This is going to be a somewhat political post.. but it matters to marketing because as we approach a new administration.. and a possible different direction.  That could have huge ramifications in markets.

Exhibit A) the banks are in trouble on Fracking loans..

( http://atomicinsights.com/why-would-ubs-root-for-entergys-merchant-... )

Unloading loans made to drillers for $.65 on the dollar..  ouch!

Exhibt B) It's going to become more expensive to replace existing reserves than what we have now..

( http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/09/shell-arctic-oil-che... )

Kepler Cheuvreux reports that the industry's expenditures on developing new oil sources have increased 120 percent since 2000, while supplies of crude have increased just 11 percent. Investing $100 billion in solar or wind power, the firm's analysts conclude, would produce far more energy in the long term than an equivalent investment in oil. "The rules of the game for upstream oil and gas companies have changed," says Lewis. "Every year they have to replace cheaper legacy barrels with more expensive barrels." 

Now granted these are probably left leaning enviro-concerned sites... but.. politically.. these guys are probably gaining strength..

On the Flip side Jeb Bush wants to open up gov't reserves to drilling..

( http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/73980/rnc-chair-iowa-new-hampshire... )

The pil­lars of the en­ergy plan he’s un­veil­ing Tues­day in­clude block­ing White House reg­u­la­tions on areas such as frack­ing and power-plant car­bon emis­sions; lift­ing the ban on crude-oil ex­ports and boost­ing nat­ur­al-gas ex­ports; ap­prov­ing the Key­stone XL pipeline; and giv­ing states far more con­trol of en­ergy de­vel­op­ment on fed­er­al lands with­in their bound­ar­ies and fed­er­al wa­ters off their shores. 

So those are pretty much polar opposite views... and politically you could almost flip a coin on which side is going to win right now...??  Anyone on the republican side is probably going to push something approaching Jeb's position.. while Hillary is against artic drilling.. (so I would assume almost anything else certainly on public lands..) as well as the Keystone XL pipeline..

and here we are in the middle with biofuels..

It seems that the climate change movement is gaining steam.. I haven't been too convinced.. but after watching the Majors try to continue on..

( http://www.wired.com/2015/09/shell-didnt-quit-alaska-goodness-heart... )

On September 27, the world’s third largest oil company announced the results of an economic gut check. Years of nasty environmental conditions and nastier environmentalists, combined with fracking, and loosened sanctions, and bad business decisions—and maybe a teeny bit of alternative energy—have curtailed their Arctic ambitions. Being an oil tycoon ain’t what it used to be.

What they leave behind are 15 billion barrels of sweet, light crude. At least, that’s what the USGS thinks is under the seabed, under the water, under the ice. Back in 2008, when oil was at an all-time high of $136 a barrel, that seemed like a pretty good deal. Even considering the Arctic’s notoriously inhospitable conditions.

Where Shell (and other companies) saw opportunity, environmentalists saw disaster. A spill in the Arctic would be nearly impossible to clean up. Think about Deepwater Horizon, with 50,000 barrels a day leaking into the Gulf of Mexico. “What if I put that in the Arctic, with hurricane force winds and huge chunks of ice slushing around. Are you kidding?” says Robert Bea, an engineering professor at Berkeley and former Shell employee who helped the company design their first high latitude rigs. “If you had an uncontrolled blowout, the consequences would be many orders of magnitude greater than we have been able to understand.”

For this reason (and other, probably obvious ones), environmentalists put up a big fight. The ensuing restrictions means Shell spent a lot of their $7 billion Alaskan budget before a single drill bit touched dirt. The company had to conduct tons of research so they could write up their specific exploration plan. Then they went through environmental reviews. And that’s not even counting the cost of the drilling permits.

Don’t give the environmentalists all the credit (or blame). Where 2008 was a great year to start drilling, 2015 is a great year to quit. These days a barrel of oil sells for less than $50. “It’s very difficult to see how Arctic oil will have any real market until we see oil prices back up to $100 a barrel,” saysCharles Ebinger, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute who researches energy security.

But not even a slumpy market totally explains Shell’s withdrawal. Neither does the mostly dry well Shell had the misfortune to drill. The real reason Shell pulled anchor probably has more to do with a bad business deal. In April, the company paid $70 billion for the BG group, a natural gas company. “Some people think they paid too much, because they bought when gas prices were high,” says Ebringer. “So that investment probably doesn’t look very good now.” With that big purchase on the books, Shell is likely looking to draw down on some of its riskier investments.

Shell was the only oil company doing offshore Arctic drilling in US waters. But the less icy Arctic waters north of Norway and Russia still host plenty of rigs. “Most companies still believe in the Arctic as a long term plan,” says Erbinger. With prices where they are, he says it’s probably going to be 20 to 25 years before anybody goes back. “That’s the kind of time horizon these companies look at.” Now that’s some real Arctic persistence. 

So it seems like we are coming to a fork in the road.. even in the middle east they are saying it's cheaper to put up wind turbines then fuel electric generation from Crude.. in the MIDDLE EAST!!

I believe a Republican candidate could get elected.. but probably not without embracing some form of the Climate Change mantra...

because.. now.. even the economic's are becoming a headwind.. just ask Shell.

What this means for us in Ag.. and biofuels...???

I don't want to sell out.. but we've come too far to turn back now.  I would like to see a conservative idea on what some Climate Change mantra would look like... at this point it looks inevitable.. if the R's don't come up with something..

Hello President Hillary.. you can say that Obama came out to Iowa.. and switched just a couple Red states.. and that's all he needed to win the white house

Ethanol elected President Obama.  All he needed was the upper midwest.. and that's all it took.

Ask yourself this.. would the people of Nebraska support the XL pipeline?

hmmm.. We got 2 major railroads and we're the 2nd or 3rd largest ethanol producing state and like ZERO Oil interest... No refineries.. Next to zero Drilling.. no Crude industry to speak of.. vs about 75% on Ag and biofuels...

Nope.. probably not.. if someone laid out what it would cost the state.. there's no reason Nebraskans should support the Keystone XL.. when you look at the economic impacts.

what am I missing? 

XL opponent to Nebraska: "Sure you'll have cheaper gas.. only thing it will cost you is your job."