Biofuels False Promises

Large companies that stand to reap billions in subsidies and tax breaks from these energy "sources" are selling them as the way to a healthy planet and energy independence for the United States. For two reasons, don't believe it.

First, consider "energy return on energy invested," or EROEI. This is how much energy we "earn" for every unit of energy we "spend" to get it.

Gasoline's EROEI ranges between 6-to-1 and 10-to-1, says Cutler Cleveland, director of the Center for Energy and Environmental Studies at Boston University. In other words, we get anywhere from six to 10 gallons of gasoline for every gallon we use to find oil, pump it out of the ground and refine it. But the EROEI of corn-based ethanol, the most common U.S. biofuel, is a mere 1.34-to-1, the Agriculture Department says. So even though an acre of corn can make 360 gallons of ethanol, only 90 gallons of that is "new" fuel.

The corn used to make the ethanol at your local gas pump exacts a heavy price from our land and water. The fertilizer required for high corn yields starts as a resource, but once it leaves farm fields -- and most does -- it essentially becomes poison, polluting our lakes and rivers, harming drinking water, and creating a huge lifeless zone at its final destination, the Gulf of Mexico. Corn production also uses actual poisons in the form of pesticides, and these too can end up in our water and even our food.

And corn plants have wimpy roots that do a poor job of preventing erosion. Millions of tons of superb, irreplaceable Midwestern soils are lost from fields every year because of corn.

TEXT

The False Promise of Biofuels

Biofuels switch a mistake, say researchers
Tristan Farrow
The Guardian Friday August 17 2007

Increasing production of biofuels to combat climate change will release between two and nine times more carbon gases over the next 30 years than fossil fuels, according to the first comprehensive analysis of emissions from biofuels.

Biofuels - petrol and diesel extracted from plants - are presented as an environmentally friendly alternative to fossil fuels because the crops absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as they grow.

The study warns that forests must not be cleared to make way for biofuel crops. Clearing forests produces an immediate release of carbon gases into the atmosphere, accompanied by a loss of habitats, wildlife and livelihoods, the researchers said.

Britain is committed to substituting 10% of its transport fuel with biofuels under Europewide plans to slash carbon emissions by 2020.

"Biofuel policy is rushing ahead without understanding the implications," said Renton Righelato of the World Land Trust, a conservation charity. "It is a mistake in climate change terms to use biofuels."

TEXT

DNR Director looking the other way

Residents to DNR director: RES still stinks by Mari Winn

How to prevent environmental problems from happening and helping permit holders get in compliance through automation and simplification of the process were ideas put forth by Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt to address the worsening environmental conditions in the state.

Frank Martinez, advisor to the Carthage High School student stream team, was told that the DNR doesn't have the funding to post warnings on the streams. Martinez, whose group has documented excessive pollution in nearby waterways that is hazardous for body contact, is very concerned over the DNR's inability to monitor the streams or warn the public about their hazards.

Herman Lloyd who said he has about 35 head of cattle on property adjacent to Leggett & Platt's corporate headquarters complained over the run-around he got from the DNR after discovering that L&P's lagoon was leaking on his property. He said he tried to call the DNR's local number but found it was no longer in use. When he contacted the DNR's local office, he said he was told they only handled odor problems. Fighting with the corporate giant is not new, remarked Lloyd, who said L&P wanted to buy him out rather than solve their past incinerator problems that impacted him. He refused, he said.

Calling the DNR the lapdog of big business rather than the watchdog, Orr is pessimistic that anything will be done to alleviate problems that she labeled as "turning this part of the country into a giant cesspool."

TEXT

Anyone looking to the Missouri Department of Natural Resources in help with dealing with either existing polluters, or one's scheduled to come online in the future is hoping for a miracle that ain't gonna happen, as the good people in Newton County are finding out.

This line from our boy governor "... helping permit holders get in compliance through automation and simplification.. " is very telling and troubling.

Translated, it means instead of requiring on site inspections of polluters, the DNR will let them "simplify" their toxic terrors by logging on and sending in reports via computer, without the burden of having state inspectors actually visit polluters in business now and ones getting ready to construct ethanol factories.

The DNR should be an aggressive "watch dog" of our NATURAL RESOURCES instead of a neutered and well behaved "lap dog."
After all, it's YOUR tax dollars.

Need more convincing? Check out this link to find out the way DNR drags its feet when it comes to ground water pollution:

DNR chief visits Dexter Monday

"There's been a lot of violations from what I read on the permit," Bates told the director. "Right now they have soil brought up from Kennett that's not properly stored."

TEXT

ETHANOL PLANT PROTEST

The battle to keep an ethanol plant away from the south western corner of Winnebago County waged on Sunday afternoon.

"We don't want the ethanol plant to go up, we've got a lot of concerns about the ground water pollution its going to cause," says Sandy Harkonen, who lives close to the proposed site.

Neighbors who live adjacent to the proposed site of the ethanol plant gathered to protest on the side of Meridian Road. The protest coincided with a picnic held at the Winnebago County Farm Bureau by the plant's developer, Wight Partners. John Goebel, Vice President of Wight Partners, told 23 News off camera the company had no comment about the message on these signs. But not everyone wanted to be mute.

"Hopefully this will discourage some of their prime targets from investing in this fiasco and to let them know we are not going away," says Mary Osborn, who lives close to the proposed site.

Eight individuals and families' message is simple. They'll see Winnebago County board members in court.

"We are suing to not have this plant built and moreover to have the zoning decision reversed. We are prepared for this to come back down for a proper hearing with proper evidence," Osborn says.

Protesters say most of their problems are with the way the County Board has handled the situation.

"They're not giving us any answers on our property values, the pollution, all the noise that the truck traffic is gonna cause," Harkonen says.

"They've switched gears to try and draw heavy industrial into this area. And this ethanol plant isn't going to be the only heavy industrial they try to put out here," Osborn says.

From the beginning protesters have said they are not against ethanol production....it's the location brings them to the side of the road.

All sides will be in court on Thursday.

TEXT

THE ETHANOL "QUICK FIX"

The unintended consequences of the ethanol quick fix

The push to increase ethanol production and ease dependence on oil has created a price runup in fuel and food prices.

By Ray Nothstine from the July 27, 2007 edition

GRAND RAPIDS, MICH. - Ronald Reagan once said that the most terrifying words in the English language are, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." His one-liner immediately comes to mind when looking at the problems behind the federal government's campaign to boost production of corn-based ethanol with a massive 51-cent-per-gallon subsidy.

Ethanol and other biofuels are advertised as one of the main cures for our oil-thirsty economy. But it's clear that the ethanol boom, with a major assist from Washington, is succeeding in simultaneously raising both fuel and food prices.

With more than 20 percent of corn now dedicated to ethanol production, the US Department of Agriculture is projecting a record US corn crop in 2007 – along with record prices.

Outside the United States, the unintended consequences of ill-considered policies promoting ethanol and other biofuel crops are already in full view. The poor, of course, are hit hardest.

In Mexico, where corn is a staple, rapidly rising prices for tortillas have sparked open revolt. Tortilla prices skyrocketed more than threefold last year. Protesters took to the streets in Mexico City, compelling the normally free market-minded President Felipe Calderón to cap prices at 78 cents per kilogram.

TEXT

COAL TO BE BURNED AT ETHANOL FACTORY?

Carbon cloud over a green fuel

An Iowa corn refinery, open since December, uses 300 tons of coal a day to make ethanol.

By Mark Clayton | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

Late last year in Goldfield, Iowa, a refinery began pumping out a stream of ethanol, which supporters call the clean, renewable fuel of the future.
There's just one twist: The plant is burning 300 tons of coal a day to turn corn into ethanol - the first US plant of its kind to use coal instead of cleaner natural gas.

The trend, which is expected to continue, has left even some ethanol boosters scratching their heads. Should coal become a standard for 30 to 40 ethanol plants under construction - and 150 others on the drawing boards - it would undermine the environmental reasoning for switching to ethanol in the first place, environmentalists say.

"It's very likely that coal will be the fuel of choice for most of these new ethanol plants," says Robert McIlvaine, president of a Northfield, Ill., information services company that has compiled a database of nearly 200 ethanol plants now under construction or in planning and development.

TEXT

Is this the future for that ethanol factory slated to open in Webster County? Burning 300 tons of coal per DAY? Considering that coal costs are 1/3 of natural gas and that the BN Wyoming coal trains run right past the Webster County property, the prospect that coal will be used to fuel the ethanol factory is more than just speculation.

Add in the fact that BN has plans to nearly double the amount of rail traffic thru Webster County--to around 50 freight trains per day--and the inescapable fact is that the thick, acrid smell of coal smoke will soon be wafting over Webster County.

Between the cancer causing coal smoke and the diseases caused by locating this TOXIC TERROR in a residential area, plus the pollution and depletion of our drinking water, the Ozarks Aquifer, there is nothing to gain from that ethanol factory and plenty to lose... like your health and life.

ETHANOL FACTORY ON SCHEDULE

Rogersville ethanol plant still moving forward, company says By Matt Wagner
Springfield Business Journal Staff 7/16/2007

A Mount Vernon company’s plans to build a corn-based ethanol plant near Rogersville are still moving forward, according to a company official.
More than two months have passed since a judge ruled that Gulfstream Bioflex Energy LLC could proceed with the $185 million plant despite objections from property owners who sued the company over concerns about their groundwater supply.
But GBE’s lead attorney, Bryan Wade of Husch & Eppenberger LLC, said his client still intends to build the plant on 252 acres east of Rogersville. Wade said he recently filed a response to post-trial motions filed by the plant opponents’ attorney, Bill McDonald of McDonald, Hosmer, King & Royce PC.
“We would certainly like to know what the court’s feeling is on it before any significant activity occurs, but as far as I know, everything’s a go,” Wade said.

GBE Vice President Charles Luna would neither discuss the impending sale nor the plant’s construction timeline. He did, however, say that the company expects to have an approved air permit from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources no later than Sept. 30.

When asked whether other Missouri cities have attempted to woo GBE, Luna said that Seymour – several miles east of the existing site – previously expressed interest. The Rogersville site, however, remains GBE’s top pick for a plant, he said.

TEXT

Webster County's Ethanol Factory looks to be on schedule. With the next round in court all but a done deal for the ethanol factory and DNR getting ready to issue an approved air permit for that TOXIC TERROR, construction should be taking place on the ethanol factory no later than by the end of this year.

Unless people in Webster County and the Ozarks band together to fight this monstrosity, 2007 could be known as the last year in which Webster County folks enjoyed breathing air free of pollutants.

2007 will also be remembered as the last year in which Ozark Aquifer water was free of ethanol factory pollutants.

Better plan for the future by investing in a large truck with a water tank. Because once our drinking water dries up from feeding the insatiable quench of this ethanol factory, hauling water to our homes will be a weekly occurence in the Ozarks.

As for the ethanol factory claims that it will create more than $3 million annually in property tax revenue, one has to figure in the DECREASE that will come from the devaluation of the property tax value of the houses near the ethanol factory, which will offset the ethanol factory figures.

And write off any future growth for that part of Webster County. Who would want to buy a house or piece of property near a TOXIC TERROR?

FOR SALE: PROPERTY AT 1600 PENNSYLVANNIA AVE.

As of last week, nearly 200 corporate and individual patrons of President Bush had given between $25,000 and $250,000 to enjoy VIP access at inaugural parties with White House officials. The group comprises the usual roll call of corporations and wealthy executives with significant government interests -- energy firms, sub-prime bank lenders, federal contractors, and pharmaceutical companies. "It's the modern version of selling access to the White House," says Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a group that advocates stricter campaign finance laws. The 2002 campaign finance reforms outlawed direct contributions to candidates in excess of $2,000, but it left open loopholes for donating unlimited sums to the party conventions and the inauguration. The White House has voluntarily limited the size of individual inaugural checks to $250,000. "There are only a couple of avenues left where you can put up a large sum of money that is of direct value to the president," Wertheimer said.

Nearly all of the inaugural donors have benefited—or hope to benefit—from the President's policies. For many of these companies, a six-figure donation is but a small part of their multi-million dollar lobbying strategies. Among the $250,000 donors are name brands like Exxon Mobil, Ameriquest Capital, FedEx, Bristol Myers Squibb and Lockheed Martin. The Nuclear Energy Institute, which has received White House backing for new nuclear power plants, chipped in $100,000.

Carl Lindner, the former owner of the Chiquita Banana brand and one of the most reliable of Republican moneymen, gave $250,000 under his own name. But so did two companies he controls, American Financial and New Energy Corp.The lesser-known New Energy, which is based in South Bend, Ind., is one of the nation's largest manufacturers of ethanol, a corn-based alternative and additive to gasoline, and a longstanding recipient of federal research funding. It will likely be among the biggest winners of the Energy Bill, which Congress plans to reconsider later this year. A previous version of the bill, which failed to pass in 2003, would have tripled the amount of ethanol produced in the U.S., costing taxpayers nearly $5 billion, according to the environmental group Friends of the Earth.

TEXT

People and corporations don't contribute $250,000 to what basically amounts to a party and not expect nothing in return. Quite the opposite, in fact.

For donating $250,000 to the president will get one all sorts of "access." Access that us common folk will never have, unless you happen to have a quarter of a million dollars lying about.

This kind of access gets paid back and then some. Paid back with laws uniquely crafted to benefit your pet cause or in this case, to help shovel even more tax payer money, in the form of subsidies, to ethanol factories.

And We the People are left standing out in the cold, not even allowed to look in thru the window to watch the ongoing shenanigans.

Unless you have $250,000 to spare.

WHAT'S THAT SMELL?

SOUTH BEND — Imagine a skunk that sprayed the inside of an outhouse. It’s enough to make your nostrils snap shut in self-defense.
A similar noxious odor was wafting Friday morning from the sewers in the neighborhood around St. Adalbert School on the city’s west side.

“Most of our classrooms have no air conditioning,’’ Principal Jeny Sejdinaj wrote in an e-mail to The Tribune, “so windows are open to let the cool air in.’’
But the open windows also let in the nauseating odor.

“How are our children supposed to learn while holding their noses or suffering headaches from this?” Sejdinaj asked. “How are our teachers supposed to teach?”
One teacher, she said, moved her students from their third-floor classroom to the first-floor lunchroom to escape the stench.

Sejdinaj was fed up enough Friday morning to start making phone calls. She called the mayor’s office and asked that Mayor Stephen Luecke call her back. She called the Department of Public Works, she said, which transferred her to the Division of Environmental Services.
She called the county Health Department, which transferred her to the sewer department. Someone there told her the sewer department had done some deodorizing, but the person she needed to talk to was on vacation.

But Sejdinaj said he told her that the problem stems from a discharge from the New Energy Co. of Indiana, an ethanol plant located about a mile south of St. Adalbert School. The company flushes waste products into the sewers, where they flow through South Bend’s west side on their way to the Waste Water Treatment Plant on Riverside Drive.

ARTICLE

A nauseating and obnoxious odor, emitting from the local ethanol factory in South Bend, IN. That ethanol plant flushes some of its toxic waste into the sewers, which probably flow to the TAX PAYER supported water treatment plant.

But people in Webster County won't have the luxury of letting their ethanol factory flush its toxic waste into the sewer lines.

They'll have to deal with above ground storage ponds to handle the ethanol factory waste water. And hope and pray that a gully washer type rain doesn't hit the waste water ponds. If one does--like the one we had several weeks ago--then that waste water will be spread out to the surrounding area, impacting homes and their inhabitants.
Then, the toxic brew will slowly sink into the Ozark Aquifer, to be enjoyed by all.

COUGH, COUGH, HACK, HACK, WHEEZE

Carbon Monoxide----89.76 Tons

Nitrogen Oxides------97.25 Tons

Particulate Matter----97.89 Tons

Particulate Matter----54.58 Tons
(<10 Microns)

Sulfur Dioxide--------47.64 Tons

VOC's-----------------90.52 Tons
Volatile Organic Compounds

Total Air
Emissions-------------477.64 TONS

TEXT

Let's take a closer look at what some of these chemicals that are typical of ethanol factories:

*Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are contaminants of concern in ground water because (1) some VOCs have been detected in ground water in similar studies in the past, and it is important to examine whether there have been changes in their occurrence, (2) some VOCs are released to the environment in large volumes, and (3) some VOCs, once they have reached ground water, tend to persist and migrate to drinking-water wells.

TEXT

*Particulate matter is a combination of fine solids such as dirt, soil dust, pollens, molds, ashes, and soot; and aerosols that are formed in the atmosphere from gaseous combustion by-products such as volatile organic compounds, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides.

Particulate pollution comes from such diverse sources as factory and utility smokestacks, vehicle exhaust, wood burning, mining, construction activity, and agriculture.

Particulate matter air pollution is especially harmful to people with lung disease such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), which includes chronic bronchitis and emphysema. Exposure to particulate air pollution can trigger asthma attacks and cause wheezing, coughing, and respiratory irritation in individuals with sensitive airways.

Recent research has also linked exposure to relatively low concentrations of particulate matter with premature death. Those at greatest risk are the elderly and those with pre-existing respiratory or heart disease.

TEXT

From just TWO of the listed ethanol factory pollutants, VOC's and Particulate Matter, people living near an ethanol factory can expect to die early, from various ethanol factory pollutants. Diseases like COPD and heart failure from breathing pollutants from the ethanol factory.

Plus, the VOC's tend to migrate to ground water, which then winds up in our drinking water.

People around the country have stood togther and successfully fought the placement of ethanol factories in their communities. Like those in Milford, Indiana. Folks in Milford, Indiana fought against a proposed ethanol factory in their community and WON. Of course, it helps to have the governor on the side of the public.

Don't think we'll have to worry about our governor taking the side of the people. He'll be too busy helping his family build ethanol factories.

DOING OUR PART TO SUPPORT MILLIONAIRE SHEIKS

The corporation-lobbied politicians who've led us into war in the Middle East are leading the ethanol parade at home and abroad. Ethanol is simply the most widespread, costly, and U.S. security-risking money scam in history.

ETHANOL: A COSTLY SNAKE OIL AND A DANGER TO AMERICA
By Ray Wallace

PRESIDENT BUSH thought it was OK for Arabs to buy control of U.S. ports. Does he also think it's OK for Arabs to invest nearly $185 billion in the fire- and explosion-prone fuel factories now being planned, built, and operated – with U.S. taxpayer money – in farm communities across America?

Concerning Thomas C. Dorr of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the following appears in "Dorr calls for new rural investment opportunities," by Jean Caspers-Simmet, in the February 14, 2006 Rochester, Minnesota Agri News:
LINK

"Last June Dorr attended the Second Annual Renewable Energy Finance Forum in New York City.

"Represented in the room was $125 billion of capital willing to invest in green energy. A venture capitalist shared how his firm raised $185 billion capital to invest in Midwest ethanol refining capacity. Dorr asked how much came from the Middle East. The investor said nearly all of it."

If Middle East billions get invested in ethanol plants in the U.S. Midwest alone, doesn't that put our farmers – whom the Bush Administration keeps urging to invest in ethanol plants – in direct and unfair competition with oil-rich sheiks?

This also puts the lie to government propaganda that taxpayer-subsidized ethanol distilleries are supposed to benefit U.S. family farmers and their local communities.

Bush also claims ethanol helps cure U.S. addiction to Middle East oil. Whoever heard of his Middle East buddies' investing a penny to wean anyone off oil?

TEXT

$185 BILLION DOLLARS to invest in those TOXIC TERRORS known as ethanol factories and nearly ALL of the money coming from the Middle East.
Haven't we already sacrificed enough of our wealth, world standing and untold numbers of our troops, helping to prop up some of these same Middle East multi-millionaires dictators? All of those precious commodities and lives squandered, helping to protect these tyrants from the ravages of DEMOCRACY.

Any guess as to where this nearly $185 BILLION DOLLARS of investment money came from? Do we need to give even more of our money to these potentates?

The Middle East holds vasts reserves of oil. Which the ME plans on selling to the U.S. in the form of gasoline. One would think they would be hesitant to invest in the competition that is being sold as an alternative to ME oil.
Yet, these Sultans are more than willing to invest in ethanol factories. They know ethanol and biofuel factories will gobble up THEIR Middle East oil, increasing THEIR profits by increasing the amount of money we pay at the pump

What does that tell you about the mantra we've been hearing about how ethanol will help wean the country off ME oil?

It won't. In fact, it will increase the use of ME oil and natural gas. And the sheiks know this, that's why they're willing to invest billions and billions of dollars into the ethanol craze.

They're just "priming the pump", so to speak.

WHAT ABOUT THE LAND?

A look at the impacts of biofuels production, in the U.S. and the world
BY JULIA OLMSTEAD

Great news! We can finally scratch "driving less" off our list of ways to curb global warming and reduce our dependence on foreign oil! Biofuels will soon not only replace much of our petroleum, but improve soil fertility and save the American farmer as well!

Sound too good to be true? Well, yes. But you could be excused for buying the hype.

Ethanol and biodiesel are being promoted as cures for our energy and environmental woes not just by flacks for corporations like Archer Daniels Midland, BP, and DuPont, but by many eco-minded activists and some prominent environmental groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council as well.

"Even if corn and soy biodiesel have positive energy balances, that's not enough," says Andy Heggenstaller, a graduate student at Iowa State University researching biofuel crop production. "Large-scale production of corn and soybeans has negative ecological consequences. If biofuels are based on systems that exacerbate soil erosion and water contamination, they're ultimately not sustainable."

The effects of corn and soybean production in the Midwest include massive topsoil erosion, pollution of surface and groundwater with pesticides, and fertilizer runoff that travels down the Mississippi River to deplete oxygen from a portion of the Gulf of Mexico called the dead zone that has, in the last few years, been the size of New Jersey.

And according to a recent report by the World Resources Institute, stepped-up corn ethanol production means not only increases in soil erosion and water pollution, but increases in greenhouse-gas emissions. "If your objective is reducing greenhouse-gas emissions, you need to be aware of what's happening in the agricultural sector," says Liz Marshall, coauthor of the WRI study.

TEXT

GOODBYE CHEAP FOOD, HELLO SMOG

Biofuel Mania Ends Days Of Cheap Food By Gwynne Dyer

07/16/07 "NZHerald" --The era of cheap food is over. The price of maize has doubled in a year, and wheat futures are at their highest in a decade. The food price index in India has risen 11 per cent in one year, and in Mexico in January there were riots after the price of corn flour - used in making the staple food of the poor, tortillas - went up fourfold.

Before World War II, most families in developed countries spent a third or more of their income on food, as the poor majority in developing countries still do. But after the war, a series of radical changes, from mechanisation to the green revolution, raised agricultural productivity hugely and caused a long, steep fall in the real price of food.

For the global middle class, it was the good old days, with food taking only a tenth of their income.

It will probably be back up to a quarter within a decade. And it may go much higher than that because we are entering a period when three separate factors are converging to drive food prices up.

A sixth of all the grain grown in the United States this year will be "industrial corn" destined to be converted into ethanol and burned in cars, and Europe, Brazil and China are all heading in the same direction.

The attraction of biofuels for politicians is obvious: they can claim that they are doing something useful to combat emissions and global warming - although the claims are deeply suspect - without demanding any sacrifices from business or the voters.

The amount of United States farmland devoted to biofuels grew by 48 per cent in the past year alone, and hardly any new land was brought under the plough to replace the lost food production.

ARTICLE

THE ULTIMATE CON GAME

Cornell ecologist's study finds that producing ethanol and biodiesel from corn and other crops is not worth the energy
By Susan S. Lang

ITHACA, N.Y. -- Turning plants such as corn, soybeans and sunflowers into fuel uses much more energy than the resulting ethanol or biodiesel generates, according to a new Cornell University and University of California-Berkeley study.

"There is just no energy benefit to using plant biomass for liquid fuel," says David Pimentel, professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornell. "These strategies are not sustainable."

Pimentel and Tad W. Patzek, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Berkeley, conducted a detailed analysis of the energy input-yield ratios of producing ethanol from corn, switch grass and wood biomass as well as for producing biodiesel from soybean and sunflower plants. Their report is published in Natural Resources Research (Vol. 14:1, 65-76).

In terms of energy output compared with energy input for ethanol production, the study found that:

corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced;
switch grass requires 45 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced; and
wood biomass requires 57 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.
In terms of energy output compared with the energy input for biodiesel production, the study found that:

soybean plants requires 27 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced, and
sunflower plants requires 118 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.

"The United State desperately needs a liquid fuel replacement for oil in the near future," says Pimentel, "but producing ethanol or biodiesel from plant biomass is going down the wrong road, because you use more energy to produce these fuels than you get out from the combustion of these products."

TEXT

That ethanol will somehow magically help cure our addiction to oil is nothing more than a pipe dream, being sold to the American public by assorted shills, who's only interest is their bottom line.

That ethanol will somehow get us away from importing oil from the world's premier trouble spot, the Middle East, is another fabrication, being sold to the American public by some of the same corporations that are seeing their quarterly profits set new records every year.

As this respected study shows, ethanol production will use MORE fossil energy to produce than it gives back. That means more money going to certain Middle East countries with a proven track record of supporting terrorism.

Terrorism that will be increasingly directed at the U.S., as long as we have a massive military presence in that volatile region.

Ethanol is nothing more than a variation of the "SHELL" con game, which is portrayed as a gambling game, but in reality, when a wager for money is made, it is an illegal confidence trick used to perpetrate fraud.

The person perpetrating the swindle begins the game by placing the pea under one of the shells, then quickly shuffles the shells around. Once done shuffling, the operator takes bets from his audience on the location of the pea. The audience is told that if a player bets and guesses correctly, the player will win back double his bet (that is, he will double his money); otherwise he/she loses the money. However, in the hands of a skilled operator, it is not possible for the game to be won, unless the operator wants the player to win.

And in essence, we are being played by professional con artists, seeking to separate us from our money, health and our pristine Ozark enviroment.

Will we fall for this con or wise up and walk away before we lose all we hold dear?

KILLING OURSELVES TO LIVE

Ethanol is widely touted as an eco-friendly, clean-burning fuel. But if every vehicle in the United States ran on fuel made primarily from ethanol instead of pure gasoline, the number of respiratory-related deaths and hospitalizations would likely increase, according to a new study by Stanford University atmospheric scientist Mark Z. Jacobson. His findings are published in the April 18 online edition of the journal Environmental Science & Technology.
"Ethanol is being promoted as a clean and renewable fuel that will reduce global warming and air pollution,'' said Jacobson, associate professor of civil and environmental engineering. ''But our results show that a high blend of ethanol poses an equal or greater risk to public health than gasoline, which already causes significant health damage.

''We found that E85 vehicles reduce atmospheric levels of two carcinogens, benzene and butadiene, but increase two others-formaldehyde and acetaldehyde,'' Jacobson said. ''As a result, cancer rates for E85 are likely to be similar to those for gasoline. However, in some parts of the country, E85 significantly increased ozone, a prime ingredient of smog.''

Inhaling ozone-even at low levels-can decrease lung capacity, inflame lung tissue, worsen asthma and impair the body's immune system, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. The World Health Organization estimates that 800,000 people die each year from ozone and other chemicals in smog.

TEXT

Will sanity eventually triumph over our addiction to cheap gasoline to fuel our vehicles? Or will we become a fossilized part of the planet's history, doomed to extinction by our unhealthy love affair with the "infernal" combustion engine.

We like to tout humans as the most intelligent life on the planet. But how smart is it to go down a path that is leading to our destruction?

Whether we succumb to lung disease and cancers from breathing ethanol fumes or finally ignite a Nuclear WW III, fighting over oil fields in the Middle East, it won't matter to future generations, since we are currently signing their death warrants.

Signing our children's death warrants with ink made from blood.

HIGHWAY ROBBERY

"Ethanol is a magic elixir. It allows politicians and political operatives to promise voters that America can achieve "energy independence." In this new energy Valhalla, American farmers will be rich, fat and happy, thanks to all the money they will be making from "energy crops." Better yet, U.S. soldiers will never again need to visit the Persian Gulf - except, perhaps, on vacation. With enough ethanol-blended motor fuel, America can finally dictate terms to those rascally Arab sheikhs with their rag-covered heads, multiple wives and supertankers loaded with sulfurous crude.

First, the subsidies. Making ethanol from corn borders on fiscal insanity. It uses taxpayer money to make subsidized motor fuel from the single most subsidized crop in America. Between 1995 and 2005, federal corn subsidies totaled $51.2 billion. In 2005 alone, according to data compiled by the Environmental Working Group, corn subsidies totaled $9.4 billion. That $9.4 billion is approximately equal to the budget for the U.S. Department of Commerce, a federal agency that has 39,000 employees.

But the ethanol lobby isn't satisfied with the subsidies paid out to grow the grain. They are also getting huge subsidies to turn that grain into fuel. According to the Global Subsidies Initiative, meeting Bush's goal of producing 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels per year by 2017 will require total subsidies of $118 billion. The group claims that this price tag "would be the minimum subsidy" over the eleven-year period. In a report released on February 9, the group said that adding in tax breaks that the corn distillers are getting from state and local governments and federal tariffs imposed on foreign ethanol (mostly from Brazil) "would likely add tens of billions of dollars of subsidies" to the $118 billion estimate.

In April, Mark Z. Jacobson, an engineering professor at Stanford University, published a study concluding that the widespread use of E85 (fuel that contains 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline) "may increase ozone-related mortality, hospitalization, and asthma by about 9 percent in Los Angeles and 4 percent in the United States as a whole" when compared to the use of regular gasoline. Jacobson also found that because of its ozone-related effects, E85 "may be a greater overall public health risk than gasoline."

TEXT

$118 BILLION DOLLARS in future subsidies to the ravenous, pork laden ethanol industry. The ethanol industry is turning out be one of the biggest scams in recent memory.

Not only will taxpayers be forced to feed this "FRANKENFUEL" monster with their hard earned money, they will also be the ones to reap the "benefits", like polluted water and air, a depleted Ozarks Aquifer and cancer clusters around the ethanol plants.

With that much pork to be spread around, it's no wonder the present and future ethanol producers are crowding around the feed trough, waiting for the next delivery of YOUR tax dollars that go into their ever expanding stomachs..... and wallets.

ETHANOL A "CLEVER IDEA?"

Ethanol a 'clever idea' of industry, government July 5, 2007 by Doug Kelly

David Pitts makes several very good and well-thought-out points. I agree with his analysis of ethanol. I have read similar articles in a variety of magazines that support his scientific data. And I also question not only the veracity of the ethanol proponents, but also the moral-ethical discussion about which he writes. We'll likely run out of water before we run out of oil and gas. If you don't believe it, go to a Western state and see for yourself.

Too many people are ill-informed about ethanol. Some people are just gullible. And others are so desperate to save gas they are clutching onto anything possible to save fossil fuel and cut emission. But clearly ethanol is not the answer. In fact, if people would take a little time to study this, they would find that ethanol will do just opposite of what they want — that is, to save gas.

I'm afraid it's another one of those "clever ideas" cooked up by industry and government. And a more dangerous combination of forces doesn't exist.

Ethanol is a joke for fuel savings because it's nothing but "watered-down" gasoline that actually costs more to make and sell. And it does indeed have water in it. Not only is water not particularly good for an engine, but it will condense in your fuel tank and cause it to rust. This does wonders for your fuel pumps and filter.

Not to mention that it doesn't save fuel because it is really just a low grade gasoline; it burns unevenly in the cylinder head and so it actually gets worse mileage than one gets now on plain 87 octane and certainly less mpg than 92 octane. We used to be afraid of buying cheap gas because it may be "watered-down," now we're actually getting watered-down gas and it's said to be a great achievement.

At first it was 90 percent gas and 10 percent ethanol. Now I'm seeing 85 percent in some places, even 80 for biodiesel. Well, that would invalidate my car's engine and drive-train warranty. It says so very clearly in the owner's manual. I don't like that part. And to all the ethanol-lovers, I'm not confusing this with methanol. Ethanol is clearly stated in my car's manual. Ask a mechanic how ethanol will ruin your engine.

I have another question for those who are saving our environment. How does ethanol save the use of "fossil fuel" when it requires just as much or more actual fossil fuel than before? I believe strongly in protecting our environment. But as I remember, the original idea was to use less fossil fuel, not the same amount or likely more along with corn and water added. Was that not the original idea?

Well, ethanol doesn't lessen our use of fossil fuel. Like a fellow once said, "When you're up to your butt in alligators, it's hard to remember that the original idea was to drain the swamp."

But it is a nice sop from the government and taxpayers to the corn growers. Makes the cost of corn higher because it's in greater demand. Believe me, everything having any amount of corn in it, as well and livestock produced from feed corn, will all cost us more. Well, we can't expect industries reliant on corn and our beef and hog farmers to sell for a loss just because we "need" ethanol.

This is about the worst idea for using less fossil fuel that we've come up with. It's a really, really bad idea. But the bandwagon for ethanol is up and running. And it looks like the loss is going to be ours. What do you think should be done? Well, I guess we can buy carbon credits to allow us to feel good about continuing to emit high carbon content exhaust gasses. Those are popular with the jet set and rich crowd.

TEXT

"THAR'S PORK IN THEM THAR HILLS"

A quarter-mile procession of trucks piled high with corn trundles concussively over the ruts on Distillery Road in the farm town of Pekin, Illinois, 163 miles south of Chicago.

The 18-wheelers are about to drop their loads at Aventine Renewable Energy LLC, an ethanol maker that Morgan Stanley bought for $66 million three years ago. Today, that investment is worth about $750 million, according to a company filing, as runaway oil prices spur an ethanol boom.

Investors and politicians from Wall Street to Detroit, to Silicon Valley are lavishing money and praise on the fuel made from corn. Goldman Sachs Group Inc.'s announcement in May of a $26.9 million ethanol investment came after similar forays this year by billionaire Bill Gates and venture capitalist Vinod Khosla, helping boost the shares of ethanol makers fourfold.
Aventine, which was planning an initial public offering for as early as June, is adding a total of about 500 million gallons of ethanol production in the next few years, a threefold increase.

Morgan Stanley spun off its buyout unit in 2004 into a new company called Metalmark Capital LLC, at which Abramson now serves as managing director. New York-based Metalmark manages the Morgan Stanley Capital Partners funds, which own a controlling 40 percent stake in Aventine. Abramson declined to be interviewed.

Climate Ark

From an initial $66 million dollar investment to a whopping cash cow that climbed in value to nearly $750 Million Dollars, investing in ethanol is looking more and more like the next PONZI scheme for the public.

If the ethanol business is such a money-making enterprise, then why is the public being forced to subsidize these "Ethanol Factories" with billions and billions of dollars in tax breaks and subsidies. These tax breaks are generously handed out at the local, state and federal level by our so-called "Public Servants" who are serving anything but the public when they hold for ransom our schools, infrastructure and our health.

"YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK"

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.

"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.

"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.

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."

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.

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.

"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 "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?

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

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.

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.

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

"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

"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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.