IsVenezuelathinkingaboutliftingitslongstandinggasoline

Is Venezuela thinking about lifting its longstanding gasoline subsidy? Does it have a choice?

posted at 6:01 pm on June 24, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

They might be hard-pressed to find bottled water, flour, sugar, or even toilet paper in any of their local shops right now, but the availability of one basic necessity of which Venezuelans feel they are rightfully assured is the extremely cheap gasoline that the government has subsidized for a going rate of about 5 U.S. cents a gallon (which amounts to even less at the “unofficial” rate) for almost two decades. Venezuela has some of the largest oil reserves in the world, and the very idea of getting rid of or cutting back on the subsidy for domestic gasoline sales is pretty much the third rail of Venezuelan politics — its continuation is basically one of the promised pillars of the country’s socialized society. The subsidy costs the government at least $12 billion a year, however, and with the economy in the throes of so much centrally-planned-yet-not-planned turmoil, Nicolas Maduro might be running out of options. As the Financial Times notes:

…[A]nalysts say that removing a gasoline subsidy estimated to cost $12bn a year will be the litmus test of how far Mr Maduro is prepared to go in his attempt to bring a semblance of economic rationality back to the country.

“No government dares to do it, but we are at an inflection point: either they do it, or we go bankrupt. There is no other option,” says Nelson Hernández, a former senior executive with PDVSA, the state-run oil company.

Venezuelan gasoline prices have been frozen since 1996, three years before Mr Maduro’s predecessor, the charismatic Hugo Chávez, came to power and launched Venezuela’s “Bolivarian Revolution”. Since then, international oil prices have risen sevenfold, while accumulated Venezuelan inflation has topped 4,435 per cent, says a December report by Barclays.

… Ending the gasoline subsidy, for example, would help close a fiscal deficit estimated at some 13 per cent of gross domestic product that is currently financed by printing money, which only fuels further inflation. …

Another businessman close to the government agrees. “It was inconceivable under Chávez to raise the price of gasoline, but it is likely to happen soon,” he says. “The difficulty is how to manage this without widespread social unrest while holding on to power when you have a slim majority.”

One of the biggest problems with downsizing on the gasoline subsidy, of course, is not merely the collective rage blackout that would likely consume all of Venezuela, but the hugely lucrative black-market gas trade that the subsidy fuels; an estimated 140,000 barrels a day, the FT reports, are smuggled into neighboring Colombia and sold way above domestic prices. Such a large operation would be almost impossible unless some government insiders and senior military officers were involved — i.e., people that Maduro needs to not piss off in order to keep the military on his side.

It’s just so unfortunate how these planned socialist utopias so often devolve into self-cannibalizing kleptocracies, you know?

• Share on Facebook 1
• 1 SHARES

Tags: currency, free market, gas, inflation, Nicolas Maduro, poverty, socialism, subsidies, Venezuela

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Annual emissions from Keystone pipeline would be one-tenth of what’s produced by … cow farts

AnnualemissionsfromKeystonepipelinewouldbeone-tenth

Again:U.S.investigatingwhetherAssadusedpoisongas

Again: U.S. investigating whether Assad used poison gas in Syrian rebel village this month

posted at 11:21 am on April 22, 2014 by Allahpundit

A grim complement to yesterday’s post about Obama’s “manhood problem” in the Middle East. What should he do about this to reassert American “manhood”?

The United States has indications that a toxic chemical, probably chlorine, was used in Syria this month and is examining whether the Syrian government was responsible, the U.S. State Department said on Monday…

Syrian opposition activists reported that helicopters dropped chlorine gas on Kfar Zeita on April 11 and 12. The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, told ABC television’s “This Week” on April 13 that the attack was “unsubstantiated.”

Psaki said chlorine was not one of the priority one or two chemicals Syria declared to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) under a Russian-U.S. agreement for the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile…

The Syrian government failed to meet a February 5 deadline to move all of its declared chemical substances and precursors, some 1,300 metric tons, out of the country. It has since agreed to remove the weapons by late April.

The gas attacks last summer that pushed the White House to the brink of bombing Assad involved sarin, a more lethal chemical than chlorine. Chlorine was, in fact, used repeatedly by Al Qaeda in Iraq beginning in late 2006 and on through the first half of 2007. (Chemicals that “smelled strongly of chlorine” have been used before in the Syrian civil war too.) It’s efficient at making people sick but usually doesn’t kill them; according to early reports, the attack in Kfar Zeita killed two and wounded up to 100, which fits the basic casualty pattern from chlorine. All of which is to say, Assad’s claim that jihadi rebels were behind the attack isn’t entirely out of left field. They proved eight years ago that they can get their hands on the chemical and that they’re willing to use it in certain circumstances. That’s the evergreen dilemma for U.S. intel in responding to WMD attacks in Syria: Since both sides are thick with degenerates, there’s no way to make an easy first-blush calculation of responsibility. The potential smoking gun in this case, I think, isn’t the chemical itself but the means of delivery. If it really was dropped by helicopter, then that’s Assad’s boys. If not, it could be a long investigation.

But let’s say it’s true — Assad did it. What’s O’s move now? We can take another look at arming the “moderate” rebels in the Free Syria Army, but how much do you trust them after their top commander was cashiered for being ineffective? If nothing else, arming them would theoretically make life for more difficult for our friend Vladimir, but then it would also make life more difficult for Iran, whose cooperation Obama is seeking on nukes. And don’t forget that Al Qaeda in Pakistan has been moving assets to Syria lately in hopes of setting up a base there amid the chaos. How should we play that one — send in weapons to “moderates” and hope hope hope that jihadis don’t end up confiscating them, or sit back, wait for AQ to get there, and then start droning away? Which response will impress our dear friends the Sunnis more vis-a-vis America’s “manhood”?

Exit question via Sally Kohn: Is the GOP trying to rhetorically emasculate Obama or something?

Update: A nice piece from Reuters on how chlorine fits through a loophole in Assad’s disarmament deal with the west. Since it has many industrial uses, he’s not required to cough it up the way he is, say, sarin. If it was his side that used it in Kfar Zeita — and Reuters says the evidence is mounting that it was — it may mean that he really has disgorged most of the highly dangerous stuff and has turned to chlorine as back-up.

Tags: assad, chemical, chlorine, gas, mass destruction, obama, rebels, red line, weapons, wmd

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

APstudy:“Advanced”cornethanolmightactuallybe

AP study: “Advanced” corn ethanol might actually be environmentally worse than gasoline

posted at 5:21 pm on April 21, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

Last November, the Associated Press released their own study that confirmed more or less everything we already knew about the damaging unintended consequences created by the Renewable Fuel Standard: That the artificially jacked-up demand for corn incentivizes American farmers to bring marginal lands into agricultural production, effectively obliterating millions of acres of conservation land in favor of putting more strain on the water supply, pumping more fertilizer into the environment, and churning up more soil (subsequently releasing the carbon trapped within) than they otherwise would. The champions of the Big Ethanol lobby, shameless rent-seekers that they are, denounced the AP’s study as obviously biased hogwash, and demanded that the U.S. Environmental Protection ignore the abundant evidence against ethanol’s supposed environmental benefits by upholding the ever-increasing volumetric blending requirements of the RFS.

If Big Ethanol didn’t like what the AP reported last fall, however, I think they’re likely to have an even bigger tantrum over what the AP is reporting on today — this time, a study funded by the feds that undercuts ethanol’s counterfeit environmentalism even further:

Biofuels made from the leftovers of harvested corn plants are worse than gasoline for global warming in the short term, a study shows, challenging the Obama administration’s conclusions that they are a much cleaner oil alternative and will help combat climate change.

A $500,000 study paid for by the federal government and released Sunday in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Climate Change concludes that biofuels made with corn residue release 7 percent more greenhouse gases in the early years compared with conventional gasoline.

While biofuels are better in the long run, the study says they won’t meet a standard set in a 2007 energy law to qualify as renewable fuel.

The conclusions deal a blow to what are known as cellulosic biofuels, which have received more than a billion dollars in federal support but have struggled to meet volume targets mandated by law. About half of the initial market in cellulosics is expected to be derived from corn residue.

And seeing as how these “advanced” cellulosic biofuels derived from biomass other than corn starch (i.e., in this case, the stalks, cobs, leaves) are technically supposed to release 50 to 60 percent fewer carbon emissions on net evaluation than gasoline, that’s something of a problem. I might also add that “a billion dollars in federal support” is a vast understatement, what with that whole Renewable Fuel Standard injecting a bunch of fake signals into the market by forcing Americans to purchase a product that they obviously wouldn’t without the presence of a federal mandate (despite the repeated failure of the well-subsidized biofuels market to actually provide the requisite amount of biofuels in commercially available quantities, yeesh).

Tags: biofuels, cellulosic biofuels, Environmental Protection Agency, ethanol, gas, Renewable Fuel Standard, renewables

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Automakerscontinuetoquietlyvoidwarrantiesifyou

Automakers continue to quietly void warranties if you use E-15 gas

posted at 10:01 am on February 1, 2014 by Jazz Shaw

It seems to be a growing trend that motorists are shopping around for gas stations which offer ethanol free gas, even if they have to pay a bit more per gallon to get it. Distributors are noticing, and more and more stations are featuring this option. (You can find a list of such stations near you here.) I noticed this myself during a recent trip in New York, and now it’s showing up further south as well.

Arthur Wyckoff III has sworn off alcohol — in his gasoline.

“I make it a point, before I get real low, to make it to a gas station that has 100 percent gas,” the Chickamauga, Ga., man said Thursday morning as he fueled his Toyota Corolla at the Sav-A-Ton on LaFayette Road in Fort Oglethorpe.

The gas station is one of a number in the Chattanooga area that advertise gas free of ethanol. The grain alcohol additive — usually derived from corn — makes up 10 percent of almost all gasoline sold at the pump around the United States.

“The ethanol, it just messes up your engine,” Wyckoff said.

The repeating theme among customers is repeated here. Drivers have become more and more aware that not only is the higher corn gas bad for engine components, it actually costs you money by cutting down on your mileage.

Pure gas means better mpg

There doesn’t seem to be any dispute that pure gasoline delivers better mileage than gas that’s part ethanol.

Mileage suffers by 3 to 4 percent using E10, or gas that’s up to 10 percent ethanol, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality.

But one factor which some auto shoppers may not be aware of is that the industry is aware of these dangers and they aren’t going to honor warranties on vehicles guzzling the latest 15% ethanol blend unless you’ve got a brand new car or one that is specifically rated as a “flex fuel vehicle.”

AAA and a number of automakers came out swinging against E15, warning that the extra ethanol could corrode plastic, rubber and metal parts in cars not built to handle it.

Five manufacturers — BMW, Chrysler, Nissan, Toyota and Volkswagen — stated their warranties will not cover E15 claims, the automobile association warned. And eight others — GM, Ford, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz and Volvo — said that E15 may void warranties.

“Research to date raises serious concerns that E15 … could cause accelerated engine wear and failure, fuel system damage and other problems such as false ‘check engine’ lights,” AAA stated. “The potential damage could result in costly repairs for unsuspecting consumers. This is especially tough for most motorists given that only about 40 percent of Americans have enough in savings to afford a major auto repair.”

We already knew that high levels of ethanol will destroy boat engines and some smaller engines such as those in your lawnmower. But Consumer Reports confirmed back in 2011 that buyer beware. Auto makers won’t pay for damage caused by E-15.

The new orange label displays “E15″ in large type and states that the fuel is for use only in 2001 or newer model-year vehicles or flex-fuel vehicles, and that it is illegal to use it in other vehicles or in power equipment such as lawnmowers.

In response to the release of the labels, nine automakers—including Chrysler, General Motors, and Toyota—wasted no time writing letters to Congress criticizing the proposal and noting that they will not honor warranties for older cars running on E15. The automakers say they are concerned about the effects of E15 on engines, fuel pumps, and other fuel-system components in cars that were not designed for it. (Learn more about ethanol: “The great ethanol debate.”)

In January, the EPA approved the use of E15 in all cars from the 2001 model year on. The only cars that would be warranted for use of the new fuel are flex-fuel vehicles, which are designed to use concentrations of ethanol up to 85 percent (E85).

Keep in mind that you’re paying for this though your tax dollars because of subsidies which continue to keep the “renewable fuels” push not only afloat, but mandatory in most cases. And in exchange for your big hearted investment, unless you do your research, you can see your boat engine, your lawnmower and even your family car producing expensive repair bills. And unless your car is one of the new ones which “qualifies” by way of design, your warranty may be void.

For now – thanks to Uncle Sugar – ethanol free gas is going to cost a bit more at the pump. But the EPA shows no signs of relenting, and until the President who put the current policymakers in place is out of office there’s no relief in sight. It may be worth the extra investment to put real gas in your tank just to avoid the downstream costs later.

Tags: energy, environmentalism, epa, ethanol, gas

Related Posts:

Source from: hotair