Tag Archives: green energy

Food or, Fuel?

Corn is facing unprecedented demand on all fronts. The USDA
reported that prospective corn planting for 2011 is expected to be 5% higher
than last year. That would make this the second largest crop planted since
1944. The 92.5 million acres is second only to 2007’s record of 93.5 million
acres. In spite of the growing acreage in corn and higher yields driven by
greater technology, corn stocks are still down 10% from this time last year. In
fact, the corn on hand versus this year’s expected demand, (stocks to usage
ratio), stands at 5%. This is the lowest number since 1937. There are currently
6.5 billion bushels of corn in storage versus global demand of 123.5 billion
bushels.

The government’s push towards ethanol was actually initiated
by Carter during the oil crisis of the 70’s. It was left dormant until the post
9/11 energy independence push. Corn was trading at $2.25 per bushel in 2001.
Cheap, clean burning corn made it a political win/win for energy independence
and the global warming, green energy crowd. This led to government mandates and
subsidies to increase ethanol production every year through 2015. This year, up
to 40% of the corn crop, at a price above $6.50 per bushel, will be allocated
to ethanol production. If we multiply the intended planting acreage times an
average yield of 155 bushels per acre, we can see that the cost of the corn
input of ethanol production will be more than $37 billion dollars.

The U.S. also exports more than 60% of the corn we produce. Our
exports have continued to climb even as the price of corn has nearly doubled in
the last year alone. Meat consumption has just begun to grow in Asian countries
as they’ve begun to prosper and develop their own middle class. This will not
only continue, it will accelerate. Global meat consumption is still only 20% of
the U.S. average. The demand for feed grains continues to outpace production by
1-4% per year. China is determined to have a self -sustaining hog industry by
2013. These factors help explain the continual decline in ending stocks in the
face of growing harvests.

The demands on the corn market from ethanol and food
production leave absolutely no room for weather related issues. This year’s
crop is crucial to restoring our reserves. Based on the current ethanol
policies, it would have to rally another $.50 cents per gallon just to catch up
with the current price of gasoline. Corn would have to reach $8.82 per bushel
for gas and ethanol to reach equilibrium at $3.15 per gallon. Ethanol/ gasoline
blenders also receive a federal credit of $1.30 per bushel. This pushes the break-even
corn price to $10.12 per bushel for ethanol producers.

The price of corn hit an all time high of $7.79 in June of
2008. Remember, this followed the largest crop ever harvested in 2007. We
already know that global gasoline demand will increase, as fuel must be
exported to Japan. We also know that Japan’s imports of all foods will be
higher than ever. China is doing everything they can to put the brakes on their
economy but it won’t derail the growing appetites of their people. Finally, the
continued decline of the U.S. Dollar will serve as double coupon day for global
shoppers as we remain the world’s supermarket.

This blog is published by Andy Waldock. Andy Waldock is a trader, analyst, broker and asset manager. Therefore, Andy Waldock may have positions for himself, his family, or, his clients in any market discussed. The blog is meant for educational purposes and to develop a dialogue among those with an interest in the commodity markets. The commodity markets employ a high degree of leverage and may not be suitable for all investors. There is substantial risk of loss in investing in futures.

Oil Addiction

The United States’ energy dependence has followed the same path as a junkie. We have become addicted to cheap oil over the last forty years. In fact, our entire economy was built on cheap oil. Just like any good junky, we weathered the initial supply crisis in the 1970’s and, having seen the error of our ways, vowed to set ourselves straight. Fortunately, it was just a temporary shock and we didn’t really mean it. Besides, remember how bad it was? It was horrible for domestic employment and inflation was everywhere. We were invaded by foreign automobiles. We were forced to listen to crackpot after crackpot on the evening news telling us that we should be using alternative energy sources available right here in the U.S.  Thank goodness that didn’t last.

 

Fast- forward to 1990 and a tiny little country in the Golden Crescent was having its, “freedom” threatened. Amazingly, one little country, smaller than New Jersey and with fewer people than the city of Houston, was able to mobilize the mightiest fighting force in the world. A desperate addict needing a fix will do almost anything to ensure their supply keeps flowing. The subsequent rally in oil prices was hardly noticed due the prosperous economic times of the period. We got to watch the war on TV with Wolf Blitzer calling the commentary from the video feed on the nose of precisely guided weapons. The technology boom got underway, the war was a huge success and we reveled in national pride.

 

Here we are in 2010 and we’ve gotten used to paying a higher premium for petroleum products and we’ve successfully defended our suppliers. My issue is this; the United States must develop a consistent and focused energy plan if we are ever going to become self -sustaining. We have the resources. The U.S. has greater natural gas reserves than the Saudi’s have oil. This past week I’ve read two alarming pieces targeting the future of the United States’ energy consumption. After doing some research on my own, it has become clear that there is a major disconnect between where we are being told we are headed versus where we actually are headed.

 

The government stimulus packages and vehicle emission standards have pushed for electric cars as the primary source of green energy. It’s made for great press as our ailing auto manufacturers have produced catchy, warm and fuzzy commercials and brainwashed the general public into believing we are on the road to self-sufficiency, leading us away from foreign oil dependency and the wars it has brought with it.

 

However, if look behind the Wizard’s curtain, we reveal some startling facts.

The U.S. currently imports 67% of its oil.

The cessation of Gulf oil production will increase this to 75% by 2012. This will put oil at $125 per barrel and gas at $4-$5 by 2012.

Half of our top ten oil importers are countries that are unsafe to visit according to our State Department. Their official language reads, “Travel Warnings are issued when long-term, protracted conditions that make a country dangerous or unstable lead the State Department to recommend that Americans avoid or consider the risk of travel to that country.” This includes countries like, Iraq, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, etc.

According to T. Boone Pickens, our current energy policy prices in oil at $300 per barrel by 2020. Oil is currently just over $80 per barrel.

 

I wrote about the spread between natural gas and crude oil a few weeks ago stating that it was near an all time high. The spread between any two markets is based on using a standard measure for both to determine absolute value. Energy markets are measured in British Thermal Units, BTU’s. This defines how much work or, power, is generated by the combustion of a given quantity of substance. The current relationship between crude oil and natural gas is that it takes $14.07 worth of crude oil to do the same work as $3.80 worth of natural gas. This means we pay about 3.7 times as much for crude oil to do the same amount of work as we would for natural gas. The five- year average for this ratio, including today’s inflated price is, 1.7.

 

Natural gas has always sold at a discount to crude oil and until the last 10 years, the relatively low price of crude oil has dictated business as usual. In the wake of 9/11 and the global recession, the government has spent hundreds of billions of dollars aimed at stimulating the economy, nurturing energy independence, cleaning up the environment and improving the infra structure of the country. Unfortunately, the money from that pie, our tax dollars, have been sliced so thinly that the result is virtually, nil. Our dollars’ have been spent on a Jack-of-all trades and master of none. This is most clearly evident in the outside investment and performance of alternative energy source companies specializing in wind, geothermal, solar and fuel cells, which have all lost at least 30% over the last year. Clearly, the investment community has little faith in the current administration’s ability to coordinate a sustainable alternative energy plan.

 

Finally, the push towards electric automobiles is simply a public relations gimmick. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, highway diesel usage trumps residential gasoline consumption by more than an 8 to 1 margin. Does it really make sense that the government enacted emission restrictions on passenger vehicles prior to commercial vehicles? Electric, residential automobiles with two seats and a 100 mile range are not going to effectively address the problem of energy independence.

 

The primary focus of our energy policy should be natural gas. It burns 30% cleaner than crude oil and nearly twice as clean as coal, which it’s also currently cheaper than. Finally, in energy equivalents, apples to apples, we have three times more energy reserves than Saudi Arabia. We should regain our dignity by developing the infrastructure, creating fueling stations and putting our people to work through the use of new technologies with an extended shelf life. This is a fundamentally sound path towards a cleaner, more productive and independent country.

 

This blog is published by Andy Waldock. Andy Waldock is a trader, analyst, broker and asset manager. Therefore, Andy Waldock may have positions for himself, his family, or, his clients in any market discussed. The blog is meant for educational purposes and to develop a dialogue among those with an interest in the commodity markets. The commodity markets employ a high degree of leverage and may not be suitable for all investors. There is substantial risk of loss in investing in futures.