Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    4:31 PM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: All Things Ethanol > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Ready for gas containing 15% ethenol?? Back to Topics
badger2

Champion Author
Boise

Posts:1,187
Points:243,160
Joined:Apr 2007
Message Posted: Jan 20, 2013 2:57:23 PM

Government says its coming and experts say it will shorten engine life and ruin those more than a couple of years old?
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
tropicalmn
Veteran Author Minnesota

Posts:276
Points:254,120
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Jan 26, 2013 8:01:22 PM

The CRC failed to establish a proper control group, a standard component of scientific, data-driven testing and a necessity to determine statistical significance for any results.

Instead, only three out of the eight engines were tested with straight gasoline containing no ethanol (E0), and one of those three failed the CRC’s test.
No engines were tested with E10 fuel, the de facto standard gasoline for all grades, which represents more than 90 percent of gasoline available in the U.S. market. Even though E10 fuel has been in the market for over 30 years and is used in all current conventional gasoline vehicles and small non-road engines, it was not part of the CRC test program.
The CRC also employed a test cycle designed specifically to stress the engine valve train. This test cycle was developed specifically for this study and thus there is no experience base for how to interpret results from the testing.
The CRC used the arbitrary criterion of 10 percent engine leakdown (a diagnostic test in which an engine cylinder is pressurized with compressed air, and the rate at which the cylinder loses pressure is measured) to determine if an engine “failed.” This is not a standard previously employed by either industry or federal agencies during testing, nor as a criterion for any warranty claims. Further, the Energy Department's own rigorous testing has shown that it is not reliable indicator of durability issues.
Perhaps most surprisingly, the CRC decided to select several engines already known to have durability issues, including one that was subject to a recall involving valve problems when running on E0 gasoline and E10. It is no surprise that an engine having problems with traditional fuels might also “fail” with E15 or E20 ethanol-blended fuels -- especially using a failure criterion chosen to demonstrate sensitivity to ethanol and operated on a cycle designed to stress the valves.


[Edited by: tropicalmn at 1/26/2013 8:02:59 PM EST]
Profile Pic
tropicalmn
Veteran Author Minnesota

Posts:276
Points:254,120
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Jan 26, 2013 7:40:58 PM

"How is a study bought and paid for by the petroleum companies any less valid then a study bought and paid for by the ethanol industry?"

The the auto and oil industries have to conspire to pay a third party for a a flawed study.
From the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)Getting It Right: Accurate Testing and Assessments Critical to Deploying the Next Generation of Auto Fuels.
A research organization for jointly-funded work by the auto and oil industries, called the Coordinating Research Council (CRC), released a report on the effects of E15 and E20, or gasoline mixed with up to 15 or 20 percent ethanol, respectively, on vehicle engines. The study claims mechanical damage and suggests degraded engine performance, emissions and durability on conventional vehicles from the use of E15 or E20 fuel. We believe the study is significantly flawed. The CRC failed to establish a proper control group, a standard component of scientific, data-driven testing and a necessity to determine statistical significance for any results. [L=http://energy.gov/articles/text deleted/L]



[Edited by: tropicalmn at 1/26/2013 7:50:13 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,737
Points:2,783,765
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Jan 26, 2013 10:51:50 AM

"how do you feel about the Volt Shockjock1961. Doesn't burn much gas or ethanol....."

The Volt, in theory, is not a bad idea. The problem with it is that it's price is so high that you will never recoup the price difference with gas savings...

The other issue is the $7500/cr taxpayer handout given to the vehicle that this country, which is $16.5 Trillion+ in debt, can ill afford...

Take away the taxpayer handout and I have no problems with EV's. If you choose to waste your money, well it's your money, just don't ask the taxpayer to join you...

Now that I've answered your question Hannie, when are you going to answer mine?

Profile Pic
krzysiek_ck
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:8,284
Points:1,330,280
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Jan 26, 2013 10:18:59 AM

grim_farva wrote: "I hope they don't increase it anymore....they should remove it from all gas"

Why should they remove ethanol form gasoline?
Profile Pic
grim_farva
Champion Author Kansas

Posts:2,480
Points:572,775
Joined:Jun 2008
Message Posted: Jan 26, 2013 9:45:44 AM

I hope they don't increase it anymore....they should remove it from all gas
Profile Pic
krzysiek_ck
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:8,284
Points:1,330,280
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Jan 25, 2013 3:48:27 PM

Shockjock1961 wrote: "My claim was I have never done any petroleum sponsored studies..."

More lies by Shockjock1961 AKA "The Liar"
Profile Pic
Hannie59
All-Star Author Appleton

Posts:964
Points:24,300
Joined:Apr 2010
Message Posted: Jan 25, 2013 12:59:52 PM

You should answer that question ShockJock1961. You have personally stated the answer many times but differently every time!

[Edited by: Hannie59 at 1/25/2013 1:03:37 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,737
Points:2,783,765
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Jan 25, 2013 12:54:22 PM

"It is glaringly obvious that you have an agenda and care nothing for facts, just keep burying the truth with recycled lies."

Ah the pot calling the kettle black...

So how come we haven't addressed the issue about whether or not it's legal to use concentrations of ethanol greater then 10% in non-ffv vehicles Hannie?

Why have you just skipped over that topic?
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,737
Points:2,783,765
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Jan 25, 2013 12:51:58 PM

If that was my intention SS, I would have not provided a link...
Profile Pic
Hannie59
All-Star Author Appleton

Posts:964
Points:24,300
Joined:Apr 2010
Message Posted: Jan 25, 2013 12:51:43 PM

Shockjock the study you post fails to mention that ethanol had absolutely nothing to do with the vehicles failure. And it's old news that has been debunked millions of times in real world conditions. Your sole purpose is to trash any alternitive to oil such as ethanol or EVs or whatever. It is glaringly obvious that you have an agenda and care nothing for facts, just keep burying the truth with recycled lies.

how do you feel about the Volt Shockjock1961. Doesn't burn much gas or ethanol.....

the petroleum industry is swimming in filth with increased production and they want to move it and keep the price high They are smearing any alternative with mass misinformation from you and your ilk. EVs are now their target so Shockock1961, how do you feel about the leaf? The volt? Admit that your sole driver is to squash every alternative to Oil's monopoly!!!!



[Edited by: Hannie59 at 1/25/2013 12:57:48 PM EST]
Profile Pic
SilverStreaker
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:14,128
Points:2,795,090
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Jan 25, 2013 12:45:47 PM

I wonder why Shocky didn't quote this from his link:
"One of Timberlake's bills would cut the percentage of corn-derived ethanol in Maine gasoline from 10 percent to 5 percent. The other measure would allow the state to form a coalition with other New England states to create an ethanol-free gasoline market for Canadian petroleum-vendor Irving.

Timberlake said Irving has offered to deliver ethanol-free gasoline to customers in New England if it has a minimum of three states willing to eliminate ethanol from the gas supply. New Hampshire has passed similar legislation, Timberlake said."

Perhaps he didn't want to show petroleum industry involvement in trying to eliminate ethanol?
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,737
Points:2,783,765
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Jan 25, 2013 12:23:25 PM

A step in the right direction...

Bills seek to reduce or remove ethanol from Maine gas

"He said he suspects that bill would be amended so gas stations would have the choice of offering either product, with or without ethanol.

A farmer and the owner of a hardware store, Timberlake called ethanol one of the worst "government boondoggles" of his lifetime"

"He said getting New England to move away from ethanol could be the first step in a national movement to remove the additive from American gasoline and cut the subsidies to Midwestern farmers growing corn for biofuel"
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,737
Points:2,783,765
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Jan 25, 2013 12:15:10 PM

My claim was I have never done any petroleum sponsored studies...

How is a study bought and paid for by the petroleum companies any less valid then a study bought and paid for by the ethanol industry?
Profile Pic
SilverStreaker
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:14,128
Points:2,795,090
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Jan 25, 2013 12:11:15 PM

"The Coordinating Research Council, Inc. (CRC) is a non-profit
corporation supported by the petroleum and automotive equipment
industries."

Shocky claimed he never posts petroleum sponsored studies and that any study funded by anyone with a vested interest is worthless. I wonder if anyone believes anything Shocky posts?
Profile Pic
krzysiek_ck
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:8,284
Points:1,330,280
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Jan 25, 2013 12:08:51 PM

Shockjock1961 wrote: "please present one piece of research I have ever done that was sponsored by oil lobbyists or oil money..."

Oops, you did it again. Shockjock1961 AKA "The Liar".

[Edited by: krzysiek_ck at 1/25/2013 12:10:33 PM EST]
Profile Pic
krzysiek_ck
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:8,284
Points:1,330,280
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Jan 25, 2013 12:03:42 PM

Shockjock1961 quoted: "The study has shown that two popular gasoline engines used in light-duty automotive applications of vehicles from model years 2001 through 2009 failed with mechanical damage when operated on intermediate-level ethanol blends (E15 and E20)."

Please let us know what vehicles failed, so we can protect ourselves as the consumers and don't waste our money on buying them.

Wait, you cannot because (this is my favorite):

"The detailed results are masked in order to ensure OEM confidentiality, including their technical data. The provided vehicle list is not in order within the table below to maintain this confidentiality."

Here is the perfect explanation why they cannot do it.

"The Coordinating Research Council, Inc. (CRC) is a non-profit corporation supported by the petroleum and automotive equipment industries."

"CRC’s function is to provide the mechanism for joint research conducted by the two industries that will help in determining the optimum combination of petroleum products and automotive equipment. CRC’s work is limited to research that is mutually beneficial to the two industries involved, and all information is available to the public."

As you can clearly see, CRC does not care about the consumers, they only care about what benefits Big Oil and auto manufacturers (where a lot of Big Oil money is allocated).

[Edited by: krzysiek_ck at 1/25/2013 12:05:44 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,737
Points:2,783,765
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Jan 25, 2013 11:40:05 AM

"As far as the american colaition for ethanol, or ACE, contradicting the manufacturer is not in their best interest for obvious reasons that have little to do with the properties of ethanol and its ability to achieve this"

In another forum you claim:

"Of course the ACE cannot recommend it Shockjock, the 90% gasoline mandated by law for non flex fuel vehicles prevents them from doing so"

So ACE cannot recommend using anything over E10 in a non-ffv because it's against the law?

So Hannie how can you yourself recommend using ethanol mixtures with ethanol concentrations greater then 10% in non-ffv vehicles when you have just clearly stated that using such mixtures violates the law?

[Edited by: Shockjock1961 at 1/25/2013 11:42:30 AM EST]
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,737
Points:2,783,765
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Jan 25, 2013 11:37:38 AM

INTERMEDIATE-LEVEL ETHANOL BLENDS ENGINE DURABILITY STUDY

"The study has shown that two popular gasoline engines used in light-duty automotive applications of vehicles from model years 2001 through 2009 failed with mechanical damage when operated on intermediate-level ethanol blends (E15 and E20)."
Profile Pic
Hannie59
All-Star Author Appleton

Posts:964
Points:24,300
Joined:Apr 2010
Message Posted: Jan 25, 2013 10:51:37 AM

The facts and truth indicate that using ethanol blends well up to 30% will make you engine run cleaner and last longer, a fact that the manufacturer probably does not want you to know.

As far as the american colaition for ethanol, or ACE, contradicting the manufacturer is not in their best interest for obvious reasons that have little to do with the properties of ethanol and its ability to achieve this.



[Edited by: Hannie59 at 1/25/2013 10:58:00 AM EST]
Profile Pic
krzysiek_ck
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:8,284
Points:1,330,280
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Jan 25, 2013 9:44:06 AM

Interesting quoting, Shockjock1961. You are continuing to prove you are simply a Troll. Here is the full sentence quote that this Troll does not want you to see.

"The three vehicles averaged 1.5% lower mileage with E10, 2.2% lower mileage with E20, 5.1% lower mileage with E30, and miles per gallon actually increased by an average of 1.7% when using E10AK made with the specially denatured ethanol. E10AK was the highest mileage fuel in two of three cars."

Let's see more.

"One vehicle – the Toyota Camry – showed virtually no variance between unleaded and either of the E10 blends, and both E10 blends actually performed better than straight unleaded."

"The Chevrolet Impala showed just over 1% lower MPG on E10 and E20, but gained .6% MPG operating on E30, and over 5% on the E10AK blend"

Or this.

"In general, the more ethanol used, the lower the cost per mile."
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,737
Points:2,783,765
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Jan 25, 2013 9:22:46 AM

The ACE also concludes that you SHOULD NOT use a higher concentration of ethanol then the manufacturer says too...

"The American Coalition for Ethanol cannot recommend using ethanol blends with higher concentrations of ethanol than those recommended by the vehicle’s manufacturer"

Wow! Thatnks for confirming everything I have been saying SS!
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,737
Points:2,783,765
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Jan 25, 2013 9:17:39 AM

"The three vehicles averaged 1.5% lower mileage with E10, 2.2% lower mileage with E20, 5.1% lower mileage with E30"

I'm see the study agrees with my sister, that ethanol does indeed reduce your gas mileage...

[Edited by: Shockjock1961 at 1/25/2013 9:20:36 AM EST]
Profile Pic
SilverStreaker
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:14,128
Points:2,795,090
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Jan 23, 2013 2:45:49 PM

Shockjock1961, my research is ongoing, but I wouldn't be foolish enough to give the anti-ethanol lunatics my real name.

I trust the results of this ACE Fuel Economy Study more than what you claim that your sister says.
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,737
Points:2,783,765
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Jan 23, 2013 11:07:23 AM

"Now there's some solid proof! Where is her mileage research paper published?"

Let me ask you the same SS. Where is your or Hannie's mileage research papers published?
Profile Pic
SilverStreaker
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:14,128
Points:2,795,090
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Jan 23, 2013 10:20:05 AM

Shockjock1961 says "My sister has a Ford Taurus FFV."

Now there's some solid proof! Where is her mileage research paper published?
Profile Pic
krzysiek_ck
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:8,284
Points:1,330,280
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Jan 23, 2013 10:10:39 AM

Shockjock1961 wrote: "The claims are only damaging because they are true."

If they are true as you claim, please list all the ethanol related engine damages your sister had to deal with up to date.

Shockjock1961's motto: Whine, spin, half truths, and lies.

[Edited by: krzysiek_ck at 1/23/2013 10:12:48 AM EST]
Profile Pic
tropicalmn
Veteran Author Minnesota

Posts:276
Points:254,120
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Jan 23, 2013 9:53:15 AM

"So forgive me if I'm sceptical of the claim that nobody will ever be forced to buy e-15."
American Motorcycle Association is stating that EPA has agreed to require stations that sell E15 to have a dedicated E10 pump for motorcycles and other vehicles not approved for E15.
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,737
Points:2,783,765
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Jan 23, 2013 9:00:11 AM

"Shockjock, contrary to your constant negativity, I am not in favor of mandatory e-15"

I nver said you were. However, I'm sure you don't speak for the industry, and the facts are, it was claimed, when e-10 was introduced, that this was going to be a "choice", just like you are claiming e-15 is going to be. Fast forward to today, and I have no option to by gasoline undiluted with ethanol, unless of course I want to drive 70 or 80 miles away everytime i want to fill up. So forgive me if I'm sceptical of the claim that nobody will ever be forced to buy e-15.

"My only goal is to stop false claims that it is damaging, and exaggerated claims of mileage loss"

The claims are only damaging because they are true. My sister has a Ford Taurus FFV. She gets about 19Mpg when running e-10 and about 15 mpg when running e-85. Since E-85 was only aout 12% cheaper (at the time, now it's only about 5% cheaper) she quickly came to the realization that it was costing her more to use E-85 then diluted gasoline. No exxageration, just the simple truth...



Profile Pic
krzysiek_ck
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:8,284
Points:1,330,280
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Jan 23, 2013 8:30:42 AM

Shockjock1961 wrote: "Sure, they said the same thing about E-10. Try to buy gas in my area without it..."

I can buy E0 in Chicago area.
Profile Pic
Hannie59
All-Star Author Appleton

Posts:964
Points:24,300
Joined:Apr 2010
Message Posted: Jan 23, 2013 7:46:30 AM

Shockjock, contrary to your constant negativity, I am not in favor of mandatory E-15 ever. In my honest opinion, it should never have been pushed for by the ethanol industry. I like the industry but it has made a mistake here.

You should be able to get your "pure" gas although that term does not apply to gasoline in any way. And you should not try to defile the product and industry with lies to play on false fears.

The RFA should be investing in blender pump promotion and FFV promotion, and E-85 as an alternative fuel more so. Giving more choices to you, me and everyone else. All blender pumps should have ethanol free as a choice.

My only goal is to stop false claims that it is damaging, and exaggerated claims of mileage loss, which are lies you and your ditto head followers constantly promote.

[Edited by: Hannie59 at 1/23/2013 7:51:39 AM EST]
Profile Pic
thebrohta167
Champion Author New Jersey

Posts:2,477
Points:508,525
Joined:Nov 2010
Message Posted: Jan 22, 2013 7:26:56 PM

get it out of my gasoline!
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,737
Points:2,783,765
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Jan 22, 2013 4:32:03 PM

"No mandate has been created for 15% ethanol in your fuel. All that has occurred here is that the EPA has approved it for use in vehicles newer than 2006. In no state in this country will you be forced to use E-15!"

Sure, they said the same thing about E-10. Try to buy gas in my area without it...
Profile Pic
Hannie59
All-Star Author Appleton

Posts:964
Points:24,300
Joined:Apr 2010
Message Posted: Jan 22, 2013 3:41:46 PM

brerrabbitTX,

Alot of ethanol supporters (can't speak for all) would have preferred that the RFA would have pushed less for the higher blends and touted E-85 more as an alternative.. sort of its own animal. Much of their promotions have revolved around ethanol in general and legislatively to push for higher blends. I think ethanol ought to be focusing on E-85 personally, but there needs to be some sort of standard for all autos to be FFVs, or at minumum make a certain fleet percentage of a manufacturer as such. I have heard that at the big three there are many engineers who think the ethanol bashing and stances that their companies have taken are ridiculous, and that it's a great perfomance fuel. Leads me to believe there is some intent at misinformation, that it's not just coincidental.

Remember these are people who could care less about corn, or ethanol from garbage, or algae or whatever. They just know how its higer octane and clean burn properties can be better utilized in engines.

Frankly what drives me to post is that the misinformation has gotten out of hand, and every uninformed poster decides to fire off nonsense about ruined engines and 20% mileage loss on E-10 fuel and those sorts of things.



[Edited by: Hannie59 at 1/22/2013 3:48:22 PM EST]
Profile Pic
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author Houston

Posts:1,404
Points:24,925
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Jan 22, 2013 2:37:11 PM

As far as misinformation about ethanol goes from my perspective in the fuels industry I don't see a lot of it being put out there by the oil industry. I am not saying they don't just that what I see does not appear to come from them. The oil industry has a lot of other groups more than willing to bash ethanol for them. As far as ethanol goes the oil industry has benifitted quite a lot by it. In fact a new term was coined when ethanol became widespread in the industry which was "ethanol economics". This was pricing based on credits, RIENS, and lower costs for 10% of their blends.

While there is certainly a concern that an alternative energy source for road fuel may become a reality I think the current thinking is that for the time being there is no competition on the horizon. I tend to monitor this based on Big Oils investment strategies to a point. Oil companies are in the business to stay in business. They are huge, they generate billions of dollars in cash flow and earnings. They want to stay in that position regardless of what the fuel of choice becomes. To that end the oil companies invest in alternative fuels research. Several years ago they threw some decent money into the development of cellulosic ethanol but have recently backed off those investments. The reason is they don't see it as currently viable alternative. They invest in wind, solar, bio, ethanol, etc. but do it to stay in the market and up to date with current research.

There is an infra structure in place today to transport oil, refine it into gas diesel and jet fuel and then distribute that all across the country to multiple retail outlets. That network has been built up since the early 1900's and has grown and been paid for along the way. Any new (or in the case of ethanol) expanded reach into the market has a barrier to entry, and that barrier is the same distribution and transportation system that the hydrocarbon system has used for almost 100 years. So that gets back to a fundemental we can agree on, which is the vast majority of consummers care only about price which will be high and a problem for any new entry into the market. The reality is given these difficulties gas will continue to be a large portion of the equation for years to come. We cannot switch to a new fuel paradigm overnight. So in that regard Big Oil has not much to fear from alternative fuel source for sometime. Now if some want to say that means big oil is running negative publicity about E-85 so be it, but they really are not.

E-85 outside of isolated areas across the country is just not logistically possible without a lot of investment which would in fact increase it's cost considerably. Based on the US consumption of fuel today I have not seen a scenario where ethanol could meet that demand in the form of E-85 for years and years to come. And while I won't get into a price discussion on ethanol because those usually get ugly I will say that until E-85 is the fuel of choice for the majority of consummers in the US we will never truly know what the cost is will need to be for it to succeed. It's a chicken egg kind of thing.

The last thing I will say is that since I work in the industry a lot of run out situations I face as well as others face is not being out of gas in a market but rather being out of ethanol. In ethanol mandated areas or areas that have switched to sub octane fuels that need 10% ethanol to get the proper octane level we have a difficult time getting enough ethanol to hit the 10% blend levels today. I can only imagine what trying to keep up with 15% will be like much less E-85.

Just my opinion but it is the opinion of someone who has to assure fuel is available everyday at over 60 terminals across the US which means gas and ethanol is available.
Profile Pic
Hannie59
All-Star Author Appleton

Posts:964
Points:24,300
Joined:Apr 2010
Message Posted: Jan 22, 2013 1:22:22 PM

rabbit TX,

Points taken, your perspective is interesting. I have to challenge you on the E-85 being unsuccessful. Don't you agree that people "don't buy it" because of the misinformation communicated through press releases and contributions of the American Petroleum Institute?

Nobody would dislike "big oil" if they didn't hold them hostage and publish false information in regards to any real threat to them. If that weren't true you'd see more "Positives of petroleum" stuff as opposed to anti everything that isn't petroleum.

There is collusion with the food industries and the automotive industries to try to protect petroleum from viable and fair competition. Again, not your issue, I realize. I blame people for not being able to see anything beyond themselves (aka, the gas prices, nothimg else matters as you indicated, and are right about)

[Edited by: Hannie59 at 1/22/2013 1:29:09 PM EST]
Profile Pic
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author Houston

Posts:1,404
Points:24,925
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Jan 22, 2013 12:27:54 PM

Then I would imagine in your line of business there are a lot of business failures due to it's competative nature.

As far as $400 million bonuses yes some companies give them. The one I work for generally does not. While I have not spent a lot of time studying the bonus structure for the companies I mentioned I did say they are not in the E&P portion of the industry. They tend to be lower margin companies as a result. Are you lumping every company that participates in the idustry as one and saying they all give away to much compensation?

I am just curious because while you obviously fault me for long posts I do it because the industry is highly segmented with thousands or participants who do not act they way you think they all do. My point from the outset was not to make any excuses for Big Oil but simply to point out the fundemental principle that increased costs will occur and be passed on in an increased ethanol blending case. You want to say it's unfair because Big Oil makes to much, my point is okay I have no comment on that but if costs increase prices will increase and you want to fight over fairness. Our world in not about fairness, it's about economic realities.
Profile Pic
krzysiek_ck
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:8,284
Points:1,330,280
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Jan 22, 2013 12:02:50 PM

brerrabbitTX wrote: "Talking with you is like talking with a two year old."

Right back at you.

brerrabbitTX wrote: "Do you or your company eat the price increases or pass them on?"

Because of the competitive nature of the business I'm in, the price of the product/service drives the business. That means, unlike your business, we indeed eat the increased cost of doing business as much as possible. At the same time, unlike your line of business, we do not give away 400 million in retirement bonuses.

[Edited by: krzysiek_ck at 1/22/2013 12:05:31 PM EST]
Profile Pic
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author Houston

Posts:1,404
Points:24,925
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Jan 22, 2013 11:32:53 AM

Talking with you is like talking with a two year old.

Again as directly as I can put it I am not trying to explain to you or anyone else Big Oil, their practices, or as you say their greed.

What I am saying is simply to increase the use of ethanol on a large scale basis across the US it will require much more infra structure and that will cost money which will be reflected in higher prices for fuel.

You want me to explain big oil greed and all I am saying is many of the increased costs are from non Big Oil companies. Take a look at Tesoro, Kinder Morgan, Flint Hills. All are major players in the fuel business and own refineries, pipelines, and terminals. However they don't have exploration and production arms and buy the oil from those that do. To increase ethanol blending capabililities they have to expand tanks at their terminal, rail spurs, and if as you say it is so easy to move ethanol by pipeline then they will have to invest in that. That raises their cost of doing business and they then pass that on to consummers. You call it greed, I call it normal business practice.

As far as answering questions you have not responded to how you or the company you work for handles increased costs. Do you or your company eat the price increases or pass them on?
Profile Pic
krzysiek_ck
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:8,284
Points:1,330,280
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Jan 22, 2013 9:50:25 AM

Big Oil Greed is not about me, brerrabbitTX. Why are you trying to spin it that way? Pathetic.

You are continuing to fail to explain Big Oil Greed. Maybe you should try to write more. Next time please leave me out of it.
Profile Pic
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author Houston

Posts:1,404
Points:24,925
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Jan 22, 2013 9:31:12 AM

You wrote 3 paragraphs to explain Big Oil Greed and you failed to convince me. Would you care to write more?

From my first post:

"Okay everyone here hates oil companies so I won't go into the problems this will cause them but will only remind you that it will increase your cost at the pump."

I will not get into a pissing contest with you or anyone else about how much Big Oil does or does not make. I attempted to point that out with my first post. You and everyone else on this board has already made their minds up on the issue. Quite frankly the only reason I responded to this topic at all was because it started on the General Discussion Board then was moved to the Ethanol discussion board. I would have avoided it here specifically because of people like you. Your mind is made up and you will harass and ask the same questions over and over again claiming you never get an answer regardless of how many times an issue is addressed. You will point out one off cases to refute others arguements and completely fail to address relivent points in favor of your ethanol at all costs approach. You as others will do it with one or two lines and then challenge others like myself to "write paragraphs" to attempt to convince you of something. No thanks, closed minded individuals who will not deal with economic realities can never be convinced to see things in a different light. Another reason I avoid the Ethanol discussion board. Here are my pointsd

Building ethanol pipelines to supply the entire US market structure will cost billions of dollars.

The current Renewable fuels law mandates the use of renewables by year. Part of that is based on using cellulosic ethanol and the industry was fined for not using it in 2010 even though it was not commercially available.

Finally hate big oil all you want, I don't care. But individual retailers who struggle to stay in business are not big oil, many terminals are not owned by big oil and much of the cost will fall to them in the form of more tanks, the new ethanol pipelines etc. Since you lump them into Big Oil should they be expected to lose money and not pas those costs on?

If you want to take my comments as being anti ethanol then feel free I really don't care. I am actually not anti ethanol, but am more a realist and am trying to say that there will be increased costs moving to a higher and higher ethanol blend. I also question the economic viability of high ethanol blends because I work in the industry and despite peoples good intentions to be green, or rely less on foriegn sources of energy the reality is 80% of the fuel consumming public only care about price. Even in situations where my company has introduced E-85 the ventures have in most cases failed because the majority of people will not buy it.
Profile Pic
krzysiek_ck
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:8,284
Points:1,330,280
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Jan 22, 2013 8:30:58 AM

borsht wrote: "Why not wait until cars are designed for ethanol, then put in ethanol pumps at service stations."

What exactly a car needs to be designed for ethanol?
Profile Pic
Hannie59
All-Star Author Appleton

Posts:964
Points:24,300
Joined:Apr 2010
Message Posted: Jan 22, 2013 8:21:22 AM

No mandate has been created for 15% ethanol in your fuel. All that has occurred here is that the EPA has approved it for use in vehicles newer than 2006. In no state in this country will you be forced to use E-15! This is an example of the American Petroleum Institute creating more lies and misinformation in order to make people think that ethanol is evil.

Any car that can use 10% can also use 15% without any problems. If you still don't believe it, well then continue to use the 10% or the 0%. Sheesh.

Me too Goldseeker... well make it E-98 anyway hehe.

[Edited by: Hannie59 at 1/22/2013 8:23:16 AM EST]
Profile Pic
borsht
Champion Author Oakland

Posts:3,300
Points:783,265
Joined:Aug 2012
Message Posted: Jan 22, 2013 8:04:14 AM

several decades ago they had pumps with a selector on it, one could select his octane. They could do that with ethanol now, it one had a car designed to run on ethanol he cold select the percentage his car was designed for.
Profile Pic
borsht
Champion Author Oakland

Posts:3,300
Points:783,265
Joined:Aug 2012
Message Posted: Jan 22, 2013 8:02:01 AM

Its like mandating that people eat peanut butter, even if they are allergic to it and could die. Why not wait until cars are designed for ethanol, then put in ethanol pumps at service stations.
Profile Pic
goldseeker
Champion Author West Virginia

Posts:23,001
Points:3,322,010
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 22, 2013 7:43:48 AM

Kinder Morgan also completed an ethanol pipeline in Florida. I am ready for E100.

[Edited by: goldseeker at 1/22/2013 7:44:31 AM EST]
Profile Pic
borodin
Veteran Author Montreal

Posts:408
Points:39,280
Joined:Jan 2013
Message Posted: Jan 21, 2013 8:53:42 PM

noooooooooooo
Profile Pic
BigHorne1
Champion Author Missouri

Posts:3,796
Points:845,380
Joined:Jul 2012
Message Posted: Jan 21, 2013 6:44:19 PM

NO, keep it out of my fuel
Profile Pic
krzysiek_ck
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:8,284
Points:1,330,280
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Jan 21, 2013 3:36:16 PM

wrote: "What business on the planet that wishes to stay in business is not forced to pass on their increased costs to the final consummer of that product."

What business gives away 400 million to CEO, I'm sure he earned it, as retirement bonus?

You wrote 3 paragraphs to explain Big Oil Greed and you failed to convince me. Would you care to write more?



[Edited by: krzysiek_ck at 1/21/2013 3:41:37 PM EST]
Profile Pic
brerrabbitTX
Champion Author Houston

Posts:1,404
Points:24,925
Joined:Mar 2011
Message Posted: Jan 21, 2013 2:47:34 PM

brerrabbitTX wrote: "Ethanol cannot be delivered via pipeline only by truck, rail or barge."Okay let me revise the statement because we are very specific on issues as such. As the article linked states ethanol is moving in a dedicated, state of the art pipeline system in NY/NJ. So let me expand and say that hydrocarbon products and ethanol cannot share the same pipeline and the one referenced is in fact a dedicated ethanol pipeline. Great it moves ethanol from a port to a terminal and can accept "unit trains" from a railyard. That benifits the local area. Now reproduce the network of gas and diesel pipelines for ethanol across the country and what you get is a lot of money. So I suppose the more accurate statement is that ethanol pipelines are not economical on a widespread basis so the majority of ethanol moved in this country to meet the federal mandates will continue to be delivered by rail, truck and barge.

As far as the second statement goes I never realized that increased supply costs were considered the exclusive domain of Big Oil Greed. What business on the planet that wishes to stay in business is not forced to pass on their increased costs to the final consummer of that product.

I have no idea what business krzysiek ck is in but have to ask if cost increase for him or his company does he eat those costs and not raise prices? Can anyone show me consistant examples of this practice where the company continues in business for long?

Being realistic increased costs are passed on in business. That's the way it has worked forever. To believe otherwise is niave at best. The government mandates something that raises costs to an industry and the industry is just suppose to eat the cost. I am sure that sort of thing happens everyday.
Profile Pic
jacksfan
Champion Author Lincoln

Posts:2,572
Points:1,272,615
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Jan 21, 2013 12:58:24 PM

Coming? It's already here, and, based on personal experience, it works great! Get yourself some!
Post a reply Back to Topics