follow us like us subscribe contact us
Loading, please wait

Drought and the Second Ethanol Crash

By Jen Alic | Wed, 15 August 2012 22:40 | 6

When gas prices plummeted during the recession and at least half of US ethanol producers went bankrupt in the 2008-2009 ethanol crash, ethanol production continued to increase. But ethanol will crash again in the face of a summer drought, and this time the crash will be more definitive.

The difference this time around is that the ethanol will not crash because of product value, but because of under-supply of feedstock, like corn.

The US is now experiencing its worst drought in over half a century; the United Nations is warning of a food crisis and EIA is warning that exports will be significantly affected. In the meantime, corn-ethanol producers are struggling to defend a federal mandate that sets out ambitious ethanol requirements.

The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) says the drought is likely to hit exports but not cause any significant rise in ethanol-blended gasoline. However, we might take issue with this prediction as a longer-term loss of ethanol will surely affect the supply and price of the gasoline with which it is blended. 

Corn crops are shriveling and corn prices have reached record levels, in turn boosting ethanol prices. According to the EIA, ethanol output should fall by 70,000 barrels per day for the second half of this year, but the main impact of will be reduced ethanol exports, rather than an increase in gas prices.

The push to produce corn-based ethanol has helped push corn prices up to more than $8 a bushel today, from just over $2 in 2006.

The obvious battle lines are drawn between livestock farmers who are being negatively affected by the high price of corn, and feedstock farmers, who are benefitting from the federal ethanol mandate. Politically, congressmen representing livestock states are calling on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to remove the federal mandate for ethanol. The bulk of these calls are coming from Republicans, but there is some bipartisan support for such a move. Clearly the corn-producing states of Nebraska and Iowa would like to see the mandate remain in place.

How bad is the drought and how badly does the US need ethanol?

The drought is pretty bad, with over 60% of the country affected and another 16% dryer than normal. The worst cases are in the corn belt, meaning the Midwest and the High Plains, where the combination of no rain and severe heat are taking their toll on corn crops. 

Some estimates say that the US will likely lose nearly 40% of its corn crop, and possibly more, which means that the price of corn will continue to rise. The price of feedstock will be too high to sustain ethanol production, especially now that it no longer enjoys a blending credit.

The federal mandate on ethanol stipulates that all gasoline purchased wholesale must be blended with ethanol. (The Renewable Fuel Standard requires blending 13.2 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol into motor fuels this year.) 

To meet this federal mandate, ethanol must use some 40$ of the corn crop—a percentage that will be missing from this year’s harvest. 

The answer is not to get rid of the federal mandate, but to pause it for the rest of this year as the corn harvest cannot sustain the necessary ethanol production. That corn will have to go to feed cattle, and this is a simple fact. The federal mandate for ethanol is a necessary one but in the face of drought we must be more flexible and rational.

Seeking Alpha makes an interesting point, and this is purely from a market perspective: “During most of the 2000's when global oil supply and global oil demand were near matched, the additional input from ethanol served to keep the balance better restored, and served to keep oil prices far more stable than they would have been without the then ~700,000 [bbl/d] of ethanol being pumped into the system.”

Getting rid of the federal mandate just like that would send ethanol refineries into bankruptcy and cost the country jobs it cannot afford to lose right now. The question is whether the refineries are going to face bankruptcy even with the federal mandate.

Ethanol producer East Kansas Agri-Energy LLC has announced it will halt production at its Garnett, Kansas plant in October due to the drought, which has rendered operations unprofitable. According to Bloomberg, Valero Energy Corp. (VLO), the third-biggest U.S. ethanol producer, is operating at about 50% of capacity.  

No agriculture-based industry can survive for long without federal mandates or subsidies. This is a fact that history clearly demonstrates and that the public might as well just accept. The market is unkind to agriculture and the farmer. Mother Nature can also be rather fickle.

By. Jen Alic of Oilprice.com

Jen Alic is a geopolitical analyst, co-founder of ISA Intel in Sarajevo and Tel Aviv, and the former editor-in-chief of ISN Security Watch in Zurich.

About the author

Contributor
Jen Alic
Company: ISA Intel

More recent articles by Jen Alic

Sun 18 August 2013
Egypt, Take III: No End to the Carnage
Thu 15 August 2013
Iraqi Oil Exports Slump But Optimism Abounds
Thu 15 August 2013
E.ON Sees First-Half Profit Slump in Europe
Tue 13 August 2013
Will Moribund Uranium Prices Rebound?
Sun 11 August 2013
BG Group Gets US LNG Export Approval

Leave a comment

  • StaticKlingon on August 16 2012 said:
    Quit government games. The market will find the right price for fuel, and fuel is not food. Who would have imagined the idiocy of using natural gas to make fertilizer to grow corn to add to gasoline. We would be smarter to just use the natural gas for fuel. Duh!!!!!!
  • J. Skelton on August 16 2012 said:
    While this is going to be tough all around due to the drought, the demand on ethanol is only 1/2 of the arguement. A balanced solution would see agri-farmers pass along to the consumer the increased costs of feeding animals raised for food. Livestock production is already a majority consumer of the crops grown on some 70% of the arable soil, soil that is already over farmed. In a free market, Ethanol prices would go up due to limited supply just as prices for corn, hay, soy will go up as a result of the drought. It should be expected that consumers either pay their actual prices OR switch products. Let steak, chicken, milk, etc. costs actually reflect the full production cost. We're all in this together and share a common environment.
  • Greg Hall on August 16 2012 said:
    "The answer is not to get rid of the federal mandate, but to pause it.....The federal mandate for ethanol is a necessary one". Man, who the hell are you to be telling America this progressive claptrap. To make Ethanol uses more energy than it saves because it's blend reduces MPG on any vehicle by 25% plus.
    AND then you write "No agriculture-based industry can survive for long without federal mandates or subsidies. This is a fact that history clearly demonstrates and that the public might as well just accept." What you need to do is go tell your comrades that "anyone" over here is the USA has figured out who is paying your bills. Right, Mr. Putin.

    Just what we need, another foreigner telling us what we should do with our business. Hey, you would be a hit over on the pinko channel CNN right after that dunce Peers Morgan or maybe after that nitwit with the Obummer sticker tatooed on her forehead, Soledad whatever.
  • S. Cunningham on August 16 2012 said:
    get rid of ethanol. it uses more energy than it saves. get rid of the cows. the same amount of corn or grain that it takes to feed 1 cow will easily feed 100 people. and that is not counting the hundreds of gallons of water both ethanol and cows waste. we need to get smart with our resources and that includes water.
  • Matt on August 16 2012 said:
    The answer IS to get rid of the federal mandate.

    Food =/= fuel
  • farmrrick on August 16 2012 said:
    Remember that more than one product comes from a bushel of corn in an ethanol plant. Ethanol, dried distillers grains ,( animal feed ) and CO2 (dry ice) ect.

Leave a comment