>To: <biofuels-biz@yahoogroups.com> >From: "Appal Energy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 22:07:30 -0500 >Subject: Uhhhh......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 RePete....and RePete....and RePete....until an entire market >is "programmed" and biodiesel has a high market share. > >Todd Swearingen >Appal Energy > >----- Original Message ----- >From: Graham Noyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <biofuels-biz@yahoogroups.com> >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 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 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 while the public is enticed into consuming > > energy (and other products) at faster rates and with less > > attention paid to personal cost than they probably would > > otherwise due to the perception of comparative inexpensiveness > > and affordability. > > > > And of course, once the illusion has been created it is >mandatory > > that it be propagated from year to year, if not generation to > > generation. While subsidy may serve a valid and constructive > > purpose short term, used to bolster instability and inequity, >it > > is the inequity created through repeatedly irresponsible misuse > > and abuse of "perpetual subsidies" that gives rise to the >"need' > > for agricultural and finished biofuel subsidies in order to >give > > the illusion of a "level playing field" when competing with > > liquid fossil fuels. > > > > In such a world, falsely deflating the cost of bioidiesel or > > ethanol at the pump via subsidies is at best a near-sighted > > policy, little better in the near term than falsely deflating >the > > cost of fossil fuels via subsidies, and virtually no different >in > > the long term. > > > > The brutal fact of the matter is that virtually no government > > administration has addressed or cares to address the deception > > effected by subsidies in energy markets. Rather than gradually > > deflating fossil fuel subsidies over time to achieve as near to > > true cost as can be achieved under present world circumstances, > > politicians continue with what is politically expedient - > > colluding with industry to keep liquid fossil fuel subsidies in > > place and prices artificially deflated, while occasionally > > creating seldom-long-stable subsidies for "alternative energy," > > temporarily appeasing that sector of their constituencies. > > > > Unfortunately even "table scraps" are stripped away from > > agricultural producers (farmers), as is evident in the welfare > > status of big agri-businesses which suck up the vast majority >of > > liquid biofuel subsidy dollars, filtering relatively little >down > > to the farmers who provide them their life's blood in the form >of > > feedstocks. > > > > It's no wonder why so many in agriculture (and elsewhere) are > > being forced to abandon developed and "traditional" methods of > > production and distribution before they are driven into > > bankruptcy - too much greed in middle marketing and virtually >no > > concept of not biting the hand that feeds them, unless of >course > > it comes in the form of a government (taxpayer) subsidy. > > > > "Capitalism, not Corporatism." > > > > Todd Swearingen > > Appal Energy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ >_______ > > >_________________________________________________________________ >_______ > > > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to >http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > > > > > > > > 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 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/
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/
