Brazil and Louisiana have a lot on common when it comes to natural resources. Though we live in different hemispheres, we both have a comparable temperate climate and grow similar crops. Like us, cotton, rice, and sugar cane are main staples, and both of us are located on major bodies of water with complex meandering river systems. But mostly, that is where the similarity ends.
Last month Obama and his handler Soros invested in Petrobras, Brazil's Nationalized oil company on the stock exchange. Why didn't they bet on our oilfields, or indeed develop alternative fuels to make us independent as promised? Why?
Delving into what Brazil's past efficiency has been, they might seem a sure bet. Two billion dollars would have given Louisiana a real shot in the arm, if bio fuel was the genuine objective, and we could have used our natural resources to become more independent of oil. Why isn't Obama challenged?
I can't say with certainty that this is the biggest betrayal of any administration, but seeing this for what it is, is beyond belief.
Eighty-five percent of Brazil's electricity comes from hydroelectric power. They are the second largest producer of bio fuels, after the US, and they are also developing bio-mass and wind. Offshore, like us, lay one of the major oil finds of this century, and promises to project them to be one of the world's largest producers.
Sounds rosy, but Brazil has one of the highest energy prices in the world. Lack of efficiency is a factor, but inordinate taxes is primary. Brazil is a socialistic state, and though supposed to be Democratic, is fascist in nature, just the kind Obama and Soros want to see here, in capitalistic America.
Mismanagement in 2001 and 2002 left the nation floundering with energy rationing. Primarily it was because they depended too much on one source, hydropower, and when it didn't rain, little could be generated. In 2006, there was such a need for natural gas to run their thermal power stations, in dire desperation Bolivia bought up Pertobra assets. Another similarity, because nationalization does not work. Government control of the private sector is ludicrous even half way around the world.
What saved them this year was the economic down-turn where people can no longer afford electricity and so stopped using. The gap between demand and supply is narrow and so they must have been so glad to see the Obama/Soros investment. If they begin to grow, recover, before the new infrastructure is completed, they will again be in trouble.
In the mean time, Brazil's government is trying to add 3GW per year to the 105GW capacity being produced now. Their aim is to build two new hydroelectric plants on the Madeira River in the Amazon with horizontal turbines propelled by river flow. This way no dams have to be constructed. The first one, Santo Antonio will be completed in 2012, and the second, Jirau, will go on line in 2013.
Brazil estimates that after those two come on line the energy production ratio will have 55 percent thermal, 42 percent hydro, and 3 percent from wind farms.
A third super-hydro plant is being propose on the Xingu River, in the Amazon, and if approved will be the world's third biggest hydroelectric plant in the world.
Environmentalist recently questioned Brazil about the clear-cutting of rainforests to produce sugar cane for the production of ethanol. Twenty-nine billion liters were produced last year according to Unica, or 29 percent of the world's ethanol. Brazil denies rainforest destruction.
Author's note: Production of ethanol is more efficient than US corn ethanol. It costs Brazil $0.83 per gallon to make in 2007, but in the US $1.14 per gallon. Did I mention we grow sugar cane in Louisiana, with mountains of rice chaff? The vegetation that chokes our inland rivers were brought here from Brazil. Bio-mass? What a concept! What of the Chinese vine choking our Mississippi forests? Any ideas?
With US oilfield technology we will develop and produce this new oil-find for the economic advancement of Brazil, while we are inhibited from drilling our major find here. But it is worse that. Brazil has technology and ability in alternative fuels that we here in Louisiana could have implemented with the 2 billion given to Brazil. We were never given that opportunity. Obama and Soros has it set up to give away American ingenuity, with little or nothing in return but more layoffs.
Obama doesn't have to answer these accusations because no one in the media has the guts to make it an issue to his face in front of a camera. On the first page today, of The Advocate of Baton Rouge, we celebrated the return of the Brown Pelican to our shores first , then Honored Veteran Service next. After that, socialized child care where more regulations will expand to cover more services, and then finally "The State" offers "free" H1N1 vaccines. Is there a trend here? Is this "The independent voice of South Louisiana?"
Obama socialism.
Comments
This article misrepresents a couple of things.
The reason that the U.S. produces ethanol from corn (a terrible idea) rather than from sugarcane is that the price of sugar in the U.S. is about double the price in Brazil, due to very high tariffs that were institut4d in the 1930's. The tariffs are maintained because of the influence of the very powerful U.S. sugar lobby.
The deforestation in Brazil is not attributable to increased sugarcane production. Rather, it is a result of the conversion of pasture to soy cultivation, due to the increase of soy prices caused by the conversion of soy acreage in North America to corn for ethanol production.
The bottom line is that the problems discussed in the article are attributable to terrible agricultural policies in the U.S. whose origins far precede the Obama administration.
This article misrepresents a couple of things.
The reason that the U.S. produces ethanol from corn (a terrible idea) rather than from sugarcane is that the price of sugar in the U.S. is about double the price in Brazil, due to very high tariffs that were institut4d in the 1930's. The tariffs are maintained because of the influence of the very powerful U.S. sugar lobby.
The deforestation in Brazil is not attributable to increased sugarcane production. Rather, it is a result of the conversion of pasture to soy cultivation, due to the increase of soy prices caused by the conversion of soy acreage in North America to corn for ethanol production.
The bottom line is that the problems discussed in the article are attributable to terrible agricultural policies in the U.S. whose origins far precede the Obama administration.
Thanks Zeke,
Misrepresent means it was done on purpose. I report what I research without bias. Ethanol can be made with a lot of organic material, and that is why I mention bio-mass and the many others too.I refer to the byproduct of the sugar cane to make ethanol, not the entire cane. It is left to rot in giant hills and so does rice hulls. It is so high that internal combustion causes some to burn internally and can not be put out. One can walk on one of these mounds and fall into a void and get burned. I have seen that.
Please give me a link where I can learn about agricultural policies that have harmed America, as you refer to. Tariffs are not always bad. The government makes the difference on a product that would come into the country so cheep it would destroy that particular crop. What are you referring to?
This article misrepresents a couple of things.
The reason that the U.S. produces ethanol from corn (a terrible idea) rather than from sugarcane is that the price of sugar in the U.S. is about double the price in Brazil, due to very high tariffs that were institut4d in the 1930's. The tariffs are maintained because of the influence of the very powerful U.S. sugar lobby.
The deforestation in Brazil is not attributable to increased sugarcane production. Rather, it is a result of the conversion of pasture to soy cultivation, due to the increase of soy prices caused by the conversion of soy acreage in North America to corn for ethanol production.
The bottom line is that the problems discussed in the article are attributable to terrible agricultural policies in the U.S. whose origins far precede the Obama administration.
I think you need help.
Let's see: The US invests $2 billion on the World's best NOC (China, btw invested $10 billion). Meanwhile Brazil invests $145 billion in US treasuries with zero yield denominated in soon to be worthless dollars.
I think Brazil gets the raw deal here.
Alongside the swift recovery of the global stock markets, the US Treasury yield curve has gone parabolic, and the Fed’s propaganda artists are wringing their hands of any culpability. “I personally don’t believe the rise in long-term bond yields is due to inflation fears,” said Dallas Fed chief Richard Fisher on June 2nd. Rather, “the yield curve’s steepening appears to reflect an improvement in the economic outlook, combined with the Treasury’s huge borrowing needs,” he said.
HAHAHA!
Everything depends upon proper judgment. Of ten people who examine the same chart, or listen to the same speech, each person may well understand it differently - perhaps only one of them will understand it correctly. How then should traders interpret the shape of the US Treasury yield curve...
Frankly, I think it is over the heads of most...
Here is a good quote...From all appearances so far, Bernanke and his entourage of money printers, are merely giving lip service to fighting inflation, in order to buy some extra time, while the hallucinogenic QE-drug becomes more deeply embedded in the markets. Dallas Fed chief Fisher said there was “no exact formula” for when to start withdrawing the tidal wave of cash it pumped into the economy. “We just want to make sure we don’t repeat the mistakes made in the 1930’s and mistakes made by the Japanese in the 1990’s, by withdrawing cash too early,” he said in a speech in Lubbock, Texas.
You display an obvious lack of knowledge of the energy sector, especially the Brazilian Oil & Gas sector.
1) Petrobras is not a 'nationalized' company. It is a state-run company, though the government has a 39% stake and the rest is spread out in the capital markets.
2)You say: "With US oilfield technology we will develop and produce this new oil-find for the economic advancement of Brazil". This is nuts. Petrobras, the Brazilian oil major, is the one which has the kind of technology to explore the so-called ultra deepwaters. The company has spent billions in R&D and have by itself discovered this massive prolific offshore oil region (subsalt or pre-salt area). Also, according to the new E&P framework, Petrobras will be the operator of ALL exploratory oil blocks within the pre-salt cluster. So, dont you worry, we are not gonna use any US tech to perform this job.
3) Brazil denies deforestation: well, it might happen in some regions and this is mainly for cattle, not for sugarcane re
part 2:
Not for sugarcane really. Sugarcane has been natural to Brazil since the dawn of times; Portuguese explorers when arrived in Brazil in 1500s farmed that out too. The country has been producing ethanol out of sugarcane, harvested from its massive historical plantations, for 30 years already. So dont go on saying deforestation is on course due to that, which is not true. You should study your subjects better.
Growing plants as a source of electrical energy is beyond absurd. That comical idea I am sure is being floated by the energy parasites who will go to enormous length to divert attention from the type of technology that could change how we live. Yes, solar and wind are the answer and perhaps in the very near future someone will find a way to tap the energy gradient represented by the magnetosphere. But to wast arable land togrow a crop that has to be distilled to be useful is madness
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!