Location sticking point for ethanol plant

© AgMedia Inc.

While local and area farmers would benefit, Oshawa residents and civic leaders oppose the proposed waterfront plant, primarily for its location

Comments

While this plant may appear to benefit corn farmers, the benefit to taxpayers and livestock farmers is on the "red ink" side of the ledger.

In addition, the mayor, and his people, need to be thinking about alternative uses for the plant, when, not if, it goes bankrupt because the enabling legislation favouring ethanol disappears.

Stephen Tbompson, Clinton, ON

Steven if you lived closer you would have several different views of this mayor. He and his Oshawa council were supportive of the ethanol plant in the beginning, fact they may still be but the tree huger vote is persuasive beyond all reason and this opposition is largely about getting reelected.

First Durham region is the largest portion of the agricultural land in the greenbelt but when a strategy of new markets is implemented it is only to include farmers markets not commercial markets like ethanol in spite of the push in this GM town for alternate and flex fuel vehicles.

Durham region is the best of political two facedness. Agriculture preserved as greenbelt, no new tax base with no new development, no new markets for the agriculture the greenies want to preserve and no long term political determination for the largest industries in the region ... agriculture and automotive.

John Henry was only elected mayor last fall (he previously served as a councillor) and many of the Oshawa councillors are new, so I am not sure what you mean by saying 'He and his Oshawa council were supportive of the ethanol plant in the beginning'. I attended the public meeting about this proposed plant in 2008 and my impression was that only one council member at that time was openly supportive and he is no longer a councillor. However, while I am also cynical about politicians' motives, I applaud the council's efforts to bring this ethanol plant proposal to the forefront.

The proposed plant would be built on land owned by the federal government through its agency the Oshawa Harbour Commission and leased to FarmTech for an undisclosed amount. The location is not 'at the harbour', but rather immediately adjacent to one of the most important wetlands in the GTA. The federal government is for some reason trying to ram this unwanted plant down the throats of Oshawa residents. Most ethanol plants in Ontario do not have access to deepwater harbours, why should this one be any different?

Why is anyone who doesn't want this plant on Oshawa's waterfront dismissed as a 'treehugger'? People who live in this region and value the natural areas around Oshawa Second Marsh shouldn't be allowed to have an opinion? From my research, no ethanol plants have been built so close to important natural areas and as such there is no way to predict the consequences on the marsh and surrounding area. This despite the rosy predictions of 'minimal impact' from the Environmental Assessment Screening Report. Even if there are no water emissions, there are still airborne emissions many of which would be deposited directly into the marsh since it is downwind of the plant.

If you desire an ethanol plant for Durham Region, maybe you should be contacting FarmTech and requesting that one be built closer to your location, because the Oshawa waterfront is not the right location!

you are absolutely wrong on this council and the last were not in favour of the ethanol refinery not plant let us call it what it is. even Durham region council unanimously turned down the refinery. I do not understand where you are getting your facts but they are not correct. as for development the city has already replaced the jobs that this refinery would bring and oshawa is on the cusp of a growth spurt. So please if you are using facts make sure they are correct before stating.

All these BF stories shows how farmers are victums of their own management and financial screw compounded by self driven MPs govt civil servants

Nothing will improve for agriculure

DDG's are an excellent feedstuff for livestock producers. Most people don't relize that half the corn that goes into these plants, comes back out as DDG's. Having a local source will be a definte plus for us. I can't wait for this plant to get going!

Ken Lamb

In that case, end the subsidies and mandates for ethanol, and let the industry stand, or fall, on its own merits.

The other thing too many ethanol supporters try to cover up is that since we are, if my information is correct, a net importer of corn, it makes no sense to use public money to create new uses for something we don't have enough of in the first place.

Sound public policy dictates that if anything should be subsidized, and/or see its usage mandated, it should be something we have in surplus and which we export (like livestock or hogs), not something (like corn) which we import.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Hog production used at its peak about 40 million bushels of corn of which well over half is grown and fed on farm. Pork production in Ontario had a competitive advantage with a 70 cent dollar, with a buck and change dollar that advantage doesn't exist anymore. Hoping that the dollar falls and hogs somehow rebound to use a little more corn seems like a bit of a long shot at this point. Ethanol in comparison is now using over 100 million bushel of commercial corn which as a producer of commercial corn seems like kind of a big deal to me. If we get rid of ethanol who is going to buy the 100 million bushels ?

The true "long-shot" is persuading Canadians, especially hog farmers, that it makes any sense at all to convert something we import (corn) into something we export (fuel).

That's the economic, and public policy, contradiction Canadian corn farmers, and Canadian ethanol advocates, simply won't address, because they can't.

And insofar as your "screw hog farmers" attitude, all it's doing is strengthening the resolve of hog farmers, and others, to get rid of ethanol, as well as the appalling greed of those who defend it.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Distiller grains are a garbage food source. As with all corn fed cattle it increases the risk of E. coli 0157: h7.

There is no corn in Oshawa - building the facility closer to agriculture makes the most sense and Brock township (north of Oshawa) has voiced interest in the plant and has an ambundance of corn and rail options.
For Oshawa's waterfront, the amount of traffic (truck and rail) polution far outweighs any environmental benefits this company is citing.
Building it on the waterfront in proximity to the industrial harbour leads me to beleive that Canadian farmers will lose in the long term when Farmtech secures cheaper corn sources internationally and no longer deals with the local Co-op.
As said in earlier posts, if ethanol production is so profitable then cease the heavy government subsidies.

there is corn in oshawa

All you need to do is follow the money. In this case,it's the corruption and cronyism in all levels of government and the Port Authority that's trying to force this plant down the throats of the people of Oshawa....and although I sympathize with the farmers,it's not really about corn.If heroin was legalized, they would be soon growing poppies and pushing for that kind of refinery instead. Money talks and BS walks...with a blue Conservative suit on.

I agree with this comment that the Port Authority is shoving this plant down the throats of residents and that their "environmental assessment" is insufficient and not taking into account new research and new thoughts on corn ethanol - it is not the only answer to cleaner exhaust, and the ecological footprint of producing it is worse than anything gained. (-Susan B.)

I question the zero water emission statistic - if that were the case, why are there "dead zones" in water near ethanol plants in the States - nitrates from corn fertilizer causes excess algae which de-oxygenize the water in the process of decomposition - the UN is moving away from corn ethanol due to food shortages and price increases, Al Gore and David Suzuki foundation moving away from it for environmental reasons...I question the "state of the art" comment as making this OK to start a new one in this location so close to people and wetlands...

why is it good for oshawa ethanol plant

Don't know if anyone else noticed, but the area for the ethanol plant site location will include the original burial grounds of Oshawa's first peoples. The original Pioneer Cemetery.
As a former member of the Oshawa Historical Society (before I moved to Clarington) I feel that if those grounds are not sacred then no other ground is.

Editor's note: Part of this unsigned comment has been deleted in accordance with our guidelines.

It is, indeed, ironic to speculate that an ethanol plant may be located, in part, on a burial ground because since ethanol depends on mandates which are, by the first principles of economics, net-negative, an ethanol plant is where money extracted from consumers goes to get buried, albeit not in the ground, but in the pockets of the ethanol industry.

Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON

Post new comment

To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
Image CAPTCHA
We welcome thoughtful comments and ideas. Comments must be on topic. Cheap shots, unsubstantiated allegations, anonymous attacks or negativity directed against people and organizations will not be published. Comments are modified or deleted at the discretion of the editors. If you wish to be identified by name, which will give your opinion far more weight and provide a far greater chance of being published, leave a telephone number so that identity can be confirmed. The number will not be published.