Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on March 20, 2008 at 10:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

In practical terms this is old news. I know people in the building/construction trades who have been telling me since early December that REG had the project on hold. I believe that the RDA, REG, etc knew this to be true as well.

I think this may be a matter of the RDA, REG, and our political leaders taking the time to position the bad news in the most positive light they can given the circumstances.

As it's been for some time with this city's leaders, this is a triumph of style over substance.

Posted by create (anonymous) on March 20, 2008 at 11:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Of what benefit is positioning bad news in a positive light? I'm not the political maven many of you are so I'm asking to understand. I don't like being manipulated and that's what positioning bad news sounds like to me.

Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on March 20, 2008 at 11:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think if this news had been put out at the same time Tyson was shedding 1800 jobs there would have been a lot more questions about not only Tyson, but our city's leadership and approach to development.

In politics, timing is critical. Coming after Tyson, it doesn't seem to be so much a part of a larger whole, which is, and has been, our approach to economic development. It also allows REG and the RDA to chalk this all up to the economic downturn. That's only part of the story. The rise in commodity prices, particularly corn, is due in large part because of the bio-diesel plants we're building. Without the building of plants, commodity prices wouldn't have spiked as dramatically as they have. And, keep in mind that by-products from Tyson were also part of REG's plan.

Posted by dhcc66 (anonymous) on March 20, 2008 at 11:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)

i guess the only other question that can be asked is, what is going on with Hill's Pet Foods? I've seen absolutely nothing done to the area where it is supposed to go in. Please tell me this didn't fall victim to the same thing.

Posted by cheerup (anonymous) on March 20, 2008 at 11:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Since when did the bio-diesel plants start using corn????

Posted by Merry_Carol (anonymous) on March 20, 2008 at 12:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here's an article from Cornell University on the advisability and efficacy of using corn for biofuel.

Evidently it's not all it's cracked up to be, will ulimately cost us more, and damage the environment more that what we're using now. We really need to quit jumping on bandwagons without better knowing the ramifications.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July...

Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on March 20, 2008 at 1:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

REG was going to use soybean oil, but corn is also being used. The point is, commodity prices are skyrocketing because of the increased demand brought on by government mandates for ethanol and bio-diesel, which is making these ventures prohibitive and also factoring into the rise in food prices, especially those with derivatives of corn, soy, etc.

Posted by wanderer (anonymous) on March 20, 2008 at 1:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Uh-oh, this is sounding familiar. Anyone remember Ingenium?

Posted by create (anonymous) on March 20, 2008 at 2:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks, netloafer, I appreciate your explanation, particularly with regard to using economic downturn as an excuse, and commodity situation.

Posted by CAFEmporia (anonymous) on March 20, 2008 at 9:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

From what I understand, the explanation given for halting construction is truthful and timely, too, even though they've known they had a problem for some time. Our country is in recession, credit is difficult to obtain at the moment, and it is not likely to improve for a few months. They've put $18 million into this project and are unlikely to pull out now. They obviously need to get their balance sheet in order just as the entire country needs to do, as well, and then I'd bet they continue, finish it, and there will be another business in town.

Netloafer is very correct, too, about the costs associated with making biodiesel (as well as ethanol). Back when we didn't have much of it, the idea was charming. Now that it is being produced on a large scale we are realizing that the actual costs are much different than thought earlier. Even so, with the cost of oil rising as it is, these fuels will be marketable and the plants will be built and become profitable.

Posted by Merry_Carol (anonymous) on March 20, 2008 at 10:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

My problem with biofuel is that it takes more fossil fuel to produce it than they get as an end product. There is NO savings of fossil fuel at all, none, they still have to use it to produce biofuel. It doesn't even make sense.

Posted by pizza (anonymous) on March 21, 2008 at 11:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This looks to me like a prime example of a community desperate to bring in some kind of business at any cost and having tax dollars they can't wait to give away. Maybe REG has $18 million in the construction but where did they get the money? Bet it isn't theirs. They are blaming capital markets, etc. for their woes but what kind of business would spend that kind of money not having the rest of the financing in place? We'll hear this excuse used a lot as a cop out for poor or no planning. According to the RDA interview a while back in the paper Heerman has brought in 6 businesses in 14 years and it appears that 2 of them are still operating. How many of you could have that kind of dismal job performance and still have your job? Biofuels are a high risk, questionable reward type of business that wouldn't even be considered by a prudent investor without the many goverment incentives. Biofuels may or may not have a future but not at the expense of our food supply.
How long are we going to continue with the present management and RDA program before we realize that 14 years is long enough with little success and make some major changes in direction? More of the same will give us more of the same. Get used to looking at the REG project. That's as far as it's going unless there are more handouts.

Posted by CAFEmporia (anonymous) on March 21, 2008 at 11:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Pizza, your points are well taken and probably more than a little correct. Mary_Carol is also correct that as it currently happens, the energy requirements for making biofuels of any kind are inefficient and frankly absurd. However, that can be changed in the long run. Brazil has found ways to do that part of it, but at the far to heavy environmental costs of destroying their remaining rain forests.

The main advantage of biofuels is that they do wean us off of oil and, therefore, free us from foreign oil producers like Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and Venezuela. However, it should be considered a stop gap measure which remains highly polluting in addition to being excessively expensive. Were ethanol not so heavily subsidized by the federal government, it would be a non-starter. The plants which have been built to produce it in the US have not been particularly efficient, either.

It may be that REG will fail, as pizza indicates. I hope not for a number of reasons, but none I can support wholeheartedly except that I hate seeing another set back for the home town.

Posted by admireed (anonymous) on March 21, 2008 at 3 p.m. (Suggest removal)

pizza, maybe community should stop or curtail tax dollars funding of RDA

Posted by jones743 (anonymous) on March 21, 2008 at 6:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree, there should be some major changes in RDA. Based on past performance, it would take over 25 years just to replace the jobs lost in Emporia within the past 2 years.

Posted by emporian (anonymous) on March 21, 2008 at 6:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So who pikcs up the tab if the city already has put in improvements there. I pulled this from an earlier article:

"Putting in a plant of that scale will require some improvements, including the extension of Penny Lane, extended water and sewer lines, and an upgraded gas main.

The city will pay $772,822 for the gas main, of which all but $70,000 will be reimbursed by Kansas Gas Service after REG signs a minimum volume agreement. That last $70,000 is the cost of rebuilding the sidewalks in the area."