What does big-oil fear more than Nancy Pelosi and the Dem-wits?
Answer: the resourcefulness of the American farmer, backed by voter
anti-tax sentiment in support of this 'local hero'.
And now with aquaculture and depleted fishing resources - they also are
fearing the emergence of low-cost sea-based aquaculture (algae harvesting).
Oil prices cannot go much higher than $3.50-4.00 at the pump now,
because of this looming price-cap - placed on oil NOT by the legislature
(which would like to see it go even higher) but by the farm lobby and
good-old capitalist profit-motive ...
...together with the clear realization in DC that that if the farmer and
aquaculture get 'over the hump' and into full production and employment,
then each will have the necessary voter bloc constituency - which can
and WILL eliminate most taxes for the domestic product only, putting
big-oil and big government spenders at competitive disadvantage.
Part of the PR problem for algoil starts at the top. Vital info has been
accumulated by NREL, but is not being released in a timely fashion. They
are not comfortable with a massive shift of resources into aquaculture.
However, discovery of this profit potential (in alternative fuel) is
almost impossible to obfuscate.
What we see now, in the recent boom in ethanol production will shift
next year and beyond into a boom in aquaculture and biodiesel. There is
little chance of turning back that trend --unless LENR, ZPE or
hydrino-tech comes to the rescue.
The late/great 300+ page study on algae - crammed full of disinformation
from DoE is now 10 years old, and NREL was supposed to have a timely
update with revised comparisons on the yield of the newer strains of
algae, which are superior (as expected) and best techniques - but no one
can find this revision online. Is this deliberate interference ?
...ah shucks, probably just being held-up a bit by Petro-insider
"consultants" as it is very damaging to 'bidness' as they say in Dubai.
At 10 years old, when crude was under $20 or about a fourth of what it
is now - biodiesel from aquaculture was not then seen by DoE as
competitive - so consequently they did NOT plan for it aggressively (as
they should have). They even said: "Even with assumptions of $50 per ton
of CO2 as a carbon credit, the cost of biodiesel never competes with the
projected cost of petroleum diesel."
That was their erroneous conclusion then! One hopes that we will not
repeat that error and will plan aggressively and encourage the shift
away from OPEC for the next ten years: which is based firmly biodiesel
from aquaculture. Yields are up to 10,000 time higher per acre than
soybeans, for instance. BTW this report does admit that 100%
self-sufficiency is possible through aquaculture - but hardly a dent can
be accomplished from agriculture alone (soy and corn).
That "never competes" conclusion is what big-oil "wants" you to remember
in 2007, but my-my -- look how a few oil-Wars change everything which
was valid then, as now the wholesale price of petro-diesel at the pump
in 2007 is actually higher than biodiesel in many places.
The cost estimates for the ASP program developed in 1995 showed that
algal biodiesel cost would range from $1.40 to $4.40 per gallon based on
long-term projections - three times more than petro-diesel then. They
also allude to the 'full-tax' or 'less-tax' implications. That is the
very consideration which puts government at odds with citizens. Voters
will pay modest taxes on biodiesel for road improvement but not massive
taxes for sponsoring oil-wars or other pork.
Yes that is a gross over-simplification of the embedded dynamics, but it
gets to the crux of the problem. We, the citizens, want self-sufficiency
and are willing to vote for the US farmer (or aquaculturist) in any way
which will get us there, even if it means lower taxes for Hawks to wage
war with.
The current price of biodiesel has lived up to that estimate (actually
below the low end of that estimate), but 2007 numbers for petro-diesel
are much higher than DoE estimated then. The next ten years will be even
harder to estimate, because biodiesel from algae itself will probably
lower the rigged-price which the Arabs and OPEC can extort.
They can and will sell oil any price necessary to ruin or stifle the
competition, so we must protect biodiesel from predatory pricing and we
can use one-sided taxes to do that. However, this will probably lower
overall tax revenues -- so there is the problem in a nutshell. Duh!
Average price per gallon in the USA, from DoE two years ago:
Biodiesel (untaxed but from higher priced soy, NOT algae)
$2.27
Diesel (taxed)
$2.24
Gasoline (taxed)
$2.11
Ethanol (untaxed)
$1.86
I filled up today in California with regular gasoline at $3.25. I wish I
had a diesel and would even pay more for biodiesel - but look at what
little choice the consummer has in that regard. Forty percent of autos
in Europe are diesel - almost zero here.
The reason that government is complicit with OPEC and big-oil on not
wanting the biodiesel alternatives is the enormous tax base which can be
lost. And most of it does not go for roads. Of the $3.25/gallon only
about $1.40 goes to the the refinery and dealer- the rest is local,
state, and federal taxes. If consumers insist on getting biodiesel but
with lower taxes, since it is locally produced, that is the big fear.
They may buy it direct from the farmer which is an even greater fear.
BTW big-oil always raises prices in California first, to see if that
brings out the protesters in large numbers. It did not this year. You
will be next, wherever you are. The brief downturn in prices over the
winter was a 'cruelty joke'. Look for $4.00/gallon nationwide by July
4th. Why?
Did you see how much Hillary C. i$ raising for her run? Rudy will need
even more to win, with all his 'skeletons' in the closet, and that
regime-stability-factor for the Petrocracy will probably show up at the
pump.
Jones
