Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

You Pacific Ethanol bulls change your mind?

Recs

6

May 23, 2008 – Comments (10) | RELATED TICKERS: PEIX

It looks like everybody who bid up Pacific Ethanol (PEIX) was just kidding. It is down 14% so far today. So you don't think the lower than expected loss (or profit, not counting the impairment charge) was sign of a sustainable turnaround?

10 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On May 23, 2008 at 2:07 PM, goldminingXpert (29.61) wrote:

This was a -100% pick for me... luckily my red thumb on it is getting less bloody every day.

Report this comment
#2) On May 23, 2008 at 4:02 PM, AnomaLee (28.72) wrote:

Ethanol is a scam...

 

Report this comment
#3) On May 23, 2008 at 7:09 PM, FleaBagger (29.12) wrote:

goldminer - I don't know if you're as obsessed with getting points and a higher rating as I am, but if you are, you should know that it is better to reload your worst picks before (or ASAP after) they start to turn in your favor. You get a better price point on your green thumbs and you get more lucky 5's on your red thumbs that way.

Report this comment
#4) On May 23, 2008 at 7:11 PM, FleaBagger (29.12) wrote:

By the way, PEIX price change update: closed down $1.00 (19.31%) today. Sucks for whoever bought it at $5.18 at the close yesterday.

Report this comment
#5) On May 23, 2008 at 7:14 PM, FleaBagger (29.12) wrote:

Lee - You're half right. Ethanol is actually a scam with a powerful lobby (formerly two powerful lobbies, and the loss of the one is good news).

Report this comment
#6) On May 23, 2008 at 9:13 PM, abitare (38.72) wrote:

I lost my top bear pitch for PEIX and Starbucks!

Report this comment
#7) On May 24, 2008 at 11:07 AM, cubanstockpicker (20.16) wrote:

ok, lets be clear, ethanol from corn is a less a scam than another really stupid idea that should have been tested further before diving in head first. I am sure Bush knew that Ethanol from corn was not going to work, so he now made oil even more valuable by making the US feel that any alt energy solutions wont work to replace oil.

Brazil's ethanol plans are better situated. As a matter of fact I have a direct email from an LSU professor in charge of research in ethanol and he clearly stated years ago that only sugar cane or Molasses from sugar cane is worthventuring into. This was a peer reviewed study and the government turned their back on him.

The funny thing is sugar is already heavily subsidized here in the US. And it wouldnt have needed another subsidy and would have been served better to produce ethanol. As far as land to grow the sugar on, he have large parts of Florida where it is already swamp land, Louisiana and Hawaii. Those three states could have produced more than enough sugar, the US would have not needed extra subsidies to BIG SUGAR and we would have more than double the production of Ethanol with the same amount of work.

Report this comment
#8) On May 24, 2008 at 11:20 AM, cubanstockpicker (20.16) wrote:

ok, lets be clear, ethanol from corn is a less a scam than another really stupid idea that should have been tested further before diving in head first. I am sure Bush knew that Ethanol from corn was not going to work, so he now made oil even more valuable by making the US feel that any alt energy solutions wont work to replace oil.

Brazil's ethanol plans are better situated. As a matter of fact I have a direct email from an LSU professor in charge of research in ethanol and he clearly stated years ago that only sugar cane or Molasses from sugar cane is worthventuring into. This was a peer reviewed study and the government turned their back on him.

The funny thing is sugar is already heavily subsidized here in the US. And it wouldnt have needed another subsidy and would have been served better to produce ethanol. As far as land to grow the sugar on, he have large parts of Florida where it is already swamp land, Louisiana and Hawaii. Those three states could have produced more than enough sugar, the US would have not needed extra subsidies to BIG SUGAR and we would have more than double the production of Ethanol with the same amount of work.

Report this comment
#9) On May 24, 2008 at 4:15 PM, FleaBagger (29.12) wrote:

Making sugar more expensive and further encouraging sugar growers to destroy the environment by planting cane where it wouldn't have a chance in nature?

No thanks.

How about we just end sugar tariffs and subsidies and keep using oil until the private sector comes up with a breakthrough in alternative energy? Anybody for free markets? No? Well, it was worth an ask...

Report this comment
#10) On May 25, 2008 at 11:38 PM, camistocks (< 20) wrote:

It is important to think ahead. Be a visonary, try to imagine a future development.  

What about cars driven by solar energy? There are already experimental cars driving only on solar power.

Sure, the development isn't as advanced yet, that there could be cars that  could be used by the public in everyday life. But, we already know that we can gain power thanks to solar panels sitting on the roof of a house. This power could be stored in batteries to recharge electric/hybrid cars. In a later stage when solar technology is more efficient, cars could only rely on solar power.

Of course this needs government support, because it is a long term development thing and will not be profitable for long time.

Unfortunately those are not the Iowa farmers who develop sun powered cars. Iowa of course is a swing state and important for elections.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement