel can be distributed. > >3) World Energy did not and does not hesitate to distribute >market wide (nation wide) in an energy inefficient manner if a >profit can be >made. > >While Mr. Noyes may not be privy to such practices or may not >perceive them for the detriment that they represent, the rest of >the market is not so easily hoodwinked. > >Granted, it will take some time for biodiesel to make much of a >dent in a 57,000,000,000 gallon per year market in distillate >fuel oils. And biodiesel could use all the help it can get. But >the practices exhibited by many of the "major players" in >biodiesel do nothing but support exhorbitant end user prices and >a slower market acceptance and uptake of biodiesel. > >If Mr. Noyes, World Energy and the soy councils really want to >see biodiesel become capable of going head to head with petroleum >diesel, the long term answer does not lay in strengthened >subsidies of oilseed or finished fuel product. The answer lays >with streamlining or removing costs resulting from too many >opportunists in middle-marketing, focusing on regional markets >rather than distant markets that increase distribution and end >user costs, and removal of petroleum fuel subsidies so that all >players in the field of liquid fuels are operating from a >free-market, true-cost foundation >(the "level playing field"). > >Energy subsidies under present and traditional practice are a >con. They're a shell game. One way or another consumers pay for >all fuel that is introduced into the market, through the combined >sum of the end-user price and a myriad of tax appropriations >initiated from every conceivable angle. > >Just because this activity keeps the pump price of liquid fuels >fictitiously low in the public's eye does not mean that consumers >don't ante up the entire balance of the cycle costs and more, as >administrative costs to collect and distribute those tax dollars >which effectively subsidize petrol
[biofuel] WVO Moisture Content
Hi, I am a student of mechanical engineering at Glasgow (UK) University. I have been interested in alternative technologies and specially biodiesel production for a few years now, and I am about to begin a project to design a dehydrator for waste vegetable oil. To do this I need some data on moisture content of wvo. Does anyone have such data or know where I can get it? Thanks very much James Higgs Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Sell a Home for Top $ http://us.click.yahoo.com/RrPZMC/jTmEAA/jd3IAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] WVO Moisture Content
On Fri, 8 Nov 2002 22:02, you wrote: > Hi, > I am a student of mechanical engineering at Glasgow (UK) University. > I have been interested in alternative technologies and specially > biodiesel production for a few years now, and I am about to begin a > project to design a dehydrator for waste vegetable oil. To do this I > need some data on moisture content of wvo. Does anyone have such data > or know where I can get it? > Thanks very much > James Higgs > I have extracted from 5 litres to 20 litres from 210 litre batch (depends how many chips are fresh-cooked I suspect) Doug Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] Fw: Engineering site of interest
- Original Message - From: "Arlos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 09:36 Subject: Engineering site of interest Here is a great forum for those with a bit more science and engineering background. . http://www.eng-tips.com/. Arlos Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Home Selling? Try Us! http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/jd3IAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Re: [biofuels-biz] CALL TO ACTION- USDA CUTTING SUPPORTFORBIODIESEL PRODUCTION
Hi Todd This is very interesting. MM, you get your answer at last, if not from Mr Noyes. >Keith, > >I appreciate your addressing the major, periphery and subsurface >issues that you have with Mr. Noyes, bringing them to the front. >I've seen few able to put the issues in such concise perspective. >Certainly short-windedness is not always a demonstrated virtue >here. > >My personal assessment of your response is that Mr. Noyes should >be either slightly taken aback or not exactly pleased with a >rebut of such dynamic proportions, or both. I guess so. I'm certainly not trying to annoy him, but I would like some answers and haven't had very many, just more things to question. Now I really want some substantiation of his allegations that large quantities of poor-quality homebrew have caused problems that have given biodiesel a bad name and so on: "I have seen home-brewed biodiesel cause problems in multiple locations and it has taken significant efforts to undo the damage. One region of the country in particular had large quantities of homegrown off-spec fuel that was being sold and distributed. The use of biodiesel was substantially delayed in this area until trust for the fuel was re-established." Etc. Has anybody here heard any hint or inkling of this? Anything at all to add? Or is it just an apocryphal tale, an industry myth, as I suspect, based on ignorance and prejudice? If industry holds and puts about such myths, then they're even more responsible than I thought for the division between industry and the "grassroots biodiesel movement" that Mr Noyes decries, and for biodieselers' distrust of them. Yes, I think Mr Noyes was a bit taken aback. I get the impression that industry, or at least some within the industry, tend to stereotype us somewhat, and the stereotype way misses the mark. We're not the sloppy bunch Mr Noyes apparently expected. I do hope he takes it to heart and takes the opportunity to educate himself a bit now on the "informal sector" rather than withdrawing, prejudices intact. But I'm not holding my breath. Anyway, Todd, if he's annoyed with me I don't think he's going to be exactly delighted with you. Well, he should be able to defend himself, eh? Thanks for this information. Should World Energy even be referring to itself as part of the biodiesel industry? Just a trading company, no? "Capitalism, not Corporatism" - yes, indeed! And an END to the second dressing itself up as the first. Regards Keith >Unfortunately, there is a bit more to the entire realm of market >forces and structural fabric behind oilseed production, and the >largely similar forces that impede the acceptance and expedited >distribution of biodiesel into a market with a curiously >insatiable appetite, than a simple farm or fuel subsidy can >redress. > >Perhaps someone should make mention of how his own firm has in >the recent past attempted to manipulate and take advantage of >small producers or firms preparing to go into production. Last >year World Energy extended to us an "offer" of $0.85 per gallon >once we were in production. The pipeline price for >petroleum diesel that week was $0.92 a gallon.. > >At the very same moment, World Energy was brokering biodiesel to >markets 2,600 miles distant, where the end user price was $2.50 - >$3.00 a gallon. > >During the same conversation the attempt was made to sway us away >from self-distribution of biodiesel, as the "paperwork and >legalities of such a practice are enormous and it would be a >considerably burdensome task in comparison to aligning with an >established distributor" (paraphrased). What the representative >from World Energy did not know during his >"presentation" was that we were already aware of the outside >costs of the regulation/paperwork that accompanies the >distribution of biodiesel, whether for on-road and off-road use. > >Using only the >$0.07 difference between the pipeline price of petroleum diesel >at the time and World Energy's offer of $0.85, the increased cost >of distributing on-road biodiesel ourselves could be quickly >covered within 30 - 45 days. The remainder of the year would >yield profits going to our coffers rather than theirs, not to >mention another $80,000 and more in annual profit derived from >local bulk and retail distribution at a price less than or equal >to market price for petroleum diesel, rather than selling all >inventory to such a distributor. > >It's rather easy to put the disparities that came out of that >conversation into a few simple points. > >1) World Energy at that time was less interested in paying a fair >market value for biodiesel than in garnering exceedingly high >margins. > >2) World Energy was at that time more interested in acquiring >inexpensive product to distribute than representing honestly the >relative ease with which biodiesel can be distributed. > >3) World Energy did not and does not hesitate to distribute >market wide (nation wide) in an energy inefficient mann
[biofuel] Re: BP chief fears US will carve up Iraqi oil riches
Message: 21 Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 21:12:30 -0500 From: "Steve Spence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Re: BP chief fears US will carve up Iraqi oil riches the USA is a democratic Republic. Not a true democracy. Steve Spence What's the difference? Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Re: BP chief fears US will carve up Iraqi oil riches
If I'm remembering my high school Govt. class ( over 15 years ago ) properly, in a democracy everybody has a direct vote for the leaders. In a republic, representatives of the people elect the leaders. And in a democratic republic like ours, the people elect the delegates that then elect the leaders. This is why even when a presidential candidate wins the popular vote, he can still lose the election, because he did not have an enough votes from the electoral collage (the delegates chosen by the people to cast the electoral ballot). Absolutely nothing says that the delegate elected by the people has to cast their ballot for the person that the people elected him them to vote for. Greg H. - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 10:56 Subject: [biofuel] Re: BP chief fears US will carve up Iraqi oil riches > > Message: 21 >Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 21:12:30 -0500 >From: "Steve Spence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Re: BP chief fears US will carve up Iraqi oil riches > > the USA is a democratic Republic. Not a true democracy. > > Steve Spence > > > What's the difference? > > > > > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > > Biofuels list archives: > http://archive.nnytech.net/ > > Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. > To unsubscribe, send an email to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Ethanol
>List-member Ken Provost has done very good work with ethyl-esters, >and he's just sent me a how-to. Lucky you. Hopefully I'll upload it >to Journey to Forever later today, so be sure to come back tomorrow, >I'll anounce it here with a link. Here it is: http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_link.html#ethylester See "Ethanol-based Biodiesel". Thanks again Ken! Best Keith Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Was BP now Direct Democracy
TDate: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 21:12:30 -0500 From: "Steve Spence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Re: BP chief fears US will carve up Iraqi oil riches the USA is a democratic Republic. Not a true democracy. Steve Spence What's the difference? The USA and most other democracies are Representative Democracy. ie. You vote for your representative once every 4/5 yrs. Once elected, Government does not consult the electorate on policy decisions, which is why we're not moving to sustainable practices nearly fast enough. (the vested interests having profound influence on govt policy decisions) I'm working on another model, Direct Democracy. This is based on internet voting, where any issue can be selected and a referendum can be held at any time. If we the people can unite on the internet, then just maybe we can start to influence government policy. James Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [biofuel] Digest Number 1192
Tim, In response to your post: From: "Tim Castleman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Mr. Noyes Please, answer at least one of Keiths questions "Can you give us some details of farmer-based coops producing biodiesel for sale for on-road use?" The two largest ones (and two of the largest biodiesel producers) are: Ag Processing Inc (AGP) is a farmer-owner cooperative; engaged in the procurement, processing, marketing, and transportation of grains and grain products. www.agp.com and West Central Soy is the manufacturing division of West Central Cooperative, a central Iowa agricultural cooperative. West Central is owned by more than 3,500 farmer customers in west central Iowa. West Central products are processed at the manufacturing complex in Ralston, IA. Over $25 million has been invested by West Central in this modern manufacturing facility where more than six million bushels of soybeans are processed annually. Bonus question: Can you give us details of an 'industry" grade operation using WVO (Waste Veggie Oil) as its primary feedstock? The former NOPEC plant, now Ocean Air Environmental can run virgin oil or WVO and has done both at larg quantities. Lakeland, FL Double bonus question: "... biodieselers wouldn't consider having anything like an ambassador, and anyone who appointed himself as such would be laughed out of town. Or ignored. These are independent people. If you or the industry want to work with them you'll have to do a bit better than that. Have you got anything they want? What are you offering? How?" My perspective is that biodieselers and the mainstream industry have many common interests. The National Biodiesel Board is where the biodiesel industry gets together, tries to find common ground and yells at each other. We now have significant yellow grease as well as soy presence. The NBB listens to its members and its members have to listen to each other (every three months or so- next week it is in St. Louis). I think it would be helpful for everyone to have a biodieseler perspective in the mix. No solid offer, just a thought. Regards, Graham Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] RE: [biofuels-biz] Digest Number 394
Yes, yes, yes, Graham - but you've failed to answer any of the questions we raised, nor any of the questions your comments raised. Especially about this: "I have seen home-brewed biodiesel cause problems in multiple locations and it has taken significant efforts to undo the damage. One region of the country in particular had large quantities of homegrown off-spec fuel that was being sold and distributed. The use of biodiesel was substantially delayed in this area until trust for the fuel was re-established." Can you substantiate this or not? Note my comment, once again: "Really? Has anyone else here heard about this? "... large quantities of homegrown off-spec fuel". Home-brewed, you mean? Large quantities of it? Homebrewers do not make large quantities, and certainly don't sell large quantities. Please provide full details of this. It sounds like something of an industry myth to me, an apocryphal tale." So? A lot of issues were raised, and you've addressed none of them. And now, under pressure, you resort to this nonsense. No big surprise. Sad though. "I do hope he takes it to heart and takes the opportunity to educate himself a bit now on the "informal sector" rather than withdrawing, prejudices intact. But I'm not holding my breath." Yes, sad. Keith >Wow. I don't know if Keith and Todd's posts are representative of >this discussions group's perspective on the issues but they do >provide a good indication of why no one in the mainstream biodiesel >business is too interested in trying to discuss issues in this >forum. Ever consider re-naming yourself the anti-biofuels business >group? > >I originally presented this group with a notice regarding the new >regulations for the subsidy program (that will raise the market cost >for biodiesel and likely reduce demand) and a request for letters of >support. I was aware that not everyone in the group would want to >support the program or submit a letter. That's fine- classic >democracy in action, and I didn't even mind getting chastised for >suggesting that the program should be continued. > >And I heard Keith's point that I couldn't just put out such a >request for letters on a discussion group without spending more time >and energy to discuss the issues that were raised by those opposed >to the program. I did my best to respond to what I could. But I >did so not as a World Energy person but as a group member named >Graham. Keith found my resposes woefully inadequate and Todd saw a >good opportunity to trash WEA as a selfish, greedy, >environmentally-warped and devious organization. > >Look folks, World Energy is this country's largest supplier of >biodiesel. We are a small businesss comprised of good people >willing to work hard and make sacrifices to increase the use of >biodiesel and other alternative fuels. We are not out there trying >to destroy small-scale biodiesel or pursue some sinister agenda. I >still think that World Energy has done more to advance this country >toward the goals that motivate you to support biodiesel than any >other company in the country. BUT, we do live and operate in the >practical world and cannot meet the 27 principles of divine >biodiesel production and distribution that have apparently been >derived by some members of this group. AND, I cannot continue >posting to a group where my request to participate as an individual >is ignored and the company that is good enough to employ me in the >wonderful business of selling biodiesel is lambasted one day for >being too stupid to produce at .60/gallon one day and too greedy for >trying to buy at .85 the next. I may return in some other >incarnation to participate but I'm going to have to ride off into >the sunset rather than linger as a corporate lightning rod. I wish >you all the best. > >Aloha, > >Graham > >-Original Message- >From: biofuels-biz@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 6:05 AM >To: biofuels-biz@yahoogroups.com >Subject: [biofuels-biz] Digest Number 394 > > >Biofuels at Journey to Forever >http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html >Biofuel at WebConX >http://webconx.green-trust.org/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm >List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: >http://archive.nnytech.net/ >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > >There is 1 message in this issue. > >Topics in this digest: > > 1. Re: [biofuel] Re: CALL TO ACTION- USDA CUTTING >SUPPORTFORBIODIESEL PRODUCTION > From: "Appal Energy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > >Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 00:14:32 -0500 > From: "Appal Energy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: [biofuel] Re: CALL TO ACTION- USDA CUTTING >SUPPORTFORBI
[biofuel] Mideast Oil Forever?
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96apr/oil/oil.htm Mideast Oil Forever? A P R I L 1 9 9 6 Congressional budget-cutters threaten to end America's leadership in new energy technologies that could generate hundreds of thousands of high-wage jobs, reduce damage to the environment, and limit our costly, dangerous dependency on oil from the unstable Persian Gulf region by Joseph J. Romm and Charles B. Curtis [more] Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Home Selling? Try Us! http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/jd3IAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Was BP now Direct Democracy
Around 2,500 years ago during the times of Socrates and Plato, the democracies was based on cities. The governance of the city was by directly elected representatives. Important issues was put out for direct vote and that is how Socrates was sentenced to death and the reason why Plato turned against democracy. Socrates was described as a traitor for his ideas and a threat to the political existence of the democracy. The cities each had its democratic leaders and what killed the democracies was the wars between them. The conquerors of a city could not by definition be elected leaders of the conquered and the leaders of the strongest city became the the emperors of the other cities. At the end it was no longer democracy, since the only valid electorate was the original city and its followers. A story that has been repeated many times and also was the story of WWII, where an elected and popular leader set out to restore the situation before WWI. In this case the elected leader was enormously popular in his country and continued to be so until the luck started to turn against him. The predecessor to UN was dissolved because it could not continue to exist without support and respect. Now we have democracies based on countries and different organizations of appointment of governments. The only body that somewhat represent a world democracy is UN. I really hope that we can show respect this time and not repeat history. Democracy will not work, if we do not introduce it on a world wide basis and condemn any kind of occupation. Democracy must be shown at a global level to survive. The way that US and some others behave is by no definition to describe as international democracy. We must nurture and respect UN as a body at any cost, otherwise we will repeat history and democracy becomes a theatric farce. All what is happening around us now, is scaring. Why should we force Iraq to disarm and follow UN declarations, when Israel is worse and is occupying land that not belong to them. It is understandable the Arabs or Muslims feel the consequences of this kind of democracy and do not agree with the Hippocratic repetition of history. Even UN is not a suitable body, as long as some members have the right to veto decisions in an undemocratic way. Bullying and unilateral decisions are a threat to democracy. Hakan At 09:54 PM 11/8/2002 +0100, you wrote: >TDate: Thu, 7 Nov 2002 21:12:30 -0500 >From: "Steve Spence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: Re: BP chief fears US will carve up Iraqi oil riches > >the USA is a democratic Republic. Not a true democracy. > >Steve Spence > > >What's the difference? > >The USA and most other democracies are Representative >Democracy. >ie. You vote for your representative once every 4/5 yrs. >Once elected, Government does not consult the electorate on >policy decisions, which is why we're not moving to sustainable >practices nearly fast enough. (the vested interests having profound >influence on govt policy decisions) >I'm working on another model, Direct Democracy. This is based on >internet voting, where any issue can be selected and a referendum >can be held at any time. >If we the people can unite on the internet, then just maybe we can >start to influence government policy. >James > > > > >Biofuel at Journey to Forever: >http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > >Biofuels list archives: >http://archive.nnytech.net/ > >Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. >To unsubscribe, send an email to: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to >http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > > >Biofuel at Journey to Forever: >http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > >Biofuels list archives: >http://archive.nnytech.net/ > >Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. >To unsubscribe, send an email to: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuel] OT: Major LNG Projects
Once in a great while the San Diego paper will carry an update on the status of LNG projects taking place on the west side of the Baja Peninsual in Mexico. I believe that the gas comes from Australia or thereabouts, and that it does not become economical to liquify it and transport it across the ocean unless the enterprise can be expected to yield a good return at the end. http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20021107-_1b7lng.html Firms line up for LNG projects in Mexico By Diane Lindquist UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER November 7, 2002 HOUSTON ö Mexico is moving as fast as possible to approve liquefied natural gas projects, according to a top government energy official. Since the country published an emergency rule for LNG development on Aug. 2, several companies have filed for permits to build re-gasification projects, said Alejandro Brea, director of the Mexican Energy Regulatory Commission's natural gas division. Most want to build in Baja California, from Tijuana to Ensenada, he said. So far, only Marathon Oil Corp.'s application has been accepted. Other applications have been returned to the firms with requests for changes, Brea said last week at the Center for Business Intelligence's Mexican energy conference here. He declined to identify the companies seeking permits. Another commission source said, however, that Sempra Energy, which plans an LNG project near the Bajamar golf resort about 50 miles south of San Diego, is among the firms that have filed applications not yet accepted. "If the companies meet all the requirements, we perhaps will be able to issue the license within about six months," Brea said. "We hope most will go online between 2006 and 2007." The issuance of the rules moved the projects a step closer to reality. Some of the world's biggest energy companies are competing to turn the northern Baja California coast into a receiving area for natural gas imported from Asia or South America. The border location gives them the possibility of selling natural gas in the United States as well as in Mexico, where population growth is outpacing energy supplies. Most of the companies intend to sell the fuel in California, where energy supplies have fallen short in recent years. The projects are expensive wagers. Building a plant to convert liquefied fuel back to gas, storage tanks, docking facilities and pipelines can cost $500 million to $1 billion. The price of establishing an entire supply chain from distant natural gas fields to the fleet of tankers needed to transport it can reach $1 billion to $6 billion. "An LNG terminal will be the major infrastructure accomplishment of the Fox administration," said George Baker, an executive with the research firm Mexico Energy Intelligence, referring to Mexican President Vicente Fox. Because Mexico has no liquefied natural gas terminals, it needed to create rules for the facilities. The rules are not the final regulations under which the facilities will be built and operated. Instead, they're part of an emergency measure that allows for construction of storage facilities with re-gasification equipment. "We needed to trigger these projects," Brea said. Without the emergency rules, he said, "we wouldn't be able to meet the energy demands of 2006 and 2007." The permanent LNG rules are expected to be issued next year. In the meantime, the companies are being given guidelines on what is needed to put together an LNG complex, which usually takes about 31/2 years to build. Neither Brea nor corporate energy executives would release a copy of the guidelines. The rules in the August directive are based on U.S. and European liquefied natural gas standards, Brea said, but they go further to protect the safety of surrounding communities. Containment tanks, for instance, must have double walls instead of the single walls required under U.S. and European rules. In addition to dealing with Mexico's federal government, the energy companies also must obtain building, land-use and environmental permits from local jurisdictions where opposition to some of the projects is strong. Projects being considered for Baja California already have encountered resistance from critics who contend the huge complexes will damage ecologically sensitive coastline and discourage tourists from going to the region's beaches and golf courses. In addition to Marathon and Sempra, other energy companies that have announced projects for Baja California include Shell Gas & Power and a partnership between El Paso Corp. and Phillips Petroleum Co. "I couldn't say which projects will get built," said Brian D. Knezeak, a global financial offer of ANZ Investment Bank. "Maybe all four. Maybe one. Maybe they'll consolidate. But there certainly is interest about LNG in Baja." Diane Lindquist: (619) 293-1812; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Biofuel at
[biofuel] Fwd: RE: [biofuels-biz] Digest Number 394
>To: biofuels-biz@yahoogroups.com >From: James Slayden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 17:15:03 -0800 (PST) >Subject: RE: [biofuels-biz] Digest Number 394 >Reply-To: biofuels-biz@yahoogroups.com > >Graham, > >Common, that is a ridiculous statement. 'Mainstream Biodeiesel' at >present is limited to the members of the NBB, most of which are large AG >concerns based on soy. Considering that World Energy is on the NBB Board >I would say there is a great reason for you to be towing the 'Mainstream' >party line. There seems to be little representation on the NBB for other >types of feedstock processors, nor does the board itself seem to be >interested furthering the interests of anything but a soy based feedstock, >BTW which is inefficient and energy intensive from a growing standpoint, >not inclusive of the distribution channel issues. > >I think what is lacking on the NBB and it's members is the type of passion >to really apply a sustainable business practice. That is the idea that >biodiesel promotes by it's nature; sustainable, energy efficient, >renewable, economic viability, reduction of offshore oil dependency, >highly distributed, and renewable. But sucumming to the one model fits >all that the NBB promotes, it is losing site of some the better qualities >that biodiesel presents. > >I hope that you continue to present on the biofuels list, even though the >postings my ire and incite you. It is important that World Energy >understand that US Biodiesel isn't just about becoming another corporate >entity, but it is a movement of the afformentioned virtues. The DIY'ers >understand this quite well, as do the small processors and it is something >that the NBB and it's members need to focus on. > >I would suggest to you and the NBB that you open the door up for the small >processor's or there may just be another board that forms with the >concerns of WVO and alternative seed feedstock. It has happened to other >industries and may happen to this one. It would be a shame as it would >drive a wedge between the groups, but it may need to happen for things to >change. > >Regards, > >James Slayden > > > On Fri, 8 Nov 2002, Graham Noyes wrote: > > > Wow. I don't know if Keith and Todd's posts are representative of this > > discussions group's perspective on the issues but they do provide a good > > indication of why no one in the mainstream biodiesel business is too > > interested in trying to discuss issues in this forum. Ever consider > > re-naming yourself the anti-biofuels business group? > > > > I originally presented this group with a notice regarding the new > > regulations for the subsidy program (that will raise the market cost for > > biodiesel and likely reduce demand) and a request for letters of > > support. I was aware that not everyone in the group would want to > > support the program or submit a letter. That's fine- classic democracy > > in action, and I didn't even mind getting chastised for suggesting that > > the program should be continued. > > > > And I heard Keith's point that I couldn't just put out such a request for > > letters on a discussion group without spending more time and energy to > > discuss the issues that were raised by those opposed to the program. I > > did my best to respond to what I could. But I did so not as a World > > Energy person but as a group member named Graham. Keith found my > > resposes woefully inadequate and Todd saw a good opportunity to trash WEA > > as a selfish, greedy, environmentally-warped and devious organization. > > > > Look folks, World Energy is this country's largest supplier of > > biodiesel. We are a small businesss comprised of good people willing to > > work hard and make sacrifices to increase the use of biodiesel and other > > alternative fuels. We are not out there trying to destroy small-scale > > biodiesel or pursue some sinister agenda. I still think that World > > Energy has done more to advance this country toward the goals that > > motivate you to support biodiesel than any other company in the country. > > BUT, we do live and operate in the practical world and cannot meet the > > 27 principles of divine biodiesel production and distribution that have > > apparently been derived by some members of this group. AND, I cannot > > continue posting to a group where my request to participate as an > > individual is ignored and the company that is good enough to employ me in > > the wonderful business of selling biodiesel is lambasted one day for > > being too stupid to produce at .60/gallon one day and too greedy for > > trying to buy at .85 the next. I may return in some other incarnation to > > participate but I'm going to have to ride off into the sunset rather than > > linger as a corporate lightning rod. I wish you all the best. > > > > Aloha, > > > > Graham > > > > -Original Message- > > From: biofuels-biz@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 6:05 AM > >
[biofuel] Fwd: Uhhhh......Graham...... was Re: [biofuels-biz] Digest Number 394
>To: >From: "Appal Energy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 22:07:30 -0500 >Subject: U..Graham.. was Re: [biofuels-biz] Digest Number 394 >Reply-To: biofuels-biz@yahoogroups.com > >Come on Graham. That's an intentionally antagonistic statement >right out of the chute. > >All I posted was an absolutely 100% accurate statement relative >to our first and last direct contact with World Energy (along >with the general "surmise" of liquid biofuels verses liquid >petroleum fuels relative to subsidies). Perhaps you remember the >conversational context of trying to locate a regional B-100 >supplier for Mr. Harrelson's upwind leg to Seattle for his Simple >Organic Living Tour, spring 2001? > >And please, before you skip out on the rest of this, could you >post the "27 principles of divine biodiesel production and >distribution?" I've only been able to come up with a half dozen >or so of the most obvious. I must have slept through the rest of >them during biodiesel theology class years past. > >As to trashing World Energy? Where does offering less than >pipeline price for B-100 fall in line with the express need to >compete head to head with liquid petroleum fuels? Has World >Energy since structured its "offerings" to at minimum match >pipeline price? > >And where is it stated that a person is automatically >"anti-biofuels" for pointing out a few simple incongruities, >whether they be at a corporate or government level? Is this one >of those "If you're not for me you're against me" scenarios where >people are expected to walk lock-step and offer no differing >perspective, no matter what is at stake? > >Well.(ponder...ponder.) I'm sorry. Choosing to ignore >reality is neither a sound business practice nor a wise personal >decision. Biodiesel is a bit of a queer bird in the liquid >biofuels arena (not that there are many liquid biofuels), >requiring a bit more flexible and diverse mind-set than one >oriented to primarily macro-centralized production and >distribution. (That's probably the first of the 27 divine >principles you mentioned and could surely be well elaborated on >by many - including yourself - should you care to stick around.) > >No doubt part of the discourse could be a bit grating. I for one >would find it useful to know about some of the gremlins among >micro-regional biodiesel producers that have wreaked havoc in the >market with shoddy manufacture, as well as the manner in which >they accomplished this and how it was corrected. > >I can point to one local gross incidence of severe down time >accrued by ODOT road crews running biodiesel manufactured to ASTM >spec. Seems that the vendor failed to inform ODOT of the superior >solvent capacities of biodiesel, or at least the information was >not relayed to outposts and no measures were taken. Debris ridden >fuel was pumped from outpost distribution tanks into field >distribution tanks and eventually into vehicles. Needless to say >there were numerous early and extended lunches between mid to >late summer. > >Of the three ODOT employees that I know personally, each working >out of a different outpost, all express irritation coming from >the mechanics, crews and post management, all swearing up and >down that they'll be damned and go to hell before they "put that >crap in their tanks again." It should be a part of every >distributor's and delivery driver's job to put this type of >information (and more) into each customer's hands with each fuel >delivery. Hard to improve product image (goodwill) and keep a >contract with that type of negligence. > >So yes, I would by and large agree with Keith Addison that home >brewers pay a lot more attention to details than apparently some >"major players" do, with most indicators being that their fuel is >more often closer to spec than it is not - at least once they get >a handle on the situation. (Even a commercial plant has a shake >down period.) > >And yes, this probably sounds a bit like a cis- or trans- version >(mirrored version) of Mr. Addison's post. But that's about what >the biodiesel business is going to be for the next decade - Pete >and RePeteand RePeteand RePeteuntil an entire market >is "programmed" and biodiesel has a high market share. > >Todd Swearingen >Appal Energy > >- Original Message - >From: Graham Noyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: >Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 6:16 PM >Subject: RE: [biofuels-biz] Digest Number 394 > > > > Wow. I don't know if Keith and Todd's posts are representative >of this discussions group's perspective on the issues but they do >provide a good indication of why no one in the mainstream >biodiesel business is too interested in trying to discuss issues >in this forum. Ever consider re-naming yourself the >anti-biofuels business group? > > > > I originally presented this group with a notice regarding the >new regulations for the subsidy program (that will raise the >market cost for biodiesel and likely reduce demand) and
[biofuel] There's gotta be a better way Was: BP now Direct Democracy
"... somewhat represent a world democracy is UN"?? "Democracy must be shown at a global level to survive"?? Pardon if I offend anyone on this list ... but the concept of a "world democracy" makes me very nervous. It, by the way it is sometimes talked about, implies in an unsaid way the existence of a so-called "global-level government". ... to which "all" so-called "governments" must implicitly be subserveant to its "global-level rules". This would to me imply that, in the same way we in America have a City-n-County level State Government level ... and Federal Government level, there would be a new level ... a "Global" Government level. to which our "President" (Clinton/Bush/Etc) would relate as a "Governor" does to a "President". Only in this case it would be ... what .. a "Global President".?? And then what?? Would President Vladamir Putin also be a "Governor"?? Of the Russian Region?? Would Arafat be a "Governor"?? Of the Palestinian "region"?? Then countries wouldn't be countries anymore ... but only "States" (with "Governors") in a what?? A "Global Country"?? The "one-world country"?? What would happen to our illustrious document the Constitution?? I ... dunno Hakan. I see where you're coming from ... and I understand what you mean. But I'm not sure if "that's" the way to handle it. It sets a very eerie precedence. And makes me very nervous. Curtis Get your free newsletter at http://www.ezinfocenter.com/3122155/NL - Original Message - From: Hakan Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Now we have democracies based on countries and different organizations of appointment of governments. The only body that somewhat represent a world democracy is UN. I really hope that we can show respect this time and not repeat history. Democracy will not work, if we do not introduce it on a world wide basis and condemn any kind of occupation. Democracy must be shown at a global level to survive. The way that US and some others behave is by no definition to describe as international democracy. We must nurture and respect UN as a body at any cost, otherwise we will repeat history and democracy becomes a theatric farce. - Introducing NetZero Long Distance 1st month Free! Sign up today at: www.netzerolongdistance.com Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Home Selling? Try Us! http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/jd3IAA/FGYolB/TM -~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Re: [biofuels-biz] CALL TO ACTION- USDA CUTTING SUPPORTFORBIODIESEL PRODUCTION
Keith, I appreciate your addressing the major, periphery and subsurface issues that you have with Mr. Noyes, bringing them to the front. I've seen few able to put the issues in such concise perspective. Certainly short-windedness is not always a demonstrated virtue here. My personal assessment of your response is that Mr. Noyes should be either slightly taken aback or not exactly pleased with a rebut of such dynamic proportions, or both. Unfortunately, there is a bit more to the entire realm of market forces and structural fabric behind oilseed production, and the largely similar forces that impede the acceptance and expedited distribution of biodiesel into a market with a curiously insatiable appetite, than a simple farm or fuel subsidy can redress. Perhaps someone should make mention of how his own firm has in the recent past attempted to manipulate and take advantage of small producers or firms preparing to go into production. Last year World Energy extended to us an "offer" of $0.85 per gallon once we were in production. The pipeline price for petroleum diesel that week was $0.92 a gallon.. At the very same moment, World Energy was brokering biodiesel to markets 2,600 miles distant, where the end user price was $2.50 - $3.00 a gallon. During the same conversation the attempt was made to sway us away from self-distribution of biodiesel, as the "paperwork and legalities of such a practice are enormous and it would be a considerably burdensome task in comparison to aligning with an established distributor" (paraphrased). What the representative from World Energy did not know during his "presentation" was that we were already aware of the outside costs of the regulation/paperwork that accompanies the distribution of biodiesel, whether for on-road and off-road use. Using only the $0.07 difference between the pipeline price of petroleum diesel at the time and World Energy's offer of $0.85, the increased cost of distributing on-road biodiesel ourselves could be quickly covered within 30 - 45 days. The remainder of the year would yield profits going to our coffers rather than theirs, not to mention another $80,000 and more in annual profit derived from local bulk and retail distribution at a price less than or equal to market price for petroleum diesel, rather than selling all inventory to such a distributor. It's rather easy to put the disparities that came out of that conversation into a few simple points. 1) World Energy at that time was less interested in paying a fair market value for biodiesel than in garnering exceedingly high margins. 2) World Energy was at that time more interested in acquiring inexpensive product to distribute than representing honestly the relative ease with which biodiesel can be distributed. 3) World Energy did not and does not hesitate to distribute market wide (nation wide) in an energy inefficient manner if a profit can be made. While Mr. Noyes may not be privy to such practices or may not perceive them for the detriment that they represent, the rest of the market is not so easily hoodwinked. Granted, it will take some time for biodiesel to make much of a dent in a 57,000,000,000 gallon per year market in distillate fuel oils. And biodiesel could use all the help it can get. But the practices exhibited by many of the "major players" in biodiesel do nothing but support exhorbitant end user prices and a slower market acceptance and uptake of biodiesel. If Mr. Noyes, World Energy and the soy councils really want to see biodiesel become capable of going head to head with petroleum diesel, the long term answer does not lay in strengthened subsidies of oilseed or finished fuel product. The answer lays with streamlining or removing costs resulting from too many opportunists in middle-marketing, focusing on regional markets rather than distant markets that increase distribution and end user costs, and removal of petroleum fuel subsidies so that all players in the field of liquid fuels are operating from a free-market, true-cost foundation (the "level playing field"). Energy subsidies under present and traditional practice are a con. They're a shell game. One way or another consumers pay for all fuel that is introduced into the market, through the combined sum of the end-user price and a myriad of tax appropriations initiated from every conceivable angle. Just because this activity keeps the pump price of liquid fuels fictitiously low in the public's eye does not mean that consumers don't ante up the entire balance of the cycle costs and more, as administrative costs to collect and distribute those tax dollars which effectively subsidize petroleum interests are seldom included in true cost calculations. Energy subsidies for liquid fuels are patent efforts on the part of both industry and government which effectively deceive the public as to the realities of their personal energy costs and the true contribution of energy to material production costs in general. All the w
[biofuels-biz] Re: Revealed: Why Germans Oppose War in Iraq - French Fries - OT
> Anyway, US sucks , too, when it comes to biodiesel, > but at least there is a chance, expensive one, but > still there is-- join the ¤%$¤$&ed up biodiesel board > inc, and you can make and sell biodiesel. Try that in > germany-- your hair will go grey, and maybe your kids > will run the business untill you get all the permits, > lol. This is not true! The EPA and NBB did not read their own documentation.. small producers (smaller than 10million $$ per year) only have to pass an ASTM spec test, which is considerably less expensicve than qualifying for Tier1! Look further back on this list for confirmation. --T Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://webconx.green-trust.org/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[biofuels-biz] Re: Revealed: Why Germans Oppose War in Iraq - French Fries - OT
> > > Anyway, US sucks , too, when it comes to biodiesel, > > but at least there is a chance, expensive one, but > > still there is-- join the ¤%$¤$&ed up biodiesel board > > inc, and you can make and sell biodiesel. Try that in > > germany-- your hair will go grey, and maybe your kids > > will run the business untill you get all the permits, > > lol. > >This is not true! The EPA and NBB did not read their own >documentation.. small producers (smaller than 10million $$ per year) >only have to pass an ASTM spec test, which is considerably less >expensicve than qualifying for Tier1! > >Look further back on this list for confirmation. > >--T Or so they now say. It hasn't happened yet though, AFAIK, it still needs a test case. What prevents people making their own biodiesel for own-use in Germany? Yet there's nothing to stop you using SVO or WVO (which isn't even taxed)? Is it something to do with the weird pollution laws? There's an apparent misclassification of water pollution standards in Germany, where the risk from rapeseed oil is not even classified, whereas biodiesel is a class 1 hazard, and fossil diesel is in class 2 (worse). It only refers to water pollution and no other aspects of toxicity or hazard. This doesn't make sense, a biodiesel spill would be less of a problem than a spill of vegetable oil, which coats everything, like fossil oil does. In fact biodiesel is used to clean up marine oil spills. Best Keith Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://webconx.green-trust.org/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Re: [biofuels-biz] CALL TO ACTION- USDA CUTTING SUPPORTFORBIODIESEL PRODUCTION
Hi Todd This is very interesting. MM, you get your answer at last, if not from Mr Noyes. >Keith, > >I appreciate your addressing the major, periphery and subsurface >issues that you have with Mr. Noyes, bringing them to the front. >I've seen few able to put the issues in such concise perspective. >Certainly short-windedness is not always a demonstrated virtue >here. > >My personal assessment of your response is that Mr. Noyes should >be either slightly taken aback or not exactly pleased with a >rebut of such dynamic proportions, or both. I guess so. I'm certainly not trying to annoy him, but I would like some answers and haven't had very many, just more things to question. Now I really want some substantiation of his allegations that large quantities of poor-quality homebrew have caused problems that have given biodiesel a bad name and so on: "I have seen home-brewed biodiesel cause problems in multiple locations and it has taken significant efforts to undo the damage. One region of the country in particular had large quantities of homegrown off-spec fuel that was being sold and distributed. The use of biodiesel was substantially delayed in this area until trust for the fuel was re-established." Etc. Has anybody here heard any hint or inkling of this? Anything at all to add? Or is it just an apocryphal tale, an industry myth, as I suspect, based on ignorance and prejudice? If industry holds and puts about such myths, then they're even more responsible than I thought for the division between industry and the "grassroots biodiesel movement" that Mr Noyes decries, and for biodieselers' distrust of them. Yes, I think Mr Noyes was a bit taken aback. I get the impression that industry, or at least some within the industry, tend to stereotype us somewhat, and the stereotype way misses the mark. We're not the sloppy bunch Mr Noyes apparently expected. I do hope he takes it to heart and takes the opportunity to educate himself a bit now on the "informal sector" rather than withdrawing, prejudices intact. But I'm not holding my breath. Anyway, Todd, if he's annoyed with me I don't think he's going to be exactly delighted with you. Well, he should be able to defend himself, eh? Thanks for this information. Should World Energy even be referring to itself as part of the biodiesel industry? Just a trading company, no? "Capitalism, not Corporatism" - yes, indeed! And an END to the second dressing itself up as the first. Regards Keith >Unfortunately, there is a bit more to the entire realm of market >forces and structural fabric behind oilseed production, and the >largely similar forces that impede the acceptance and expedited >distribution of biodiesel into a market with a curiously >insatiable appetite, than a simple farm or fuel subsidy can >redress. > >Perhaps someone should make mention of how his own firm has in >the recent past attempted to manipulate and take advantage of >small producers or firms preparing to go into production. Last >year World Energy extended to us an "offer" of $0.85 per gallon >once we were in production. The pipeline price for >petroleum diesel that week was $0.92 a gallon.. > >At the very same moment, World Energy was brokering biodiesel to >markets 2,600 miles distant, where the end user price was $2.50 - >$3.00 a gallon. > >During the same conversation the attempt was made to sway us away >from self-distribution of biodiesel, as the "paperwork and >legalities of such a practice are enormous and it would be a >considerably burdensome task in comparison to aligning with an >established distributor" (paraphrased). What the representative >from World Energy did not know during his >"presentation" was that we were already aware of the outside >costs of the regulation/paperwork that accompanies the >distribution of biodiesel, whether for on-road and off-road use. > >Using only the >$0.07 difference between the pipeline price of petroleum diesel >at the time and World Energy's offer of $0.85, the increased cost >of distributing on-road biodiesel ourselves could be quickly >covered within 30 - 45 days. The remainder of the year would >yield profits going to our coffers rather than theirs, not to >mention another $80,000 and more in annual profit derived from >local bulk and retail distribution at a price less than or equal >to market price for petroleum diesel, rather than selling all >inventory to such a distributor. > >It's rather easy to put the disparities that came out of that >conversation into a few simple points. > >1) World Energy at that time was less interested in paying a fair >market value for biodiesel than in garnering exceedingly high >margins. > >2) World Energy was at that time more interested in acquiring >inexpensive product to distribute than representing honestly the >relative ease with which biodiesel can be distributed. > >3) World Energy did not and does not hesitate to distribute >market wide (nation wide) in an energy inefficient mann
Re: [biofuels-biz] Re: Revealed: Why Germans Oppose War in Iraq - French Fries - OT
Biodiesel and rapse oil is not a problem-- methanol is. And anything related with it. Just to buy a methanol from a lab supply store you have to show your passport. I tried. And you are right-- water polution laws in Germany( and not only water polution, any polution) are very strict. Just a fact that you legaly are not allowed to change your tire on the curb(in case of a tire accident)(of course, people do it, but according to the law, it is a no no) because you can damage the road surface and contaminate the area says something about it. Or try to wash your car in a driveway... I am not pulling this stuff out of my ass- I experienced it myself. That is why I am pissed at German (and EU) governments. Cheers. --- Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Anyway, US sucks , too, when it comes to > biodiesel, > > > but at least there is a chance, expensive one, > but > > > still there is-- join the §%$§$&ed up biodiesel > board > > > inc, and you can make and sell biodiesel. Try > that in > > > germany-- your hair will go grey, and maybe your > kids > > > will run the business untill you get all the > permits, > > > lol. > > > >This is not true! The EPA and NBB did not read > their own > >documentation.. small producers (smaller than > 10million $$ per year) > >only have to pass an ASTM spec test, which is > considerably less > >expensicve than qualifying for Tier1! > > > >Look further back on this list for confirmation. > > > >--T > > Or so they now say. It hasn't happened yet though, > AFAIK, it still > needs a test case. > > What prevents people making their own biodiesel for > own-use in > Germany? Yet there's nothing to stop you using SVO > or WVO (which > isn't even taxed)? Is it something to do with the > weird pollution > laws? There's an apparent misclassification of water > pollution > standards in Germany, where the risk from rapeseed > oil is not even > classified, whereas biodiesel is a class 1 hazard, > and fossil diesel > is in class 2 (worse). It only refers to water > pollution and no other > aspects of toxicity or hazard. This doesn't make > sense, a biodiesel > spill would be less of a problem than a spill of > vegetable oil, which > coats everything, like fossil oil does. In fact > biodiesel is used to > clean up marine oil spills. > > Best > > Keith > > __ Do you Yahoo!? U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos http://launch.yahoo.com/u2 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Plan to Sell a Home? http://us.click.yahoo.com/J2SnNA/y.lEAA/jd3IAA/9bTolB/TM -~-> Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://webconx.green-trust.org/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuels-biz] Re: Revealed: Why Germans Oppose War in Iraq - French Fries - OT
Hi Thomas >Biodiesel and rapse oil is not a problem-- methanol >is. >And anything related with it. Ethyl esters? >Just to buy a methanol from a lab supply store you >have to show your passport. I tried. >And you are right-- water polution laws in Germany( >and not only water polution, any polution) are very >strict. Well, that's not strict, it's simply wrong. I'd like to know what it's based on, as there's so much evidence to the contrary. >Just a fact that you legaly are not allowed to change >your tire on the curb(in case of a tire accident)(of >course, people do it, but according to the law, it is >a no no) because you can damage the road surface and >contaminate the area says something about it. Or try >to wash your car in a driveway... > >I am not pulling this stuff out of my ass- I >experienced it myself. That is why I am pissed at >German (and EU) governments. :-( Too many rules, eh? Too much bureaucracy. But the Americans also complain very loudly about that happening there, certainly with some justification. Methinks it's a worldwide malaise. In the industrialized countries anyway. Keith >Cheers. > > >--- Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Anyway, US sucks , too, when it comes to > > biodiesel, > > > > but at least there is a chance, expensive one, > > but > > > > still there is-- join the §%$§$&ed up biodiesel > > board > > > > inc, and you can make and sell biodiesel. Try > > that in > > > > germany-- your hair will go grey, and maybe your > > kids > > > > will run the business untill you get all the > > permits, > > > > lol. > > > > > >This is not true! The EPA and NBB did not read > > their own > > >documentation.. small producers (smaller than > > 10million $$ per year) > > >only have to pass an ASTM spec test, which is > > considerably less > > >expensicve than qualifying for Tier1! > > > > > >Look further back on this list for confirmation. > > > > > >--T > > > > Or so they now say. It hasn't happened yet though, > > AFAIK, it still > > needs a test case. > > > > What prevents people making their own biodiesel for > > own-use in > > Germany? Yet there's nothing to stop you using SVO > > or WVO (which > > isn't even taxed)? Is it something to do with the > > weird pollution > > laws? There's an apparent misclassification of water > > pollution > > standards in Germany, where the risk from rapeseed > > oil is not even > > classified, whereas biodiesel is a class 1 hazard, > > and fossil diesel > > is in class 2 (worse). It only refers to water > > pollution and no other > > aspects of toxicity or hazard. This doesn't make > > sense, a biodiesel > > spill would be less of a problem than a spill of > > vegetable oil, which > > coats everything, like fossil oil does. In fact > > biodiesel is used to > > clean up marine oil spills. > > > > Best > > > > Keith Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://webconx.green-trust.org/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [biofuels-biz] Digest Number 394
Wow. I don't know if Keith and Todd's posts are representative of this discussions group's perspective on the issues but they do provide a good indication of why no one in the mainstream biodiesel business is too interested in trying to discuss issues in this forum. Ever consider re-naming yourself the anti-biofuels business group? I originally presented this group with a notice regarding the new regulations for the subsidy program (that will raise the market cost for biodiesel and likely reduce demand) and a request for letters of support. I was aware that not everyone in the group would want to support the program or submit a letter. That's fine- classic democracy in action, and I didn't even mind getting chastised for suggesting that the program should be continued. And I heard Keith's point that I couldn't just put out such a request for letters on a discussion group without spending more time and energy to discuss the issues that were raised by those opposed to the program. I did my best to respond to what I could. But I did so not as a World Energy person but as a group member named Graham. Keith found my resposes woefully inadequate and Todd saw a good opportunity to trash WEA as a selfish, greedy, environmentally-warped and devious organization. Look folks, World Energy is this country's largest supplier of biodiesel. We are a small businesss comprised of good people willing to work hard and make sacrifices to increase the use of biodiesel and other alternative fuels. We are not out there trying to destroy small-scale biodiesel or pursue some sinister agenda. I still think that World Energy has done more to advance this country toward the goals that motivate you to support biodiesel than any other company in the country. BUT, we do live and operate in the practical world and cannot meet the 27 principles of divine biodiesel production and distribution that have apparently been derived by some members of this group. AND, I cannot continue posting to a group where my request to participate as an individual is ignored and the company that is good enough to employ me in the wonderful business of selling biodiesel is lambasted one day for being too stupid to produce at .60/gallon one day and too greedy for trying to buy at .85 the next. I may return in some other incarnation to participate but I'm going to have to ride off into the sunset rather than linger as a corporate lightning rod. I wish you all the best. Aloha, Graham -Original Message- From: biofuels-biz@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 6:05 AM To: biofuels-biz@yahoogroups.com Subject: [biofuels-biz] Digest Number 394 Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://webconx.green-trust.org/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] There is 1 message in this issue. Topics in this digest: 1. Re: [biofuel] Re: CALL TO ACTION- USDA CUTTING SUPPORTFORBIODIESEL PRODUCTION From: "Appal Energy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Message: 1 Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 00:14:32 -0500 From: "Appal Energy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [biofuel] Re: CALL TO ACTION- USDA CUTTING SUPPORTFORBIODIESEL PRODUCTION Keith, I appreciate your addressing the major, periphery and subsurface issues that you have with Mr. Noyes, bringing them to the front. I've seen few able to put the issues in such concise perspective. Certainly short-windedness is not always a demonstrated virtue here. My personal assessment of your response is that Mr. Noyes should be either slightly taken aback or not exactly pleased with a rebut of such dynamic proportions, or both. Unfortunately, there is a bit more to the entire realm of market forces and structural fabric behind oilseed production, and the largely similar forces that impede the acceptance and expedited distribution of biodiesel into a market with a curiously insatiable appetite, than a simple farm or fuel subsidy can redress. Perhaps someone should make mention of how his own firm has in the recent past attempted to manipulate and take advantage of small producers or firms preparing to go into production. Last year World Energy extended to us an "offer" of $0.85 per gallon once we were in production. The pipeline price for petroleum diesel that week was $0.92 a gallon.. At the very same moment, World Energy was brokering biodiesel to markets 2,600 miles distant, where the end user price was $2.50 - $3.00 a gallon. During the same conversation the attempt was made to sway us away from self-distribution of
RE: [biofuels-biz] Digest Number 394
Yes, yes, yes, Graham - but you've failed to answer any of the questions we raised, nor any of the questions your comments raised. Especially about this: "I have seen home-brewed biodiesel cause problems in multiple locations and it has taken significant efforts to undo the damage. One region of the country in particular had large quantities of homegrown off-spec fuel that was being sold and distributed. The use of biodiesel was substantially delayed in this area until trust for the fuel was re-established." Can you substantiate this or not? Note my comment, once again: "Really? Has anyone else here heard about this? "... large quantities of homegrown off-spec fuel". Home-brewed, you mean? Large quantities of it? Homebrewers do not make large quantities, and certainly don't sell large quantities. Please provide full details of this. It sounds like something of an industry myth to me, an apocryphal tale." So? A lot of issues were raised, and you've addressed none of them. And now, under pressure, you resort to this nonsense. No big surprise. Sad though. "I do hope he takes it to heart and takes the opportunity to educate himself a bit now on the "informal sector" rather than withdrawing, prejudices intact. But I'm not holding my breath." Yes, sad. Keith >Wow. I don't know if Keith and Todd's posts are representative of >this discussions group's perspective on the issues but they do >provide a good indication of why no one in the mainstream biodiesel >business is too interested in trying to discuss issues in this >forum. Ever consider re-naming yourself the anti-biofuels business >group? > >I originally presented this group with a notice regarding the new >regulations for the subsidy program (that will raise the market cost >for biodiesel and likely reduce demand) and a request for letters of >support. I was aware that not everyone in the group would want to >support the program or submit a letter. That's fine- classic >democracy in action, and I didn't even mind getting chastised for >suggesting that the program should be continued. > >And I heard Keith's point that I couldn't just put out such a >request for letters on a discussion group without spending more time >and energy to discuss the issues that were raised by those opposed >to the program. I did my best to respond to what I could. But I >did so not as a World Energy person but as a group member named >Graham. Keith found my resposes woefully inadequate and Todd saw a >good opportunity to trash WEA as a selfish, greedy, >environmentally-warped and devious organization. > >Look folks, World Energy is this country's largest supplier of >biodiesel. We are a small businesss comprised of good people >willing to work hard and make sacrifices to increase the use of >biodiesel and other alternative fuels. We are not out there trying >to destroy small-scale biodiesel or pursue some sinister agenda. I >still think that World Energy has done more to advance this country >toward the goals that motivate you to support biodiesel than any >other company in the country. BUT, we do live and operate in the >practical world and cannot meet the 27 principles of divine >biodiesel production and distribution that have apparently been >derived by some members of this group. AND, I cannot continue >posting to a group where my request to participate as an individual >is ignored and the company that is good enough to employ me in the >wonderful business of selling biodiesel is lambasted one day for >being too stupid to produce at .60/gallon one day and too greedy for >trying to buy at .85 the next. I may return in some other >incarnation to participate but I'm going to have to ride off into >the sunset rather than linger as a corporate lightning rod. I wish >you all the best. > >Aloha, > >Graham > >-Original Message- >From: biofuels-biz@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 6:05 AM >To: biofuels-biz@yahoogroups.com >Subject: [biofuels-biz] Digest Number 394 > > >Biofuels at Journey to Forever >http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html >Biofuel at WebConX >http://webconx.green-trust.org/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm >List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: >http://archive.nnytech.net/ >To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > >There is 1 message in this issue. > >Topics in this digest: > > 1. Re: [biofuel] Re: CALL TO ACTION- USDA CUTTING >SUPPORTFORBIODIESEL PRODUCTION > From: "Appal Energy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > >Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 00:14:32 -0500 > From: "Appal Energy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: [biofuel] Re: CALL TO ACTION- USDA CUTTING >SUPPORTFORBI
[biofuels-biz] Mideast Oil Forever?
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96apr/oil/oil.htm Mideast Oil Forever? A P R I L 1 9 9 6 Congressional budget-cutters threaten to end America's leadership in new energy technologies that could generate hundreds of thousands of high-wage jobs, reduce damage to the environment, and limit our costly, dangerous dependency on oil from the unstable Persian Gulf region by Joseph J. Romm and Charles B. Curtis [more] Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Sell a Home with Ease! http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/jd3IAA/9bTolB/TM -~-> Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://webconx.green-trust.org/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuels-biz] Re: Revealed: Why Germans Oppose War in Iraq - French Fries - OT
I'm glad we are not so restrictive in most parts of the US. Methanol is widely available, tire changing can be done wherever you get a flat, and car washing can be done almost anywhere, anytime unless we are having a drought. selling biofuels seems to be one of the few restrictions Steve Spence Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter & Discussion Boards. Read about Sustainable Technology: http://www.green-trust.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: "Thomas Stoskus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 12:35 PM Subject: Re: [biofuels-biz] Re: Revealed: Why Germans Oppose War in Iraq - French Fries - OT > Biodiesel and rapse oil is not a problem-- methanol > is. > And anything related with it. > > Just to buy a methanol from a lab supply store you > have to show your passport. I tried. > > And you are right-- water polution laws in Germany( > and not only water polution, any polution) are very > strict. > > Just a fact that you legaly are not allowed to change > your tire on the curb(in case of a tire accident)(of > course, people do it, but according to the law, it is > a no no) because you can damage the road surface and > contaminate the area says something about it. Or try > to wash your car in a driveway... > > I am not pulling this stuff out of my ass- I > experienced it myself. That is why I am pissed at > German (and EU) governments. > > Cheers. > > > --- Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Anyway, US sucks , too, when it comes to > > biodiesel, > > > > but at least there is a chance, expensive one, > > but > > > > still there is-- join the ¤%$¤$&ed up biodiesel > > board > > > > inc, and you can make and sell biodiesel. Try > > that in > > > > germany-- your hair will go grey, and maybe your > > kids > > > > will run the business untill you get all the > > permits, > > > > lol. > > > > > >This is not true! The EPA and NBB did not read > > their own > > >documentation.. small producers (smaller than > > 10million $$ per year) > > >only have to pass an ASTM spec test, which is > > considerably less > > >expensicve than qualifying for Tier1! > > > > > >Look further back on this list for confirmation. > > > > > >--T > > > > Or so they now say. It hasn't happened yet though, > > AFAIK, it still > > needs a test case. > > > > What prevents people making their own biodiesel for > > own-use in > > Germany? Yet there's nothing to stop you using SVO > > or WVO (which > > isn't even taxed)? Is it something to do with the > > weird pollution > > laws? There's an apparent misclassification of water > > pollution > > standards in Germany, where the risk from rapeseed > > oil is not even > > classified, whereas biodiesel is a class 1 hazard, > > and fossil diesel > > is in class 2 (worse). It only refers to water > > pollution and no other > > aspects of toxicity or hazard. This doesn't make > > sense, a biodiesel > > spill would be less of a problem than a spill of > > vegetable oil, which > > coats everything, like fossil oil does. In fact > > biodiesel is used to > > clean up marine oil spills. > > > > Best > > > > Keith > > > > > > > __ > Do you Yahoo!? > U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos > http://launch.yahoo.com/u2 > > > Biofuels at Journey to Forever > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > Biofuel at WebConX > http://webconx.green-trust.org/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm > List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: > http://archive.nnytech.net/ > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~--> Home Selling? Try Us! http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/jd3IAA/9bTolB/TM -~-> Biofuels at Journey to Forever http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuel at WebConX http://webconx.green-trust.org/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: http://archive.nnytech.net/ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RE: [biofuels-biz] Digest Number 394
Graham, Common, that is a ridiculous statement. 'Mainstream Biodeiesel' at present is limited to the members of the NBB, most of which are large AG concerns based on soy. Considering that World Energy is on the NBB Board I would say there is a great reason for you to be towing the 'Mainstream' party line. There seems to be little representation on the NBB for other types of feedstock processors, nor does the board itself seem to be interested furthering the interests of anything but a soy based feedstock, BTW which is inefficient and energy intensive from a growing standpoint, not inclusive of the distribution channel issues. I think what is lacking on the NBB and it's members is the type of passion to really apply a sustainable business practice. That is the idea that biodiesel promotes by it's nature; sustainable, energy efficient, renewable, economic viability, reduction of offshore oil dependency, highly distributed, and renewable. But sucumming to the one model fits all that the NBB promotes, it is losing site of some the better qualities that biodiesel presents. I hope that you continue to present on the biofuels list, even though the postings my ire and incite you. It is important that World Energy understand that US Biodiesel isn't just about becoming another corporate entity, but it is a movement of the afformentioned virtues. The DIY'ers understand this quite well, as do the small processors and it is something that the NBB and it's members need to focus on. I would suggest to you and the NBB that you open the door up for the small processor's or there may just be another board that forms with the concerns of WVO and alternative seed feedstock. It has happened to other industries and may happen to this one. It would be a shame as it would drive a wedge between the groups, but it may need to happen for things to change. Regards, James Slayden On Fri, 8 Nov 2002, Graham Noyes wrote: > Wow. I don't know if Keith and Todd's posts are representative of this > discussions group's perspective on the issues but they do provide a good > indication of why no one in the mainstream biodiesel business is too > interested in trying to discuss issues in this forum. Ever consider > re-naming yourself the anti-biofuels business group? > > I originally presented this group with a notice regarding the new > regulations for the subsidy program (that will raise the market cost for > biodiesel and likely reduce demand) and a request for letters of > support. I was aware that not everyone in the group would want to > support the program or submit a letter. That's fine- classic democracy > in action, and I didn't even mind getting chastised for suggesting that > the program should be continued. > > And I heard Keith's point that I couldn't just put out such a request for > letters on a discussion group without spending more time and energy to > discuss the issues that were raised by those opposed to the program. I > did my best to respond to what I could. But I did so not as a World > Energy person but as a group member named Graham. Keith found my > resposes woefully inadequate and Todd saw a good opportunity to trash WEA > as a selfish, greedy, environmentally-warped and devious organization. > > Look folks, World Energy is this country's largest supplier of > biodiesel. We are a small businesss comprised of good people willing to > work hard and make sacrifices to increase the use of biodiesel and other > alternative fuels. We are not out there trying to destroy small-scale > biodiesel or pursue some sinister agenda. I still think that World > Energy has done more to advance this country toward the goals that > motivate you to support biodiesel than any other company in the country. > BUT, we do live and operate in the practical world and cannot meet the > 27 principles of divine biodiesel production and distribution that have > apparently been derived by some members of this group. AND, I cannot > continue posting to a group where my request to participate as an > individual is ignored and the company that is good enough to employ me in > the wonderful business of selling biodiesel is lambasted one day for > being too stupid to produce at .60/gallon one day and too greedy for > trying to buy at .85 the next. I may return in some other incarnation to > participate but I'm going to have to ride off into the sunset rather than > linger as a corporate lightning rod. I wish you all the best. > > Aloha, > > Graham > > -Original Message- > From: biofuels-biz@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 6:05 AM > To: biofuels-biz@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [biofuels-biz] Digest Number 394 > > > Biofuels at Journey to Forever > http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html > Biofuel at WebConX > http://webconx.green-trust.org/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm > List messages are archived at the Info-Archive at NNYTech: > http://archive.nnytech.net/ > To
Uhhhh......Graham...... was Re: [biofuels-biz] Digest Number 394
Come on Graham. That's an intentionally antagonistic statement right out of the chute. All I posted was an absolutely 100% accurate statement relative to our first and last direct contact with World Energy (along with the general "surmise" of liquid biofuels verses liquid petroleum fuels relative to subsidies). Perhaps you remember the conversational context of trying to locate a regional B-100 supplier for Mr. Harrelson's upwind leg to Seattle for his Simple Organic Living Tour, spring 2001? And please, before you skip out on the rest of this, could you post the "27 principles of divine biodiesel production and distribution?" I've only been able to come up with a half dozen or so of the most obvious. I must have slept through the rest of them during biodiesel theology class years past. As to trashing World Energy? Where does offering less than pipeline price for B-100 fall in line with the express need to compete head to head with liquid petroleum fuels? Has World Energy since structured its "offerings" to at minimum match pipeline price? And where is it stated that a person is automatically "anti-biofuels" for pointing out a few simple incongruities, whether they be at a corporate or government level? Is this one of those "If you're not for me you're against me" scenarios where people are expected to walk lock-step and offer no differing perspective, no matter what is at stake? Well.(ponder...ponder.) I'm sorry. Choosing to ignore reality is neither a sound business practice nor a wise personal decision. Biodiesel is a bit of a queer bird in the liquid biofuels arena (not that there are many liquid biofuels), requiring a bit more flexible and diverse mind-set than one oriented to primarily macro-centralized production and distribution. (That's probably the first of the 27 divine principles you mentioned and could surely be well elaborated on by many - including yourself - should you care to stick around.) No doubt part of the discourse could be a bit grating. I for one would find it useful to know about some of the gremlins among micro-regional biodiesel producers that have wreaked havoc in the market with shoddy manufacture, as well as the manner in which they accomplished this and how it was corrected. I can point to one local gross incidence of severe down time accrued by ODOT road crews running biodiesel manufactured to ASTM spec. Seems that the vendor failed to inform ODOT of the superior solvent capacities of biodiesel, or at least the information was not relayed to outposts and no measures were taken. Debris ridden fuel was pumped from outpost distribution tanks into field distribution tanks and eventually into vehicles. Needless to say there were numerous early and extended lunches between mid to late summer. Of the three ODOT employees that I know personally, each working out of a different outpost, all express irritation coming from the mechanics, crews and post management, all swearing up and down that they'll be damned and go to hell before they "put that crap in their tanks again." It should be a part of every distributor's and delivery driver's job to put this type of information (and more) into each customer's hands with each fuel delivery. Hard to improve product image (goodwill) and keep a contract with that type of negligence. So yes, I would by and large agree with Keith Addison that home brewers pay a lot more attention to details than apparently some "major players" do, with most indicators being that their fuel is more often closer to spec than it is not - at least once they get a handle on the situation. (Even a commercial plant has a shake down period.) And yes, this probably sounds a bit like a cis- or trans- version (mirrored version) of Mr. Addison's post. But that's about what the biodiesel business is going to be for the next decade - Pete and RePeteand RePeteand RePeteuntil an entire market is "programmed" and biodiesel has a high market share. Todd Swearingen Appal Energy - Original Message - From: Graham Noyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 6:16 PM Subject: RE: [biofuels-biz] Digest Number 394 > Wow. I don't know if Keith and Todd's posts are representative of this discussions group's perspective on the issues but they do provide a good indication of why no one in the mainstream biodiesel business is too interested in trying to discuss issues in this forum. Ever consider re-naming yourself the anti-biofuels business group? > > I originally presented this group with a notice regarding the new regulations for the subsidy program (that will raise the market cost for biodiesel and likely reduce demand) and a request for letters of support. I was aware that not everyone in the group would want to support the program or submit a letter. That's fine- classic democracy in action, and I didn't even mind getting chastised for suggesting that the program should be continued. > > And I heard Keith's point that I
[biofuels-biz] OT: Major LNG Projects
Once in a great while the San Diego paper will carry an update on the status of LNG projects taking place on the west side of the Baja Peninsual in Mexico. I believe that the gas comes from Australia or thereabouts, and that it does not become economical to liquify it and transport it across the ocean unless the enterprise can be expected to yield a good return at the end. http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/20021107-_1b7lng.html Firms line up for LNG projects in Mexico By Diane Lindquist UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER November 7, 2002 HOUSTON ö Mexico is moving as fast as possible to approve liquefied natural gas projects, according to a top government energy official. Since the country published an emergency rule for LNG development on Aug. 2, several companies have filed for permits to build re-gasification projects, said Alejandro Brea, director of the Mexican Energy Regulatory Commission's natural gas division. Most want to build in Baja California, from Tijuana to Ensenada, he said. So far, only Marathon Oil Corp.'s application has been accepted. Other applications have been returned to the firms with requests for changes, Brea said last week at the Center for Business Intelligence's Mexican energy conference here. He declined to identify the companies seeking permits. Another commission source said, however, that Sempra Energy, which plans an LNG project near the Bajamar golf resort about 50 miles south of San Diego, is among the firms that have filed applications not yet accepted. "If the companies meet all the requirements, we perhaps will be able to issue the license within about six months," Brea said. "We hope most will go online between 2006 and 2007." The issuance of the rules moved the projects a step closer to reality. Some of the world's biggest energy companies are competing to turn the northern Baja California coast into a receiving area for natural gas imported from Asia or South America. The border location gives them the possibility of selling natural gas in the United States as well as in Mexico, where population growth is outpacing energy supplies. Most of the companies intend to sell the fuel in California, where energy supplies have fallen short in recent years. The projects are expensive wagers. Building a plant to convert liquefied fuel back to gas, storage tanks, docking facilities and pipelines can cost $500 million to $1 billion. The price of establishing an entire supply chain from distant natural gas fields to the fleet of tankers needed to transport it can reach $1 billion to $6 billion. "An LNG terminal will be the major infrastructure accomplishment of the Fox administration," said George Baker, an executive with the research firm Mexico Energy Intelligence, referring to Mexican President Vicente Fox. Because Mexico has no liquefied natural gas terminals, it needed to create rules for the facilities. The rules are not the final regulations under which the facilities will be built and operated. Instead, they're part of an emergency measure that allows for construction of storage facilities with re-gasification equipment. "We needed to trigger these projects," Brea said. Without the emergency rules, he said, "we wouldn't be able to meet the energy demands of 2006 and 2007." The permanent LNG rules are expected to be issued next year. In the meantime, the companies are being given guidelines on what is needed to put together an LNG complex, which usually takes about 31/2 years to build. Neither Brea nor corporate energy executives would release a copy of the guidelines. The rules in the August directive are based on U.S. and European liquefied natural gas standards, Brea said, but they go further to protect the safety of surrounding communities. Containment tanks, for instance, must have double walls instead of the single walls required under U.S. and European rules. In addition to dealing with Mexico's federal government, the energy companies also must obtain building, land-use and environmental permits from local jurisdictions where opposition to some of the projects is strong. Projects being considered for Baja California already have encountered resistance from critics who contend the huge complexes will damage ecologically sensitive coastline and discourage tourists from going to the region's beaches and golf courses. In addition to Marathon and Sempra, other energy companies that have announced projects for Baja California include Shell Gas & Power and a partnership between El Paso Corp. and Phillips Petroleum Co. "I couldn't say which projects will get built," said Brian D. Knezeak, a global financial offer of ANZ Investment Bank. "Maybe all four. Maybe one. Maybe they'll consolidate. But there certainly is interest about LNG in Baja." Diane Lindquist: (619) 293-1812; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Biofuels a
