Bear in mind that “net fuel exporter” means that in 2011, the US exported more refined fuels (gasoline, diesel fuel, etc.) than it imported. This is due to the US having a large and flexible refining capacity as it still is a net importer of crude oil.
What you’re saying about the oil is probably true, for oil pumped in North America. It’s not so true for oil coming from overseas- the middle east, for example.
Refining with natural gas is still using BTU’s- just like using gas in the production of ethanol.
I agree about paying at the pump. Paying the other way lets several levels of government agencies skim a percentage off the top.
What you’re saying about the oil is probably true, for oil pumped in North America. It’s not so true for oil coming from overseas- the middle east, for example.
Refining with natural gas is still using BTU’s- just like using gas in the production of ethanol.
I agree about paying at the pump. Paying the other way lets several levels of government agencies skim a percentage off the top.
I find endless news reporting that the subsidy has ended, but not a peep about why it was ended. Most of the news makes it seem like there is not even anybody complaining about the subsidy ending. If the subsidy was as necessary and good as all the ethanol proponents have said it was, why is nobody objecting to ending it?
I was reading the Des Moines Register’s top 10 business related stories of 2011. The expiration of the ethanol subsidy and import tariff wasn’t mentioned. There was a story about ethanol that mentioned the expiration, but in a low-key non earth shattering way. It sounded like the industry realized the unpopular subsidy and tariff would probably not win an extension and decided to direct their political energies in a different direction.
I haven’t seen a lot of reporting about this. I thought it would make more news than it has in a farm state like Iowa. I think maybe this might be due to them being allowed to expire, rather than an actual fight and vote to end them.
Jeff
The last source for news about ethanol is the Des Moines Register. In the last 8 years, they have been anti-ethanol, and quite loudly at that. Kind of strange from a state where Agriculture is the #1 industry.
Hardly the voice of Iowa it used to be.
To say the Register is a left leaning paper is an understatement. Since the left leaning environmentalists have long ago abandoned ethanol, it’s not surprising their stance on it. Still, their business section articles have been, for the most part, pretty balanced in their treatment of ethanol.
I kind of think that some in the Editorial department would be fine with agriculture (except small organic farms supplying their local farmer’s markets) just drying up and blowing away.
Jeff
Ethanol should be removed from the gasoline supply. It never made much sense to begin with. I can understand why it would be mandatory for cities like LA and Chicago. But if you are driving around in places like Kansas, Utah, Montana, Nevada, New mexico, and other states where air pollution is non existent what is the point?
It also makes little sense to me to put ethanol in the gasoline for the sake of air pollution only to have your gas mileage reduced 10-20%.
Ethanol didn’t reduce the consumption of oil the slightest bit. All it did was triple the price of corn based foods which ended up screwing everyone.
A gallon of ethanol made from corn has 67% of the BTU of a gallon of gasoline.
The other reason that the US exports refined gasoline is that other countries are willing to pay more for it than US motorists.
The big ethanol distillers do not need the subsidy with gasoline at current prices viz a viz their costs. Some smaller operators will be affected.
One reference seems to be applauding the ending of the subsidy because it was mainly benefiting big oil by compensating them for performing the blending function. But with the mandate remaining in place, big oil will still be performing the blending function and getting paid for it as usual. Why should big oil care whether they are compensated by a public subsidy or by market compensation that is guaranteed by the mandate?
Yesterday, the price at the pump jumped $0.08 compared to Saturday. I want my Subsidy back. 
Who do you think pays for the subsidy?
I am quite sure that is incorrect. Take a box of Kellogg’s Corn Flakes. If what you say is true, that box today would be over $9.00.
In the case of Kellog’s, your talking about a pound of corn in a 14 oz box. One bushel of corn is 56 pounds. Latest bid on corn here is $6.20. This means the price of corn for your one pound is 11¢.
Now can you with a straight face tell me, that 11¢ pound of corn made that box of Kellog’s increase three times it’s original price? Better examine a lot closer where and who is making that profit, because it aint coming from corn producers or marketers.
And let’s not get started over beef prices. They purchase ethanol byproduct for cattle feed, which costs less than whole corn. Someone else has their hands in the till.
I hope it doesn’t affect rail shipments! We are running one 80 car ethanol train/week into Doraville, GA for the Atlanta market. We also take one unit train/month into Salisbury, NC. Ethanol has proved to be good business for the railroad industry.
On a side note, I had to put a fuel cut-off switch on my riding lawnmower when it is not in use. Ethanol will clog a carburetor like you wouldn’t believe! I’ve also had to start running a fuel system cleaner in my 1999 Chevy S10 because of this watered down cheap gas I guess.
If the Chief Environmental Regulator in Charge stays in the White House we may be all forced to drive electric cars and ride electric lawnmowers anyway so ethanol may be a moot point after all! LOL!
Tim
Generally ethanol has been touted as being “green,” but I hear the environmental advocacy referring to corn ethanol as “dirty ethanol.” Presumably, sugarcane ethanol from Brazil is “clean ethanol.”
So, if the tariffs that are now gone were necessary to allow U.S. corn ethanol to compete with Brazilian sugarcane ethanol; and if Brazilian ethanol is the environmental preference, how will the U.S. corn ethanol production be able to compete with the cheaper and more environmentally friendly Brazilian sugarcane ethanol after the removal of the tariff?
…This morning’s paper stated with the ethanol subisdy gone…It indicated gasoline prices now probably will rise: 4 to 5 cents a gal.
Ten percent ethanol in gas is still used as an anti-knock ingredient, so I would think there would be little effect on current shipments.
Definitely. The source might be different, but the destination won’t change. Maybe the 80 car train will run from a port to Doraville…
I can’t imagine many environmental groups advocating for Brazilian ethanol which would clear more rain-forest and involve lengthy transport.