Gas prices

[GrnBay007]

I couldn't find the original gas price thread.

Gas prices jumped 22 cents per gallon here today. $3.49

[hurleyfan]

Damn oil companies.... $3.45 yesterday 4/16, same gas station this morning $3.51

[red]

really?

they were already 3.51 up here most of this week

its probably 5 bucks now

[Bossman641]

3.54 here. Ridiculous.

[Gunakor]

Unfortunately, I drive a newer car which acts funny if I don't put 93 octane in it. $3.77 per gallon. I'll be up over $4 by July. Yet Oil companies reported over $200 billion in profit for 2007 alone. Unbelievable.

[Scott Campbell]

What's the mpg if this little beauty?

[red]

lol

it looks like you could pedal it

[hoosier]

Gas is over $8.00 a gallon in most Western European countries right now, yet we complain when it hits $3.50. Of course, many people there have the option of taking efficiently run trains for longer trips. I'm surprised that none of the presidential hopefuls have tried to start a national discussion about investing in alternatives to car travel, such as reviving and expanding Amtrack service. The automobile is deeply engrained in American culture, and there would surely be resistance to any program that smacks of "big government." But at some point the Federal subsidization of automobiles at the expense of alternative modes of travel (which is also the work of "big government," even though we tend not to see it) needs to be reexamined.

[texaspackerbacker]

If a solution is in order, how about drilling in ANWAR and off both oceanic coasts, as well as deep water drilling in the Gulf, and allowing more refineries to be built?

Also, how about greater use of nuclear power--which wouldn't do much for gas prices, but would help with electricity.

The farce of bio-fuels is currently being exposed as doing a lot more harm than good with the rapidly increasing food prices due to conversion of farmland to crops for fuel use. Other alternatives like hydrogen should be encouraged, but for the next few decades, petroleum is still the best way to go.

I really hope this field in North Dakota/Montana turns out to be as good as some think. If it did, it would literally change the world, as we would suddenly be energy-independent or very close to it.

[LL2]

People need to start driving less, taking other forms of transportation, or telecommute. It's all about supply and demand. If everyone starts using less gas then it will cause the prices to go down, but that is a simplistic approach. Another part of the oil problem has nothing to do with the U.S. It's countries like China and India that are consuming a lot more oil than ever before as their economies grow at a rapid pace.

[retailguy]

I really hope this field in North Dakota/Montana turns out to be as good as some think. If it did, it would literally change the world, as we would suddenly be energy-independent or very close to it.

Unfortunately it is not this simple. While the crude reserves "in theory" may be large enough to make us energy independent, it won't work out this way. That crude is very "sour" and US refineries will have to be retrofitted to run it. Some will, most won't.

BP has spent $3bn in the past year and a half at their Whiting and Toledo refineries to run a lower cost Canadian heavy crude, that is so heavy, condensate must be pumped up the embridge pipeline into Canada to be mixed with the crude so it is liquid enough to flow down the pipeline.

Heavy crudes are cheaper, but require more "processing" to be converted to gasoline and hence are only economically viable at higher crude prices, which is what we have now. This North Dakota find is not likely to lower crude prices as the processing costs far exceed that of better crudes, and there is a limited market for it's use in the current refinery climate.

Additionally, you have a lower gasoline yield with this crude than crude of a better variety. You have increased pollution from processing, increased undesirable product yields - high sulfur fuel oil, and sulfur just to name a couple, plus increased production of asphalt and coke (a coal like briquette).

We already send high sulfur fuel oil to Singapore as most areas of the country don't allow it to be used for boiler fuel because of emissions issues. Currently, the bulk of that fuel is used as bunker fuel on ships, only while in international waters... How much more of that do we need?

Now, this limitation is lessened with ANWR and the Gulf Crudes as they are of a "sweeter" quality when compared to the North Dakota finds which are some type of oil shale derivative, I think.

That's why I'm for AGRESSIVE drilling in ANWR and the Gulf coasts of TX and FL, and the Pacific Coast of California. That would lower crude prices temporarily, I believe, leaving time for adequate exploration of alternative technologies, and sufficient time to make those technologies profitable. (Which are largely not profitable today)

In the interest of clarification, I DO NOT believe our Government should be involved in alternative technology. They have difficulty buying toilet seats at fair prices, could you imagine what the Prius would look like and would cost if the US Government was involved in the development?

[retailguy]

I couldn't find the original gas price thread.

Gas prices jumped 22 cents per gallon here today. $3.49

Damn oil companies.... $3.45 yesterday 4/16, same gas station this morning $3.51

What you are seeing here is partially because crude is trading at $114bbl, however it's more complicated than that.

Summer blend gasoline is rolling out in large parts of the country right now, as is MANDATED by Federal and State law. And guess what? That fuel costs more to produce as lower quality blendstocks cannot be used during the summer months because they vaporize at summer temperatures, lowering octane in the fuel, which increases pollution both from the vaporization and the inefficient manner that the cars burn the remaining liquid fuel.

So, our beloved government has stepped in and mandated fuel composition, lowering supply and raising prices. (Not saying the goal is all bad, but the effect is clear).

Hurley, if you'd add the "damn Government, and the damned environmentalists" to your "bitch" list, I'd be grateful! :P Thanks.

[red]

lets not forget one thing supply and demand. and i'm not talking about just the cost of a gallon of gas

suppose we're sitting on a whole shitload of oil right now. the oil companies could go get it and drop the price of gas, but why would they want to do that?

if i'm an oil company, and have a ton of oil, i wait a decade or so. let the middle east dry up, let the cost of oil skyrocket to 300 dollars a barrel or more

then i say, oh look what i have. i guess the us is now the worlds biggest supplier, now that oil is worth much more then it was 10 years ago

oil companies and barons would make much more then they are now

a lot of people are going to make a whole shitload of money by us sitting on our oil reserves. the value of that oil is only going up

now i'm not for this, i want my cheap oil now, and i won't ever see any of the profit. so what do i care if a hand full of ass hats strike it rich

but i can definately understand why they would do it. and if i was in their shoes i would probably do it too

if you're a merchant and have an item is worth 3 dollars now, would you sell it knowing that if you hold on to it you could sell it for 10 or 20 dollars in the future?

[Gunakor]

lets not forget one thing supply and demand. and i'm not talking about just the cost of a gallon of gas

suppose we're sitting on a whole shitload of oil right now. the oil companies could go get it and drop the price of gas, but why would they want to do that?

if i'm an oil company, and have a ton of oil, i wait a decade or so. let the middle east dry up, let the cost of oil skyrocket to 300 dollars a barrel or more

then i say, oh look what i have. i guess the us is now the worlds biggest supplier, now that oil is worth much more then it was 10 years ago

oil companies and barons would make much more then they are now

a lot of people are going to make a whole shitload of money by us sitting on our oil reserves. the value of that oil is only going up

now i'm not for this, i want my cheap oil now, and i won't ever see any of the profit. so what do i care if a hand full of ass hats strike it rich

but i can definately understand why they would do it. and if i was in their shoes i would probably do it too

if you're a merchant and have an item is worth 3 dollars now, would you sell it knowing that if you hold on to it you could sell it for 10 or 20 dollars in the future?

TO HELL WITH BIG OIL!!!

I could care less what would benefit the damn merchants. I care far more about what would best benefit the average consumer. I personally don't want to be paying upwards of $5 per gallon just so that Big Oil companies can make extra money in the future. The fuel industry netted over $200 billion in profits in 2007 alone. They do not need to be making any more money, especially when it comes at a cost to the American citizen making $10 per hour or less.

They need to uncork this oil now to curb economic decline due to rising fuel costs. Beyond that, they need to find a readily available energy source that can be produced here in America so we can remain a self-sustaining country even after our own oil supplies dry up.

[texaspackerbacker]

Thanks for the info, retailguy.

The article I read stated the how huge the total amount was; It stated that with current technology, only 1-3% of that total was feasible to pump--still 4-12 billion barrels--compared to 10.5 billion in ANWR; It mentioned the difficulty in drilling and getting it out; The one question I have though, it mentioned that the North Dakota Crude is "honey-colored". Wouldn't that mean higher quality--the lower grades being darker? Or is that an incorrect assumption?

Villainous "Big Oil" that these guys hate so much was who developed the techniques that make a portion of this field feasible to drill, and which presumably will come up with even better techniques to get the bulk of it out of the ground.

One more question, retailguy, don't we have even bigger shale oil deposits farther south--Colorado, Utah, etc.? Are these harder yet to make use of? What do you know about them?

[retailguy]

Thanks for the info, retailguy.

The article I read stated the how huge the total amount was; It stated that with current technology, only 1-3% of that total was feasible to pump--still 4-12 billion barrels--compared to 10.5 billion in ANWR; It mentioned the difficulty in drilling and getting it out; The one question I have though, it mentioned that the North Dakota Crude is "honey-colored". Wouldn't that mean higher quality--the lower grades being darker? Or is that an incorrect assumption?

Well, Tex, I'm not a geologist, but I've worked in Oil & Gas for about 10 years on and off.

I don't think your assumption is necessarily solid, the lower the sulfur content, the higher the quality of the crude. The higher the sulfur content, the more impurities are present.

As I understand it, the difficulty with the Bakken find in ND & Montana is that the crude is found "within" the rocks. They are having the most success by drilling sideways instead of up and down, and using a process developed by Haliburton (the contemporary version of the "evil empire" ), that essentially "fractures" the rock to release the oil.

Pretty sophisticated operations, for sure. Sophisticated operations lead to higher costs, typically. And depending how "different" the crude composition is, admittedly, its out of my realm to know, but globally the more different, the more retrofitting needed for US refineries to run it.

Villainous "Big Oil" that these guys hate so much was who developed the techniques that make a portion of this field feasible to drill, and which presumably will come up with even better techniques to get the bulk of it out of the ground.

Would that be the same "villainous bastards" who earned an ROI of 34.7%(Exxon ONLY), to the lower to mid 20%'s (most of the rest of the US major Oil companies), as opposed to the 19% that P&G posted, or the 18% that Wal-Mart posted. Yeah, I guess it was those guys.

Yet the same people who decry "villainous bastards" can't wait to tell us about the 30% that their 401K earned two years back.... Talked about how much of a "genius" they were in their financial plans, but seemingly left off the term "villainous bastard" from their description of themselves.... <sigh>

One more question, retailguy, don't we have even bigger shale oil deposits farther south--Colorado, Utah, etc.? Are these harder yet to make use of? What do you know about them?

Not harder, necessarily, just different. Oil shale is essentially oil enclosed within the rock itself. You mine the rock, and when heated to extreme temperatures, the rock gives off gases that can be refined into petroleum products. They share the higher production costs, but it's more economical I think with current technology. But again, more processing requires a higher crude price for viability.

I was with TOSCO in the mid 90's - now part of Conoco Phillips. Tosco stands for The Oil Shale COmpany. The principal owners had a lot of those fields (I believe the CEO was O'Malley, if I recall correctly). He did pretty well in the sale to Conoco Phillips....

[Harlan Huckleby]

People need to start driving less, taking other forms of transportation, or telecommute.

that's depressing. we need better transportation, not less of it. the internal combustion engine is the devil. No reason we can't be doing the bulk of our travel in electric cars, powered by electricity from reinvigorated nuclear industry. And we have to expand public transportation before it is realistic option for many.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

People need to start driving less, taking other forms of transportation, or telecommute.

that's depressing. we need better transportation, not less of it. the internal combustion engine is the devil. No reason we can't be doing the bulk of our travel in electric cars, powered by electricity from reinvigorated nuclear industry. And we have to expand public transportation before it is realistic option for many.

Nothing wrong, per se with Nuclear. But, it would make far more sense to make a nationwide electric grid..similar to the internet. And, to utilize solar power (not as it is now, but as it could be with research) and wind power.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Nothing wrong, per se with Nuclear. But, it would make far more sense to make a nationwide electric grid..similar to the internet. And, to utilize solar power (not as it is now, but as it could be with research) and wind power.

sure, keep working in all aspects of alternative energy.

But look at china. They build a new coal plant every day. Windmills aren't going to save the planet.

You got your atom. In the neucleus is energy a million times more than those electron gnats. Most forms of energy - chemical, electrical, even mechanical - are derived from the electrons. That's chump change. The only efficient way to generate a lot of energy is going to come from nuclear power. Hopefully fusion someday, fission for near term.

combustion = fire = cave man stuff. burning generates much waste, consumes tons of materials/resources, and produces relatively little energy.

I guess solar counts as nuclear power.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Nothing wrong, per se with Nuclear. But, it would make far more sense to make a nationwide electric grid..similar to the internet.

An electrical grid doesn't depend on whether electricity was generated by nuclear, wind, coal, solar ...