DOE Selects Six Cellulosic Ethanol Plants for Up to $385 Million in Federal Funding
Funding to help bring cellulosic ethanol to market and help revolutionize the industry
WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Samuel W. Bodman today announced that DOE will invest up to $385 million for six biorefinery projects over the next four years. When fully operational, the biorefineries are expected to produce more than 130 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol per year. This production will help further President Bush’s goal of making cellulosic ethanol cost-competitive with gasoline by 2012 and, along with increased automobile fuel efficiency, reduce America’s gasoline consumption by 20 percent in ten years.
Funding for these projects is an integral part of the President’s Biofuels Initiative that will lead to the wide-scale use of non-food based biomass, such as agricultural waste, trees, forest residues, and perennial grasses in the production of transportation fuels, electricity, and other products. The solicitation, announced a year ago, was initially for three biorefineries and $160 million. However, in an effort to expedite the goals of President Bush’s Advanced Energy Initiative and help achieve the goals of his Twenty in Ten Initiative, within authority of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005), Section 932, Secretary Bodman raised the funding ceiling.
DOE
From the initial pork barrel size of $160 MILLION Dollars last year to even bigger porker size of $385 MILLION Dollars, the Celluloisc Ethanol backers must be drooling at the lips at the thought of that much of YOUR money they can get their paws on for their Ethanol Factories.
Cellulosic Ethanol Factories use not corn, but plant wastes from industrial processes (sawdust, paper pulp) and agricultural plant wastes (corn stover, cereal straws) to produce ethanol.Cellulose Energy
This is probably the type of plant that a certain company is wanting to build in the Ozarks. It makes fiscal sense for them to use waste products from the lumber industry, of which there are numerous sources in the Ozarks.
Using corn, which is not grown in the Ozarks and would have to be shipped in, makes no sense. The added shipping costs alone would be prohibitive.
But using one of the Ozarks natural resources, like forest products, does make sense for the local ethanol factory.
To sell this boondoggle, pork laden project to the locals, one could envision the old "bait and switch." The "bait and switch" involves selling someone a suspicious product, but dressing it up to look like something else that can be sold.
By the time the customer realizes he's been swindled, it's too late, the flim-flam man has high-tailed it down the road, looking for another "investor."
Between clear-cutting the Ozarks forests and polluting and depleting the Ozarks Aquifer, there's nothing to be gained from having an "Ethanol Factory" here in the Ozarks.
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Friday, June 29, 2007
"PORKOLOGY" 101
STATE & FEDERAL INCENTIVES AND LAWS
Our database captures state and federal laws and incentives related to alternative fuels and vehicles, air quality, fuel efficiency, and other transportation-related topics. State-level information is updated annually after each state's legislative session ends. To access state information, select a state from the map below. Federal information is updated after enacted legislation is signed into law. Select the Federal Incentives and Laws link at right for the latest federal-level information.
This is the U.S. Department of Energy’s Alternative Fuels Data Center that features an interactive map on its Web site that allows you to click on any State and find a list of all “laws and incentives related to alternative fuels and vehicles, air quality, fuel efficiency, and oher transportation-related topics.” Information is updated annually after each state’s legislative session ends.
The Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC) is an online collection of data, including more than 3000 documents and several interactive tools covering the topics of alternative transportation fuels, alternative fuel vehicles, hybrid electric vehicles, idle reduction technologies, fuel blends, and fuel economy. The AFDC is sponsored by the U. S. Department of Energy's Clean Cities and Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct) fleet programs.
DOE Site
Easy to use and almost easy to understand database from the U.S. Department of Energy. Has state by state info on laws, subsidies and general info on ethanol, biofuels and the like.
Our database captures state and federal laws and incentives related to alternative fuels and vehicles, air quality, fuel efficiency, and other transportation-related topics. State-level information is updated annually after each state's legislative session ends. To access state information, select a state from the map below. Federal information is updated after enacted legislation is signed into law. Select the Federal Incentives and Laws link at right for the latest federal-level information.
This is the U.S. Department of Energy’s Alternative Fuels Data Center that features an interactive map on its Web site that allows you to click on any State and find a list of all “laws and incentives related to alternative fuels and vehicles, air quality, fuel efficiency, and oher transportation-related topics.” Information is updated annually after each state’s legislative session ends.
The Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC) is an online collection of data, including more than 3000 documents and several interactive tools covering the topics of alternative transportation fuels, alternative fuel vehicles, hybrid electric vehicles, idle reduction technologies, fuel blends, and fuel economy. The AFDC is sponsored by the U. S. Department of Energy's Clean Cities and Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct) fleet programs.
DOE Site
Easy to use and almost easy to understand database from the U.S. Department of Energy. Has state by state info on laws, subsidies and general info on ethanol, biofuels and the like.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
"CORNOGRAPHIC" BEHAVIOR
Ethanolics Anonymous By DENNY HALDEMAN
In a land already plagued with poisoned groundwater, the incidence of atrazine and other poisons will only become more pervasive. Aquifers, already drained faster than recharge will only dry up faster in direct proportion to our ethanol consumption. It takes around 8,000 gallons of water to produce a gallon of ethanol from corn and each gallon of it leaves eight gallons of toxic waste sludge. Even in the land of 10,000 Lakes, Minnesota is experiencing water shortages from the ethanol production explosion. With 99% of corn production under intensive fossil fuel nitrogen fertilization regimes, there is a directly proportionate resulting contamination of surface and groundwater and growth of the dead zones where our rivers drain.
Depending on if you believe the science of the Corn Growers Association or scientists from Cornell University, corn will produce slightly more energy than is required to turn it into ethanol or substantially less. Having monitored the bioenergy crowd for a decade, repeated inquiries into true sustainability have been met with deafening silence. There is no ethanol plant in operation that can plant, grow, harvest, transport, process, and transport it's product on ethanol alone and still show a profit. It cannot be done given today's economics.
After we do the inevitable Enron-style bailout of the ethanol scamsters, we will be left with soils so depleted of basic nutrients, that any subsequent food production will be lower in nutrients, adversely affecting human and animal health and well being.
ARTICLE
Polluted water, polluted air, a depleted aquifer and soil that can no longer be tilled, due to it being depelted by the current rush to plant "horizon to horizon" to cash in on the ethanol craze.
Have we taken leave of our collective senses? Have we forgot the tales of woe and misery passed down from generation to generation about the horrors of the 1930"s DUST BOWL ?
Once the Ozarks Aquifer is polluted with the toxic wastewater from these ethanol plants and can no longer serve up clean, drinkable water, it will be WAY too late to stop the current madness in our rush to build these "Ethanol Factories."
And once the precious top soil is gone, American civilization will suffer the same fate.
In a land already plagued with poisoned groundwater, the incidence of atrazine and other poisons will only become more pervasive. Aquifers, already drained faster than recharge will only dry up faster in direct proportion to our ethanol consumption. It takes around 8,000 gallons of water to produce a gallon of ethanol from corn and each gallon of it leaves eight gallons of toxic waste sludge. Even in the land of 10,000 Lakes, Minnesota is experiencing water shortages from the ethanol production explosion. With 99% of corn production under intensive fossil fuel nitrogen fertilization regimes, there is a directly proportionate resulting contamination of surface and groundwater and growth of the dead zones where our rivers drain.
Depending on if you believe the science of the Corn Growers Association or scientists from Cornell University, corn will produce slightly more energy than is required to turn it into ethanol or substantially less. Having monitored the bioenergy crowd for a decade, repeated inquiries into true sustainability have been met with deafening silence. There is no ethanol plant in operation that can plant, grow, harvest, transport, process, and transport it's product on ethanol alone and still show a profit. It cannot be done given today's economics.
After we do the inevitable Enron-style bailout of the ethanol scamsters, we will be left with soils so depleted of basic nutrients, that any subsequent food production will be lower in nutrients, adversely affecting human and animal health and well being.
ARTICLE
Polluted water, polluted air, a depleted aquifer and soil that can no longer be tilled, due to it being depelted by the current rush to plant "horizon to horizon" to cash in on the ethanol craze.
Have we taken leave of our collective senses? Have we forgot the tales of woe and misery passed down from generation to generation about the horrors of the 1930"s DUST BOWL ?
Once the Ozarks Aquifer is polluted with the toxic wastewater from these ethanol plants and can no longer serve up clean, drinkable water, it will be WAY too late to stop the current madness in our rush to build these "Ethanol Factories."
And once the precious top soil is gone, American civilization will suffer the same fate.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
DRUNK ON ETHANOL
When the 2002 farm bill expires at the end of September, commodity subsidies will have cost taxpayers upwards of $100 billion. Just five crops - corn, cotton, rice, wheat, and soybean - get 95% of taxpayer subsidies. And according to some number-crunching of United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) data by Environmental Working Group, recipients of government farming handouts include a former pro basketball player, millionaires, and a talk show host. If it weren’t for all the taxpayer cash involved, we might think they were casting a bad reality TV show – Farming with the Stars
After realizing that they couldn’t compete in the open marketplace with petroleum, the ethanol folks got a bright idea: by handing out heaps of campaign cash, they could cozy up to Congress and get lawmakers to solve all their problems. Their master plan has paid off. The federal government injects more subsidies into ethanol than Jose Canseco pumps steroids into his left arm. Between the ethanol mandate, the 51-cent per gallon tax incentive, and the huge host of handouts and tax breaks for producers, the ethanol industry is riding high. Ethanol producers don’t need to compete with gasoline to take in huge profits; they can still haul home truckloads of cash so long as Congress remains their sugar daddy. But while corporate agriculture is getting drunk off of ethanol subsidies, taxpayers are getting stuck with a nasty hangover.
Taxpayers for Common Sense
What a sweet deal for the ethanol industry. Not only do they get massive subsidies--meaning OUR TAX dollars--to ply their trade, they also get a "nod and a wink" from the federal government when it comes to polluting both the water we drink and the air we breathe.
Billions upon billions of OUR tax dollars are laid at the feet of the ethanol industry, waiting to be scooped up by anyone wanting to start an Ethanol Factory... anywhere. No thought is given to the massive amount of air and wastewater pollutants that will be emitted by one of these "Toxic Terrors." The only thought is on how much money can be made off the strained back of the over burdened tax payers.
And when the pollution gets out of control, like it did at LOVE CANAL , the corporation that became fat and sassy pocketing massive amounts of taxpayer funded subsidies will just walk away from their generated Hazardous Waste Site and let the feds declare it a BROWNFIELD. Which will be cleaned up by monies supplied by, yup, you guessed right. The same poor souls that had their tax money extracted from them to pay for this Ethanol Factory will now be forced to pay for the cleanup of the waste that was dumped into their backyards. As comedian Jackie Gleason would say, "How Sweet It Is."
After realizing that they couldn’t compete in the open marketplace with petroleum, the ethanol folks got a bright idea: by handing out heaps of campaign cash, they could cozy up to Congress and get lawmakers to solve all their problems. Their master plan has paid off. The federal government injects more subsidies into ethanol than Jose Canseco pumps steroids into his left arm. Between the ethanol mandate, the 51-cent per gallon tax incentive, and the huge host of handouts and tax breaks for producers, the ethanol industry is riding high. Ethanol producers don’t need to compete with gasoline to take in huge profits; they can still haul home truckloads of cash so long as Congress remains their sugar daddy. But while corporate agriculture is getting drunk off of ethanol subsidies, taxpayers are getting stuck with a nasty hangover.
Taxpayers for Common Sense
What a sweet deal for the ethanol industry. Not only do they get massive subsidies--meaning OUR TAX dollars--to ply their trade, they also get a "nod and a wink" from the federal government when it comes to polluting both the water we drink and the air we breathe.
Billions upon billions of OUR tax dollars are laid at the feet of the ethanol industry, waiting to be scooped up by anyone wanting to start an Ethanol Factory... anywhere. No thought is given to the massive amount of air and wastewater pollutants that will be emitted by one of these "Toxic Terrors." The only thought is on how much money can be made off the strained back of the over burdened tax payers.
And when the pollution gets out of control, like it did at LOVE CANAL , the corporation that became fat and sassy pocketing massive amounts of taxpayer funded subsidies will just walk away from their generated Hazardous Waste Site and let the feds declare it a BROWNFIELD. Which will be cleaned up by monies supplied by, yup, you guessed right. The same poor souls that had their tax money extracted from them to pay for this Ethanol Factory will now be forced to pay for the cleanup of the waste that was dumped into their backyards. As comedian Jackie Gleason would say, "How Sweet It Is."
Monday, June 25, 2007
EATING AT THE LOCAL "ETHANOL DINER"
“FOOD” ETHANOL IS NOT SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE.
Last August I wrote a letter to the editor questioning the morality of burning food or corn/ethanol in our vehicles. That valid question is even more real to me now, since a proposed corn/ethanol plant would be nearly visible from my home. I remain convinced that the production of “food”/ethanol is simply wrong and others around the world are beginning to agree.
A June 12, 2007 article states; “China’s communist rulers announced a moratorium on the production of ethanol from corn and other food crops yesterday at the very time that Western leaders are rushing to embrace alternative food-based fuel technology. Another Chinese decision states that “...as droughts, and pollution have led to hundreds of millions of people going without regular drinking water… calculated each gallon of ethanol required 8.310 gallons of water for growing corn and another 30-37 gallons for conversion to fuel…if they are using corn for fuel, they are not going to get the water free”.
In America, the land of free flowing streams and clean lakes, we have yet to consider water as a limiting factor. During my career, I often told students and anyone who might listen that we would one day pay a very high price for drinking water and may see bloodshed over water rights. Those days are here sooner than I expected. We are now paying eight dollars or more per gallon for drinking water just to appear fashionable. This could easily become mandatory as competition for clean water increases.
Also, I believe it is morally wrong for any company to have unlimited use of our groundwater and then return their polluted water to our streams. That is just what Gulfstream Bioflex, LLC, has stated in court will happen if their plant is constructed east of Rogersville. This should alarm everyone within a hundred mile radius, not just a few of us who live near this site! I have full confidence in the professional staff of MDNR to see that this does not happen through their permitting system. Our objective now, is to insure that each and every questionable detail is covered prior to the issuance of any and all permits.
Oh yes, just in case you thought you would be burning ethanol “Made in America” to help our farmers, you should know this. On top of the federal ethanol mandate, federal law grants a 50-cent tax credit for each gallon of ethanol a blender buys. Both domestic and imported ethanol qualifies for these subsidies. Chinese ethanol, however, benefits from one additional U.S. subsidy. In 2004, the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im), a federal agency that finances the exports of U.S. companies, subsidized construction of an “ethanol dehydration facility” in Trinidad and Tobago—exactly the sort of facility through which foreign ethanol passes duty-free into the U.S. So much for “made in America”!
In his essay Who Owns America? Dr. John Ikerd, University of Missouri, said it best. “Many issues concerning the natural environment are fundamentally moral or ethical issues. We should not be buying and selling pollution rights, because no individual has the moral right to pollute in the first place, and thus, has no right to sell it…Pollution of the environment is fundamentally, morally wrong, the same as it is morally wrong to kill, to steal, or enslave.”
To further quote Dr. Ikerd, “Any system of development that is not ecologically sound and economically viable and socially responsible just quite simply is not sustainable over time.” In my opinion, the ethanol scam fails the test of all three. The high use of water, natural gas, corn and the resultant pollution of air and water make it ecologically unsound. Without tax subsidies it is not economically viable. And due to both of these, the production of ethanol is most certainly not socially responsible. Given time, the ethanol initiative will ultimately fail. The landscape will be left with tax constructed monuments to short-sighted greed and to a government’s rush to quick-fix the fuel problem.
David E. Pitts, Certified Biologist
Rogersville, Mo.
Last August I wrote a letter to the editor questioning the morality of burning food or corn/ethanol in our vehicles. That valid question is even more real to me now, since a proposed corn/ethanol plant would be nearly visible from my home. I remain convinced that the production of “food”/ethanol is simply wrong and others around the world are beginning to agree.
A June 12, 2007 article states; “China’s communist rulers announced a moratorium on the production of ethanol from corn and other food crops yesterday at the very time that Western leaders are rushing to embrace alternative food-based fuel technology. Another Chinese decision states that “...as droughts, and pollution have led to hundreds of millions of people going without regular drinking water… calculated each gallon of ethanol required 8.310 gallons of water for growing corn and another 30-37 gallons for conversion to fuel…if they are using corn for fuel, they are not going to get the water free”.
In America, the land of free flowing streams and clean lakes, we have yet to consider water as a limiting factor. During my career, I often told students and anyone who might listen that we would one day pay a very high price for drinking water and may see bloodshed over water rights. Those days are here sooner than I expected. We are now paying eight dollars or more per gallon for drinking water just to appear fashionable. This could easily become mandatory as competition for clean water increases.
Also, I believe it is morally wrong for any company to have unlimited use of our groundwater and then return their polluted water to our streams. That is just what Gulfstream Bioflex, LLC, has stated in court will happen if their plant is constructed east of Rogersville. This should alarm everyone within a hundred mile radius, not just a few of us who live near this site! I have full confidence in the professional staff of MDNR to see that this does not happen through their permitting system. Our objective now, is to insure that each and every questionable detail is covered prior to the issuance of any and all permits.
Oh yes, just in case you thought you would be burning ethanol “Made in America” to help our farmers, you should know this. On top of the federal ethanol mandate, federal law grants a 50-cent tax credit for each gallon of ethanol a blender buys. Both domestic and imported ethanol qualifies for these subsidies. Chinese ethanol, however, benefits from one additional U.S. subsidy. In 2004, the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im), a federal agency that finances the exports of U.S. companies, subsidized construction of an “ethanol dehydration facility” in Trinidad and Tobago—exactly the sort of facility through which foreign ethanol passes duty-free into the U.S. So much for “made in America”!
In his essay Who Owns America? Dr. John Ikerd, University of Missouri, said it best. “Many issues concerning the natural environment are fundamentally moral or ethical issues. We should not be buying and selling pollution rights, because no individual has the moral right to pollute in the first place, and thus, has no right to sell it…Pollution of the environment is fundamentally, morally wrong, the same as it is morally wrong to kill, to steal, or enslave.”
To further quote Dr. Ikerd, “Any system of development that is not ecologically sound and economically viable and socially responsible just quite simply is not sustainable over time.” In my opinion, the ethanol scam fails the test of all three. The high use of water, natural gas, corn and the resultant pollution of air and water make it ecologically unsound. Without tax subsidies it is not economically viable. And due to both of these, the production of ethanol is most certainly not socially responsible. Given time, the ethanol initiative will ultimately fail. The landscape will be left with tax constructed monuments to short-sighted greed and to a government’s rush to quick-fix the fuel problem.
David E. Pitts, Certified Biologist
Rogersville, Mo.
Saturday, June 23, 2007
A "FLEXIBLE" APPROACH TO FINANCING?
Green Fuel's Dirty Secret by Sasha Lilley, Special to CorpWatch June 1st, 2006
The town of Columbus, Nebraska, bills itself as a "City of Power and Progress." If Archer Daniels Midland gets its way, that power will be partially generated by coal, one of the dirtiest forms of energy. When burned, it emits carcinogenic pollutants and high levels of the greenhouse gases linked to global warming.
Ironically this coal will be used to generate ethanol, a plant-based petroleum substitute that has been hyped by both environmentalists and President George Bush as the green fuel of the future. The agribusiness giant Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) is the largest U.S. producer of ethanol, which it makes by distilling corn.
A single ADM corn processing plant in Clinton, Iowa generated nearly 20,000 tons of pollutants including sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds in 2004, according to federal records. The EPA considers an ethanol plant as a "major source" of pollution if it produces more than 100 tons of any one pollutant per year, although it has recently proposed increasing that cap to 250 tons.
ADM has another resource at its disposal, the considerable clout it has built up over decades of courting and lobbying Washington's power brokers. Days after the company's February expansion announcement of the coal-fired Nebraska plant, U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman visited ADM's Decatur headquarters to tout its part in President Bush's Biofuels Initiative. The secretary posed for photos with then ADM Chair G. Allen Andreas and announced that the Department of Energy would offer up to $160 million for the construction of three biorefineries to expand U.S. ethanol production.
ADM and its signature project have never lacked friends in high places, despite a history of price fixing scandals and monopolistic misdeeds. The Andreas family, which has headed up the publicly-traded company for decades, has cultivated bipartisan support through generous donations to both Republicans and Democrats. Since the 2000 election cycle, ADM has given more than $3 million in political contributions, according to the Center for Responsive Politics: $1.2 million to Democrats and $1.85 million to Republicans. These donations may have helped sustain a multitude of government subsidies to ADM, including ethanol tax credits, tariffs against foreign ethanol competitors, and federally mandated ethanol additive standards.
CORP WATCH
Let's revisit what the US Secretary of Energy said about taxpayer financing of ethanol factories: "The secretary posed for photos with then ADM Chair G. Allen Andreas and announced that the Department of Energy would offer up to $160 million for the construction of three biorefineries to expand U.S. ethanol production."
160 Million of our tax dollars going into the pockets of one of the world's largest agribusiness giants, ADM, to help build ethanol plants, or biorefineries. It doesn't matter what one calls these "Toxic Terrors" they'll still be polluting the water we drink and the air we breath, paid for by OUR tax dollars.
A certain ethanol plant that is in the works for Webster County has been out of the news of late. Does this mean that the backers of that ethanol factory are seeking some type of alternative financing, like a joint venture with ADM? ADM has deep pockets. Pockets that are large enough to hold more than a few politicians. These so-called "Public Servants" are at corporate giants like ADM's beck and call, always more than willing to change the law or provide these behemoths with huge dollops of our hard earned money.
Perhaps that's why the financing for this ethanol factory is so secretive. The backers are just being "FLEXible" in their ways to construct this behemoth on top of the Ozarks Aquifer.
The town of Columbus, Nebraska, bills itself as a "City of Power and Progress." If Archer Daniels Midland gets its way, that power will be partially generated by coal, one of the dirtiest forms of energy. When burned, it emits carcinogenic pollutants and high levels of the greenhouse gases linked to global warming.
Ironically this coal will be used to generate ethanol, a plant-based petroleum substitute that has been hyped by both environmentalists and President George Bush as the green fuel of the future. The agribusiness giant Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) is the largest U.S. producer of ethanol, which it makes by distilling corn.
A single ADM corn processing plant in Clinton, Iowa generated nearly 20,000 tons of pollutants including sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds in 2004, according to federal records. The EPA considers an ethanol plant as a "major source" of pollution if it produces more than 100 tons of any one pollutant per year, although it has recently proposed increasing that cap to 250 tons.
ADM has another resource at its disposal, the considerable clout it has built up over decades of courting and lobbying Washington's power brokers. Days after the company's February expansion announcement of the coal-fired Nebraska plant, U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman visited ADM's Decatur headquarters to tout its part in President Bush's Biofuels Initiative. The secretary posed for photos with then ADM Chair G. Allen Andreas and announced that the Department of Energy would offer up to $160 million for the construction of three biorefineries to expand U.S. ethanol production.
ADM and its signature project have never lacked friends in high places, despite a history of price fixing scandals and monopolistic misdeeds. The Andreas family, which has headed up the publicly-traded company for decades, has cultivated bipartisan support through generous donations to both Republicans and Democrats. Since the 2000 election cycle, ADM has given more than $3 million in political contributions, according to the Center for Responsive Politics: $1.2 million to Democrats and $1.85 million to Republicans. These donations may have helped sustain a multitude of government subsidies to ADM, including ethanol tax credits, tariffs against foreign ethanol competitors, and federally mandated ethanol additive standards.
CORP WATCH
Let's revisit what the US Secretary of Energy said about taxpayer financing of ethanol factories: "The secretary posed for photos with then ADM Chair G. Allen Andreas and announced that the Department of Energy would offer up to $160 million for the construction of three biorefineries to expand U.S. ethanol production."
160 Million of our tax dollars going into the pockets of one of the world's largest agribusiness giants, ADM, to help build ethanol plants, or biorefineries. It doesn't matter what one calls these "Toxic Terrors" they'll still be polluting the water we drink and the air we breath, paid for by OUR tax dollars.
A certain ethanol plant that is in the works for Webster County has been out of the news of late. Does this mean that the backers of that ethanol factory are seeking some type of alternative financing, like a joint venture with ADM? ADM has deep pockets. Pockets that are large enough to hold more than a few politicians. These so-called "Public Servants" are at corporate giants like ADM's beck and call, always more than willing to change the law or provide these behemoths with huge dollops of our hard earned money.
Perhaps that's why the financing for this ethanol factory is so secretive. The backers are just being "FLEXible" in their ways to construct this behemoth on top of the Ozarks Aquifer.
Friday, June 22, 2007
"CAN'T SEE THE FOREST, TOO MANY TREES IN THE WAY"
Hennepin Ethanol Plant Faces Lawsuit
An ethanol plant scheduled to get up and running in Hennepin this year is coming under fire from a citizens' group that says the plant eventually will produce more pollution than permitted.
The group also contends that the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency is deliberately issuing lesser permits to this and other ethanol plants, and ignoring potential future pollution violations, to fulfill Gov. Rod Blagojevich's desire to make Illinois a leading state for ethanol production.
The group, Concerned Citizens for Putnam and Bureau Counties, is planning to file suit in federal court, demanding more stringent pollution controls on the Marquis Energy plant in Hennepin
At issue is the plant's future expansion plans. Phase one, expected to be completed in December, is a 100-million-gallon-per-year natural gas-fired plant, for which the IEPA issued a "minor source" permit. But phase two, expected to be completed by January 2009, calls for the plant to expand to a 200-million-gallon-per-year coal-fired plant, which would require a "major source" permit that has not yet been obtained. Coal-fired plants emit mercury and other pollutants.
The group alleges that the IEPA ignored clear evidence that Marquis intends to build a coal-fired refinery when it issued only a "minor source" permit.
Sauk Valley News
Blunt Staunch in Support of Ethanol
Monday, February 19, 2007 By Brent Martin
Governor Blunt says pushing ethanol and bio-diesel doesn't just help farmers; it helps the state as a whole. Blunt couches support of ethanol not just in conservation terms, but terms of national security during an address to the Missouri Corngrowers Association. Governor Blunt has placed a high priority on ethanol during his time in office.
Missouri Net
Are these two governors, one from Illinois and the other from Missouri, so blinded by their pursuit of ethanol, that they are possibly cutting corners in the pollution permit processes? In their zeal to satisfy some of their constituents and in one governors case, help his brother's ethanol firm, are these governors blinded by the trees to the point that the people in both states will pay for this shortsightedness? While the ethanol corporations and their backers get "healthy", financially speaking, the people in and around these ethanol factories will be getting the short end of the stick in the form of polluted water to drink and toxic air to breathe. To add insult to injury, we'll be helping pay for this atrocious activity by being forced to support these ethanol factories with our hard earned money, given to these ethanol factories in the form of tax breaks and subsidies.
An ethanol plant scheduled to get up and running in Hennepin this year is coming under fire from a citizens' group that says the plant eventually will produce more pollution than permitted.
The group also contends that the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency is deliberately issuing lesser permits to this and other ethanol plants, and ignoring potential future pollution violations, to fulfill Gov. Rod Blagojevich's desire to make Illinois a leading state for ethanol production.
The group, Concerned Citizens for Putnam and Bureau Counties, is planning to file suit in federal court, demanding more stringent pollution controls on the Marquis Energy plant in Hennepin
At issue is the plant's future expansion plans. Phase one, expected to be completed in December, is a 100-million-gallon-per-year natural gas-fired plant, for which the IEPA issued a "minor source" permit. But phase two, expected to be completed by January 2009, calls for the plant to expand to a 200-million-gallon-per-year coal-fired plant, which would require a "major source" permit that has not yet been obtained. Coal-fired plants emit mercury and other pollutants.
The group alleges that the IEPA ignored clear evidence that Marquis intends to build a coal-fired refinery when it issued only a "minor source" permit.
Sauk Valley News
Blunt Staunch in Support of Ethanol
Monday, February 19, 2007 By Brent Martin
Governor Blunt says pushing ethanol and bio-diesel doesn't just help farmers; it helps the state as a whole. Blunt couches support of ethanol not just in conservation terms, but terms of national security during an address to the Missouri Corngrowers Association. Governor Blunt has placed a high priority on ethanol during his time in office.
Missouri Net
Are these two governors, one from Illinois and the other from Missouri, so blinded by their pursuit of ethanol, that they are possibly cutting corners in the pollution permit processes? In their zeal to satisfy some of their constituents and in one governors case, help his brother's ethanol firm, are these governors blinded by the trees to the point that the people in both states will pay for this shortsightedness? While the ethanol corporations and their backers get "healthy", financially speaking, the people in and around these ethanol factories will be getting the short end of the stick in the form of polluted water to drink and toxic air to breathe. To add insult to injury, we'll be helping pay for this atrocious activity by being forced to support these ethanol factories with our hard earned money, given to these ethanol factories in the form of tax breaks and subsidies.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
AN "OMEN" FROM THE PRESENT
Megafarms have broken public trust, Nixon tells Air Conservation Commission
Jefferson City, MO — Giant corporate farms in Missouri have broken a trust with the citizens, Attorney General Jay Nixon told the state Air Conservation Commission in a public hearing today.
"The state of Missouri had high hopes for these businesses when they came here," Nixon said. "We were trusting, and whether right or wrong at the time, it is now clear that trust has been broken. These companies answer to Wall Street, not Main Street, and that is why they cannot be trusted to be good neighbors."
"We thought they would operate under the environmental laws of the state, and we were wrong," Nixon said. "We thought they could operate without odor regulations, because they would be good neighbors,and we were wrong on this as well.
Missouri Attorney General
Will Missourians again be taken in by corporate promises to be "good citizens" regarding a certain ethanol plant in Webster County?
10 years from now, will the headlines read "ETHANOL PLANTS HAVE BROKEN PUBLIC TRUST?" There are some heavy hitters involved in this 21st Century version of the California Gold Rush to build ethanol plants, such as Governor Blunt's brother, Andy. And President Bush's brother, Jeb Bush, who is head of the Interamerican Ethanol Commission.
There's tons of money to be had for these schemes and loads of tax payer funds for the taking.
In this rush to push ethanol onto the citizens of the Ozarks, very little if any is said about the ethanol plant wastewater discharge which will seep back into the Ozarks Aquifer via the Karst topography. Very little is known about the current level of industrial pollutants in the Ozarks Aquifer. Waiting until after people start getting sick from drinking polluted Ozarks Aquifer water will be WAY TOO LATE to start monitoring pollutants. If they don't have a baseline now, what good is a baseline AFTER the Ozarks Aquifer is polluted?
Jefferson City, MO — Giant corporate farms in Missouri have broken a trust with the citizens, Attorney General Jay Nixon told the state Air Conservation Commission in a public hearing today.
"The state of Missouri had high hopes for these businesses when they came here," Nixon said. "We were trusting, and whether right or wrong at the time, it is now clear that trust has been broken. These companies answer to Wall Street, not Main Street, and that is why they cannot be trusted to be good neighbors."
"We thought they would operate under the environmental laws of the state, and we were wrong," Nixon said. "We thought they could operate without odor regulations, because they would be good neighbors,and we were wrong on this as well.
Missouri Attorney General
Will Missourians again be taken in by corporate promises to be "good citizens" regarding a certain ethanol plant in Webster County?
10 years from now, will the headlines read "ETHANOL PLANTS HAVE BROKEN PUBLIC TRUST?" There are some heavy hitters involved in this 21st Century version of the California Gold Rush to build ethanol plants, such as Governor Blunt's brother, Andy. And President Bush's brother, Jeb Bush, who is head of the Interamerican Ethanol Commission.
There's tons of money to be had for these schemes and loads of tax payer funds for the taking.
In this rush to push ethanol onto the citizens of the Ozarks, very little if any is said about the ethanol plant wastewater discharge which will seep back into the Ozarks Aquifer via the Karst topography. Very little is known about the current level of industrial pollutants in the Ozarks Aquifer. Waiting until after people start getting sick from drinking polluted Ozarks Aquifer water will be WAY TOO LATE to start monitoring pollutants. If they don't have a baseline now, what good is a baseline AFTER the Ozarks Aquifer is polluted?
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
PICKING OUR POCKETS
US Ethanol Plants Look to Tax-Free Financing
A company called Center Ethanol plans to use up to US$30 million in TIF bonds given initial approval last month to build a plant in Sauget, Illinois, across the Mississippi River from St. Louis, Missouri, according to officials.
The bonds will tap incremental increases in Sauget area property taxes and will be exempt from both state and federal taxes, said Michael Lundy, executive director of the Southwestern Illinois Finance Authority, which approved the financing.
In New Jersey, the state's Economic Development Authority has given preliminary approval to US$84 million in tax-exempt, solid-waste bonds for a waste-to-ethanol facility in Dover Township, according to agency spokesman Glenn Phillips. The state has enough private-activity volume cap to cover the issue.
In central Ohio's Coshocton, Los Angeles-based Altra Inc. broke ground on Tuesday on a US$100 million ethanol plant that will be partly financed with up to US$85 million of air quality bonds approved by the Ohio Air Quality Development Authority
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=37253
Will the people of Webster County be told to help pay for a certain ethanol plant that will both deplete the Ozark Aquifer at the same time polluting that aquifer by returning wastewater to the aquifer, thru the use of TIF Bonds? Tax Increment Financing (Local TIF) permits the use of a portion of local property and sales taxes to assist funding the redevelopment of certain designated areas within your community. Areas eligible for Local TIF must contain property classified as a "Blighted", "Conservation" or an "Economic Development" area, or any combination thereof, as defined by Missouri Statutes.
TIF may be used to pay certain costs incurred with a redevelopment project. Such costs may include, but are not limited to:
Professional services such as studies, surveys, plans, financial management, legal counsel
Land acquisition and demolition of structures
Rehabilitating, repairing existing buildings on site
Building necessary new infrastructure in the project area such as streets, sewers, parking, lighting
Relocation of resident and business occupants located in the project area
This info is from the State of Missouri's web page at:
http://www.missouridevelopment.org/topnavpages/Research%20Toolbox/BCS%20Programs/Local%20TIF.aspx
A company called Center Ethanol plans to use up to US$30 million in TIF bonds given initial approval last month to build a plant in Sauget, Illinois, across the Mississippi River from St. Louis, Missouri, according to officials.
The bonds will tap incremental increases in Sauget area property taxes and will be exempt from both state and federal taxes, said Michael Lundy, executive director of the Southwestern Illinois Finance Authority, which approved the financing.
In New Jersey, the state's Economic Development Authority has given preliminary approval to US$84 million in tax-exempt, solid-waste bonds for a waste-to-ethanol facility in Dover Township, according to agency spokesman Glenn Phillips. The state has enough private-activity volume cap to cover the issue.
In central Ohio's Coshocton, Los Angeles-based Altra Inc. broke ground on Tuesday on a US$100 million ethanol plant that will be partly financed with up to US$85 million of air quality bonds approved by the Ohio Air Quality Development Authority
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=37253
Will the people of Webster County be told to help pay for a certain ethanol plant that will both deplete the Ozark Aquifer at the same time polluting that aquifer by returning wastewater to the aquifer, thru the use of TIF Bonds? Tax Increment Financing (Local TIF) permits the use of a portion of local property and sales taxes to assist funding the redevelopment of certain designated areas within your community. Areas eligible for Local TIF must contain property classified as a "Blighted", "Conservation" or an "Economic Development" area, or any combination thereof, as defined by Missouri Statutes.
TIF may be used to pay certain costs incurred with a redevelopment project. Such costs may include, but are not limited to:
Professional services such as studies, surveys, plans, financial management, legal counsel
Land acquisition and demolition of structures
Rehabilitating, repairing existing buildings on site
Building necessary new infrastructure in the project area such as streets, sewers, parking, lighting
Relocation of resident and business occupants located in the project area
This info is from the State of Missouri's web page at:
http://www.missouridevelopment.org/topnavpages/Research%20Toolbox/BCS%20Programs/Local%20TIF.aspx
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
SELLING A FANTASY
The majority of plants now being built/planned are engineered and owned by multi-national corporations out of Sweden, Switzerland, Germany and Spain [Foreign firms with ties to Australia, India and Israel also are buying into Iowa]
Most construction crews are out-of-state contractors employing immigrant laborers.
Big Oil doesn't just have its finger in the biofuels pie, but its whole fist.
NFU's recent Ag Market Concentration study revealed that 4 main beef packers control 83.5% of the total market; 4 pork packers control 66% of that market; 4 top poultry companies have 53% of that market.
http://www.cfra.org/node/316
When the talk turns to the positives about building an ethanol plant in Webster County, one of the common refrains heard is: "Jobs, jobs, jobs."
For whom, one might ask? As the story above points out, the jobs are for "out-of-state contractors employing immigrant laborers."
After the plant is built, one study showed that 78% of the jobs at the operating ethanol plants went to college graduates with at least fours years of advanced schooling; the other 22% were menial jobs, liable to be filled by whomever was willing to work for the lowest wages.
But we all know what the main "JOB" will be for residents of Webster County and the Ozarks will be: That JOB will be breathing the toxic air and finding ways to drink the polluted water in the wells affected by the wastewater coming from that ethanol plant.
Most construction crews are out-of-state contractors employing immigrant laborers.
Big Oil doesn't just have its finger in the biofuels pie, but its whole fist.
NFU's recent Ag Market Concentration study revealed that 4 main beef packers control 83.5% of the total market; 4 pork packers control 66% of that market; 4 top poultry companies have 53% of that market.
http://www.cfra.org/node/316
When the talk turns to the positives about building an ethanol plant in Webster County, one of the common refrains heard is: "Jobs, jobs, jobs."
For whom, one might ask? As the story above points out, the jobs are for "out-of-state contractors employing immigrant laborers."
After the plant is built, one study showed that 78% of the jobs at the operating ethanol plants went to college graduates with at least fours years of advanced schooling; the other 22% were menial jobs, liable to be filled by whomever was willing to work for the lowest wages.
But we all know what the main "JOB" will be for residents of Webster County and the Ozarks will be: That JOB will be breathing the toxic air and finding ways to drink the polluted water in the wells affected by the wastewater coming from that ethanol plant.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
CHICKENS STILL MISSING; FOX NOWHERE TO BE FOUND
The Wisconsin & Southern Railroad Co. runs from approx. 9PM until 6AM. Talk about increased noise! Mr. Gardner that owes this railroad talks about saving these small rural towns by building ethanol plants and of course having his railroad ship in the corn and ship out the ethanol. I see a lot of corn coming into this plant by rail. It makes me stop and think, where is this corn from? I know the local farmers in this community cannot afford to ship by rail.
The Badger State Ethanol Plant started operation in October 2002; I have yet to see any benefit in having this plant in our town.
Lower property taxes-NOT!
Lower sales tax-NOT!
Increased revenue for our farmers-NOT!!!
Increased traffic on our streets-YES!!!
Increased noise pollution-YES!!!!
Increased air pollution-YES!!!!!!!!!!!
Loss of good neighbors-YES!!!!
Loss of free time to spend in my backyard-YES!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.c4aqe.org/ODORS/resident_testimony.htm
These horror stories are from the real life experiences of people who are living close to operating ethanol plants; one in Illinois and one in Wisconsin. Both of these real life horror stories involve the plants emitting a tremendous amount of various types of air pollutants. The amount of air pollutants that can be LEGALLY discharged from ethanol plants was recently raised from 100 tons to 250 tons per year. And that's the LEGAL amount. Since these plants, as the testimony so succinctly states, hire the emission test contractor, it stands to reason that the emissons test contractor isn't going to "rock the boat" too much, it might endanger their paycheck.
Another fact to keep in mind is that not only will the airborne pollutants immediately and negatively impact the local residents who are forced to breathe contaminated air, those pollutants will eventually drift down to the ground. These pollutants will start seeping into the ground and leeching into the water table, eventually finding their way into the Ozarks Aquifer.
Polluted drinking water, toxic air and a depleted Ozarks Aquifer. These are some of the "benefits" that the FOX and and his fellow cohorts are bringing to both Webster County and the Ozarks with their ethanol plant.
The Badger State Ethanol Plant started operation in October 2002; I have yet to see any benefit in having this plant in our town.
Lower property taxes-NOT!
Lower sales tax-NOT!
Increased revenue for our farmers-NOT!!!
Increased traffic on our streets-YES!!!
Increased noise pollution-YES!!!!
Increased air pollution-YES!!!!!!!!!!!
Loss of good neighbors-YES!!!!
Loss of free time to spend in my backyard-YES!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.c4aqe.org/ODORS/resident_testimony.htm
These horror stories are from the real life experiences of people who are living close to operating ethanol plants; one in Illinois and one in Wisconsin. Both of these real life horror stories involve the plants emitting a tremendous amount of various types of air pollutants. The amount of air pollutants that can be LEGALLY discharged from ethanol plants was recently raised from 100 tons to 250 tons per year. And that's the LEGAL amount. Since these plants, as the testimony so succinctly states, hire the emission test contractor, it stands to reason that the emissons test contractor isn't going to "rock the boat" too much, it might endanger their paycheck.
Another fact to keep in mind is that not only will the airborne pollutants immediately and negatively impact the local residents who are forced to breathe contaminated air, those pollutants will eventually drift down to the ground. These pollutants will start seeping into the ground and leeching into the water table, eventually finding their way into the Ozarks Aquifer.
Polluted drinking water, toxic air and a depleted Ozarks Aquifer. These are some of the "benefits" that the FOX and and his fellow cohorts are bringing to both Webster County and the Ozarks with their ethanol plant.
FOX CLAIMS HE KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT MISSING CHICKENS
My name is Heidi xxxx, I reside at 2273 N. Schlegel Rd., Lena, Illinois. I live 2 1/4 miles as the crow flys from an ethanol plant that was built a little over a year ago that produces 40 mmgy.
Our experience - We were promised a State-Of-The-Art plant with the lastest technology. The technology is great for production of ethanol, does nothing to protect citizens from their emissions. The plant officials stated the plant would be
zero effluent. Since the ethanol plant began operation, we pray everyday that the wind blows their effluence away from our home.
The pollutants emitted by these plants contain hazardous compounds. Many citizens experienced reactions rather quickly from breathing the air that was saturated with these emissions. Symptoms were burning eyes, lungs, and throat, you'd get
headaches, cramps in your sides and feel nauseous. These symptoms occur with scrubbers as the control technology. I have had these symptoms firsthand from just seconds of exposure and the feed dryer was not operating.
It is very costly to run pollution control devices. These companies save alot of money if they are not using the best and maximum available control technology.
The ethanol plant near my home is still in the process of trying to get into compliance. Their plant does not have an operational permit to date.
If this is the direction you want your community to go, I strongly suggest that you have ambient air quality and ground water quantity tests done before the plant is built and in operation. These plants use a tremendous amount of water everyday.
Get a baseline of your air quality now so you will know what impact they are having on your community. Put odor restrictions on the plant to protect the residents within 2-3 miles of the plant. Be informed of the permitting process. The applicant is responsible for figuring and submitting information on their pollution permit application. In most cases the ethanol plant hires the emission test contractor.
That means the fox is watching the hen house. Know what they are applying for and be aware of how they intend to control their emissions. Talk to the people who already live with these plants. You will probably hear they got the same script you are hearing today; state-of-the-art facility, bring jobs to the community, this plant will be different then the old ethanol plants, etc.
These plants smell and will set a precedence in their home communities that might prevent clean businesses from joining the community. Be prepared to have restrictions on when you can have your windows open. The only times you are safe
is when you're upwind from the plant. Schools should be at least 5 miles away from any ethanol plant.
If I had another opportunity, I would do what I could to prevent an ethanol plant anywhere near where I live. Thank you.
http://www.c4aqe.org/Documents/heidi_lena_iIllinois_adkins_energy.pdf
Our experience - We were promised a State-Of-The-Art plant with the lastest technology. The technology is great for production of ethanol, does nothing to protect citizens from their emissions. The plant officials stated the plant would be
zero effluent. Since the ethanol plant began operation, we pray everyday that the wind blows their effluence away from our home.
The pollutants emitted by these plants contain hazardous compounds. Many citizens experienced reactions rather quickly from breathing the air that was saturated with these emissions. Symptoms were burning eyes, lungs, and throat, you'd get
headaches, cramps in your sides and feel nauseous. These symptoms occur with scrubbers as the control technology. I have had these symptoms firsthand from just seconds of exposure and the feed dryer was not operating.
It is very costly to run pollution control devices. These companies save alot of money if they are not using the best and maximum available control technology.
The ethanol plant near my home is still in the process of trying to get into compliance. Their plant does not have an operational permit to date.
If this is the direction you want your community to go, I strongly suggest that you have ambient air quality and ground water quantity tests done before the plant is built and in operation. These plants use a tremendous amount of water everyday.
Get a baseline of your air quality now so you will know what impact they are having on your community. Put odor restrictions on the plant to protect the residents within 2-3 miles of the plant. Be informed of the permitting process. The applicant is responsible for figuring and submitting information on their pollution permit application. In most cases the ethanol plant hires the emission test contractor.
That means the fox is watching the hen house. Know what they are applying for and be aware of how they intend to control their emissions. Talk to the people who already live with these plants. You will probably hear they got the same script you are hearing today; state-of-the-art facility, bring jobs to the community, this plant will be different then the old ethanol plants, etc.
These plants smell and will set a precedence in their home communities that might prevent clean businesses from joining the community. Be prepared to have restrictions on when you can have your windows open. The only times you are safe
is when you're upwind from the plant. Schools should be at least 5 miles away from any ethanol plant.
If I had another opportunity, I would do what I could to prevent an ethanol plant anywhere near where I live. Thank you.
http://www.c4aqe.org/Documents/heidi_lena_iIllinois_adkins_energy.pdf
Saturday, June 16, 2007
"IT'S GOOD TO BE THE KING"
August 18, 2006
The new policy would not appear to exclude tax breaks from going to a proposed ethanol plant in which the governor's brother is an investor - though it is not clear if the plant is seeking any discretionary tax breaks.
Show Me Ethanol LLC wants to build an $80 million ethanol plant in Carroll County. It is being structured to be owned by a majority of farmers, though one of the investors is a non-farming company called Central Missouri Biofuels LLC, which the governor's brother Andy Blunt helped found.
http://www.dra.gov/media/article_detail.aspx?articleID=212
Yes, it's "Good to be the King." Or, the brother of the King, Andy Blunt. Didn't our "esteemed" guv state that "he had no direct connections to anyone in the ethanol business?" Except some cousin that was once or twice removed.
Yet, the Guv's brother, Andy, helped found Central Missouri Biofuels, that is the backer in an ethanol plant in Carroll County, MO.
And the Guv's sister, Amy Blunt, was recently hired by one of Missouri's top heavy hitter law firms that has, as one of their specialties, helping in the formation of Limited Liability Corporations(LLC). LLCs are popular because, similar to a corporation, owners have limited personal liability for the debts and actions of the LLC. Other features of LLCs are more like a partnership, providing management flexibility and the benefit of pass-through taxation.
In other words, long after that Webster County ethanol plant is gone and the owners have walked away with millions of dollars in their pockets, some of it tax money, the people of Webster County and the Ozarks will be left with the cleanup bill from the now toxic waste site.
The owners will walk away, laughing all the way to the bank, thanks to their LLC.
And the Blunt's? Off to bigger and better fish to fry.
http://pview.findlaw.com/view/3428042_1?noconfirm=0#AOPs
The new policy would not appear to exclude tax breaks from going to a proposed ethanol plant in which the governor's brother is an investor - though it is not clear if the plant is seeking any discretionary tax breaks.
Show Me Ethanol LLC wants to build an $80 million ethanol plant in Carroll County. It is being structured to be owned by a majority of farmers, though one of the investors is a non-farming company called Central Missouri Biofuels LLC, which the governor's brother Andy Blunt helped found.
http://www.dra.gov/media/article_detail.aspx?articleID=212
Yes, it's "Good to be the King." Or, the brother of the King, Andy Blunt. Didn't our "esteemed" guv state that "he had no direct connections to anyone in the ethanol business?" Except some cousin that was once or twice removed.
Yet, the Guv's brother, Andy, helped found Central Missouri Biofuels, that is the backer in an ethanol plant in Carroll County, MO.
And the Guv's sister, Amy Blunt, was recently hired by one of Missouri's top heavy hitter law firms that has, as one of their specialties, helping in the formation of Limited Liability Corporations(LLC). LLCs are popular because, similar to a corporation, owners have limited personal liability for the debts and actions of the LLC. Other features of LLCs are more like a partnership, providing management flexibility and the benefit of pass-through taxation.
In other words, long after that Webster County ethanol plant is gone and the owners have walked away with millions of dollars in their pockets, some of it tax money, the people of Webster County and the Ozarks will be left with the cleanup bill from the now toxic waste site.
The owners will walk away, laughing all the way to the bank, thanks to their LLC.
And the Blunt's? Off to bigger and better fish to fry.
http://pview.findlaw.com/view/3428042_1?noconfirm=0#AOPs
Friday, June 15, 2007
"SNIPE" HUNTING IN THE OZARKS
One biodiesel plant, Cargill in Iowa Falls, was cited for a fish kill caused by the improper spreading of liquid wastes. Another plant, Siouxland Energy & Livestock in Sioux Center, was cited for releasing contaminated wastewater in an attempt to dilute a manure spill from a neighboring cattle operation.
In 17 cases at 10 plants, the facilities either didn't apply for a permit before building or operating regulated equipment; or failed to build the plant as outlined in the permit; or failed to apply for the stricter permits needed for larger emitters of pollution. One company, Quad County Corn Processors in Galva, received two $10,000 fines in 2005 for failing to get the more elaborate permits required for larger emitters, which often call for additional control equipment.
How serious are the violations? Lynch said the notices of violation involve clear violations of state rules based on federal laws and reflect serious matters. Ignoring them usually brings tougher enforcement action. The system is how the state protects the health of Iowans and the environment. Monte Shaw of the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association, an industry group, says: “No one wants to get a notice, and you certainly don’t want to get a fine. But a notice of violation is like getting a ticket that your headlight is out and they say, 'Fix it.'"
http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070603/BUSINESS01/706030325/1030
The Ozarks Aquifer is quite possible the most valuable natural resource in SW Missouri. Millions of people depend on this water source for their drinking water, an element so vital to a human being that one can only live 2-3 days without water. Can we afford to have that resource polluted by a certain Webster County ethanol plant?
Keep in mind that federal regulations exist for pollutants from sources like sewage, clean-water laws don't apply to farm runoff.
Will that Webster County ethanol plant be also classified as a "farm?" They have more than enough acreage to qualify as one. More than enough acreage to both build a plant that will emit several hundred tons of toxic substances each year into the air. And untold thousands of gallons of polluted water onto the land, which will leach into the Ozarks Aquifer, via the Karst topography. If the owners pull a fast one and also have a cattle lot operation on the premises, will this sleight-of-hand qualify them as a "farm" that is not subject to federal regulations regarding clean-water laws?
Will the citizens of both Webster County and the Ozarks be left holding the proverbial bag, after the failed "snipe" hunt?
Only this time, the bag won't be empty. It will be filled with a toxic stew of air and water pollutants, paid for by OUR tax dollars.
In 17 cases at 10 plants, the facilities either didn't apply for a permit before building or operating regulated equipment; or failed to build the plant as outlined in the permit; or failed to apply for the stricter permits needed for larger emitters of pollution. One company, Quad County Corn Processors in Galva, received two $10,000 fines in 2005 for failing to get the more elaborate permits required for larger emitters, which often call for additional control equipment.
How serious are the violations? Lynch said the notices of violation involve clear violations of state rules based on federal laws and reflect serious matters. Ignoring them usually brings tougher enforcement action. The system is how the state protects the health of Iowans and the environment. Monte Shaw of the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association, an industry group, says: “No one wants to get a notice, and you certainly don’t want to get a fine. But a notice of violation is like getting a ticket that your headlight is out and they say, 'Fix it.'"
http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070603/BUSINESS01/706030325/1030
The Ozarks Aquifer is quite possible the most valuable natural resource in SW Missouri. Millions of people depend on this water source for their drinking water, an element so vital to a human being that one can only live 2-3 days without water. Can we afford to have that resource polluted by a certain Webster County ethanol plant?
Keep in mind that federal regulations exist for pollutants from sources like sewage, clean-water laws don't apply to farm runoff.
Will that Webster County ethanol plant be also classified as a "farm?" They have more than enough acreage to qualify as one. More than enough acreage to both build a plant that will emit several hundred tons of toxic substances each year into the air. And untold thousands of gallons of polluted water onto the land, which will leach into the Ozarks Aquifer, via the Karst topography. If the owners pull a fast one and also have a cattle lot operation on the premises, will this sleight-of-hand qualify them as a "farm" that is not subject to federal regulations regarding clean-water laws?
Will the citizens of both Webster County and the Ozarks be left holding the proverbial bag, after the failed "snipe" hunt?
Only this time, the bag won't be empty. It will be filled with a toxic stew of air and water pollutants, paid for by OUR tax dollars.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
MORE HORROR STORIES
A Cybercast News Service analysis of EPA records found 73 biorefineries - more than 60 percent of those operating - were cited by state or federal agencies for environmental violations in the last three years. The vast majority involve state or federal clean air laws.
"They've brought the enforcement actions against a number of ethanol companies and refineries for essentially sidestepping the law," said Frank O'Donnell, president of the non-partisan Clean Air Watch. "Ethanol refineries have the potential to pollute quite a bit."
Fordland, Mo., bed and breakfast owner Larry Alberty agreed. He and his rural neighbors are fighting a proposed ethanol plant in nearby Rogersville.
They fear the plant's proposed 12-acre wastewater holding pond will seep into groundwater - the plant will be built on top of a major aquifer - and that the project will harm tourism in the area with its smokestacks and noise.
"Eleven million people visit this area [each year]," Alberty said. "People aren't going to want to come to the bed and breakfast and hear the noise and the light pollution ... it has an impact there and we're very concerned about it."
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200706/NAT20070613a.html
Another day and another horror story about what the Webster County ethanol plant will contribute to the Ozarks. This contribution is anything but positive. A partial list of the horrors in store for both Webster County and the Ozarks reads like a Stephen King novel: Polluted water; toxic chemcials released into the air and a depleted Ozarks Aquifer.
ALL of these horrors will be subsidized by our tax dollars. We will be paying for this "TOXIC TERROR" to inhabit and stalk the Ozarks, spewing its poisons all around; into our drinking water and on the ground.
"They've brought the enforcement actions against a number of ethanol companies and refineries for essentially sidestepping the law," said Frank O'Donnell, president of the non-partisan Clean Air Watch. "Ethanol refineries have the potential to pollute quite a bit."
Fordland, Mo., bed and breakfast owner Larry Alberty agreed. He and his rural neighbors are fighting a proposed ethanol plant in nearby Rogersville.
They fear the plant's proposed 12-acre wastewater holding pond will seep into groundwater - the plant will be built on top of a major aquifer - and that the project will harm tourism in the area with its smokestacks and noise.
"Eleven million people visit this area [each year]," Alberty said. "People aren't going to want to come to the bed and breakfast and hear the noise and the light pollution ... it has an impact there and we're very concerned about it."
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200706/NAT20070613a.html
Another day and another horror story about what the Webster County ethanol plant will contribute to the Ozarks. This contribution is anything but positive. A partial list of the horrors in store for both Webster County and the Ozarks reads like a Stephen King novel: Polluted water; toxic chemcials released into the air and a depleted Ozarks Aquifer.
ALL of these horrors will be subsidized by our tax dollars. We will be paying for this "TOXIC TERROR" to inhabit and stalk the Ozarks, spewing its poisons all around; into our drinking water and on the ground.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
GETTING SOAKED
Missouri Revised Statutes August 28, 2006
Chapter 142 Motor Fuel Tax Section 142.028
3. A Missouri qualified fuel ethanol producer shall be eligible for a monthly grant from the fund, except that a Missouri qualified fuel ethanol producer shall only be eligible for the grant for a total of sixty months unless such producer during those sixty months failed, due to a lack of appropriations, to receive the full amount from the fund for which they were eligible, in which case such producers shall continue to be eligible for up to twenty-four additional months or until they have received the maximum amount of funding for which they were eligible during the original sixty-month time period. The amount of the grant is determined by calculating the estimated gallons of qualified fuel ethanol production to be produced from Missouri agricultural products for the succeeding calendar month, as certified by the department of agriculture, and applying such figure to the per-gallon incentive credit established in this subsection. Each Missouri qualified fuel ethanol producer shall be eligible for a total grant in any fiscal year equal to twenty cents per gallon for the first twelve and one-half million gallons of qualified fuel ethanol produced from Missouri agricultural products in the fiscal year plus five cents per gallon for the next twelve and one-half million gallons of qualified fuel ethanol produced from Missouri agricultural products in the fiscal year. All such qualified fuel ethanol produced by a Missouri qualified fuel ethanol producer in excess of twenty-five million gallons shall not be applied to the computation of a grant pursuant to this subsection. The department of agriculture shall pay all grants for a particular month by the fifteenth day after receipt and approval of the application described in subsection 4 of this section. If actual production of qualified fuel ethanol during a particular month either exceeds or is less than that estimated by a Missouri qualified fuel ethanol producer, the department of agriculture shall adjust the subsequent monthly grant by paying additional amount or subtracting the amount in deficiency by using the calculation described in this subsection.
SECTION 144.030 - Adds natural gas, propane and electricity used by an eligible new generation cooperative or processing entity as well as field drain tile, to the list of exemptions from sale and use taxes.
http://www.senate.mo.gov/05info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=14288
How sweet it is!!! That Webster County plant is eligible--thanks to Governor Blunt and his cronies--to receive over THREE MILLION DOLLARS per year in grant money from the state of Missouri. Since this "grant" money doesn't grow on trees, the money will come from Missouri taxpayers pockets.
If, for some reason--like no corn being grown in this area--that ethanol plant switches over to being a biodiesel facility, then the amount of taxpaer money they can grab shoots up to over SIX MILLION DOLLARS per year.
And if that ethanol plant fails within its first five years of operation, guess what? Governor Blunt and our reps will still pay the owners of the plant OUR tax money for a failed product.
Not only do the people of Webster County get stuck with an ethanol plant that will spew toxic substances into the air they breathe and deplete and pollute their drinking water, they also get to PAY for this privilege.
Like we used to say when it was time to feed the hogs, "SOOEE, SOOEE, SOOEE.
Chapter 142 Motor Fuel Tax Section 142.028
3. A Missouri qualified fuel ethanol producer shall be eligible for a monthly grant from the fund, except that a Missouri qualified fuel ethanol producer shall only be eligible for the grant for a total of sixty months unless such producer during those sixty months failed, due to a lack of appropriations, to receive the full amount from the fund for which they were eligible, in which case such producers shall continue to be eligible for up to twenty-four additional months or until they have received the maximum amount of funding for which they were eligible during the original sixty-month time period. The amount of the grant is determined by calculating the estimated gallons of qualified fuel ethanol production to be produced from Missouri agricultural products for the succeeding calendar month, as certified by the department of agriculture, and applying such figure to the per-gallon incentive credit established in this subsection. Each Missouri qualified fuel ethanol producer shall be eligible for a total grant in any fiscal year equal to twenty cents per gallon for the first twelve and one-half million gallons of qualified fuel ethanol produced from Missouri agricultural products in the fiscal year plus five cents per gallon for the next twelve and one-half million gallons of qualified fuel ethanol produced from Missouri agricultural products in the fiscal year. All such qualified fuel ethanol produced by a Missouri qualified fuel ethanol producer in excess of twenty-five million gallons shall not be applied to the computation of a grant pursuant to this subsection. The department of agriculture shall pay all grants for a particular month by the fifteenth day after receipt and approval of the application described in subsection 4 of this section. If actual production of qualified fuel ethanol during a particular month either exceeds or is less than that estimated by a Missouri qualified fuel ethanol producer, the department of agriculture shall adjust the subsequent monthly grant by paying additional amount or subtracting the amount in deficiency by using the calculation described in this subsection.
SECTION 144.030 - Adds natural gas, propane and electricity used by an eligible new generation cooperative or processing entity as well as field drain tile, to the list of exemptions from sale and use taxes.
http://www.senate.mo.gov/05info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=14288
How sweet it is!!! That Webster County plant is eligible--thanks to Governor Blunt and his cronies--to receive over THREE MILLION DOLLARS per year in grant money from the state of Missouri. Since this "grant" money doesn't grow on trees, the money will come from Missouri taxpayers pockets.
If, for some reason--like no corn being grown in this area--that ethanol plant switches over to being a biodiesel facility, then the amount of taxpaer money they can grab shoots up to over SIX MILLION DOLLARS per year.
And if that ethanol plant fails within its first five years of operation, guess what? Governor Blunt and our reps will still pay the owners of the plant OUR tax money for a failed product.
Not only do the people of Webster County get stuck with an ethanol plant that will spew toxic substances into the air they breathe and deplete and pollute their drinking water, they also get to PAY for this privilege.
Like we used to say when it was time to feed the hogs, "SOOEE, SOOEE, SOOEE.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
THE SMELL OF "MONEY"
New Ethanol Plants to Be Fueled by Cow Manure
August 18, 2006
But in Hereford, a cattle town in the Texas Panhandle, Dallas-based Panda Ethanol is building a production facility driven by the area's most abundant and least appreciated resource: manure.
The new plant is expected to extract methane from 1 billion pounds (453,000 metric tons) of manure—the product of about 500,000 cows—to generate 100 million gallons (378 million liters) of ethanol, plus ash by-product, each year.
Methane derived from the manure will be burned to generate the steam necessary for processing corn into ethanol.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060818-ethanol.html
Ahhh, the smell of "money. Or, at least that's what the horrible odor that would drift from the cow lot to our house was called by my father. That smell given off by the cow pies might smell like money to some, but others, especially the ones downwind of a certain ethanol plant in Webster County, know exactly what that smell is and what it really smells like, and it sure as heck ain't money.
Since this ethanol plant will only use around 20 acres for the actual ethanol process, then what is the need for for nearly 230 acres at the site?
Is the planned ethanol plant going to be a "closed-loop" facility? By that we mean are they planning to use the significant acreage left over to put in a cattle feeding operation? The "closed-loop" term comes into play when the cow pies are used as fuel to run the ethanol plant. And the cows are fed the leftover mash by-products from the ethanol production.
While the cows are fed the mash and the plant owners are fed cash, the people of both Webster County and the ones on the Ozark Aquifer are fed toxic air and polluted water. With the added "benefit" of seeing their water wells go dry due to the massive amount of water pumped out of the Ozarks Aquifer.
What's happening and going to happen to Webster County might smell like "money" to those raking in the cash from this ill-suited site, but to the ones who have to live with this abomination, they know what that SMELL is, and it sure ain't "money."
August 18, 2006
But in Hereford, a cattle town in the Texas Panhandle, Dallas-based Panda Ethanol is building a production facility driven by the area's most abundant and least appreciated resource: manure.
The new plant is expected to extract methane from 1 billion pounds (453,000 metric tons) of manure—the product of about 500,000 cows—to generate 100 million gallons (378 million liters) of ethanol, plus ash by-product, each year.
Methane derived from the manure will be burned to generate the steam necessary for processing corn into ethanol.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060818-ethanol.html
Ahhh, the smell of "money. Or, at least that's what the horrible odor that would drift from the cow lot to our house was called by my father. That smell given off by the cow pies might smell like money to some, but others, especially the ones downwind of a certain ethanol plant in Webster County, know exactly what that smell is and what it really smells like, and it sure as heck ain't money.
Since this ethanol plant will only use around 20 acres for the actual ethanol process, then what is the need for for nearly 230 acres at the site?
Is the planned ethanol plant going to be a "closed-loop" facility? By that we mean are they planning to use the significant acreage left over to put in a cattle feeding operation? The "closed-loop" term comes into play when the cow pies are used as fuel to run the ethanol plant. And the cows are fed the leftover mash by-products from the ethanol production.
While the cows are fed the mash and the plant owners are fed cash, the people of both Webster County and the ones on the Ozark Aquifer are fed toxic air and polluted water. With the added "benefit" of seeing their water wells go dry due to the massive amount of water pumped out of the Ozarks Aquifer.
What's happening and going to happen to Webster County might smell like "money" to those raking in the cash from this ill-suited site, but to the ones who have to live with this abomination, they know what that SMELL is, and it sure ain't "money."
Monday, June 11, 2007
HOW TO POISON THE OZARKS AQUIFER
Eleven biofuels plants have been cited by the state Department of Natural Resources for wastewater violations that include polluting streams based on permit limits under the federal Clean Water Act, according to the Register's analysis of state records for 34 plants in operation during six years.
Ethanol production requires purified water. When plants treat the water, their sewage discharges can include toxic salt levels and high iron levels. That kind of pollution can harm fish and cattle that drink from streams.
According to the Iowa Environmental Council, the concentrations of chloride and other suspended solids, mainly salts, coming from ethanol plants are among the highest of any industry in the state.
Plants have released large amounts of wastewater that is toxic to fish and plants. The waste means more chloride in the water, which harms aquatic life and livestock.
Iowa Falls' municipal sewage treatment plant found wastewater from Cargill's biodiesel plant was so high in organic matter - ammonia and oxygen-depleting compounds - that the plant couldn't treat it. Plant operators reported that the wastes would overwhelm the bacteria used to digest solids in one part of the treatment process.
Cargill hired a company to spread the soybean oil and glycerine, also called sugar water, on ground without testing the waste first, as required, and without incorporating it into the soil so it wouldn't run off.
The material ran off into a local stream, killing fish
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070603/BUSINESS01/706030322/0/biofuels
And this is just a small taste of what's in store for both Webster County and the Ozarks Aquifer. Polluted water runoff from the ethanol plant with deadly levels of toxic materials that flow out of the plant, UNTREATED. Clean, fresh Ozark Aquifer water that is drinkable, is taken from the Ozarks Aquifer, used for processing the corn into ethanol, then the wastewater is dumped onto the surrounding land where it returns to the Aquifer via the Karst topography.
After the Ozarks Aquifer gets polluted from this toxic stew of chemicals and starts poisoning both Webster County and anyone who takes drinking water from the Aquifer, it will be WAY TOO LATE to effect some type of fix.
Ethanol production requires purified water. When plants treat the water, their sewage discharges can include toxic salt levels and high iron levels. That kind of pollution can harm fish and cattle that drink from streams.
According to the Iowa Environmental Council, the concentrations of chloride and other suspended solids, mainly salts, coming from ethanol plants are among the highest of any industry in the state.
Plants have released large amounts of wastewater that is toxic to fish and plants. The waste means more chloride in the water, which harms aquatic life and livestock.
Iowa Falls' municipal sewage treatment plant found wastewater from Cargill's biodiesel plant was so high in organic matter - ammonia and oxygen-depleting compounds - that the plant couldn't treat it. Plant operators reported that the wastes would overwhelm the bacteria used to digest solids in one part of the treatment process.
Cargill hired a company to spread the soybean oil and glycerine, also called sugar water, on ground without testing the waste first, as required, and without incorporating it into the soil so it wouldn't run off.
The material ran off into a local stream, killing fish
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070603/BUSINESS01/706030322/0/biofuels
And this is just a small taste of what's in store for both Webster County and the Ozarks Aquifer. Polluted water runoff from the ethanol plant with deadly levels of toxic materials that flow out of the plant, UNTREATED. Clean, fresh Ozark Aquifer water that is drinkable, is taken from the Ozarks Aquifer, used for processing the corn into ethanol, then the wastewater is dumped onto the surrounding land where it returns to the Aquifer via the Karst topography.
After the Ozarks Aquifer gets polluted from this toxic stew of chemicals and starts poisoning both Webster County and anyone who takes drinking water from the Aquifer, it will be WAY TOO LATE to effect some type of fix.
Saturday, June 9, 2007
HOW to TURN the OZARKS AQUIFER into a TOXIC DUMP
Biofuel plants generate new air, water, soil problems for Iowa
Can ethanol and biodiesel production rise without bigtime damage to resources?
By PERRY BEEMAN
REGISTER STAFF WRITER
June 3, 2007
Iowa's ramped-up ethanol and biodiesel fuel production led to 394 instances over the past six years in which the plants fouled the air, water or land or violated regulations meant to protect the health of Iowans and their environment.
In addition, many biologists consider the industry's most prevalent environmental issue the water pollution and soil erosion that will accompany the increased corn production needed to meet ethanol's soaring demand.
The biggest problem at the plants is meeting sewage pollution limits and preventing wastes from spilling into waterways. There were 276 violations in that category, involving 11 plants, one-third of all Iowa's plants in operation during the analysis and covered in the documents. Much of the sewage trouble came from too much iron in water withdrawn from local aquifers. Iron discharges were 30 times the allowable limit in one case. Some plants, like Lincolnway Energy in Nevada, installed iron filters to correct the problem.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070603/BUSINESS01/706030325/1001/RSS01
Welcome to the future, where the Ozarks Aquifer gets polluted from the toxic runoff from a certain Webster County ethanol plant.
Add in the depletion of the Ozarks Aquifer due to the immense amount of water ethanol plants suck out of the ground and one word comes to mind: DISASTER.
Can ethanol and biodiesel production rise without bigtime damage to resources?
By PERRY BEEMAN
REGISTER STAFF WRITER
June 3, 2007
Iowa's ramped-up ethanol and biodiesel fuel production led to 394 instances over the past six years in which the plants fouled the air, water or land or violated regulations meant to protect the health of Iowans and their environment.
In addition, many biologists consider the industry's most prevalent environmental issue the water pollution and soil erosion that will accompany the increased corn production needed to meet ethanol's soaring demand.
The biggest problem at the plants is meeting sewage pollution limits and preventing wastes from spilling into waterways. There were 276 violations in that category, involving 11 plants, one-third of all Iowa's plants in operation during the analysis and covered in the documents. Much of the sewage trouble came from too much iron in water withdrawn from local aquifers. Iron discharges were 30 times the allowable limit in one case. Some plants, like Lincolnway Energy in Nevada, installed iron filters to correct the problem.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070603/BUSINESS01/706030325/1001/RSS01
Welcome to the future, where the Ozarks Aquifer gets polluted from the toxic runoff from a certain Webster County ethanol plant.
Add in the depletion of the Ozarks Aquifer due to the immense amount of water ethanol plants suck out of the ground and one word comes to mind: DISASTER.
Thursday, June 7, 2007
THE COMPANY THEY KEEP
According to a Springfield Leader and Press report in May 1977, Charles O. Luna was acquainted with Russell E. Phillips, the man federal prosecutors pegged as the mastermind behind a massive fraud scheme that bilked farmers in four states – Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Texas – out of millions of dollars. Phillips carried out the scheme under the guise of Progressive Farmers Association, which went belly up in 1977 after it filed for bankruptcy.
Around the same time, Springfield police said Luna was the target of an alleged murder-for-hire plot arranged by Phillips, who was later acquitted by a St. Louis County jury. Prosecutors said Phillips hatched the plot because authorities had approached Luna – then a businessman in Branson – about testifying against Phillips in a securities fraud case pending in Arkansas.
Two Arkansas-based oil companies – Lion Oil and Continental Ozark – sued Luna in the late 1980s to recover a combined debt of more than $500,000. A judge ordered Luna to pay back the debt plus interest in both cases and later authorized both companies to garnish his assets, including all bank accounts, certificates of deposit, cash and jewelry.
In 1991, Luna was hit with another spate of litigation after he defaulted on payments to companies that had leased him trailers and equipment. One of his largest debts was owed to Washington-based Paccar Financial Corp., a company that repossessed 53 of the 54 trucks it leased to Luna.
http://www.sbj.net/weekly_article.asp?aID=97644877.2670648.977769.9597121.4681347.621&aID2=75204
Looks like the Ozarks is primed and ready for an "ENRON" type mess right here in Webster County.
Around the same time, Springfield police said Luna was the target of an alleged murder-for-hire plot arranged by Phillips, who was later acquitted by a St. Louis County jury. Prosecutors said Phillips hatched the plot because authorities had approached Luna – then a businessman in Branson – about testifying against Phillips in a securities fraud case pending in Arkansas.
Two Arkansas-based oil companies – Lion Oil and Continental Ozark – sued Luna in the late 1980s to recover a combined debt of more than $500,000. A judge ordered Luna to pay back the debt plus interest in both cases and later authorized both companies to garnish his assets, including all bank accounts, certificates of deposit, cash and jewelry.
In 1991, Luna was hit with another spate of litigation after he defaulted on payments to companies that had leased him trailers and equipment. One of his largest debts was owed to Washington-based Paccar Financial Corp., a company that repossessed 53 of the 54 trucks it leased to Luna.
http://www.sbj.net/weekly_article.asp?aID=97644877.2670648.977769.9597121.4681347.621&aID2=75204
Looks like the Ozarks is primed and ready for an "ENRON" type mess right here in Webster County.
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
"THE MUSIC MEN"
That was then.........
Webster County Groundwater Impact Committee Notes
August 30, 2006
12. Is the company willing to financially assist those who must drill new wells or lower pumps due to the plant’s water usage?
Greg Wilmoth stated he does not believe GBE has any responsibility to provide financial assistance.
http://www.jrbp.missouristate.edu/ethanol/ethanolq&a.shtml
This is now??????????
From an article in the Springfield News-Leader
March 7, 2007
The new president of Gulfstream Bioflex Energy promised to drill neighbors' wells deeper if the company's proposed ethanol plant used too much water.
Confused? You bet. And wary, as most Ozarkians should be when it comes to possibly losing their main source of potable water, the Ozarks Aquifer.
Is it possible that the musical, "The Music Man" is coming for an extended stay in Webster County? In that play, "Professor" Harold Hill is a con man whose scam is to convince parents he can teach their musically-disinclined children to play a musical instrument. Taking pre-paid orders for instruments and uniforms with the promise he will form a band, he skips town and moves on to the next one before he's exposed.
Only this time, with the Ozarks Aquifer in danger of depletion and being polluted by wastewater discharge, the musical is turning into a horror story.
Webster County Groundwater Impact Committee Notes
August 30, 2006
12. Is the company willing to financially assist those who must drill new wells or lower pumps due to the plant’s water usage?
Greg Wilmoth stated he does not believe GBE has any responsibility to provide financial assistance.
http://www.jrbp.missouristate.edu/ethanol/ethanolq&a.shtml
This is now??????????
From an article in the Springfield News-Leader
March 7, 2007
The new president of Gulfstream Bioflex Energy promised to drill neighbors' wells deeper if the company's proposed ethanol plant used too much water.
Confused? You bet. And wary, as most Ozarkians should be when it comes to possibly losing their main source of potable water, the Ozarks Aquifer.
Is it possible that the musical, "The Music Man" is coming for an extended stay in Webster County? In that play, "Professor" Harold Hill is a con man whose scam is to convince parents he can teach their musically-disinclined children to play a musical instrument. Taking pre-paid orders for instruments and uniforms with the promise he will form a band, he skips town and moves on to the next one before he's exposed.
Only this time, with the Ozarks Aquifer in danger of depletion and being polluted by wastewater discharge, the musical is turning into a horror story.
Monday, June 4, 2007
CANCER ALLEY COMES TO THE OZARKS
EPA Finds Worrisome Levels Of Toxic Air Pollutants At Ethanol Plant
Factories that convert corn into the gasoline additive ethanol are releasing carbon monoxide, methanol and some carcinogens at levels "many times greater" than they promised, the government says.
In an April 24 letter to the industry's trade group, the Environmental Protection Agency said the problem is common to "most, if not all, ethanol facilities."
Recent tests have found VOC emissions ranging from 120 tons a year, for some of the smallest plants, up to 1,000 tons annually, agency officials said.
It is said that we didn't inherit this land from our ancestors, we're borrowing it from our children. Is a legacy of polluted water and the air we need to breathe filled with cancer causing agents what we will leave our children?
The Rogersville plant is the wrong place for a quick fix deal that will leave a toxic legacy lasting for generations.
Factories that convert corn into the gasoline additive ethanol are releasing carbon monoxide, methanol and some carcinogens at levels "many times greater" than they promised, the government says.
In an April 24 letter to the industry's trade group, the Environmental Protection Agency said the problem is common to "most, if not all, ethanol facilities."
Recent tests have found VOC emissions ranging from 120 tons a year, for some of the smallest plants, up to 1,000 tons annually, agency officials said.
It is said that we didn't inherit this land from our ancestors, we're borrowing it from our children. Is a legacy of polluted water and the air we need to breathe filled with cancer causing agents what we will leave our children?
The Rogersville plant is the wrong place for a quick fix deal that will leave a toxic legacy lasting for generations.
Saturday, June 2, 2007
POLLUTED WATER AND TOXIC AIR
For each gallon of ethanol produced, typical ethanol plants consume 3.5 to 6 gallons of water and produce 12 gallons of sewage-like effluent in the fermentation and distillation process. Syrup, batches of bad ethanol, and sewage are dumped into streams, threatening fish and plants with chloride, copper and other wastes which deprive waters of oxygen when they decompose. A state inspector in Iowa reported that a creek next to the ethanol plant in Sioux Center was milky and smelled like sewage.
Prodded by hundreds of complaints at the Gopher State Ethanol plant in St. Paul, where residents complained that the plant smelled like "rubbing alcohol mixed with burning corn," the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency began testing emissions from the plant. They found high levels of carbon monoxide, methanol, toluene and other Volatile Organic Compounds, including formaldehyde and acetaldehyde, both of which are known to cause cancer in animals.
http://www.energyjustice.net/ethanol/factsheet.html
Toxic air and polluted water. Does anyone really believe that the Missouri Department of Natural Resources will be watching out for the state's natural resources? Or will they roll over and play dead like they have in NW Missouri, whose residents have been abandoned by the DNR in favor of the factory hog farms?
Prodded by hundreds of complaints at the Gopher State Ethanol plant in St. Paul, where residents complained that the plant smelled like "rubbing alcohol mixed with burning corn," the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency began testing emissions from the plant. They found high levels of carbon monoxide, methanol, toluene and other Volatile Organic Compounds, including formaldehyde and acetaldehyde, both of which are known to cause cancer in animals.
http://www.energyjustice.net/ethanol/factsheet.html
Toxic air and polluted water. Does anyone really believe that the Missouri Department of Natural Resources will be watching out for the state's natural resources? Or will they roll over and play dead like they have in NW Missouri, whose residents have been abandoned by the DNR in favor of the factory hog farms?
Friday, June 1, 2007
Irony
I think it is ironic that Webster county is being told by this corporation (and our government, evidently) that there is plenty of water out there and that this some odd billion gallon per year use by one company is not an unreasonable use while at the same time Springfield city leaders (see Springfield News-Leader, 06/01/07) are taking the initiative to PROTECT THEIR water supply by tightening use restrictions and urging conservation... Isn't the community of Joplin also entering crisis mode in their search for a clean water supply?
CORPORATE WELFARE
One of life's two certainties, death and taxes, has been taken away for up to 30 years to attract an industry to Saline County.
The Saline County Commission Tuesday approved, on a 2-1 vote, a tax abatement agreement lasting up to 30 years for Mid-Missouri Ethanol, which plans to build a 40-million-gallon ethanol plant near Malta Bend.
The agreement will excuse the corporation from paying taxes until Dec. 15, 2033, or until it buys all $62 million of the Chapter 100 bonds back from the county.
http://www.marshallnews.com/story/1040067.html
Is this wholesale looting of Saline County taxes for the Malta Bend plant in store for residents of Webster County?
That's 30 years of huge tax breaks to a faceless corporation. Taxes that would have went to public entities such as the school district and the county roads will not be paid. Instead, that purloined money will help fatten the bottom line of the Rogersville ethanol plant and used to pay huge bonuses to the owners. In other words, the citizens of Webster County will have to pay for the "right" of having their water and air polluted. And when the Ozarks Aquifer can no longer support the ethanol plant or ethanol plants are no longer viable, the owners of this obscenity will declare bankruptcy and walk away with millions of dollars.
And probably leave the heavily contaminated site as is for TAXPAYERS to clean up with their money.
The Saline County Commission Tuesday approved, on a 2-1 vote, a tax abatement agreement lasting up to 30 years for Mid-Missouri Ethanol, which plans to build a 40-million-gallon ethanol plant near Malta Bend.
The agreement will excuse the corporation from paying taxes until Dec. 15, 2033, or until it buys all $62 million of the Chapter 100 bonds back from the county.
http://www.marshallnews.com/story/1040067.html
Is this wholesale looting of Saline County taxes for the Malta Bend plant in store for residents of Webster County?
That's 30 years of huge tax breaks to a faceless corporation. Taxes that would have went to public entities such as the school district and the county roads will not be paid. Instead, that purloined money will help fatten the bottom line of the Rogersville ethanol plant and used to pay huge bonuses to the owners. In other words, the citizens of Webster County will have to pay for the "right" of having their water and air polluted. And when the Ozarks Aquifer can no longer support the ethanol plant or ethanol plants are no longer viable, the owners of this obscenity will declare bankruptcy and walk away with millions of dollars.
And probably leave the heavily contaminated site as is for TAXPAYERS to clean up with their money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)