Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : Farming -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Snowshoe who wrote (1357)	6/18/2008 8:14:43 PM
From: patron_anejo_por_favor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4448

The subsidy doesn't help Cosan, they produce sugar cane-based ethanol in Brazil and don't receive a penny of it. Quite the opposite, since it makes the competitive product (U.S. grown corn-based ethanol) cheaper. So elimination of the subsidy helps, how much of it needs to be eliminated to given Cosan a clear advantage is up to question. If the "mandate" is rolled back, Cosan's ethanol would have to compete on it's own, but it's more than competitive since price of production of Brazilian sugar cane based ethanol is the lowest in the world. Even with a rollback, ethanol would be used as an additive (as it was before the mandates). (See pp 82): sec.gov