Biofuels Share Discussion Threads

[topinfo] 11/7/2007 10:10

Still 3.25p downside.!!!

[pennstreet] 11/7/2007 10:04

Is there any potential upside to this ? Surely can't lose at these prices ??

[volsung] 10/7/2007 22:01

The biofuel myths
By Eric Holt-Giménez Published: July 10, 2007
The term "biofuels" suggests renewable abundance: clean, green, sustainable assurance about technology and progress. This pure image allows industry, politicians, the World Bank, the United Nations and even the International Panel on Climate Change to present fuels made from corn, sugarcane, soy and other crops as the next step in a smooth transition from peak oil to a yet-to-be-defined renewable fuel economy.
But in reality, biofuel draws its power from cornucopian myths and directs our attention away from economic interests that would benefit from the transition, while avoiding discussion of the growing North-South food and energy imbalance.
They obscure the political-economic relationships between land, people, resources and food, and fail to help us understand the profound consequences of the industrial transformation of our food and fuel systems. "Agro-fuels" better describes the industrial interests behind the transformation, and is the term most widely used in the global South
Industrialized countries started the biofuels boom by demanding ambitious renewable-fuel targets. These fuels are to provide 5.75 percent of Europe's transport power by 2010 and 10 percent by 2020. The United States wants 35 billion gallons a year.
These targets far exceed the agricultural capacities of the industrial North. Europe would need to plant 70 percent of its farmland with fuel crops. The entire corn and soy harvest of the United States would need to be processed as ethanol and biodiesel. Converting most arable land to fuel crops would destroy the food systems of the North, so the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development countries are looking to the South to meet demand.
The rapid capitalization and concentration of power within the biofuels industry is extreme. Over the past three years, venture capital investment in biofuels has increased by 800 percent. Private investment is swamping public research institutions.
Behind the scenes, under the noses of most national antitrust laws, giant oil, grain, auto and genetic engineering corporations are forming partnerships, and they are consolidating the research, production, processing and distribution chains of food and fuel systems under one industrial roof.
Biofuel champions assure us that because fuel crops are renewable, they are environment-friendly, can reduce global warming and will foster rural development. But the tremendous market power of biofuel corporations, coupled with the poor political will of governments to regulate their activities, make this unlikely. We need a public enquiry into the myths:
Biofuels are clean and green.
Because photosynthesis performed by fuel crops removes greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and can reduce fossil fuel consumption, we are told they are green. But when the full lifecycle of biofuels is considered, from land clearing to consumption, the moderate emission savings are outweighed by far greater emissions from deforestation, burning, peat drainage, cultivation and soil-carbon losses.
Every ton of palm oil generates 33 tons of carbon dioxide emissions - 10 times more than petroleum. Tropical forests cleared for sugar cane ethanol emit 50 percent more greenhouse gases than the production and use of the same amount of gasoline.
Biofuels will not result in deforestation.
Proponents of biofuels argue that fuel crops planted on ecologically degraded lands will improve rather than destroy the environment. Perhaps the government of Brazil had this in mind when it reclassified some 200 million hectares of dry-tropical forests, grassland and marshes as degraded and apt for cultivation.
In reality, these are the biodiverse ecosystems of the Atlantic Forest, the Cerrado and the Pantanal, occupied by indigenous people, subsistence farmers and extensive cattle ranches. The introduction of agrofuel plantations will push these communities to the agricultural frontier of the Amazon where the devastating patterns of deforestation are well known.
Soybeans supply 40 percent of Brazil's biofuels. NASA has correlated their market price with the destruction of the Amazon rainforest - currently at nearly 325,000 hectares a year.
Biofuels will bring rural development.
In the tropics, 100 hectares dedicated to family farming generates 35 jobs. Oil-palm and sugarcane provide 10 jobs, eucalyptus two, and soybeans a scant half-job per 100 hectares, all poorly paid.
Until recently, biofuels supplied primarily local and subregional markets. Even in the United States, most ethanol plants were small and farmer-owned. With the boom, big industry is moving in, centralizing operations and creating gargantuan economies of scale.
Biofuels producers will be dependent on a cabal of companies for their seed, inputs, services, processing and sale. They are not likely to receive many benefits. Small holders will be forced out of the market and off the land. Hundreds of thousands have already been displaced by the soybean plantations in the "Republic of Soy," a 50-million hectare area in southern Brazil, northern Argentina, Paraguay and eastern Bolivia.

[jamesclives] 10/7/2007 21:48

well..... from 90p to 3p in less than 3 years...... not bad hey !

[jabuk] 10/7/2007 21:39

Scribbler - That was a long time ago :-)

[scribbler101] 10/7/2007 17:05

jabuk - 2 Sep'04 - 09:17 - 12 of 37064

Steve, maybe it will drop further and hold at the 90p level? I can't see any reason (without news) why it should go below that.


Just logged onto this thread for the first time and saw the above. Seems to have been a tad optimistic?

[volsung] 10/7/2007 16:29

DOO will follow BFC. It is only a matter of time. When BFC was over £2 and had the support of Tony Blair etc no-one could see the downside. Basically it is a failed business model.

[pujababy] 10/7/2007 16:16

dont hold here, never have, never will.

BUT due to the recent drops.. drops... etc i keep coming back to read the comments and look at trades, just out of curiosity.
i dont do this with any other share.

so, tell me, why are people buying here at this/or any price ?

and looking at those sells, why on earth are these people selling now, when they could have sold few weeks back for few pennies more.

surely these are completely dead ?
is it another Marconi ?

its amazing, it keeps dropping every day slowly.

feel sorry for you peeps though.

[ecks] 06/7/2007 21:15

I saw a woman block the path of an ambulance today on a mini roundabout. Everyone else saw and heard it coming but she froze in front of it and slowly reversed. I think it could have been Sour Linda.

[rebess] 06/7/2007 11:09

As I recall it was sour linda who said that the government wouldn't let this co. go bust. Tony Blair who opened the plant wouldn't allow it.

[magpie59] 06/7/2007 09:58

Some things don't change. Sour Linda singing from the same nonsensical hymn sheet.

[ecks] 05/7/2007 15:39

I heard that Energea specified a submarine engine to power the plant, but since Field Walton had an old Cortina block in his shed, management decided to save money. They had a head flowed and ported with a blower and big bore fitted. It was false economy as the Energea mechanic was only used to working on Mercs, BMWs and U-boats, so the Ford modification ended up costing the company dearly.

[sofa spud] 05/7/2007 13:56

Quote: The unfortunate fact is that virtually none of these so called environmental comapies in whatever guise can survive without gov aid of one form or another...

Most start up companies don't survive - it's the lucky few that pull through.

Henry Ford had three goes at starting car companies: the first one failed, the second one was successful but he fell out with the other directors and resigned. This meant the company had to change it's name from the Henry Ford Company and renamed itself Cadillac (later to be taken over by Ford's rival, General Motors) and then he started with the Ford Motor Company - which has survived but now looks like it's looking down the same sort of slippery slope that BFC is at the bottom of!!!

[cheshiremoggie] 04/7/2007 21:27

I knew it. Simon is the guy in the middle with the loin cloth!

CM.

[ecks] 04/7/2007 20:39

He thought this was Bedlam Fan Club.

I thought the picture was an artist's impression of a Q&A session at a forthcoming shareholder's meeting. That's Bob lying down on the job as usual, with Mad Frankie waiting for answers.

[jkershaw] 04/7/2007 17:03

So why did you visit Simon?

[simon gordon] 04/7/2007 15:09

Some of you guys just can't walk away.

Looking in on this thread is like a trip to:


... the inmates of a lunatic asylum.

[the_doctor] 04/7/2007 15:08

"Shame the government didn't come up with some cash to help the company in its present form and therefore help private investors"

Why should it - the company screwed up.

They messed up the hedge and were crippled by the interest payments.
The plant didnt work properly
and they were reliant on over-optimistic input/output prices.

Other biofuel companies are managing to struggle through until margins improve

[the_doctor] 04/7/2007 15:08

"Shame the government didn't come up with some cash to help the company in its present form and therefore help private investors"

Why should it - the company screwed up.

They messed up the hedge and were crippled by the interest payments.
The plant didnt work properly
and they were reliant on over-optimistic input/output prices.

Other biofuel companies are managing to struggle through until margins improve

[thatsourlinda] 04/7/2007 15:04

Tough luck to any holders here, the debt just crippled the business. Shame the government didn't come up with some cash to help the company in its present form and therefore help private investors. Note there's no chance of the business going to the wall, just the current owners who will be left with either nothing, or not much. I'm sure Barclays will find a use for the carried losses and government grants which will come their way. The unfortunate fact is that virtually none of these so called environmental comapies in whatever guise can survive without gov aid of one form or another, or backing by the likes of BP (who, not being altruistic, like the carbon credits from such companies).

[markfrankie] 03/7/2007 20:25

lock stock and 2 smoking barrels,,,the bit where some chap is kicked outa the boxing club screaming "give me back my money" after being ripped off by the sneaky owner hatchet-harry.(or was it mad frankie)