And note this is a comparison versus 87 octane, which is always more expensive than the 85 octane that most people buy (85 octane has about an 80% market share).

The figures you are citing do not show 85 octane with a 80% share. They show regular gasoline with a ~80% share:
Regular - Gasoline having an antiknock index (average of the research octane rating and the motor octane number) greater than or equal to 85 and less than 88.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/TblDefs/pet_cons_refmg_tbldef2.asp

This includes the 'more expensive' 87 octane.

I guess I have never lived in a location that calls 87 octane regular. In the 3 states I have lived in - Oklahoma, Texas, and Montana - regular is either 85 or 85.5 octane. 87 is mid-grade and 91 is premium. But note that this isn't even a hard and fast rule, as the EIA site says "Note: Octane requirements may vary by altitude."

I know that California requires N87 as the lowest grade, but I think in most of the rest of the country it is N85 that is the lowest grade. And I can tell you - as a former gasoline blender - the lowest grade is always the biggest seller.

I have been trying to find out what constitutes "regular" in Nebraska, the source of the above graph. I haven't found that out yet.

Well, I've lived in NH, CT, NY, PA, DC, MD, VA, and driven north to Maine, south to Florida and west as far as Wyoming, but I don't ever recall seeing 85 for sale.

Very interesting. It is amazing the things I sometimes learn after writing these essays. My assumption for years has been that most of the country has N85 as the lowest grade. I have traveled around the country a lot, but mostly before I was involved in gasoline blending. But that's a major benefit in doing these essays - learning new information.

Ethanol is currently a small percentage of US gasoline consumption. But Monsanto and others are working on higher yielding strains, while the new ethanol plants (powered by animal dung) are achieving very positive energy returns (3 to 1 being conservative). Farmers are happy with $4 corn, but many suspect it won't last. Too much is being planted. Meanwhile, new farm equipment is more fuel-efficient than old. Corn was at this price in 1980, but tumbled (and that is before adjusting for inflation).
Looking ahead a generation, even with corn (not the best crop) we will see very positive and increasing energy returns. Remember, it was an infant industry, and is getting better at what it does. Combined with PHEVs, we can anticipate radical reductions in fossil crude demand out 10 years.
Interestingly, US demand for fossil crude is already dropping, according to the EIA. We used less, not more, oil in 2006 than 2005. And the real energy-saving technologies are just coming to the fore now or in next five years.
World consumption of crude rose 3.1 percent in 2004, then 1.8 percent in 2005, then 0.9 percent in 2006. I sense a pattern here. It is not as dramatic as the declines following the price spike of 1979, but then thse declines may have more staying power.
In most industries, growth like this is called a "dud." In the hysterical nomenclature of modern-day reportage (fueled by hedge funds who went long, no doubt) this is called "runaway" growth.
A remarkable scenario, unexpected by most, may be unfolding; Peak Demand perhaps 10-30 years before we see Peak Oil, if this price regime can be maintained.
If the price regime can be maintained, it will be Fat City for oil barons: The average cost of bringing a barrel up (including sunk capital costs) is probably under $20. The worldwide marginal cost is well under $10. The EIA said it was $3.57 a barrel in 2003.
If you believe that this price regime can hold, then buy oil stocks. Sell your house, sell your jewels, sell your booty, go deep into hock. It will mark an era of profits the world has never seen, for oil kings. You can also play options on the NYMEX. You will get very, very rich, while everyone else grows very, very poor. You will have gorgeous maidens doing your bidding. All for just seeing what the investing public cannot see. You have your hands on the gold nearly now!
The sad part is, I doubt this price regime can hold. Demand is falling across the developed world, and even further declines are being mandated and institutionalized worldwide.
Fat City is nearly always just out of reach. But if you really, really believe....

But Monsanto and others are working on higher yielding strains, while the new ethanol plants (powered by animal dung) are achieving very positive energy returns (3 to 1 being conservative).

Absolutely untrue. Some thought that's what they would get, but as far as I know E3 Biofuels is the only one to actually attempt to run a commercial plant off of biogas. And I have been told that things did not work according to plan.

But feel free to prove me wrong by showing me some references. I don't mean stuff that's on the drawing board. I mean stuff that has been demonstrated to get the energy returns you claim.

It's coming. New technologies take time. I'll put in some e-mails. Based on reporting, people were estimating much higher energy returns. Bio0gas is not science fiction.

Meanwhile a Michigan State U. prof says we can get 2 billion barrels a year from ethanol, see http://www.autospectator.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=9793 .
The professor said with methods dating back to WWII, we can get ethanol for $2 and change a gallon. Going forward, a lot less. Maybe he is optimistic, maybe he wants funding.

If this is true, in 20 years, between biofuels and PHEVs, Americans could dispense with fossil crude as source of power for cars, trucks. What an acheivement that would be. Right now, it seems doable. Crop yields keep rising, methods improve, the amount of acreage needed to win net energy gains is radically reduced. Corn farmers already worried about a glut. American farmers have never met a demand they could not glut. It will be fascinating to watch this time around. A minute percentage – I think 1 percent – of Americans work on farms now. What if the ethanol boom brings it to 2 percent? No sweat. Do we have enough land? Probably. Other inputs? Let's see.

I suspect we will see Peak Demand, at $60 a barrel, for fossil crude worldwide this year. US demand already down in 2006 from 2005, according to EIA. We have already peaked, if this price regime is maintained. Yet our economy keeps growing.

It is a remarkable era. We may be witnessing a transition to post-fossil society, and seamlessly, without major recessions. I hate to be the bearer of glad tidings in this forum, but it seems to be unfolding that way right now.

The only problem is that crude prices could collapse in the face of falling demand. Then we go back to our glutton ways. I suspect prices will tumble to $40 somewhere ahead.

87 in Illinois and Wisconsin, and as far as I can recall from my occasional travels, in Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio, though it's not something I've paid close attention to. I had no idea 85 existed.

hmpf. Here in Norway (and Europe I suppose), 95 octane is standard. 98 octane is also available at stations but apparently only accounts for 6% of total sales. Plans to introduce 92 octane has met with resistance at gasoline distributors and AFAIK is only sold today by Jet, a distributor owned by ConocoPhillips. They started to distribute 92 instead of 98 back in 2002.

92 octane accounts for some 30% of gasoline sales in continental Europe. This has lead car-importers in Norway to accuse the oil-industry of wanting to preserve market-share for the more premium blends. The oil-industry itself maintains that the engines of Norwegian cars can't handle lower than 95 octane.

source (in Norwegian)

Note that in Europe the octane number on the pump is RON and not AKI (=(RON+MON)/2).