Get 40% Off
💰 Buffett reveals a $6.7B stake in Chubb. Copy the full portfolio for FREE with InvestingPro’s Stock Ideas toolCopy Portfolios

Ethanol From Corn Is A Dumb Idea!

Published 08/20/2012, 04:19 AM
Updated 07/09/2023, 06:31 AM
OCEN
-
ZC
-

There is a lot of hot air blowing in Iowa and across the US Midwestern states—and I am not just talking about politics or wind energy production. The combination of an extended drought plus the ethanol mandate plus the weak economy plus the 2012 Presidential election cycle has combined into a ferocious debate over all of these issues.

On August 10, 2012 The US Department of Agriculture released a specialized crop forecast sure to send corn prices higher than their already record setting $8 per bushel. The USDA report said corn production would be “sharply lower” down 22.6 bushels per acre to 123.4 bushels per acre making the current harvest the lowest forecast since the 1995-96 growing season. The number of acres of corn expected to be harvested for was also reduced by 1.5 million acres reflecting USDA’s estimate of failed crops due to drought conditions.

Lower corn production hits home with higher food prices. It also hits hard because US Renewable Fuel Standards require blending ethanol into gasoline. For 2012, 13 billion gallons of ethanol is required to meet the target but that requirement gradually increases each year from 9 billion gallons in 2008 to 36 billion gallons by 2022. The RFS also requires the use of cellulosic ethanol made from non-food crops except none is produced commercially in the US since it is uneconomic so refiners must buy credits or pay a penalty for not using it.

To maintain supply lines in the face of reduced domestic corn production, imports are forecast to increase this year by 45 million bushels to 75 million bushels. USDA said total US corn supply for the growing year would likely be at a nine year low falling by more than 2.0 billion bushels. As a result USDA expects total US corn use to also fall by 1.5 billion bushels to 11.2 billion bushels—the lowest corn use in 6 years.

The first sacrifice in corn short years is feed for livestock. Ranchers have already begun to cull the herds. In a campaign stop in Iowa August 13, 2012 President Obama announced that USDA would step up its purchase of meat buying $170 million in pork, chickens, lamb and catfish as the culling of the herds will create a short-term glut in the market with falling prices. The US will use the meat it hopes to buy at bargain prices for US food programs. Economists predict longer term spikes in meat and other food prices as supply shortages ripple through the supply chain.

US EPA could waive the RFS ethanol use, but don’t count on it. Because of the ethanol mandate available corn supplies in shortages follow the price higher with the ethanol mandate, driving up the cost of gasoline refiners who are required to buy it at any price unless EPA issues a waiver. So far it has shown no indications it will do so. Last year, US EPA denied a waiver requested by the State of Texas in the face of its severe drought conditions.

USDA has a spotty record of forecasting these things but the conditions on the ground suggest a worst case scenario this year in the absence of rain and the scorching hot temperatures. And the worst case is exactly where the ugly politics of ethanol are taking us for the rest of this election cycle. Even environmental groups which once favored ethanol production have soured on it claiming it uses more energy to produce than its saves in imports and emissions reduction. But ethanol is the poster child for artificial markets created by government mandates and subsidies that are tough to stop once constituencies are in place.

As is true on many issues during this election cycle, facing reality about our economy, job creation, taxes, subsidies and pet causes is causing angst. Ethanol mandates should be causing a lot more angst than they are. Politicians campaigning in Iowa are unlikely to be truth-tellers on this subject. A healthy election debate on the pros and cons of the renewable fuel standard and the unintended consequences of ethanol mandates is good for the country and might even lead to a consensus on a way forward to pull our economy out of the ditch, but a lot of mud-slinging is going to happen getting there.

3rd party Ad. Not an offer or recommendation by Investing.com. See disclosure here or remove ads .

Latest comments

I wrote the ethanol article below. You are free to edit and publish it however you wish For the Ethanol Mandate, the Real Issue is Speculators by Bobby Fontaine The problem is not so much grain supplies but the prices going so high that third world countries and the food relief organizations that support them can't afford to feed their people anymore. This leads to political unrest and death all over the world, like last years "Arab Spring" being a direct result of rising grain prices caused by federal ethanol mandates. Ethanol supporters can defend high grain prices by showing that ever since ethanol has placed higher demands on corn markets, more corn has been grown to meet it. That however doesn't change the fact that the reason grain prices are so high even though there is ample supply is speculators. And the only reason speculators feel confident enough to risk billions of dollars to drive up grain prices is because federal biofuel mandates insure higher than normal demand on corn, and soybean for biodiesel. Higher demand for soy and corn, along with being able to sell it for higher prices, causes farmers to choose to grow them over other crops, which puts pressure on the supply side for all related food markets, including meat producers who use grain for animal feed. This gives speculators a field day of betting that all commodities markets will rise. This in turn forces the cost of everything we eat to unrealistically high levels. But since we have such a strong economy, we won’t starve. This however does keep us from being able to make our economy stronger, which is causing a lot of people to become unemployed and stay that way. In third world countries, higher grain prices means they don’t eat, which in the long run, the unrest that follows costs us greatly, to say nothing of the humanitarian aspect of what we’re doing to them. No reason for starvation What I’m saying is we will have enough grain to supply all the markets in need, hopefully with next year bringing in a better crop so we can re- supply depleted stores. But speculators are forcing prices up to unrealistic levels so we can no longer afford to buy them without a great deal of pain. This way they make money at everyone’s else’s expense, including their own since they are human beings and will suffer through whatever they cause for the rest of us. This is to say nothing of the fact that they will also have to help pay to clean up after the problems they cause through taxes and straining the economy further, perhaps beyond repair. And the only reason they are able to do this is because they know which way the markets are pointing as long as we have mandates that insure prices will keep rising. Federal laws that require ethanol and biodiesel be used as fuel forces such a large shift in the direction of grain markets, and subsequently all food markets, that speculators can easily see what no one is supposed to be smart enough to see, which is the direction commodities markets will head. Do you remember the story about how Hillary Clinton, who had no experience in commodities, turned a $1000 into an easy $100,000 through a series of cattle futures trades? There was an outcry of foul play over her easy money making adventure because that’s just not the way commodities work, not even for people who are experts in a particular commodity. Predictable markets are broken markets There have always been speculators in commodities but they don’t make a lot of money at it because they are so unpredictable. The people commodities futures were designed for are actually involved in the production and or sales of a particular commodity and use derivatives contracts as a hedge against “future” losses. If a farmer grows corn hoping the price will be within a certain range at harvest time so he can’t pay off his debtors and turn a profit, he may place a bet that the price will drop. This way if it does, his winnings from the derivative contract will cover the loss he took on his actual crop. But with federal mandates forcing grain prices to keep rising, it attracts billions of extra dollars into commodities markets from hedge funds and big banks who have nothing to do with production and sales in those markets. This causes prices to skyrocket to unrealistic highs. So if they drop the biofuel mandate, speculators will be forced out of grain markets so prices can drop back to realistic levels, which will be higher than before the ethanol mandate went into effect, but nowhere near as high as they are now. No change without ending mandates This is what happens when governments start messing with free markets. Commodity markets are never supposed to be a sure thing, that's why they exist, to bring stability to unpredictable markets. Thy work until the government steps in and makes them so predictable that people who have no interest in a particular market can see clearly where it is going and invest billions to insure that it does. This distorts market prices beyond the normal dictates of supply and demand in the effected markets. You can argue until the cows come home about every other aspect of this debate. But nothing will change unless the EPA mandate is dropped
Risk Disclosure: Trading in financial instruments and/or cryptocurrencies involves high risks including the risk of losing some, or all, of your investment amount, and may not be suitable for all investors. Prices of cryptocurrencies are extremely volatile and may be affected by external factors such as financial, regulatory or political events. Trading on margin increases the financial risks.
Before deciding to trade in financial instrument or cryptocurrencies you should be fully informed of the risks and costs associated with trading the financial markets, carefully consider your investment objectives, level of experience, and risk appetite, and seek professional advice where needed.
Fusion Media would like to remind you that the data contained in this website is not necessarily real-time nor accurate. The data and prices on the website are not necessarily provided by any market or exchange, but may be provided by market makers, and so prices may not be accurate and may differ from the actual price at any given market, meaning prices are indicative and not appropriate for trading purposes. Fusion Media and any provider of the data contained in this website will not accept liability for any loss or damage as a result of your trading, or your reliance on the information contained within this website.
It is prohibited to use, store, reproduce, display, modify, transmit or distribute the data contained in this website without the explicit prior written permission of Fusion Media and/or the data provider. All intellectual property rights are reserved by the providers and/or the exchange providing the data contained in this website.
Fusion Media may be compensated by the advertisers that appear on the website, based on your interaction with the advertisements or advertisers.
© 2007-2024 - Fusion Media Limited. All Rights Reserved.