NationStates Jolt Archive


Gas Prices

Fascist Emirates
19-04-2006, 14:48
Crude oil has gone up over Seventy Dollars a barrel. The companies claim it is because of the Iran situation, I think not.

Supply and Demand? Bull.

Post your thoughts on this matter.
Drunk commies deleted
19-04-2006, 15:01
It's supply and demand. Morons are still driving SUVs that get 14 miles per gallon, China and India are increasing their demand for oil, nobody except Saudi Arabia has any spare capacity at all, and even Saudi's spare production capacity isn't big enough to make a big impact on oil prices.

On the bright side, high oil prices make alternative energy research and production seem cheaper by comparison.
Blood has been shed
19-04-2006, 15:02
Iran is to do with the supply and demand. As they are a big supply of oil :eek:
Fascist Emirates
19-04-2006, 15:03
If it was supply and demand the prices would drop during the summer, when most people use more gas.
Lemmyouia
19-04-2006, 15:03
Hey, don't complain... Our petrol (gas) is 90p a LITRE in the UK (about $1.70)
Fascist Emirates
19-04-2006, 15:03
Iran is to do with the supply and demand. As they are a big supply of oil :eek:

How are they being affected in their production? The are not under military blocade.
Carisbrooke
19-04-2006, 15:04
PAH! People in North America need to stop bitching about your low fuel costs...you should pay what we do in Britain for it...then you could complain about high prices....its about 95p a litre in my local station
Blood has been shed
19-04-2006, 15:05
How are they being affected in their production? The are not under military blocade.

They may end supply should the potential conflic rise. The production may not drop but the supply we get could, so speculation has risen prices.
Drunk commies deleted
19-04-2006, 15:06
If it was supply and demand the prices would drop during the summer, when most people use more gas.
Think about what you just said. In summer people use more gas. That means demand is high. Assuming supply doesn't increase (lack of spare capacity prevents a supply increase), what should happen? If you said prices should rise, you're right. If you still think they should drop, go to your room and think about what you've done.
Fascist Emirates
19-04-2006, 15:07
They may end supply should the potential conflic rise. The production may not drop but the supply we get could, so speculation has risen prices.

Speculation, mostly unfounded speculation. If Iran was activly involved in a war currently I would be passive.
Fascist Emirates
19-04-2006, 15:08
Think about what you just said. In summer people use more gas. That means demand is high. Assuming supply doesn't increase (lack of spare capacity prevents a supply increase), what should happen? If you said prices should rise, you're right. If you still think they should drop, go to your room and think about what you've done.

Both sides can be supported logicaly, but when you put it that way......
Iztatepopotla
19-04-2006, 15:10
How are they being affected in their production? The are not under military blocade.
People are concerned about war in Iran, so they're trying to get their hands in as much oil as possible. There's also the troubles with rebels in Nigeria and the government in Chad threatening with closing the pipeline if they don't get paid what they say they're owed.
Fascist Emirates
19-04-2006, 15:12
Drunk commies made a good point, however the American companies never lower the prices back down to their previous rates. Say during the winter gas is $ 2.50 a gallon, and during the summer rises to $ 2.75. The next winter the price is around $ 2.55 then the folowing summer is $ 2.80.

(I think I started this post out of frustration)
Iztatepopotla
19-04-2006, 15:15
Drunk commies made a good point, however the American companies never lower the prices back down to their previous rates. Say during the winter gas is $ 2.50 a gallon, and during the summer rises to $ 2.75. The next winter the price is around $ 2.55 then the folowing summer is $ 2.80.
There's also this thing called inflation. The long term trend will be to higher prices.
Fascist Emirates
19-04-2006, 15:16
There's also this thing called inflation. The long term trend will be to higher prices.

I ment in the current rate. (I looked at a graph that was adjusted for inflation)
Lemmyouia
19-04-2006, 15:17
PAH! People in North America need to stop bitching about your low fuel costs...you should pay what we do in Britain for it...then you could complain about high prices....its about 95p a litre in my local station
I do believe I posted the same thing as you earlier! But my petrol is about 5p cheaper because I live in The Up North.
Brains in Tanks
19-04-2006, 15:22
Oil is still below its highest price evah. Adjusted for inflation it was $77 a barrel about 23 years ago. When you consider that oil is a much smaller portion of GDP now than back then we're not too badly off.
Mt-Tau
19-04-2006, 15:23
PAH! People in North America need to stop bitching about your low fuel costs...you should pay what we do in Britain for it...then you could complain about high prices....its about 95p a litre in my local station


However, do you only rely on cars to get you around? We do not have trains or good public transit to get around, nor is it very easy to walk to a grocery store sence the closest one is around 3-4 miles from here. To get to work I drive 6, 19, or 45 miles dependant on the work I go to. How far do you drive per month?
UpwardThrust
19-04-2006, 15:25
PAH! People in North America need to stop bitching about your low fuel costs...you should pay what we do in Britain for it...then you could complain about high prices....its about 95p a litre in my local station
Little consolation when I got to drive a load of grain into the neerist working grainery (about 40 miles) a couple times a day because we cant afford to rent a full truck to do the same
Jeruselem
19-04-2006, 15:33
Why is it oil companies always find excuses to raise prices, but when it comes to lowering prices - they are really slow? Price seems to going upwards and upwards.
Teh_pantless_hero
19-04-2006, 15:37
However, do you only rely on cars to get you around? We do not have trains or good public transit to get around, nor is it very easy to walk to a grocery store sence the closest one is around 3-4 miles from here. To get to work I drive 6, 19, or 45 miles dependant on the work I go to. How far do you drive per month?
Hell, we don't even have bad public transportation.
Mt-Tau
19-04-2006, 15:39
Hell, we don't even have bad public transportation.

We atleast have that, but it takes 1-2 hours to get anywhere.
UpwardThrust
19-04-2006, 15:44
Hell, we don't even have bad public transportation.
Im so far out of town there is no prayer of me doing anything but driving ... it would be a 7 mile bikeride just to get on the bus station
Blood has been shed
19-04-2006, 15:50
Why is it oil companies always find excuses to raise prices, but when it comes to lowering prices - they are really slow? Price seems to going upwards and upwards.

Just wait till we stop finding the stuff and more and more countries are gonna want it :rolleyes:
Vetalia
19-04-2006, 16:03
It's a perfectly justified price (that doesn't mean I like it, but it's justified and reasonable). Refineries are still down, and it's gasoline/distillates that are driving crude. When the refineries come back online, the prices will fall somewhat, and will go lower if Iran/Nigeria is worked out.

There's actually plenty of crude on the market (record high stockpiles of it in the US), but the stuff is pretty much useless if you can't refine it fast enough to meet demand for products. Gasoline and distillates are leading the entire complex higher rather than crude leading its products upward. The risk premium is still huge, and refineries and crude production is still shut in from political instability or the US hurricane season; US refineries are only at 86.2% of capacity as of last week as opposed to around 92% last year...that's a lot of product not being produced. New refineries in the Middle East and Asia will help immensely, but they're not onlin e yet and there is therefore a supply crunch.

Demand is slackening, however, (as shown by OPEC/IEA's constant downward revisions for world demand this year) which will put pressure downward on prices in the later part of the year. US overall products demand is negative while demand for gasoline is only up 0.8% (as opposed to the 1.5-2% growth of the past 20 years), and China's oil demand will slacken as their power grid matures and fewer diesel generators are required. They're also removing subsidies on prices which will make demand more flexible there as is India.

Overall, this is a direct outcome of the $10/barrel oil of the late 90's. That removed a lot of the incentive to explore and increase production while simultaneously threatening the refiners with bankruptcy, and since it takes around 8 years for new production to come online we're looking at a drought in new production until at least mid to late 2006. It'll be better in 2007 and 2008 but right now it's a perfect storm for prices.
Qwystyria
19-04-2006, 16:06
PAH! People in North America need to stop bitching about your low fuel costs...you should pay what we do in Britain for it...then you could complain about high prices....its about 95p a litre in my local station

Yes yes, and that makes your petrol absurdly expensive... except for the fact that we can't GET cars that are comparable to yours in terms of size and efficiency, and if we go on a trip it's likely to be a few hundred miles, at least, and if you do, you end up in the ocean.
Brains in Tanks
19-04-2006, 16:06
I understand that switching from winter blends to summer blends is also causing problems in the U.S.
Vetalia
19-04-2006, 16:08
Why is it oil companies always find excuses to raise prices, but when it comes to lowering prices - they are really slow? Price seems to going upwards and upwards.

Why would you? There's no incentive to reduce prices if demand remains constant at higher ones; to maximize profitability you always price something as high as you can without reducing demand, and that's what oil companies try to do (just like any other industry).

Plus, the oil industry is much longer term than others. It takes up to 8 years for a new discovery to begin producing on a large scale, so they have to hope that oil prices remain high enough for the project to remain profitable as far as a decade down the line...and since oil has a history of peaks and plunges they are not willing to cause swings in demand or prices that could hurt them financially.
Vetalia
19-04-2006, 16:11
I understand that switching from winter blends to summer blends is also causing problems in the U.S.

Absolutely. That's partially why it's taking so long for refiners to restart their production; also, this year has a double whammy of new, much stricter clean diesel rules and replacement of MTBE with ethanol by May 5th which further complicates the process.

It wouldn't be as bad if the blends were standardized nationwide by region or by air quality, but many states have their own requirements, creating a mishmash of blends that refiners have to produce to sell to these markets.
Ilie
19-04-2006, 16:14
Yeah, gas is too expensive. I can't find anything cheaper than 2.84 per gallon around here.

Whatever happened to hybrid cars? And what about that corn-based fuel? Hello, it's time to look at other options here!
Brains in Tanks
19-04-2006, 16:19
Whatever happened to hybrid cars? And what about that corn-based fuel? Hello, it's time to look at other options here!

Hybrid cars are out there. In 2008 the Toyota Prius is supposed to get 40 kilometres to the litre. But corn based fuel is a very bad idea. The U.S. would be far far better off burning corn to heat buildings instead of oil or natural gas and then using oil and gas to power cars. Much much cheaper, more efficent and better for the environment.
Jeruselem
19-04-2006, 16:20
Why would you? There's no incentive to reduce prices if demand remains constant at higher ones; to maximize profitability you always price something as high as you can without reducing demand, and that's what oil companies try to do (just like any other industry).

Plus, the oil industry is much longer term than others. It takes up to 8 years for a new discovery to begin producing on a large scale, so they have to hope that oil prices remain high enough for the project to remain profitable as far as a decade down the line...and since oil has a history of peaks and plunges they are not willing to cause swings in demand or prices that could hurt them financially.

Well, the pure profiteering happening now isn't going be make the consumers any happier. I hope the money they make now is going to be placed into investing into the development of new resources. They are setting themselves up for a price crash later, as this kind of behaviour is making the price swings worse.
AB Again
19-04-2006, 16:22
Yes yes, and that makes your petrol absurdly expensive... except for the fact that we can't GET cars that are comparable to yours in terms of size and efficiency, and if we go on a trip it's likely to be a few hundred miles, at least, and if you do, you end up in the ocean.

What you mean to say is that the USians will not buy cars that are fuel efficient. I live in a country that has no better public transport than the USA and which is the same continental scale (just with fewer people so the distances involved are on average a little higher). You may have heard of it, it is called Brazil. What is the best selling car here? A popular VW with a 1 litre engine (caled a Gol). Our roads are in worse conditions than yours but we see no need to own gas guzzling SUVs so why do the USians think that they have to?

Oh, and you can get small and efficient compact cars in the USA if you want to.
Wallonochia
19-04-2006, 16:23
As for the person who remarked about SUV's, it is true that most SUV owners don't need them, but when you live 15 miles outside of town in Upper Michigan you need to drive something a little bigger than a Civic.

Also, Europeans pay more for gas because they pay a lot more in taxes, and actually get services from their taxes, unlike us.

When I lived in Germany I absolutely loved the trains, and always took them everywhere. Oh, how I miss the trains.
Vetalia
19-04-2006, 16:25
Well, the pure profiteering happening now isn't going be make the consumers any happier. I hope the money they make now is going to be placed into investing into the development of new resources. They are setting themselves up for a price crash later, as this kind of behaviour is making the price swings worse.

Oil companies do invest a lot of money in new production, but the corporations are limited by the swings in the market which means the state-owned oil companies are the ones who have to drive the most production growth. And since they're state-owned, they are likely to use that advantage to keep private companies from entering their markets. For example, most of the Middle East has never been explored for oil.

Some of the price increase is speculative; since the market is so secretive and full of disinformation it's hard to tell what is really going on. Personally, I think some of the "demand" for oil is actually paper demand created by speculators to drive up prices, and then they sell it off to whoever wants to buy it.

That might explain why supply and prices are rising at the same time, and applies to natural gas as well (which I think is a total scam...inventories are 80% higher than their five-year average and are rising yet prices are up 4x since 1999).
Teh_pantless_hero
19-04-2006, 16:26
A popular VW with a 1 litre engine (caled a Gol). Our roads are in worse conditions than yours but we see no need to own gas guzzling SUVs so why do the USians think that they have to?
Because SUVs are better for killing people in car accidents.
AB Again
19-04-2006, 16:35
Because SUVs are better for killing people in car accidents.

The only reason I have heard of so far that makes any sense. Carry on.
Wallonochia
19-04-2006, 16:39
The only reason I have heard of so far that makes any sense. Carry on.

So living in a rural area that gets a lot of snow isn't a good reason?
Mirchaz
19-04-2006, 16:40
So living in a rural area that gets a lot of snow isn't a good reason?


apparently not.
Vetalia
19-04-2006, 16:40
What you mean to say is that the USians will not buy cars that are fuel efficient. I live in a country that has no better public transport than the USA and which is the same continental scale (just with fewer people so the distances involved are on average a little higher). You may have heard of it, it is called Brazil. What is the best selling car here? A popular VW with a 1 litre engine (caled a Gol). Our roads are in worse conditions than yours but we see no need to own gas guzzling SUVs so why do the USians think that they have to?

Brazil kicks ass...I hope Bush gets rid of the tariff on Brazilian ethanol because sugarcane refineries can produce huge amounts of it in a totally self-sustaining process, and you get 8-10 times the energy invested through turning sugarcane in to ethanol. It would be a hell of a lot cheaper than corn-based. We need to get that cellulosic technology to turn switchgrass in to ethanol...that shit can grow anywhere so it would be perfect in the US.

People own SUVs because they like big ass vehicles that can pull and carry a lot of stuff. I personally don't like them because the high center of gravity makes them feel unstable, but I guess I can see the appeal if you can afford one.
Brains in Tanks
19-04-2006, 16:45
So living in a rural area that gets a lot of snow isn't a good reason?

I lived in a rural area that got a lot snow so I rode a bicycle. But one day it rained and then sudenly turned freezing so I was soaking wet while riding a bicycle in sub zero tempretures. You know, you wouldn't think that hypothermia would make your actual bones hurt that much, would you?

But acually in Japan and Europe there are a lot of people with small all wheel drive cars.
AB Again
19-04-2006, 16:48
So living in a rural area that gets a lot of snow isn't a good reason?

Snow or mud, which is harder to drive through? They are about the same (I lived in the North of England for 10 years or so. I know what driving in snow is like), so no. It is not reason enough for everyone to have to own a gas hog. Either the snow is not that bad, or you prepare for it by having a skidoo or such like for when it is.
Drunk commies deleted
19-04-2006, 16:48
Brazil kicks ass...I hope Bush gets rid of the tariff on Brazilian ethanol because sugarcane refineries can produce huge amounts of it in a totally self-sustaining process, and you get 8-10 times the energy invested through turning sugarcane in to ethanol. It would be a hell of a lot cheaper than corn-based. We need to get that cellulosic technology to turn switchgrass in to ethanol...that shit can grow anywhere so it would be perfect in the US.

People own SUVs because they like big ass vehicles that can pull and carry a lot of stuff. I personally don't like them because the high center of gravity makes them feel unstable, but I guess I can see the appeal if you can afford one.
Ethanol isn't going to replace gasoline anytime soon. Japanese and European cars don't run on E85. American cars do because the agricultural lobby pushed a bill through congress a while back that forces US car companies to make a certain percentage of their cars capable of running on E85.

If you were a gas station owner would you add an extra undergound tank for a fuel that maybe only half of your customers could use? Probably not. It's expensive and you don't get a good return on the investment.
German Nightmare
19-04-2006, 16:51
Judge for yourselves whether the gas prices are too high.

The gas station around the corner charges US$ 6,16 per gallon regular (= € 1.32 per liter). True, a lot of that is taxes, but that doesn't really help when you need to fill'er up...

What really bugs me is that the US is buying a lot of processed gasoline from the European market and thus drives our prices up as well.

Anyway, I just bought a new bike 'cause I couldn't afford a car anyway at the moment. Car, taxes, insurence, fuel, parking fees - forget it!
AB Again
19-04-2006, 16:55
Ethanol isn't going to replace gasoline anytime soon. Japanese and European cars don't run on E85. American cars do because the agricultural lobby pushed a bill through congress a while back that forces US car companies to make a certain percentage of their cars capable of running on E85.

The motors that run E85 have been in existence for some time now, and all of the major car manufacturers in the world have plants producing them. The switch over would have to be gradual due to the number of cars on the road, but all new cars could be sold E85 ready now if the car manufacturers wished to do so. (As to why they do not, that is another question).

If you were a gas station owner would you add an extra undergound tank for a fuel that maybe only half of your customers could use? Probably not. It's expensive and you don't get a good return on the investment.

How many gas stations do not already have tanks that they are no longer using - from the days of leaded and unleaded fuel? Very few would actually have to do more than clean out a tank and put it back into use.
Carnivorous Lickers
19-04-2006, 16:57
I'm pissed because the oil cos cited hurricanes as the cause of drastically higher prices.
Then, each one posts record high profits for teh past two or three quarters.

I work from home mostly and I cant reduce my usage much more than I have.

I'm not buying from Exxon/Mobil anymore though.
The Nazz
19-04-2006, 16:58
Hey, don't complain... Our petrol (gas) is 90p a LITRE in the UK (about $1.70)
You're also in a country that has a working public transportation system. I hope the high gas prices push that to be the case in the US, so I'm not complaining about prices, but its getting to the point for me where I'm not running the AC in the Hyundai so often.
Vetalia
19-04-2006, 17:00
Ethanol isn't going to replace gasoline anytime soon. Japanese and European cars don't run on E85. American cars do because the agricultural lobby pushed a bill through congress a while back that forces US car companies to make a certain percentage of their cars capable of running on E85

All cars can run E10, so if that became large scale it would knock down a nice chunk of demand; reducing our demand by 10% would equal saving 7 years of 1.5% demand growth, and that's a pretty nice benefit.

Also, biodiesel's going to be a lot more useful in the immediate run since it's easy to produce and energy efficient. Our savings in oil will come from there first.

If you were a gas station owner would you add an extra undergound tank for a fuel that maybe only half of your customers could use? Probably not. It's expensive and you don't get a good return on the investment.

That's true; however, the government's going to probably give them subsidies and tax credits to put in the tanks in place. E10 doesn't require changes to the already existing tanks, but E85 does.
Maraque
19-04-2006, 17:01
It hit $3.69/gallon here yesterday. At it's highest it was $4.15/gallon, and I'll bet it'll pass that soon.

It is ridiculous, soon I won't be able to drive. 35% of my income goes to filling up my car.... 35%! :eek:
Brains in Tanks
19-04-2006, 17:06
All cars can run E10, so if that became large scale it would knock down a nice chunk of demand; reducing our demand by 10% would equal saving 7 years of 1.5% demand growth, and that's a pretty nice benefit.

But like I said it would be cheaper to heat buildings by burning corn. That way you won't need to turn it into ethanol. Then the oil and gas you save can be used to run cars instead of heating. Once your buildings stop using oil and gas for heating maybe then you can think about turning corn into car fuel.
The Nazz
19-04-2006, 17:06
That's true; however, the government's going to probably give them subsidies and tax credits to put in the tanks in place. E10 doesn't require changes to the already existing tanks, but E85 does.
I have to wonder about those tanks--leaded gas hasn't been sold in the US since I was a teen at best, nearly twenty years I'd guess. How many stations have been built or extensively remodeled in that period? I venture to say that there aren't that many unused tanks in the ground.
[NS]Phar
19-04-2006, 17:16
Gas/ petrol prices are way too low, they have never been high enough to dissuade people from using ecologically damaging modes of transport and investigating more sustainable alternatives!:upyours: :mad:
Falenas
19-04-2006, 17:16
Gas prices just hit $2.999/gallon in Virginia Beach, Virginia for regular. :mad:
And its only going to get worse when summer starts. I fear for my bank account since I have to use premium.
Wallonochia
19-04-2006, 17:20
Snow or mud, which is harder to drive through? They are about the same (I lived in the North of England for 10 years or so. I know what driving in snow is like), so no. It is not reason enough for everyone to have to own a gas hog. Either the snow is not that bad, or you prepare for it by having a skidoo or such like for when it is.

A little bit of snow, or a little bit of mud are about the same, I'll agree, but we get rather a lot of snow up here. Several times in the winter we'll get over 8 inches in a night. The county I lived in up north had rather horrible services (being a very poor area) and sometimes the plow trucks wouldn't come through until about noon or so, and I had class at 9.

And you're not allowed to drive snowmobiles on the roads in this state, for some unfathomable reason, so that won't work either.

If I hadn't moved up there I would have kept the Mini Cooper I had, but the winters up there are just too harsh for such a small car, so I got a Jeep instead, and it literally saved my ass a few times. For some reason we have this tendency to dig very very deep ditches, and had I launched the Mini into one it would have been a very very bad day. There was nothing between the road to town from my house and Lake Superior, and that wind from the big lake turns everything into a giant sheet of ice. The couple of times I went into the ditch I was able to self-extract the Jeep, and there is no way I would have been able to in the Mini. And since I lived on the complete ass end of the universe, I would have been waiting quite a while for someone to stop and help me.
Iztatepopotla
19-04-2006, 17:21
It hit $3.69/gallon here yesterday. At it's highest it was $4.15/gallon, and I'll bet it'll pass that soon.

It is ridiculous, soon I won't be able to drive. 35% of my income goes to filling up my car.... 35%! :eek:
Try to drive downhill more often. To go uphill, tell someone your car broke and that you need to be pulled. That'll help.
Falenas
19-04-2006, 17:21
Phar']Gas/ petrol prices are way too low, they have never been high enough to dissuade people from using ecologically damaging modes of transport and investigating more sustainable alternatives!:upyours: :mad:

I would have to say other than the hybrid car form of transportation, in my area there is literally no form of public transportation except for the bus which comes hourly. Then for me to get to school it would take about 4+ hours. Ontop of that moving closer is out of the question as most homes in my area are above $500,000.00. And on top of that I live in a metropolitan area made of millions of people.

Some people don't have the money to buy hybrids at the moment. And even then, with our luck the hydrogen fuel cell cars would probably roll out a year later killing the life of our vehicles as gas becomes harder and harder to get. Its a waiting game.

I think the US government in response to this (but won't happen under Bush) needs to allocate some funding for public transportion to be developed.
Vegarlson
19-04-2006, 17:22
Snow or mud, which is harder to drive through? They are about the same (I lived in the North of England for 10 years or so. I know what driving in snow is like), so no. It is not reason enough for everyone to have to own a gas hog. Either the snow is not that bad, or you prepare for it by having a skidoo or such like for when it is.

Snow is much harder to drive through, especially when the roads are glazed with ice underneath. I live in Alaska, and we have an Escape and an F-250 diesal. Do we need them? Yes. We live on the side of a mountain and theres no way that a lighter non 4wheel will make it up the mountain. As for having a skidoo? Theres no way I'll ever get on a snow machine, not now not ever. Its a ridiculous thought for many reasons. To start, they 'guzzle' more gas then a SUV, they have no cabin so you have to wear protective clothes, have to wear helmet to protect your head, etc. I'd rather have the comfort of a chair with a gas pedal in front of me with a big steel cage around me in case anyone else slides on the ice into me.

As for gas from other countries? Who needs em. We have oil and gas fields bigger then anywhere else in the world, we just need to tap them. The supplies aren't going to run out in the next several hundred years, and by the time they do we'll have other energy sources and won't need them anymore.

There's no excuse for stockholders or oil companies to be strangling the price of fuel out of the lower classes. Prices are going to need to go down or there will be big problems in the future for the companies.
AB Again
19-04-2006, 17:26
I have to wonder about those tanks--leaded gas hasn't been sold in the US since I was a teen at best, nearly twenty years I'd guess. How many stations have been built or extensively remodeled in that period? I venture to say that there aren't that many unused tanks in the ground.

In which case the cost of remodelling is not what you implied it to be, is it?
The Nazz
19-04-2006, 17:28
As for gas from other countries? Who needs em. We have oil and gas fields bigger then anywhere else in the world, we just need to tap them. The supplies aren't going to run out in the next several hundred years, and by the time they do we'll have other energy sources and won't need them anymore.

There's no excuse for stockholders or oil companies to be strangling the price of fuel out of the lower classes. Prices are going to need to go down or there will be big problems in the future for the companies.
The US hit peak oil 35 years ago. Read a book sometime. We couldn't supply our own needs for a year.
The Dixie States
19-04-2006, 17:29
Hey, don't complain... Our petrol (gas) is 90p a LITRE in the UK (about $1.70)

our shit is $2.78 that higher'n 1.70
Wallonochia
19-04-2006, 17:30
our shit is $2.78 that higher'n 1.70

$1.70 per liter, not per gallon.

So it's about $6.42/gallon
Fascist Emirates
19-04-2006, 17:31
our shit is $2.78 that higher'n 1.70

Thats per litre, not gallon. There are 3.78 litres to the gallon.
Fascist Emirates
19-04-2006, 17:32
Almost seven dollars a gallon.
AB Again
19-04-2006, 17:33
Snow is much harder to drive through, especially when the roads are glazed with ice underneath. I live in Alaska, and we have an Escape and an F-250 diesal. Do we need them? Yes. We live on the side of a mountain and theres no way that a lighter non 4wheel will make it up the mountain. As for having a skidoo? Theres no way I'll ever get on a snow machine, not now not ever. Its a ridiculous thought for many reasons. To start, they 'guzzle' more gas then a SUV, they have no cabin so you have to wear protective clothes, have to wear helmet to protect your head, etc. I'd rather have the comfort of a chair with a gas pedal in front of me with a big steel cage around me in case anyone else slides on the ice into me.
Those living in Alaska are not my target. There are good reasons to use SUVs in the conditions there. My target is much more the majority of USians who do not live in such extreme conditions. I would criticise the Argentines the same way, with the exception of those living in Patagonia and points South.

You prefering to have the comfort, however, is no justification for complaining about fuel prices. If you want the comfort than be willing to pay the going rate for it. And a skidoo does not use more gas than either of the vehicles you use.

As for driving on snow with ice underneath or driving on mud with clay underneath, the two are more or less equivalent in terms of traction and grip - none.

The rest I cannot comment on as I do not have the information to do so.
Vetalia
19-04-2006, 17:34
I have to wonder about those tanks--leaded gas hasn't been sold in the US since I was a teen at best, nearly twenty years I'd guess. How many stations have been built or extensively remodeled in that period? I venture to say that there aren't that many unused tanks in the ground.

There probably aren't; a lot of stations went out of business because of the costs associated with replacing their leaded gasoline tanks

Biodiesel's better off; Goodyear just invented a fuel hose that can dispense either ordinary gasoline or biodiesel without corrosion from the biodiesel. Hopefully, similar technology will be developed for ethanol soon.
Tactical Grace
19-04-2006, 17:38
The overall fuel efficiency of the US car fleet is 20mpg. Simply by purchasing a different car, the average American can double their mileage. Americans also don't have to pay an extra $4 per gallon in tax, as Europeans do. And last time I noticed, Americans weren't exactly poorer either.

Really there are no reasons why Americans should be whining about oil prices.
Vetalia
19-04-2006, 17:40
The US hit peak oil 35 years ago. Read a book sometime. We couldn't supply our own needs for a year.

We could regasify the old fields and recover 89 billion barrels, but that's only a decade's worth of our oil consumption even with that amount added to our current reserves.

Of course, there's the unconventional oil and Canadian oil sands, but those are not cheap to extract which means prices aren't going to fall below the level for those to be profitable any time soon.
The Nazz
19-04-2006, 17:42
The overall fuel efficiency of the US car fleet is 20mpg. Simply by purchasing a different car, the average American can double their mileage. Americans also don't have to pay an extra $4 per gallon in tax, as Europeans do. And last time I noticed, Americans weren't exactly poorer either.

Really there are no reasons why Americans should be whining about oil prices.
You're absolutely right. Of course, that won't stop most of us...
PsychoticDan
19-04-2006, 17:43
If it was supply and demand the prices would drop during the summer, when most people use more gas.
No, just the opposite. This is why you don't understand the situation. You don't understand the basic principles. When there is more demand prices go up. When there is less demand prices go down. Supply is just the opposite. There are two ways to bring current prices down.

1. Less demand. People need to drive less and get more efficient cars.
2. More supply. More oil needs to be produced.

2 isn't going to happen because we have reached or soon will reach the peak of global oil production capacity. That leaves us with 1. The reason gas prices are so high is because the US actually encourages people to drive themselves, by themselves, to work in an army vehicle 90 miles round trip.
Wallonochia
19-04-2006, 17:43
The overall fuel efficiency of the US car fleet is 20mpg. Simply by purchasing a different car, the average American can double their mileage. Americans also don't have to pay an extra $4 per gallon in tax, as Europeans do. And last time I noticed, Americans weren't exactly poorer either.

Really there are no reasons why Americans should be whining about oil prices.


When I lived in Europe again I didn't have a car because I didn't need one. Here, I need one and, being a student, I can't afford to buy another car with better mileage. Of course, if things go right and I get to move back to Europe I'll sell my car in a heartbeat.
The Nazz
19-04-2006, 17:44
We could regasify the old fields and recover 89 billion barrels, but that's only a decade's worth of our oil consumption even with that amount added to our current reserves.

Of course, there's the unconventional oil and Canadian oil sands, but those are not cheap to extract which means prices aren't going to fall below the level for those to be profitable any time soon.
Is that a decade's worth including the amount we regularly import, or a decade's worth assuming we're on our own? If it's the latter, I'll need some backup on that.
PsychoticDan
19-04-2006, 17:49
Is that a decade's worth including the amount we regularly import, or a decade's worth assuming we're on our own? If it's the latter, I'll need some backup on that.
the math is simple. 24 million barrels/day in North America. Divide that into 89 billion. Hold on, I'll do it:

24,000,000 x365 = 8,760,000,000 barrels/year = 87,600,000,000 per decade.

taht's also at current rates but our fuel consumption grows by about 2% per year so shorten that to about 8 or 9 years.
Mirchaz
19-04-2006, 17:50
...
The reason gas prices are so high is because the US actually encourages people to drive themselves, by themselves, to work in an army vehicle 90 miles round trip.

I'm gonna hafta disagree w/ this. i think that the gov't encourages carpooling. People just don't do it.
PsychoticDan
19-04-2006, 17:51
Personally I'd like to see gas go to at least $4.00/gallon and stay there. If it gets too low again we'll put off what we should be doing, which is, of course, moving closer to where we live. Buying more locally produced goods and services and building trains.
Myrmidonisia
19-04-2006, 17:55
Ethanol isn't going to replace gasoline anytime soon. Japanese and European cars don't run on E85. American cars do because the agricultural lobby pushed a bill through congress a while back that forces US car companies to make a certain percentage of their cars capable of running on E85.

If you were a gas station owner would you add an extra undergound tank for a fuel that maybe only half of your customers could use? Probably not. It's expensive and you don't get a good return on the investment.
If it were really half, heck yes, I'd add the extra tank. Gas stations do it for diesel and I'll be not even half the customers use that. Certainly we will see more and more E85 pumps outside the mid-west as the popularity increases.
PsychoticDan
19-04-2006, 17:55
I'm gonna hafta disagree w/ this. i think that the gov't encourages carpooling. People just don't do it.
In words they do, in practice the government gives tax breaks to people who buy SUVs and write them off as a business expense. That changed finally last year, but people who worked as accountants were writing off their hummers so they could drive themeselves and their briefcase from Augora to Hollywood everyday. There were all kinds of things that the government could have done such as give tax breaks to people who bought fuel efficient cars instead of gas guzzlers or just taxed consumption because, believe me, if they had done that throughout the 90s and thefirst part of this decade we'd be in much better shape.
Tactical Grace
19-04-2006, 17:56
To put it another way, the US has remaining domestic oil reserves equivalent to 8 or 9 years of domestic consumption, but the maximum rate at which the oil can be extracted is constantly falling, so the current rate of extraction is only around a third of annual consumption.
Wallonochia
19-04-2006, 18:00
If it were really half, heck yes, I'd add the extra tank. Gas stations do it for diesel and I'll be not even half the customers use that. Certainly we will see more and more E85 pumps outside the mid-west as the popularity increases.

There's a lot of excitement in my hometown because a deal was just finalized that will build an E85 refinery there. Which is kinda funny, because the town's economic lifeblood used to be the Total Petroleum refinery, but that closed in about '99. Some of my friends are considering buying up cheap property, because once that refinery goes up property value in the town will go up.
Free Soviets
19-04-2006, 18:02
Really there are no reasons why Americans should be whining about oil prices.

got to whine about something
Formidability
19-04-2006, 18:02
If the oil companies are trying so hard to drop prices then how come one of there CEO's walked away with a $40,000,000 pension!!:mad:
Unionist
19-04-2006, 18:07
the thing with alternative fuel is that as soon we develop it the oil prices will drop because all those oil countries depend on selling oil to make money. the sooner we come up with an alternative solution the sooner gas prices will decrease because those people (oil countries) are not stupid and are only taking an advantage of the situation until thet have to lower their prices in order to compete so in other words it dosnt matter what we do:headbang:
Myrmidonisia
19-04-2006, 18:10
If the oil companies are trying so hard to drop prices then how come one of there CEO's walked away with a $40,000,000 pension!!:mad:
Because he left a company that was worth far more than it was when he arrived?
Fascist Emirates
19-04-2006, 18:11
It's a very asinine situation.

Gas prices are high so there is a demand for better fuel economy so people use less gas and thusly save money. The gas companies see the drop in sales and raise the price of gas to make a profit, the consumer observes the rise in gas prices and demands even better fuel economy. And so on and so forth.
Fan Grenwick
19-04-2006, 18:16
I wonder what would happen if Canada should cut it's oil supply sent to the US, being that we are the biggest foreign supplier to the US? It's not that there aren't other places we could sell the oil to.
On the other hand, the US would probably invade the country saying that there are weapons of mass destruction here. There are, but the belong to the US!
Fascist Emirates
19-04-2006, 18:17
I wonder what would happen if Canada should cut it's oil supply sent to the US, being that we are the biggest foreign supplier to the US? It's not that there aren't other places we could sell the oil to.
On the other hand, the US would probably invade the country saying that there are weapons of mass destruction here. There are, but the belong to the US!

Bloody....
PsychoticDan
19-04-2006, 18:18
It's scary how little people understand how this all works.

At 7:30 this morning PDT the Energy Information Administration released the weekly oil, gas and distilate inventory reports. This is what happened:

http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=%7BE365A4EB%2D4077%2D4AF5%2D9D19%2D5BA55A8BAAA1%7D&siteid=mktw&dist=

If you read that you'll get the idea that oil companies do not control the price. If you want to know the mechanisms by which futures traders, of which I am one, do control the price you can read here:

http://www.nymex.com/index.aspx


There is no conspiracy. Oil companies sell their oil for the market price and they have no real control over the market price. OPEC has some control because they are a coluding organization that controls 40% of the world production of crude oil. No American, or any other non-national oil company for that matter, controls more than 3% of daily world production of crude oil.

No matter how you look at it, the problem is SUVs, Hummers and 90 mile work roundtrips that is the problem.
PsychoticDan
19-04-2006, 18:20
I wonder what would happen if Canada should cut it's oil supply sent to the US, being that we are the biggest foreign supplier to the US? It's not that there aren't other places we could sell the oil to.
On the other hand, the US would probably invade the country saying that there are weapons of mass destruction here. There are, but the belong to the US!
You'd go broke. Why woudl you do that anyway? You're every bit as responsible for the situation as we are. You live exactly the same way its just that there's less of you.
Fascist Emirates
19-04-2006, 18:21
That is a basis for gas prices. The individual company sets the prices based apon the price of crude and prossesing expenses.
PsychoticDan
19-04-2006, 18:24
That is a basis for gas prices. The individual company sets the prices based apon the price of crude and prossesing expenses.
Wrong.

www.nymex.com

The prices for unleaded gas, diesel and heating oil are all controlled through futures contracts on the different mercantile exchanges, most notably the NY Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX).
Kroblexskij
19-04-2006, 18:26
hey, its 95p a litre, in england.
Thats $1.70 a litre
or
approx ~ $6.30 for a gallon.

So Stop Complaining
Mirchaz
19-04-2006, 18:30
In words they do, in practice the government gives tax breaks to people who buy SUVs and write them off as a business expense. That changed finally last year, but people who worked as accountants were writing off their hummers so they could drive themeselves and their briefcase from Augora to Hollywood everyday. There were all kinds of things that the government could have done such as give tax breaks to people who bought fuel efficient cars instead of gas guzzlers or just taxed consumption because, believe me, if they had done that throughout the 90s and thefirst part of this decade we'd be in much better shape.

Are you sure there aren't tax breaks for people who drive fuel efficient cars?
They do tax consumption... it's already on the price of gas. Just not as much as you apparently would like.
Fascist Emirates
19-04-2006, 18:30
Wrong.

www.nymex.com

The prices for unleaded gas, diesel and heating oil are all controlled through futures contracts on the different mercantile exchanges, most notably the NY Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX).

True, however a company could set its own prices. (The cost of shiping the hydrocarbons by road to a individual location, ergo the varying costs between stations) Whether or not the gasoline companies do the former is up to debate.
Ruloah
19-04-2006, 18:31
Personally I'd like to see gas go to at least $4.00/gallon and stay there. If it gets too low again we'll put off what we should be doing, which is, of course, moving closer to where we live. Buying more locally produced goods and services and building trains.

My job doesn't pay me enough to move closer. I work for a living, I am not a millionaire, which I would have to be to move closer.

When I bought my house (way out of town), the neighborhood I was renting in had homes for $500,000. That was six years ago. Those homes are probably selling for $1,000,000 by now.

At least I take a bus to work. 2 hours in the morning, slightly longer in the evening. The train is more expensive and less comfortable.

What we need to do in the short term is increase refinery capacity, but my state, California, will not allow this. So the government forces the prices higher by restricting supply and keeping taxes high. And they encourage carpooling, but the carpool lanes don't move any faster than the regular lanes. My bus sure doesn't.

End of mild rant.
The Nazz
19-04-2006, 18:34
Personally I'd like to see gas go to at least $4.00/gallon and stay there. If it gets too low again we'll put off what we should be doing, which is, of course, moving closer to where we live. Buying more locally produced goods and services and building trains.
No kidding. I got excited--which is sad in a way--when I read an article in the Sun-Sentinel last week that mentioned talks between Florida and the FEC to put passenger service on the FEC railroads. I could actually use the tri-rail system to go to work if that were to happen. No more driving down I-95 in peak traffic.
Mirchaz
19-04-2006, 18:36
hey, its 95p a litre, in england.
Thats $1.70 a litre
or
approx ~ $6.30 for a gallon.

So Stop Complaining

hey, you have a billion times better transit system better than us.

So Shut The Fuck Up
PsychoticDan
19-04-2006, 18:43
Are you sure there aren't tax breaks for people who drive fuel efficient cars?
They do tax consumption... it's already on the price of gas. Just not as much as you apparently would like.
The tax subsidy just ended a year or so ago on SUVs. The rationale was that people needed them as workhorses, but just about anyone could write off the expense. Soem states, including mine, Clifornia, offer incentives to buy more efficient cars, but not the Fed.
PsychoticDan
19-04-2006, 18:46
True, however a company could set its own prices. (The cost of shiping the hydrocarbons by road to a individual location, ergo the varying costs between stations) Whether or not the gasoline companies do the former is up to debate.
But they don't, so? The wholesale prices are set on the exchanges in response to supply and perceived demand and in consideration of geopolitics and station owners basically call a broker every morning and ask what price they should put up on the sign.
Mirchaz
19-04-2006, 18:47
1 UK TEESIDE $5.64
2 HONG KONG HONG KONG $5.62
3 UK MILFORD HAVEN $5.56
4 UK READING $5.56
5 UK NORWICH $5.54
6 GERMANY FRANKFURT $5.29
7 DENMARK COPENHAGEN $5.08
8 NORWAY STAVANGER $5.07
9 NORWAY OSLO $4.93
10 ITALY ROME $4.86
11 TURKEY ISTANBUL $4.85
12 PORTUGAL LISBON $4.80
13 KOREA SEOUL $4.71
14 SWITZERLAND GENEVA $4.56
15 KOREA KOJE/OKPO $4.53
16 AUSTRIA VIENNA $4.50
17 CROATIA ZAGREB $4.32
18 JAPAN TOKYO $3.84
19 AUSTRALIA SYDNEY $2.63
20 CAMBODIA PHNOM PENH $2.57
21 TAIWAN TAIPEI $2.47
22 GEORGIA TBILISI $2.31
23 LAOS VIENTIANE $1.66
24 THAILAND BANGKOK $1.60
25 CHINA TIANJIN $1.54
26 CHINA SHANGHAI $1.48
27 RUSSIA MOSCOW $1.45
28 KAZAKHSTAN ALMATY $1.36
29 KAZAKHSTAN ATYRAU $1.35
30 TAJIKISTAN DUSHANBE $1.32
31 AZERBAIJAN BAKU $1.15
32 VENEZUELA CARACAS $0.14

w/ prices i saw today, usa would fall between 16 and 18 in this list: http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasprices/price.html?2006

let's see if i can use an older list :P this was from 2k4.
PsychoticDan
19-04-2006, 18:50
My job doesn't pay me enough to move closer. I work for a living, I am not a millionaire, which I would have to be to move closer.

When I bought my house (way out of town), the neighborhood I was renting in had homes for $500,000. That was six years ago. Those homes are probably selling for $1,000,000 by now.

At least I take a bus to work. 2 hours in the morning, slightly longer in the evening. The train is more expensive and less comfortable.

What we need to do in the short term is increase refinery capacity, but my state, California, will not allow this. So the government forces the prices higher by restricting supply and keeping taxes high. And they encourage carpooling, but the carpool lanes don't move any faster than the regular lanes. My bus sure doesn't.

End of mild rant.I understand, but you have to understand that this is a situation that was created by gas prices that were too low. If gas prices had been higher property values would have included the price of a commute. When gas was $1.90/gallon no one thought about how much it was going to cost to drive to work. If gas had always bee this expensive then this situation would not have occured because the market would have favored communities that are close to places to work and buy goods and services.
UpwardThrust
19-04-2006, 18:58
So living in a rural area that gets a lot of snow isn't a good reason?
Feel your pain lol not only in a rural area but on a farm

Though I drive a truck rather then an SUV
MadmCurie
19-04-2006, 18:58
May I point out that in the summer months the price per gallon (in the US) is also due to a switching to "summer blends" which contain more ethanol and burn cleaner (while wreacking untold havoc on your engine). not all have this mandate (a few cities in WI have it, unfortunately, I happen to live in one)

even so, we topped at $3.10 a gallon this morning, a thirty cent jump since yesterday morning (although I found a lone gas station still at 2.83 so i was extremely pleased this morning:) )
Mirchaz
19-04-2006, 19:00
I understand, but you have to understand that this is a situation that was created by gas prices that were too low. If gas prices had been higher property values would have included the price of a commute. When gas was $1.90/gallon no one thought about how much it was going to cost to drive to work. If gas had always bee this expensive then this situation would not have occured because the market would have favored communities that are close to places to work and buy goods and services.

so what's the solution then? all i see is crying over split milk.
Mirchaz
19-04-2006, 19:03
i wonder of the 18 that said no, how many are American.
Fascist Emirates
19-04-2006, 19:04
The clean fuel phase may actually be screwing us.
Ever hear of global dimming? Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming)
essentialy the Green house gasses emited by burning fosil fuels trap in heat, however the fosil fuels also emit visible pollutants that block out the sun (Smog). The pollutents have blocked the sun by over 20 % in the past twenty years. Less sunlight means the greenhouse gasses are not as effective. However most clean fuels only eliminate the visible polutents, not the greenhouse gasses. Eliminating the visible polutents is actually speeding up global warming.
PsychoticDan
19-04-2006, 19:06
so what's the solution then? all i see is crying over split milk.
Really? cause I thought I had posted this:
Personally I'd like to see gas go to at least $4.00/gallon and stay there. If it gets too low again we'll put off what we should be doing, which is, of course, moving closer to where we live. Buying more locally produced goods and services and building trains.
Charlen
19-04-2006, 19:08
If it was supply and demand the prices would drop during the summer, when most people use more gas.

Only if if the supply was greater than the demand. In this case the demand is greater than the supply, therefor prices go up.

Although price gouging is also a big part of it. If it's not then I'd like to hear how else oil companies could have record profits.
There's also idiot politicians being pure idiots no matter how you look at it. You take it bribes from oil companies to keep out alternate fuel sources with absolutely no reason not to know that they'll make higher profits in the long run if they try alternate fuel sources. Hell, there's a new type deisel that was developed that comes from corn and is cheap, renewable, efficient, and any deisel powered vehicle can run on it so car makers would have to do nothing more than make deisel versions of their cars to transition over to it yet so far GM is the only one with the brains to show any sign of realizing this.

Of course the idiots who went out and bought the biggest gas-guzzling car because they "wanted it" did nothing except contribute to and encourage this... there's a big difference between buying a gas guzzler because you need it and because you want it and if it were up to me you'd need to demonstrate the need to buy anything incapable of achieving over 25 mpg before being allowed to buy it.

And while those of us in the US don't have prices nearly as bad as most other places, gas prices are starting to get to some of us with even small fuel-efficient cars, so we get our complaining rights too, especially those of us who picked our cars based on fuel efficiency and are still hurting from it.
PsychoticDan
19-04-2006, 19:12
Only if if the supply was greater than the demand. In this case the demand is greater than the supply, therefor prices go up.

Although price gouging is also a big part of it. If it's not then I'd like to hear how else oil companies could have record profits.
There's also idiot politicians being pure idiots no matter how you look at it. You take it bribes from oil companies to keep out alternate fuel sources with absolutely no reason not to know that they'll make higher profits in the long run if they try alternate fuel sources. Hell, there's a new type deisel that was developed that comes from corn and is cheap, renewable, efficient, and any deisel powered vehicle can run on it so car makers would have to do nothing more than make deisel versions of their cars to transition over to it yet so far GM is the only one with the brains to show any sign of realizing this.

Of course the idiots who went out and bought the biggest gas-guzzling car because they "wanted it" did nothing except contribute to and encourage this... there's a big difference between buying a gas guzzler because you need it and because you want it and if it were up to me you'd need to demonstrate the need to buy anything incapable of achieving over 25 mpg before being allowed to buy it.

And while those of us in the US don't have prices nearly as bad as most other places, gas prices are starting to get to some of us with even small fuel-efficient cars, so we get our complaining rights too, especially those of us who picked our cars based on fuel efficiency and are still hurting from it.
The oil companies did not make record profits from selling retail gasoline. They made their money by producing crude oil. There is no gouging. We are paying the prices we should pay if we value clean air and still want to drive Hummers.
Mirchaz
19-04-2006, 19:16
Really? cause I thought I had posted this:

sure, but that hurts poor people the most. The people in situations to where they can't move closer to work and/or they require lots of gas to do their job (truckers et al). Couldn't there be a better solution?
PsychoticDan
19-04-2006, 19:16
Here it is in a nutshell. From 10 minutes ago on www.marketwatch.com
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- Crude-oil prices climbed to an all-time high above $72 per barrel Wednesday and the May contract for unleaded gasoline reached a record after a U.S. government report showed that supplies of gasoline fell for a seventh week and crude inventories declined for the first time in a month.
"The demand factor is strictly ruling this market -- supplies are available but are commanding higher prices due to the uncertainties that plague the market -- Iran, Nigeria and global demand is to say the least more of an issue now than ever before," said John Person, president of National Futures Advisory Service.
And with that said, retail gasoline prices "could certainly peak well beyond $4.50 and upwards of over $5 per gallon in parts of the country this summer," he said.
Crude for May delivery reached $72.10 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange -- a record for a front-month contract. The May contract was last at $72.05, trading up 70 cents.
Iztatepopotla
19-04-2006, 19:17
hey, you have a billion times better transit system better than us.
The Europeans can cope with higher gas costs also because their cities tend to be smaller. Since most of their cities grew before the age of cars, and then they had those wars, they tended to stay fairly small. In the US city growth started with the age of the automobile and dirt cheap fuel, so people could buy a gigantic house waaay out of town and drive everywhere, even if you only need a loaf of bread.

Cities in the US will now have to be redeveloped to make them functional in the age of expensive fuel.

What can you do? Well, pretty much nothing. Attach a sail to your car, maybe.
PsychoticDan
19-04-2006, 19:18
sure, but that hurts poor people the most. The people in situations to where they can't move closer to work and/or they require lots of gas to do their job (truckets et al). Couldn't be a better solution?
The reason I bolded the build more trains part of my answer was because that is more important than anything else we could do. This would only help poorer people because it would provide them with a cheap alternative to a car.
PsychoticDan
19-04-2006, 19:20
2:15 Crude futures tap a record at $72.40/brl near the day's end
2:15 May crude last up 95c, or 1.3%, at $72.30/brl in NY

expect higher prices...
Mirchaz
19-04-2006, 19:25
2:15 Crude futures tap a record at $72.40/brl near the day's end
2:15 May crude last up 95c, or 1.3%, at $72.30/brl in NY

expect higher prices...

this is unfortunate. but i wouldn't just blame the SUV drivers.
PsychoticDan
19-04-2006, 19:29
this is unfortunate. but i wouldn't just blame the SUV drivers.
Thre's a lot of blame to go around. Clinton should have ended the subsidy during his admin and shoudl have done more to keep the demand side down, but there's no question that probably the biggest single reason why gasoline prices are as high as they are, and why we're fighting in Iraq, for that matter, are because of the number of army vehicles driving people to and from work in the US.
[NS]Phar
19-04-2006, 19:31
I would have to say other than the hybrid car form of transportation, in my area there is literally no form of public transportation except for the bus which comes hourly. Then for me to get to school it would take about 4+ hours.

ever heard of a bicycle?
Mirchaz
19-04-2006, 19:33
Phar']ever heard of a bicycle?

i had a choice to ride a bus to work. However, it would only have dropped me off about a mile away from work. 2nd problem was that it would have taken 5 hours for me to get to work.

A bike? the journey was 15 miles. That's a hefty bike ride every morning.
Mirchaz
19-04-2006, 19:34
Thre's a lot of blame to go around. Clinton should have ended the subsidy during his admin and shoudl have done more to keep the demand side down, but there's no question that probably the biggest single reason why gasoline prices are as high as they are, and why we're fighting in Iraq, for that matter, are because of the number of army vehicles driving people to and from work in the US.

dunno, i don't see that many hummers around. mebbe it's diff in california, but the main vehcile here are trucks. most get the avg mpg.
Nuclear Industries
19-04-2006, 19:35
I sold my car the day the US attacked Iraq. I don't have gaz problems any more. I walk to work now, take the bus to get groceries, and I started long distance running for fun. Problem solved :)
Frangland
19-04-2006, 19:36
It's supply and demand. Morons are still driving SUVs that get 14 miles per gallon, China and India are increasing their demand for oil, nobody except Saudi Arabia has any spare capacity at all, and even Saudi's spare production capacity isn't big enough to make a big impact on oil prices.

On the bright side, high oil prices make alternative energy research and production seem cheaper by comparison.

word, on both points...

i'm all for a person's right to drive whatever he wants to... but when I see someone driving alone in an Escalade... well i wonder what the effect on gas prices would be if all such people drove small or mid-sized cars.

This is in a southern (USA) city... i don't live on a mountain where the FWD might actually mean something. We have snow/ice on the roads maybe 4-5 days out of the year.
UpwardThrust
19-04-2006, 19:36
dunno, i don't see that many hummers around. mebbe it's diff in california, but the main vehcile here are trucks. most get the avg mpg.
Yeah there are one or maybe two that I have ever seen here even when I drive all the way into st cloud (I live about 25 miles out of that town it is the biggest around here about 70,000 people)

But I live in a small farming town like 400 people MAX lol most people drive pickups ... but most people live on farms as well
PsychoticDan
19-04-2006, 19:39
dunno, i don't see that many hummers around. mebbe it's diff in california, but the main vehcile here are trucks. most get the avg mpg.
It's SUVs, Hummers and these new big ass trucks they're building. My friend has a Dodge Ram and in practice he gets 8 miles to the gallon. Even my Mustang gets 26. Of course I drive it like a granny. That's another problem. People drive like gas is cheap still. If you'd slow down from 80 MPH to 55 you can save 30%. I did an experiment once. I filled my tank and drove the way I wanted to. Fast off the line and 80 on the freeway. I got 260 on my tank. I filled it up again and drove like a granny. Slow off the line, 55 on the freeway in cruise control in the slow lane and got 340 off that tank. It really makes a huge difference.
Frangland
19-04-2006, 19:39
Think about what you just said. In summer people use more gas. That means demand is high. Assuming supply doesn't increase (lack of spare capacity prevents a supply increase), what should happen? If you said prices should rise, you're right. If you still think they should drop, go to your room and think about what you've done.

or with Katrina...

Demand remained more or less constant, while supply dropped due to the loss of refineries (we're probably still dealing with that, but rather than run my mouth about something i've not kept up on, someone else can finish my thought. hehe)...

causing THAT rise in prices at the pump.
PsychoticDan
19-04-2006, 19:46
or with Katrina...

Demand remained more or less constant, while supply dropped due to the loss of refineries (we're probably still dealing with that, but rather than run my mouth about something i've not kept up on, someone else can finish my thought. hehe)...

causing THAT rise in prices at the pump.
We're still down about 300,000 barrels/day of refinery output. Also, all those refineries that stayed up last fall rather than go down for maintenance as they usually do in fall are down now for maintenance or are just coming back online.
The Nazz
19-04-2006, 19:47
It's SUVs, Hummers and these new big ass trucks they're building. My friend has a Dodge Ram and in practice he gets 8 miles to the gallon. Even my Mustang gets 26. Of course I drive it like a granny. That's another problem. People drive like gas is cheap still. If you'd slow down from 80 MPH to 55 you can save 30%. I did an experiment once. I filled my tank and drove the way I wanted to. Fast off the line and 80 on the freeway. I got 260 on my tank. I filled it up again and drove like a granny. Slow off the line, 55 on the freeway in cruise control in the slow lane and got 340 off that tank. It really makes a huge difference.
Yep. Driving a stick can help also, if you know what you're doing. If I drive like a maniac (as much as you can in a 7 year old Hyundai), I get about 29 mpg. If i granny it, I can get as high as 34mpg--with the AC on.
PsychoticDan
19-04-2006, 20:01
2:59 Crude futures close at a front-month record above $72/brl
2:59 May crude up 82c, or 1.2%, ends at $72.17 after $72.40 high
2:57 Market Snapshot: U.S. stocks edge higher; Intel set to report earnings
2:52 May natural gas ends at highest level since early Feb.
2:52 May natural gas up 18.4c, or 2.3%, to end at $8.192/mln BTUs

And the commodity markets close for the day. Tomorrow, the natural gas report at 7:30 AM PDT.
Myrmidonisia
19-04-2006, 20:01
Yep. Driving a stick can help also, if you know what you're doing. If I drive like a maniac (as much as you can in a 7 year old Hyundai), I get about 29 mpg. If i granny it, I can get as high as 34mpg--with the AC on.
Got you beat with a much nicer car. My '95 Mercedes gets 30+/- in town and 35+/- on the highway. That's with diesel.
PsychoticDan
19-04-2006, 20:04
Got you beat with a much nicer car. My '95 Mercedes gets 30+/- in town and 35+/- on the highway. That's with diesel.
The motorcycle I'm getting gets 44 city 54 highway. :)
The Coral Islands
19-04-2006, 20:13
I hope the prices skyrocket. It might get us to start moving on sustainable energy. Maybe if people started feeling a pinch when they hop in the auto or head for the thermostat they will begin to take conservation and green energy seriously.

[Sorry if I seem peeved today, but my government just announced a possible tax break on gasoline, despite us having low prices compared to those in Europe, exactly the wrong policy in my opinion]
Carnivorous Lickers
19-04-2006, 20:16
The overall fuel efficiency of the US car fleet is 20mpg. Simply by purchasing a different car, the average American can double their mileage. Americans also don't have to pay an extra $4 per gallon in tax, as Europeans do. And last time I noticed, Americans weren't exactly poorer either.

Really there are no reasons why Americans should be whining about oil prices.

"Simply by purchasing a different car" you say?

Sounds a little like "Let them eat cake".

No one's whining-really just concerned as we dont want to sink down to your standards.
Myrmidonisia
19-04-2006, 20:22
The motorcycle I'm getting gets 44 city 54 highway. :)
That's pretty good. But I'm inside. There's a guy at work with a Prius. I think he runs all year on a tank of gas.
Duntscruwithus
19-04-2006, 20:24
My 10 year old Neon gets 34 mpg if I baby it and 33-34 if I push it. No difference there. And I cannot afford to buy a newer car, no matter how much I want one, despite the 140 miles a day I travel to and from work. Move you say? I will when I can afford it and actually find a place within my budget.......

Assuming my job lasts long enough to do so.
PsychoticDan
19-04-2006, 20:31
My 10 year old Neon gets 34 mpg if I baby it and 33-34 if I push it. No difference there. And I cannot afford to buy a newer car, no matter how much I want one, despite the 140 miles a day I travel to and from work. Move you say? I will when I can afford it and actually find a place within my budget.......

Assuming my job lasts long enough to do so.
And therein lies the quandry within which most Americans are going to find themselves. Can't afford the gas, the new car or to move closer.

Anyhoo, the EIA says it shouldn't be the norm. Too bad they're so often wrong and that their caveat comes with, "The forecast assumes there are no major problems at U.S. refineries, pipelines, or any part of the distribution chain."

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- Average prices for regular unleaded gasoline may climb above the $3 level this year, but the Energy Information Administration said it's "not forecasting prices that high, on average, over a whole month." The forecast assumes there are no major problems at U.S. refineries, pipelines, or any part of the distribution chain, the EIA said in a weekly report released Wednesday. "While some factors may be difficult to forecast, significant increases in gasoline production as refineries undergoing maintenance return to full operations sometime over the next several weeks should stem the rise in gasoline prices, and may, actually, cause them to decline somewhat," it said.
Vetalia
19-04-2006, 20:32
Is that a decade's worth including the amount we regularly import, or a decade's worth assuming we're on our own? If it's the latter, I'll need some backup on that.

All US demand is around 7 billion barrels per year. If we were to regas as much as possible our reserves would rise from (that's assuming it were possible to produce enough oil to meet all of our demand even with reserves of that size)

At present US oil production is 5.4 million bpd with reserves of 21 billion. So, if that production were to increase proportionately to the rise in reserves oil production would be 25.7 million at a reserve level of 100 billion barrels. That would be a surplus of around 4.5 million bpd...but, of course, that's probably not possible.

Even boosting our production to 10 million bpd would put a huge dent in our imported oil; however, the strain on refinery capacity would still mean we would likely be dependant on importing products to meet demand. We could produce the crude, but that would be useless without a way to turn it in to useful products.

http://www.fe.doe.gov/news/techlines/2006/06015-Oil_Recovery_Assessments_Released.html
Vetalia
19-04-2006, 20:36
And the commodity markets close for the day. Tomorrow, the natural gas report at 7:30 AM PDT.

I get them three hours earlier. :p

That report today was a bit of a shocker; a 5 million+ drawdown in gasoline, drawdown of 2.3 million in distillates and 800k in crude...talk about bullish for the market.

The good news, however, was that demand for gasoline is only up 0.8%, which is less than half its trendline growth and overall product demand is negative year over year.
Buddom
19-04-2006, 20:39
I think it was 2.899 or some shit this morning when I filled up my tank. (NC, USA)
PsychoticDan
19-04-2006, 20:40
All US demand is around 7 billion barrels per year. If we were to regas as much as possible our reserves would rise from (that's assuming it were possible to produce enough oil to meet all of our demand even with reserves of that size)

At present US oil production is 5.4 million bpd with reserves of 21 billion. So, if that production were to increase proportionately to the rise in reserves oil production would be 25.7 million at a reserve level of 100 billion barrels. That would be a surplus of around 4.5 million bpd...but, of course, that's probably not possible.

Even boosting our production to 10 million bpd would put a huge dent in our imported oil; however, the strain on refinery capacity would still mean we would likely be dependant on importing products to meet demand. We could produce the crude, but that would be useless without a way to turn it in to useful products.

http://www.fe.doe.gov/news/techlines/2006/06015-Oil_Recovery_Assessments_Released.html
Be careful with those DOE numbers. I've made some pretty good money, about 200% on original investment, by betting against them over the past three years. They also forcast $30 oil in 2004 and we had $45. They forcast $30 oil again in 2005 and we had $55. This year they forcast $50 oil and we're at $72 now with no sign of going back.
PsychoticDan
19-04-2006, 20:43
I get them three hours earlier. :p

That report today was a bit of a shocker; a 5 million+ drawdown in gasoline, drawdown of 2.3 million in distillates and 800k in crude...talk about bullish for the market.

The good news, however, was that demand for gasoline is only up 0.8%, which is less than half its trendline growth and overall product demand is negative year over year.
That's what high prices do, but before I think we'll see a real pullback in prices beyond expected seasonal declines I think we'll need demand destruction. In other words, recession.
Gailfy
19-04-2006, 20:45
Maybe sicne I really don't have the need to drive a car (ride the bus, mooch off my parents- I'm 16 and don't have a permit) my opinion may change later but here it is.

Lots of other places have much higher gas prices than in the US. They deal with it for the most part. Whether that be by more fuel efficient cars, better city designs for walking, or more mass transit. People deal with it. However, many many cities here seems designed for the purpose of using cars to go everywhere- which is really annoying. Also, when people rant about high gas prices- on the news etc etc. There's one sentence about things like the struggles in Nigeria right now. Which is really pathetic methinks. So much unrest and tension in that area and all people can think about is how the severe plight of thousands can make gas and oil prices increase a little- causing a comparitively minor inconvience. Oh boo hoo people. You'll still be living a relatively stable life (most people at least)

Sorry if I came off really angry/ insulting people. I didn't really mean to come off that way >_<;
The Nazz
19-04-2006, 20:49
All US demand is around 7 billion barrels per year. If we were to regas as much as possible our reserves would rise from (that's assuming it were possible to produce enough oil to meet all of our demand even with reserves of that size)

At present US oil production is 5.4 million bpd with reserves of 21 billion. So, if that production were to increase proportionately to the rise in reserves oil production would be 25.7 million at a reserve level of 100 billion barrels. That would be a surplus of around 4.5 million bpd...but, of course, that's probably not possible.

Even boosting our production to 10 million bpd would put a huge dent in our imported oil; however, the strain on refinery capacity would still mean we would likely be dependant on importing products to meet demand. We could produce the crude, but that would be useless without a way to turn it in to useful products.

http://www.fe.doe.gov/news/techlines/2006/06015-Oil_Recovery_Assessments_Released.html
Thanks.
Vetalia
19-04-2006, 20:51
That's what high prices do, but before I think we'll see a real pullback in prices beyond expected seasonal declines I think we'll need demand destruction. In other words, recession.

This year, not necessarily a recession, but rather a "soft patch" during a period of peak usage; last year, the economy grew 3.5% but energy demand was flat because of demand destruction caused by a brief slowdown in Q1. The goal should probably be to mitigate demand without turning growth negative in the process, which is possible if we do it carefully.

A slowdown is supposed to happen in the second half of the year, so it's likely we'll see more significant demand destruction during that time. Ideally, we'll want to see a slowdown in growth but not necessarily negative, and I think high energy prices along with the Fed's rate hikes will bring that about.

Mild weather and a weaker than projected hurricane season would help immensely, but they're not likely. Texas is already hitting 100 degrees for highs...
PsychoticDan
19-04-2006, 20:59
This year, not necessarily a recession, but rather a "soft patch" during a period of peak usage; last year, the economy grew 3.5% but energy demand was flat because of demand destruction caused by a brief slowdown in Q1. The goal should probably be to mitigate demand without turning growth negative in the process, which is possible if we do it carefully.

A slowdown is supposed to happen in the second half of the year, so it's likely we'll see more significant demand destruction during that time. Ideally, we'll want to see a slowdown in growth but not necessarily negative, and I think high energy prices along with the Fed's rate hikes will bring that about.

Mild weather and a weaker than projected hurricane season would help immensely, but they're not likely. Texas is already hitting 100 degrees for highs...
And we're in the midst of it right now. Not alot you can do in the extremely short term. It's all about trains, but we can't build them that fast. I think the next hit is going to be discretionary spending and that will hurt. Every energy spike has been accompanied by recession. The only thing different this time is that it's geology and fear rather than OPEC, a revolution in Iran or a war in the Gulf that is causing the spike. The other thing that was different about the time prices spiked after the Iranian revolution and Gulf War 1 was that Saudi Arabia had the ability to open the taps pretty quickly to quell the prices. They appear to have lost that ability.
PsychoticDan
19-04-2006, 21:01
You are, however, right if you mean a pullback to the high $50s low $60s. A slow patch could do that. We're not seeing $40 again, though, until we see negative growth.
Vetalia
19-04-2006, 21:08
Be careful with those DOE numbers. I've made some pretty good money, about 200% on original investment, by betting against them over the past three years. They also forcast $30 oil in 2004 and we had $45. They forcast $30 oil again in 2005 and we had $55. This year they forcast $50 oil and we're at $72 now with no sign of going back.

They were predicting $20/barrel oil for 2005 back in 1998...

The best thing to do with DoE numbers right now is to look at their "high-price" case for the year and make decisions based upon that, since they've been pretty accurate so far:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/gifs/Slide13.gif

The only concern I have about investing in oil is the sheer amount of money flowing in to the commodity markets right now; I think that might make prices more volatile and prone to collapses and spikes regardless of fundamentals which could make it a poor long-term investment at least until the market cools down again.

Commodities and stocks alternate in cycles, with the stock cycle of investment money ending in 2000 and the commodity cycle before it ending in 1982, and the stock cycle before that had ended in 1967 and so on.
We're probably looking at a rally in commodities (although not necessarily a straight climb upward) until at least 2012 with a top between then and 2015 judging from historical trends.

Not all commodities will do well simultaneously; precious metals are getting pretty overextended and frothy while copper and nickel will definitely continue to perform well. Oil's a risky one, but definitely to the upside for a few more years.

As a side note, I've been messing around online with a stock-market simulator testing out an alternative energy porfolio; $10,827 in three days thanks to the oil spike and ethanol push...it's amazing, but concerning at the same time.
Vetalia
19-04-2006, 21:13
And we're in the midst of it right now. Not alot you can do in the extremely short term. It's all about trains, but we can't build them that fast. I think the next hit is going to be discretionary spending and that will hurt. Every energy spike has been accompanied by recession. The only thing different this time is that it's geology and fear rather than OPEC, a revolution in Iran or a war in the Gulf that is causing the spike. The other thing that was different about the time prices spiked after the Iranian revolution and Gulf War 1 was that Saudi Arabia had the ability to open the taps pretty quickly to quell the prices. They appear to have lost that ability.

The incredibly low prices of the 1990's didn't help us either, nor did the oil price collapse of the 1980's.

Recession will occur eventually, but I think compared to the previous ones we're more resistant to higher prices, especially if they're as gradual as they are now. 36% per year is a lot, but is still not as bad as the tripling that occured almost instantly during the 1970's; recession will eventually come but it will not be a sudden shock.

High prices are already motivating people to seek alternatives, but the question is whether or not they will be available fast enough to prevent a cost-push recession.
Vetalia
19-04-2006, 21:15
You are, however, right if you mean a pullback to the high $50s low $60s. A slow patch could do that. We're not seeing $40 again, though, until we see negative growth.

That pullback would probably be preferable to the recession, because it would keep prices high enough to stimulate alternatives but would also keep the economy growing enough to provide capital for alternative energy development.

I'd rather have manageable, elevated prices than a drop due to a recession since the benefits are greater to both the larger economy and alternative energy/transportation.
PsychoticDan
19-04-2006, 21:17
They were predicting $20/barrel oil for 2005 back in 1998...

The best thing to do with DoE numbers right now is to look at their "high-price" case for the year and make decisions based upon that, since they've been pretty accurate so far:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/gifs/Slide13.gif

The only concern I have about investing in oil is the sheer amount of money flowing in to the commodity markets right now; I think that might make prices more volatile and prone to collapses and spikes regardless of fundamentals which could make it a poor long-term investment at least until the market cools down again.

Commodities and stocks alternate in cycles, with the stock cycle of investment money ending in 2000 and the commodity cycle before it ending in 1982, and the stock cycle before that had ended in 1967 and so on.
We're probably looking at a rally in commodities (although not necessarily a straight climb upward) until at least 2012 with a top between then and 2015 judging from historical trends.

Not all commodities will do well simultaneously; precious metals are getting pretty overextended and frothy while copper and nickel will definitely continue to perform well. Oil's a risky one, but definitely to the upside for a few more years.

As a side note, I've been messing around online with a stock-market simulator testing out an alternative energy porfolio; $10,827 in three days thanks to the oil spike and ethanol push...it's amazing, but concerning at the same time.
That's why my long term investments are in smaller, more agile oil and gas exploration companies like Aspen Exploration and in oil services stocks like Cooper Cameron, but you can make a lot of money short term betting on energy equities options by figuring that all these really old traders think oil is going to collapse anytime now and actually watching the news at O&GJ and other places and watching the energy reports on Wed. and Thurs. morning. Although I wouldn't do it if you're not in a position, like me, to sit and watch it all day.
Callixtina
19-04-2006, 21:26
:headbang: Try VOTING for the right people next time!!! These oil companies are reporting record profits when the economy is tanking. Why? Because your precious Dubya is nothing but a corporate whore, thats why! Don't blame the middle east for the US consuming 35% of the worlds energy resourses either. Here in America, the people are to blame for the problems we have created for ourselves. Instead of whining and bitching, and blaming the rest of the world, we should get off our butts and demand impeachment of the current White House. And that would be a start.

Complacency and Apathy are the cause of this problem. :upyours:
Vetalia
19-04-2006, 21:31
That's why my long term investments are in smaller, more agile oil and gas exploration companies like Aspen Exploration and in oil services stocks like Cooper Cameron, but you can make a lot of money short term betting on energy equities options by figuring that all these really old traders think oil is going to collapse anytime now and actually watching the news at O&GJ and other places and watching the energy reports on Wed. and Thurs. morning. Although I wouldn't do it if you're not in a position, like me, to sit and watch it all day.

Small producers are going to be the big gainers in the oil industry; the bulk of new wildcat drills and discoveries are coming from these small producers rather than integrated oils who are pressured as it is by poor profit margins and high production costs.

Looking at Aspen Exploration's statistics right now, and it's got some remarkable upside potential. Profit margin is 43.64% (double that of XOM) with 76.1% revenue growth and EPS growth of 129%...all with a P/E of 14.91 I'd hold on to that one, especially since it's still an OTC stock and is pretty low key...if and when people discover it, it's going to soar.

It's also only $5 after a prolonged pullback since mid 2005...I think it's bottomed and is climbing again.

Interestingly (from a technical perspective), a lot of the big oil producers' stocks have flattened since the start of 2005 even though prices rose much faster during that period than they did in 2000-2004, and they plunge brutally even if oil dips a few dollars.

However, oil services do not and have risen solidly even when oil prices fall. Oil rig and equipment plays will be a solid bet given the shortage of rigs right now and the upside caused by a heavy hurricane season.
PsychoticDan
19-04-2006, 21:35
Small producers are going to be the big gainers in the oil industry; the bulk of new wildcat drills and discoveries are coming from these small producers rather than integrated oils who are pressured as it is by poor profit margins and high production costs.

Looking at Aspen Exploration's statistics right now, and it's got some remarkable upside potential. Profit margin is 43.64% (double that of XOM) with 76.1% revenue growth and EPS growth of 129%...all with a P/E of 14.91 I'd hold on to that one, especially since it's still an OTC stock and is pretty low key...if and when people discover it, it's going to soar.

It's also only $5 after a prolonged pullback since mid 2005...I think it's bottomed and is climbing again.

Interestingly (from a technical perspective), a lot of the big oil producers' stocks have flattened since the start of 2005 even though prices rose much faster during that period than they did in 2000-2004, and they plunge brutally even if oil dips a few dollars.

However, oil services do not and have risen solidly even when oil prices fall. Oil rig and equipment plays will be a solid bet given the shortage of rigs right now and the upside caused by a heavy hurricane season.
yep.

You missed one detail about Aspen, thouogh, and it's the one that caught my eye. Look at their success rate when drilling. 100% last year. 100% so far this year. Almost 90% since they were founded. They have one hell of a geology department and natural gas, which they specialize in, is in more serious straights than oil.
Swilatia
19-04-2006, 21:51
No. Its just too much demand, because of Americans like to pollute, and always thry to have a car with a feul efficiency of as little Kilometres per litre as possible.

Also, you americans should stop voting for bush. I would not be dumb enough to vote for a canditate I hate just because making sure gays can't marry each other is part of their platform.
PsychoticDan
19-04-2006, 22:15
This was funny. Email sent to CNN re: Gas Prices.

I fill my car with 50 dollars worth of gas. I drive to the store to buy a 6 dollar bag of beef jerky. It takes me 3 dollars to go 14 miles to buy the jerky. I eat it all before I get home so I must go back to the store to buy more jerky for 6 dollars. Again it costs me 3 dollars in gas. I finish the jerky just as I arrive at home only to get an upset stomach from 1/2 pound of dried beef swelling in my stomach. I now have to spend another 3 dollars in gas to buy a 7 dollar bottle of Rolaids. This 1 hour of my life cost me 28 dollars. With the price of gas these days I think its time to give up on beef jerky. Another pleasure gone due to gas prices.
Joe Stain, Atlanta, Georgia
Vetalia
19-04-2006, 22:30
yep.

You missed one detail about Aspen, thouogh, and it's the one that caught my eye. Look at their success rate when drilling. 100% last year. 100% so far this year. Almost 90% since they were founded. They have one hell of a geology department and natural gas, which they specialize in, is in more serious straights than oil.

Wow, that's a hell of a buy. A 100% success rate last year is amazing, and they've maintained a 90% rate since 1979...that's a lot of opportunity there.

I'll definitely consider it as part of an energy portfolio, especially as a diversification away from pure alternative energy and oil services. A good oil industry counterpart to my current diversification of semiconducter manufacturers and biotech.

Plus, it's a microcap, and that sector's been perfoming well in general over the past few years regardless of industry-specific trends. So, even if oil falls it will likely perform decently as a microcap due to demand for the entire segment.
Silly English KNIGHTS
19-04-2006, 22:53
Crude oil has gone up over Seventy Dollars a barrel. The companies claim it is because of the Iran situation, I think not.

Supply and Demand? Bull.

Post your thoughts on this matter.

Quite simply, if you don't like gas prices, don't buy it. If enough people agree with you, they will be forced to change. If you continue to buy, but just want to complain, forgive me for interrupting.
Equus
19-04-2006, 22:56
A bike? the journey was 15 miles. That's a hefty bike ride every morning. For the record, that's approximately the length of my bike commute. I'm slow - it takes me about an hour.
Frangland
19-04-2006, 23:05
:headbang: Try VOTING for the right people next time!!! These oil companies are reporting record profits when the economy is tanking. Why? Because your precious Dubya is nothing but a corporate whore, thats why! Don't blame the middle east for the US consuming 35% of the worlds energy resourses either. Here in America, the people are to blame for the problems we have created for ourselves. Instead of whining and bitching, and blaming the rest of the world, we should get off our butts and demand impeachment of the current White House. And that would be a start.

Complacency and Apathy are the cause of this problem. :upyours:

the economy is actually pretty strong... don't know where you hear it's tanking.

how many times has the Fed raised interest rates in the past few years?

They raise interest rates when the economy is in good shape...
Morsenia
19-04-2006, 23:24
Read the article here:
http://www.code-interactive.com/thinker/a113.html
Vetalia
20-04-2006, 00:15
the economy is actually pretty strong... don't know where you hear it's tanking.

The funniest thing of all is that gas prices are high because the economy is doing so well. There wouldn't be as much demand for oil if our economy wasn't expanding as powerfully as it is.
Big Jim P
20-04-2006, 00:16
I've noticed a pattern over the last two years: Summer, when people drive the most, gas prices go up. Some might say that the oil companies are gouging us. I just think its a case of a healthy profit-motive.

Wait until labor day (memorial day? the last one of summer anyway). then you will see how high gas can really go. Last year Katrina was blamed. What will be the excuse this year?
Frangland
20-04-2006, 00:19
The funniest thing of all is that gas prices are high because the economy is doing so well. There wouldn't be as much demand for oil if our economy wasn't expanding as powerfully as it is.

word
Frangland
20-04-2006, 00:20
I've noticed a pattern over the last two years: Summer, when people drive the most, gas prices go up. Some might say that the oil companies are gouging us. I just think its a case of a healthy profit-motive.

Wait until labor day (memorial day? the last one of summer anyway). then you will see how high gas can really go. Last year Katrina was blamed. What will be the excuse this year?

SUVs (still)

unless demand declines, or supply increases, there's nothing to justify the lower prices.
Vetalia
20-04-2006, 00:21
I've noticed a pattern over the last two years: Summer, when people drive the most, gas prices go up. Some might say that the oil companies are gouging us. I just think its a case of a healthy profit-motive.

It's supply and demand; during the early summer, refiners have to produce specific blends of gasoline which somewhat crimps their productive capacity while at the same time demand is rising due to increased travelling. Supply is flat or down and demand is up, which means higher prices. That's also why prices tend to fall after the early summer, because production rises again and demand remains constant.

Wait until labor day (memorial day? the last one of summer anyway). then you will see how high gas can really go. Last year Katrina was blamed. What will be the excuse this year?

Geopolitics...throw in Iran or Nigeria, or maybe some totally speculative rumor and you've got another $100 billion dollars ready to be invested in oil. There's so much money sloshing around the Nymex that noone can really tell what the demand for oil is...those 1,000 barrel contracts could just as easily be swapped around by traders and stockpiled somewhere as opposed to being actually demanded by consumers.

That's the only problem I have with the markets right now...there's a fortune pouring in from seemingly every hedge fund and investor and that's pushing prices up regardless of supply and demand; it's paper demand rather than real demand in some cases, and that means investors can very easily be burned by the evaporation of fast money.
PsychoticDan
20-04-2006, 00:42
It's supply and demand; during the early summer, refiners have to produce specific blends of gasoline which somewhat crimps their productive capacity while at the same time demand is rising due to increased travelling. Supply is flat or down and demand is up, which means higher prices. That's also why prices tend to fall after the early summer, because production rises again and demand remains constant.



Geopolitics...throw in Iran or Nigeria, or maybe some totally speculative rumor and you've got another $100 billion dollars ready to be invested in oil. There's so much money sloshing around the Nymex that noone can really tell what the demand for oil is...those 1,000 barrel contracts could just as easily be swapped around by traders and stockpiled somewhere as opposed to being actually demanded by consumers.

That's the only problem I have with the markets right now...there's a fortune pouring in from seemingly every hedge fund and investor and that's pushing prices up regardless of supply and demand; it's paper demand rather than real demand in some cases, and that means investors can very easily be burned by the evaporation of fast money.
That's true. Prices are being pushed up by fear. People are betting on teh petroleum commodities because of how events look in oil exporting countries. But don't you think that fear is justified? One terrorist attack in Suadi Arabia COULD cause a world-wide oil shock. One military strike in Iran COULD stop the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf. Spare production capacity right now is extremly thin. A well placed hurricane and the loss of 2 million barrels/day from the GOM and who's gonna make up the shortfall? Prices in the oil markets are made in the margines and right now there is no margin. The 1.7 million barrels/day that SA reports as having is only seen in their words since there are no surveys and when they released extra after katrina and Rita it was all heavy sour stuff.

I think the prices right now reflect the fear of losing something that most people don't realize hwo precious it is. I think it should be thios expensive and maybe more.
Vetalia
20-04-2006, 00:50
That's true. Prices are being pushed up by fear. People are betting on teh petroleum commodities because of how events look in oil exporting countries. But don't you think that fear is justified? One terrorist attack in Suadi Arabia COULD cause a world-wide oil shock. One military strike in Iran COULD stop the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf. Spare production capacity right now is extremly thin. A well placed hurricane and the loss of 2 million barrels/day from the GOM and who's gonna make up the shortfall? Prices in the oil markets are made in the margines and right now there is no margin. The 1.7 million barrels/day that SA reports as having is only seen in their words since there are no surveys and when they released extra after katrina and Rita it was all heavy sour stuff.

I think it's justified, personally. However, some of the price rise is due to speculation rather than actual fear or supply concerns which means there is a huge possibility of price collapses and spikes that will cause more harm than benefit. The market needs to reach equilibrium rather than get pumped up be speculative buying or crashed by short sellers.

I think the prices right now reflect the fear of losing something that most people don't realize hwo precious it is. I think it should be thios expensive and maybe more.

I'd have to agree; however, I'd prefer prices high enough to spur the rapid development of alternatives (as today's prices do) and energy efficiency upgrades but not high enough to cause a recession which would have the opposite effect of crashing prices downward, and that would be far more undesirable than the moderately expensive prices of today.
The Nazz
20-04-2006, 03:04
The funniest thing of all is that gas prices are high because the economy is doing so well. There wouldn't be as much demand for oil if our economy wasn't expanding as powerfully as it is.
The economy is doing well for some--corporations and the very wealthy. Everyone else is getting squeezed.
Vetalia
20-04-2006, 03:10
The economy is doing well for some--corporations and the very wealthy. Everyone else is getting squeezed.

It's big companies and the wealthy that consume the most oil and produce the most economic growth that consumes even more oil, and that wealth goes back to the upper middle and upper classes with the result being that the lower classes are usually screwed over at least somewhat.

Hell, even when oil prices were low during the 80's and 90's the poor were still getting the short end of the stick when it came to the economy...it sucks to be poor or a wage earner these days. The only hope you have is getting a way out of it in to something better, but that's rather difficult in normal times let alone with $3 gasoline.
Dude111
20-04-2006, 03:11
Crude oil has gone up over Seventy Dollars a barrel. The companies claim it is because of the Iran situation, I think not.

Supply and Demand? Bull.

Post your thoughts on this matter.
I suspect a lot of it has to do with China.

I wonder if the prices would drop if they nationalized the oil companies?

Anyway, this is good in the long run because it will force us to rid ourselves of those monstrous SUVs.


and urban sprawl.

I really like candy.
Vetalia
20-04-2006, 03:14
I
I wonder if the prices would drop if they nationalized the oil companies?.

They definitely would. However, instead of expensive gasoline you'd have no gasoline several days a week and it would be heavily rationed on the days that it was sold. The quality would also take a nosedive, which means even more problems for consumers and industrial producers.
Istenbul
20-04-2006, 03:15
It's just a simple matter of price gouging. They know we will buy their gasoline, no matter the price. We're dependent on it so the prices will continue until someone finally steps in. As long as an oil man like Bush is in office, don't expect the prices to lower any time soon.
Vetalia
20-04-2006, 03:18
It's just a simple matter of price gouging. They know we will buy their gasoline, no matter the price. We're dependent on it so the prices will continue until someone finally steps in. As long as an oil man like Bush is in office, don't expect the prices to lower any time soon.

It's not price gouging; there are a lot of factors involved in this that stem directly from the ultracheap gas of the 1990's as well as more recent ones worldwide. The price is 100% justified given market conditions.

Demand for gasoline is very flexible; immediately after the hurricanes demand fell 5% when gas hit $3 a gallon yet GDP still grew 3.5%...that's a lot of waste in the system.
PsychoticDan
20-04-2006, 03:21
I suspect a lot of it has to do with China.

I wonder if the prices would drop if they nationalized the oil companies?


They are. Sinopec is wholly owned by the Chinese government. They also have price controls.
Dude111
20-04-2006, 03:23
They definitely would. However, instead of expensive gasoline you'd have no gasoline several days a week and it would be heavily rationed on the days that it was sold. The quality would also take a nosedive, which means even more problems for consumers and industrial producers.
I guess I'll begrudgingly take the private oil companies...
Soheran
20-04-2006, 03:26
They definitely would. However, instead of expensive gasoline you'd have no gasoline several days a week and it would be heavily rationed on the days that it was sold. The quality would also take a nosedive, which means even more problems for consumers and industrial producers.

Do you have the same problems with, say, water?
Vetalia
20-04-2006, 03:28
They are. Sinopec is wholly owned by the Chinese government. They also have price controls.

And they're got massive pollution and soaring oil demand from artificially low prices, not to mention benzene slicks and environmental devastation in a lot of regions. Private oil companies are bad, but publically owned ones are even worse.
The Nazz
20-04-2006, 03:34
It's big companies and the wealthy that consume the most oil and produce the most economic growth that consumes even more oil, and that wealth goes back to the upper middle and upper classes with the result being that the lower classes are usually screwed over at least somewhat.

Hell, even when oil prices were low during the 80's and 90's the poor were still getting the short end of the stick when it came to the economy...it sucks to be poor or a wage earner these days. The only hope you have is getting a way out of it in to something better, but that's rather difficult in normal times let alone with $3 gasoline.
I understand that. My point is that when pundits throw around questions like "why don't average americans understand that the economy is booming," they never stop to think that for most Americans--wage earners--the economy isn't booming, and hasn't been for a while now.
The Nazz
20-04-2006, 03:35
And they're got massive pollution and soaring oil demand from artificially low prices, not to mention benzene slicks and environmental devastation in a lot of regions. Private oil companies are bad, but publically owned ones are even worse.
Those are. They don't have to be.
Vetalia
20-04-2006, 03:37
I understand that. My point is that when pundits throw around questions like "why don't average americans understand that the economy is booming," they never stop to think that for most Americans--wage earners--the economy isn't booming, and hasn't been for a while now.

I imagine it's because pundits are dumbasses who put their demogoguery above the truth. Thankfully, there are more and more people able to get out of the languishing wage-earning sector than there were in the past, but that still leaves a lot of people trapped in a have-not existence that, in more than a few cases, is not their fault.
Vetalia
20-04-2006, 03:40
Those are. They don't have to be.

Yeah, but the history of state-owned industry is much of the time one of energy inefficiency, corruption, poor quality, and environmental devastation.

I'd rather the government regulate these industries and protect the environment through laws than try and manage companies, in particular ones with as much access to wealth and as environmentally dangerous as the oil companies.
The Nazz
20-04-2006, 03:42
I imagine it's because pundits are dumbasses who put their demogoguery above the truth. Thankfully, there are more and more people able to get out of the languishing wage-earning sector than there were in the past, but that still leaves a lot of people trapped in a have-not existence that, in more than a few cases, is not their fault.
And then there are people like me and my girlfriend, who make what would be considered a fair middle class wage (between us, we'll make about $70K this year) but because of where we live, we can't even think about buying a house. Hell, neither of us drive vehicles manufactured this century. Imagine what a person making even $15 an hour has to do to make ends meet--and there are a lot of people making a hell of a lot less than that.
Vetalia
20-04-2006, 03:44
Do you have the same problems with, say, water?

No, but water doesn't kill people if it's spilled in to the groundwater and doesn't produce pollution when it's burned or processed. It also doesn't require anywhere near the same amount of processing as crude oil does, not does extracting it have as many difficulties.

Plus, there is little profit to be had from water and penalties are strict, so there's no incentive to cut corners or pilfer money as there would be with state-owned oil companies.
Liberated Provinces
20-04-2006, 03:45
Yeah, gas is too expensive. I can't find anything cheaper than 2.84 per gallon around here.

Whatever happened to hybrid cars? And what about that corn-based fuel? Hello, it's time to look at other options here!

Option: Invade Iran, Venezuela, and Nigeria.
Vetalia
20-04-2006, 03:47
And then there are people like me and my girlfriend, who make what would be considered a fair middle class wage (between us, we'll make about $70K this year) but because of where we live, we can't even think about buying a house. Hell, neither of us drive vehicles manufactured this century. Imagine what a person making even $15 an hour has to do to make ends meet--and there are a lot of people making a hell of a lot less than that.

It's brutal, especially in places like California. The poorer people are either unable to afford a lot of things or are gentrified out of the places they currently live in, and that just makes things more and more expensive for those who remain.

Rather than create a "good" income gap (the kind one can scale with education and dedicated work), it's creating an institutional wall to progress that traps even those willing to work for an education and a better job where they are. It's a disturbing trend that does not bode well for our economy if it continues.
Soheran
20-04-2006, 03:49
No, but water doesn't kill people if it's spilled in to the groundwater and doesn't produce pollution when it's burned or processed. It also doesn't require anywhere near the same amount of processing as crude oil does, not does extracting it have as many difficulties.

Protecting it from contamination is not exactly child's play. But you still don't see people dying en masse from unclean water in the First World, despite state ownership.

Plus, there is little profit to be had from water and penalties are strict, so there's no incentive to cut corners or pilfer money as there would be with state-owned oil companies.

True. But even economic sectors that do involve significant quantities of profit - say, health care - have been successfully nationalized in countries with transparent, democratic governments.

And if the governments are not transparent and democratic, they are just as corrupt with regulating and awarding contracts to private business as they are running things themselves, only this time it's easier to get away with high prices and firing workers.
The Nazz
20-04-2006, 03:52
It's brutal, especially in places like California. The poorer people are either unable to afford a lot of things or are gentrified out of the places they currently live in, and that just makes things more and more expensive for those who remain.

Rather than create a "good" income gap (the kind one can scale with education and dedicated work), it's creating an institutional wall to progress that traps even those willing to work for an education and a better job where they are. It's a disturbing trend that does not bode well for our economy if it continues.
I came to south Florida from San Francisco, and I see the same things here, except that San Francisco had some protections built in--a higher minimum wage, rent controls, a hell of a public transportation system so you didn't have to own a car, etc. Here's how bad it's getting down here. A recent story in the Sun-Sentinel talked about how some people ride the bus two and a half hours one way to go to work in Key West because they can't afford to live where they work. And the Broward/Dade county area is getting there. You never used to see help wanted signs out for wait staff work--but you used to be able to get by on that kind of salary and tips. The signs are out now. An article from last year noted that only about 10% of the homeowners in Broward County could afford to buy their own homes today. That's not healthy in the long term. That's a recipe for stagnation.
Vetalia
20-04-2006, 03:56
Protecting it from contamination is not exactly child's play. But you still don't see people dying en masse from unclean water in the First World, despite state ownership.

Clean water isn't a commodity, so it's a lot different than oil. Plus, there's a lot stricter laws on water than there are on ordinary commodity products because it's such a vital thing to supply to consumers.

True. But even economic sectors that do involve significant quantities of profit - say, health care - have been successfully nationalized in countries with transparent, democratic governments.

But the size and scale of the industry isn't as large as it would be in the United States; if we were to try that we might have to sacrifice a lot of discretionary practices to save money, which would be bad for the economy and for tax revenues. We can barely keep Medicare/Medicaid solvent as is, let alone an NHS.

And if the governments are not transparent and democratic, they are just as corrupt with regulating and awarding contracts to private business as they are running things themselves, only this time it's easier to get away with high prices and firing workers.

The government still has some control over private-sector deals even when corruption occurs due to separation of powers between agencies and the existance of an independent judiciary.

However, in a state owned firm the people who are supposed to be watching over the company also have an interest in it profiting so there is a much greater chance of corruption, or even worse, misinformation.
Vetalia
20-04-2006, 04:02
I came to south Florida from San Francisco, and I see the same things here, except that San Francisco had some protections built in--a higher minimum wage, rent controls, a hell of a public transportation system so you didn't have to own a car, etc. Here's how bad it's getting down here. A recent story in the Sun-Sentinel talked about how some people ride the bus two and a half hours one way to go to work in Key West because they can't afford to live where they work. And the Broward/Dade county area is getting there. You never used to see help wanted signs out for wait staff work--but you used to be able to get by on that kind of salary and tips. The signs are out now. An article from last year noted that only about 10% of the homeowners in Broward County could afford to buy their own homes today. That's not healthy in the long term. That's a recipe for stagnation.

That's very true; in particular, new immigrants are getting hit hard by this in California and that depresses the economic and educational opportunities of their children. These children might normally have the opportunity for college or trade school education, but might not now that their parents can barely get by.

That in turn means fewer skilled workers coming in to the market when we need them 10 or 15 years down the line, with the result being economic stagnation and a distorted labor market where there are shortages of skilled labor, but the people willing to get the jobs can't afford the education or costs associated with attaining them. That creates more institutional poverty and crime, which just worsens the problems.
The Nazz
20-04-2006, 04:06
That's very true; in particular, new immigrants are getting hit hard by this in California and that depresses the economic and educational opportunities of their children. These children might normally have the opportunity for college or trade school education, but might not now that their parents can barely get by.

That in turn means fewer skilled workers coming in to the market when we need them 10 or 15 years down the line, with the result being economic stagnation and a distorted labor market where there are shortages of skilled labor, but the people willing to get the jobs can't afford the education or costs associated with attaining them. That creates more institutional poverty and crime, which just worsens the problems.
But don't you understand? The ecnomy is booming! Can't you see the economy is booming? :D

Forget all the other issues--let the Republicans in rural areas with poor and middle class voters keep saying stuff like that and watch the Democrats wind up with 300 seats come November.
Soheran
20-04-2006, 04:16
Clean water isn't a commodity, so it's a lot different than oil.

If it were privatized, it would be a commodity too.

Plus, there's a lot stricter laws on water than there are on ordinary commodity products because it's such a vital thing to supply to consumers.

I don't see what this point is intended to demonstrate.

But the size and scale of the industry isn't as large as it would be in the United States; if we were to try that we might have to sacrifice a lot of discretionary practices to save money, which would be bad for the economy and for tax revenues. We can barely keep Medicare/Medicaid solvent as is, let alone an NHS.

We could raise taxes. With health care costs the way they are, enough money would be saved by most people that it wouldn't be that much of a problem. And surely we could cut defense spending somewhat.

Universal health care really has a very good track record; even a government as corrupt and incompetent as that of Maoist China helped its people hugely through it, and the same is true in at least some parts of Eastern Europe.

The government still has some control over private-sector deals even when corruption occurs due to separation of powers between agencies and the existance of an independent judiciary.

However, in a state owned firm the people who are supposed to be watching over the company also have an interest in it profiting so there is a much greater chance of corruption, or even worse, misinformation.

The government is rarely monolithic. The incentive of those running the state company to succeed would not necessarily interfere with the incentive of the regulatory agency to get rid of corruption. Furthermore, there are certain aspects to a company that no one can hide - prices, for instance, and quality. Ideally, at least, the consumers, being the population of the country in question, would have the capability to get rid of the management of an inefficient and corrupt agency. There is no such capability with private industry, and no incentive on its part to provide services to those too poor to pay sufficiently.
Mirchaz
20-04-2006, 15:01
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/energy/pr/?postId=6133

New Gasoline Study Shows Profits, Not Crude Oil Prices Or Ethanol, Are Driving Pump Price Spike


....
PsychoticDan
20-04-2006, 16:33
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/energy/pr/?postId=6133

New Gasoline Study Shows Profits, Not Crude Oil Prices Or Ethanol, Are Driving Pump Price Spike


....
It's too bad these people have absolutely no clue what they are talking about. People like this are going to seriously hurt us all. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. These people's intentions are the "goodest."
Mirchaz
20-04-2006, 16:39
It's too bad these people have absolutely no clue what they are talking about. People like this are going to seriously hurt us all. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. These people's intentions are the "goodest."

why do they have no clue what they're talking about?

i think i'm someone who has no clue what i'm talking about :P but i would think that people who get published on this type of thing have a small knowledge of what they speak :P
PsychoticDan
20-04-2006, 16:52
why do they have no clue what they're talking about?

i think i'm someone who has no clue what i'm talking about :P but i would think that people who get published on this type of thing have a small knowledge of what they speak :P
Because according to the DOE crude prices make up 60% of the cost of gasoline and because wholesale prices for gasoline are traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange: www.nymex.com . It is there that the prices are set. They are not set by the oil companies and when the oil companies selll oil they have to compete with eachother and they cannot sell it for a price that the market will not bare.

Anyone can publish anything they want. It's the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Just because it looks all official just means that they have good writers and web designers. It does not mean that the people behind the study are either economists, geologists, engineers or petroleum industry executives. Most likely they are either lawyers or politicians and this is for publicity. What it will lead to is price controls which will have two effects. First, it will have the immediate effect of creating shortages. Second, it will hide the true cost of energy which will prompt us, as consumes, to not do what we need to do which is, of course, conserve. If you want the price of oil to go down, you need to stop driving SUVs and you need to use public transport more often and just plain drive less. If we do that the price of oil will come down.
Mirchaz
20-04-2006, 17:34
so who sets the price of crude?

and it stated who did it: consumerwatchdog.org funded it, and a petroleum industry consultant wrote it.
Shlarg
20-04-2006, 17:50
Diesels can burn vegetable oil. The vehicle is started on petro diesel then switched over to vegetable oil requiring two fuel tanks. The one thing the U.S. still does very well is agriculture. The technology already exists, diesel cars are about the same price as gas cars. There's no reason whatsoever for us to be slaved to OPEC other than major profits for oil companies. Next vehicle I buy will be a small diesel car.
Also, it's my understanding that diesel hybrids are already made.
PsychoticDan
20-04-2006, 18:01
so who sets the price of crude?The price of crude oil is set by futures traders on the New York Mercantile Exchange www.nymex.com . People buy and sell contracts for crude oil, gasoline, heating oil and natural gas among other commodities. When the contract bidding period expires, as the contract for May delivery does today, then the ceiling price is set for what crude traders will pay for oil. If you still own a contract on the expiration day, then 1,000 barrels of crude oil will be held in a warehouse for you and you can sell the oil directly for what the contract says it is worth. If you're lucky, the price of the contract will be hire than it was when you bought it.


and it stated who did it: consumerwatchdog.org funded it, and a petroleum industry consultant wrote it.
Who the Hell is that and what background does the consultant have? Is he a geologist? An economist? An engineer? I'll bet he's either a lawyer or a consultant hired by a politician.
Kudaj
20-04-2006, 18:11
If it was supply and demand the prices would drop during the summer, when most people use more gas.

Actually, I've worked in the gas industry for a few years, and I believe I can tell all of you how the shakedown works.

First, you have product availability. Supply and demand will drive the price of gas up, but not how you might think. Many people use gas during the summer to travel. The demand is higher, the supply is lower, ergo the cost will increase.

Next, you have distribution. The harder it is to get to an area to deliver (ex: far away from distribution centers), the more cost is built into the price to offset the higher importing and transportation costs.

Finally, you have markets. Most gas stations, regardless of area, will price according to their market, that is, based on what everyone else is at vs. their cost of buying the product to put in the ground. High density areas are labeled as opportunity areas and generally have higher gas prices to pay for the convenience of not having to drive around looking for a lower price. It's a gamble, but one many stations will take.

There you have it. Three major factors based on the company that buys the oil first, then the distribution center that buys it from them, then the station that buys it for sale to the public. All three of them are influencing the price, the least being the store, next distribution.

Keep it real,
JB
PsychoticDan
20-04-2006, 18:20
Actually, I've worked in the gas industry for a few years, and I believe I can tell all of you how the shakedown works.

First, you have product availability. Supply and demand will drive the price of gas up, but not how you might think. Many people use gas during the summer to travel. The demand is higher, the supply is lower, ergo the cost will increase.

Next, you have distribution. The harder it is to get to an area to deliver (ex: far away from distribution centers), the more cost is built into the price to offset the higher importing and transportation costs.

Finally, you have markets. Most gas stations, regardless of area, will price according to their market, that is, based on what everyone else is at vs. their cost of buying the product to put in the ground. High density areas are labeled as opportunity areas and generally have higher gas prices to pay for the convenience of not having to drive around looking for a lower price. It's a gamble, but one many stations will take.

There you have it. Three major factors based on the company that buys the oil first, then the distribution center that buys it from them, then the station that buys it for sale to the public. All three of them are influencing the price, the least being the store, next distribution.

Keep it real,
JB
Yep. Plus the wholesale price of unleaded as set on the Nymex and you have the whole thing in a nutshell.
Mirchaz
20-04-2006, 18:22
....Who the Hell is that and what background does the consultant have? Is he a geologist? An economist? An engineer? I'll bet he's either a lawyer or a consultant hired by a politician.

He has contact info listed if you want to contact him.
Kudaj
20-04-2006, 18:27
Yep. Plus the wholesale price of unleaded as set on the Nymex and you have the whole thing in a nutshell.

That's built into the first part, however, and really doesn't have as much to do with the pricing as you might think. I managed a gas station for awhile and I would watch the gas pricing go up and down over the course of the fall and winter months, up until about three weeks ago. I never got a call from my boss to bounce the price up as a direct result of the barrel price increasing. I did, however, get calls to move up because my competitor up the street went up. Or to go down and capture business from the 5pm rush time and go back up when I closed the store.

Logically, one would think that barrel price increases wouldn't change the price of the gas they have already bought and put in the ground for sale. It has far-reaching effects, don't get me wrong, but it's not instantaneous.

JB
PsychoticDan
20-04-2006, 18:46
That's built into the first part, however, and really doesn't have as much to do with the pricing as you might think. I managed a gas station for awhile and I would watch the gas pricing go up and down over the course of the fall and winter months, up until about three weeks ago. I never got a call from my boss to bounce the price up as a direct result of the barrel price increasing. I did, however, get calls to move up because my competitor up the street went up. Or to go down and capture business from the 5pm rush time and go back up when I closed the store.

Logically, one would think that barrel price increases wouldn't change the price of the gas they have already bought and put in the ground for sale. It has far-reaching effects, don't get me wrong, but it's not instantaneous.

JB
I hear you, but I think that all that noise sort of just obscures the underlying signal. If you take your average price and smooth it with, say, a 30 day moving average I'll bet it follows crude and gas wholesale prices pretty damn close with about a six to eight week lag. In the end, the wholesale buyers are stuck with the contract price and the refiners are stuck with the crude contract price and neither are in the business of losing money.
PsychoticDan
20-04-2006, 18:54
He has contact info listed if you want to contact him.
I don't need to now. I looked at their "about" page and saw that everyone in the organization is a professional consumer advocate. None of them list a single shred of educational background to support the notion that they have any understanding of oil markets, or markets at all for that matter. They make money and have a livelyhood precisely because they do this sort of thing. Look for yourself and find a person there that has any credentials in economics, geology, or any other petroleum related discipline. The only credentials they list is that they write books you can buy. Their educational backgrounds are all in completely unrelated fields to economics or geology. their founder is, you guessed it, a lawyer. I'll be sure to check with him when we discuss creaming curves on wildcat well drilling and depletion rates on oil fields in tertiary recovery.
Crescentville
20-04-2006, 19:13
Also keep in mind that America has been designed by politicians and car manufacturers to require you to have a car no matter where you live. I have a few books on suburban sprawl and part of what fueled the problem of sprawl (if you agree with me that it's a problem, rather than traditional city plans and neighborhoods) was that GM executives (and I drive a GM... guilt!) were friends with politicians and had much influence, so when it came time to budget a HUGE amount of money for public transportation, 99% of it went into highway production while 1% went into modes of mass transit such as a bus or train. Then to make matters worse, smart and decent vendors moved out of the cities to follow their money-spending-market, and college kids with wealthy parents moved in. People who live in the rural areas work in the city, people who live in the city take what they can get, and everyone needs a car. I live in Boston and work in a rural area, because I split rent with my girlfriend so it's cost effective. I'm not saying cars are the cause for poverty or anything, because I've seen idiots who live in ghettos and drive a 1989 Honda Accord about to break down and instead of fixing it or moving up/out they buy chrome rims and expensive baseball caps... the entire consumerist idea is guilty as is the individual consumer/idiot. I say all of this because gas prices will probably only continue to escalate. EVERYONE has a vehicle. A lot of people have more than one per person in the family (in rural areas). I do a LOT of driving and I see more than anything on the highway now... HUGE SUVs with one person in them. Americans deserve the high gas prices because they are increasing demand by being wasteful. You should anticipate how much you're going to spend on gas before you buy your vehicle, rather than gorge on a stupid 5000lb behemoth with an unnecesary V8 engine and then complain that gas is expensive. Yeah gas costs money, but I drive nearly 100 miles a day 5 days a week and I only spend $40 a week on gas because I drive conservatively (most of the time) and have an efficient 4cyl engine in a light car. This whole thing just illustrates to me that Americans on average on unintelligent whiners. They complain about their own consequences rather than make a good decision to begin with. Don't even play the "I have kids I need an SUV to bring them to soccer practice" card because my little car fits 3 in the back comfortably and has a decent sized trunk. I've seen people sell their Ford Escort wagons to buy mid-sized SUVs... they have about the same storage/seating and half the gas milage, because they had ONE kid. Maybe it's all part of the American dream.
The Nazz
20-04-2006, 19:23
Yep. Plus the wholesale price of unleaded as set on the Nymex and you have the whole thing in a nutshell.
Something I've noticed recently is that when the prices start to shoot up, the gap between regular and premium shrinks. While prices are stable, the gap is generally solid--20 cents a gallon, with the midrange fuel in the middle. But ever since Wilma hit last year, I've noticed that the gap between regular and premium will sometimes get as low as 4 cents a gallon (at which time I fuel up with premium--it costs me 40 cents more for a tankful). Are the prices getting so high that the demand for regular is closing the price gap?
PsychoticDan
20-04-2006, 19:46
Something I've noticed recently is that when the prices start to shoot up, the gap between regular and premium shrinks. While prices are stable, the gap is generally solid--20 cents a gallon, with the midrange fuel in the middle. But ever since Wilma hit last year, I've noticed that the gap between regular and premium will sometimes get as low as 4 cents a gallon (at which time I fuel up with premium--it costs me 40 cents more for a tankful). Are the prices getting so high that the demand for regular is closing the price gap?
That's probably part of it but also it's because most of the blending changes that need to be made for summer driving are in regular grade. Premium has the addatives, too, but it has most of them year round so they don't need to reformulate as much. To be honest, I read that somewhere but can't vouch for its authenticity, but it stands to reason because I know the blending has to do with octane and premium has higher octane all the time.
The Nazz
20-04-2006, 19:49
That's probably part of it but also it's because most of the blending changes that need to be made for summer driving are in regular grade. Premium has the addatives, too, but it has most of them year round so they don't need to reformulate as much. To be honest, I read that somewhere but can't vouch for its authenticity, but it stands to reason because I know the blending has to do with octane and premium has higher octane all the time.
Well, when does the "summer" driving season end? That might help me because the last time I saw this was, as I said, right after Hurricane Wilma last year. If that was the end of the season, and stocks were getting low, that might help account for the lower price differential.
PsychoticDan
20-04-2006, 20:00
Also keep in mind that America has been designed by politicians and car manufacturers to require you to have a car no matter where you live. I have a few books on suburban sprawl and part of what fueled the problem of sprawl (if you agree with me that it's a problem, rather than traditional city plans and neighborhoods) was that GM executives (and I drive a GM... guilt!) were friends with politicians and had much influence, so when it came time to budget a HUGE amount of money for public transportation, 99% of it went into highway production while 1% went into modes of mass transit such as a bus or train. Then to make matters worse, smart and decent vendors moved out of the cities to follow their money-spending-market, and college kids with wealthy parents moved in. People who live in the rural areas work in the city, people who live in the city take what they can get, and everyone needs a car. I live in Boston and work in a rural area, because I split rent with my girlfriend so it's cost effective. I'm not saying cars are the cause for poverty or anything, because I've seen idiots who live in ghettos and drive a 1989 Honda Accord about to break down and instead of fixing it or moving up/out they buy chrome rims and expensive baseball caps... the entire consumerist idea is guilty as is the individual consumer/idiot. I say all of this because gas prices will probably only continue to escalate. EVERYONE has a vehicle. A lot of people have more than one per person in the family (in rural areas). I do a LOT of driving and I see more than anything on the highway now... HUGE SUVs with one person in them. Americans deserve the high gas prices because they are increasing demand by being wasteful. You should anticipate how much you're going to spend on gas before you buy your vehicle, rather than gorge on a stupid 5000lb behemoth with an unnecesary V8 engine and then complain that gas is expensive. Yeah gas costs money, but I drive nearly 100 miles a day 5 days a week and I only spend $40 a week on gas because I drive conservatively (most of the time) and have an efficient 4cyl engine in a light car. This whole thing just illustrates to me that Americans on average on unintelligent whiners. They complain about their own consequences rather than make a good decision to begin with. Don't even play the "I have kids I need an SUV to bring them to soccer practice" card because my little car fits 3 in the back comfortably and has a decent sized trunk. I've seen people sell their Ford Escort wagons to buy mid-sized SUVs... they have about the same storage/seating and half the gas milage, because they had ONE kid. Maybe it's all part of the American dream.
You forgot to mention that the Federal highway program was sponsored by GM and that GM, Firestone and Standard Oil were actually convicted in court of conspiring to destroy the nation's light rail systems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy

And yes, Americans do deserve the high prices for gas because it is what is necessary to stop them from driving tanks to work.

An interesting theory that I just read that makes a lot of sense. Europe is often held up as an example of how people should live in terms of energy conservation, but look at history. After the two world wars Europe was decimated. They had very little recoverable resources because much of their infrastructure was destroyed. This favored close, comunal living and conservation because energy and other resources were expensive and scarce. America, on the other hand, provided the oil to win the war. the East Texas Oil Field, the most prolific oil field in American history, was ramped into full production in order to power the war machines of the US and it European allies. When the war was over we were suddenly awash in all this cheap oil so we used it. It was after WW2 that we chose cars over rail. It was after WW2 taht we moved out of the cities and into the suburbs. Kinda puts a new spin on why things ended up the way they did.
PsychoticDan
20-04-2006, 20:03
Well, when does the "summer" driving season end? That might help me because the last time I saw this was, as I said, right after Hurricane Wilma last year. If that was the end of the season, and stocks were getting low, that might help account for the lower price differential.
Driving season, as it is called, goes from Memorial day weekend to Laborday weekend. katrina hit right about then so price signals from last year probably aren't the best ones to look at because the market was in chaos.
Saladador
20-04-2006, 20:04
There is a lot of nonsense about the oil companies that can be disproven just by looking at the oil company's financials. Exxon Mobil's gross margin has actually declined over the last two years or so. It's operating margin has gone up, but that's mostly due to tightening their belt in other ways. British Petroleum (or BP, as it's called here in the US), has seen an increase in it's operating margin (largely because it was frighteningly low to begin with) but it's gross margin has remained flat. All they can be accused of is passing off the costs of oil production to consumers; they're running a pretty tight ship.

sources:http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=XOM&annual
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=BP&annual
The Nazz
20-04-2006, 20:05
Driving season, as it is called, goes from Memorial day weekend to Laborday weekend. katrina hit right about then so price signals from last year probably aren't the best ones to look at because the market was in chaos.
Yeah. Oh well. I'll be tanking up with premium this afternoon, I imagine. Like I said, for forty cents more, it's worth it.
Kazus
20-04-2006, 20:09
Well, huge gas prices are just oil executives making up excuses when in reality they are recording record profits. "Oh Iran...Katrina...Rita...blah blah" yeah fuck you. You dont need to increase prices and you know it. Prices usually rise because it costs more to make the product. If you are making more than you have been, the rise in cost obviously does not match the price of the final product.

Also:

“The key issue is oil, and a regime change in Iraq would facilitate an increase in world oil,” which would drive down oil prices, giving the U.S. economy an added boost.

Oh boy another lie!
PsychoticDan
20-04-2006, 20:15
Well, huge gas prices are just oil executives making up excuses when in reality they are recording record profits. "Oh Iran...Katrina...Rita...blah blah" yeah fuck you. You dont need to increase prices and you know it. Prices usually rise because it costs more to make the product. If you are making more than you have been, the rise in cost obviously does not match the price of the final product.

Also:



Oh boy another lie!
This post illustrates a fundamental flaw in the BB system. I'm guilty of this, too, so I'm not pointing fingers at the poster, but this post has been rebbuted quite effectively many times in this thread already, but the poster obviously didn't read past the first page in the thread. If they had read the two or three pages prior to this one they would understand a little more about why oil companies are not gouging us and that oil prices are as expensive as they should be.
Vetalia
20-04-2006, 20:32
You forgot to mention that the Federal highway program was sponsored by GM and that GM, Firestone and Standard Oil were actually convicted in court of conspiring to destroy the nation's light rail systems.

Don't forget that GM and Standard Oil forced the use of lead tetraethyl in gasoline during the 1920's and helped destroy America's fuel ethanol industry until the 1970's...they also tried to stop the EPA from phasing it out.

We lost over 60 years of ethanol progress and poisoned many of our roadways and refineries with lead thanks to them; we're still paying the price for their greed. "What’s good for America is good for General Motors, and vice versa".
PsychoticDan
20-04-2006, 20:39
Don't forget that GM and Standard Oil forced the use of lead tetraethyl in gasoline during the 1920's and helped destroy America's fuel ethanol industry until the 1970's...they also tried to stop the EPA from phasing it out.

We lost over 60 years of ethanol progress and poisoned many of our roadways and refineries with lead thanks to them; we're still paying the price for their greed. "What’s good for America is good for General Motors, and vice versa".
That's why, as free market oriented as I am, I think government has to take a role in planning for the long term. I think market forces can be relied upon to get people out of their SUVs, but I don't think they can build railroads. These examples show that INCs think too short term to be involved in planning for a few decades out. I'm sure the last thing on Earth GM wants to see is trains start popping up all over the US.
Vetalia
20-04-2006, 20:47
That's why, as free market oriented as I am, I think government has to take a role in planning for the long term. I think market forces can be relied upon to get people out of their SUVs, but I don't think they can build railroads. These examples show that INCs think too short term to be involved in planning for a few decades out. I'm sure the last thing on Earth GM wants to see is trains start popping up all over the US.

GE would like trains all over the US, but definitely not GM. Then again, GE would also like alternative energy...wind power in particular uses a ton of turbines that they manufacture.

I'd have to agree that government needs an expanded role; light-rail is picking up on its own, but pretty much all of the projects are intracity rather than linking between them. It's going to take a major legislative push to get rail between cities and public transportation on a large scale.

Hopefully, however, the demand for ethanol and biodiesel plants will also continue to encourage the expansion of freight rail to more places. Passenger rail lines are good, but an expansive freight rail system is vital.
PsychoticDan
20-04-2006, 21:10
GE would like trains all over the US, but definitely not GM. Then again, GE would also like alternative energy...wind power in particular uses a ton of turbines that they manufacture.

I'd have to agree that government needs an expanded role; light-rail is picking up on its own, but pretty much all of the projects are intracity rather than linking between them. It's going to take a major legislative push to get rail between cities and public transportation on a large scale.

Hopefully, however, the demand for ethanol and biodiesel plants will also continue to encourage the expansion of freight rail to more places. Passenger rail lines are good, but an expansive freight rail system is vital.
Freight's important, sure, but I think project number one has to be getting people out of their cars. I know Simmons is a big fan of getting freight on rail, and I agree, but were it up to me I'd be throwing rail lines as quick as possible out to all those suburbs and exurbs. I'd be building them along every major freeway route and I'd design the whole bussing system, not as an alternative to rail as it is now, but as a service to rail. Busses should be leaving every major train stop and should expand outward from them like spokes to bring people closer to where they want to go and to bring them back to the train when they are done. Trucks already get pretty good fuel/transport ratios because they usually pack trucks full for delivery. Cars, on the other hand, last I read hold 1.2 people per trip.
Justianen
20-04-2006, 21:13
Actually most of our imported oil in the U.S. comes from Canada not over seas. Which begs the question "Why didn't we just invade Canada?" Now of course I'm joking. But what I would suspect the oil companies of is collusion. Another interesting tid bit is that the second largest expense in price per gallon of gas is taxes. The most expensive part of course goes to the gas companies. The two are only seperated by one cent. In other words I'm about ready to go to alternate means.
PsychoticDan
20-04-2006, 21:17
Actually most of our imported oil in the U.S. comes from Canada not over seas. Which begs the question "Why didn't we just invade Canada?" Now of course I'm joking. But what I would suspect the oil companies of is collusion. Another interesting tid bit is that the second largest expense in price per gallon of gas is taxes. The most expensive part of course goes to the gas companies. The two are only seperated by one cent. In other words I'm about ready to go to alternate means.
the oil companies are not colluding. OPEC colludes and controls 40% of world oil production but even OPEC has lost downside control of oil prices. The only control they have left is to cut production to raise prices but they are not about to do that for fear of damagining the world economy and, susequently, demand for their product. They learned a hard lesson from the oil embargo and will not repeat it. Other than that, read back about four pages to learn how prices for crude and its products are set.
Fascist Emirates
20-04-2006, 21:20
Educated discussion, a rare beast on forums. Exellent.
Vetalia
20-04-2006, 21:31
Freight's important, sure, but I think project number one has to be getting people out of their cars. I know Simmons is a big fan of getting freight on rail, and I agree, but were it up to me I'd be throwing rail lines as quick as possible out to all those suburbs and exurbs. I'd be building them along every major freeway route and I'd design the whole bussing system, not as an alternative to rail as it is now, but as a service to rail. Busses should be leaving every major train stop and should expand outward from them like spokes to bring people closer to where they want to go and to bring them back to the train when they are done. Trucks already get pretty good fuel/transport ratios because they usually pack trucks full for delivery. Cars, on the other hand, last I read hold 1.2 people per trip.

Freight rail tends to be easier to build because of the lack of difficulty when it comes to planning in industrial areas. Plus, the infrastructure's already there in a lot of places; the US still has a lot of unused freight rail capacity, but that's getting eaten up fast...even though rail construction in the past few years is at its fastest pace since WWII.

Absolutely on light rail. Along most major interstates there is plenty of land for rail lines, especially passenger trains. It would be great to build high-speed train service between major cities along interstates and then have a light rail system to the suburbs supported by busses and other public transportation. In the city, subways could be expanded and light rail linked to them where possible.

Honestly, I think high speed trains would be more attractive than cars for travel between cities; the ones in Japan can go 3 or 4 times as fast as a car and are much more comfortable and less stressful. Probably will cost less too, and are still cheaper than flying.
PsychoticDan
20-04-2006, 21:44
Honestly, I think high speed trains would be more attractive than cars for travel between cities; the ones in Japan can go 3 or 4 times as fast as a car and are much more comfortable and less stressful. Probably will cost less too, and are still cheaper than flying. I'll never travel any other way if I can help it. Sit in the bar car and meet people ranging from homeless people to lawyers and get drunk with them. I go to San Diego from time to time and I take the Surfliner there and it's so fun I've toyed with the idea of just taking the train there and turning right back around and taking it back home for a night. It costs $36.00 for a round trip and you're shit faced by the time you get there. Full bar with good bloody marys if you're coming home in the morning and you need that hangover fix. If I had a decent train that ran at the right hours and could get me from my house to work when I needed to be there i'd take it in a heartbeat. I think given the option people will always choose trains for the most part. I think we need to concentrate, though, on daily travel because that's the bulk of driving. Most car trips are taking people to work, the store or to school.
Justianen
20-04-2006, 21:44
the oil companies are not colluding. OPEC colludes and controls 40% of world oil production but even OPEC has lost downside control of oil prices. The only control they have left is to cut production to raise prices but they are not about to do that for fear of damagining the world economy and, susequently, demand for their product. They learned a hard lesson from the oil embargo and will not repeat it. Other than that, read back about four pages to learn how prices for crude and its products are set.

I would not say oil prices are set. Gas is a good with an inelastic demand, so the gas companies know that people will pay what ever they charge for it. And I still like may idea of invading canada instead of iraq for oil lol.
Fascist Emirates
20-04-2006, 21:46
A rail system between cities and a internal bus system for the cities themselves. Ideal, but expensive to build.
Rashidya
20-04-2006, 21:49
i live in Dubai and I have to pay 10 dirhams per litre...thats somewhere between 2-4 dollars. and i own an suv along with mostly everyone else who lives here simply because we need them. i mean, when i know im going to be driving in the city i use my other car but when there are sandstorms or if we have to go out in the desert you kind of need an suv...i dont really see how else your going to make it. ive seen people try, but they got stuck or totalled their car or something of that nature. oh, and public transportation here....dont even think about it. the only ones who use the buses here are the workeres (construction and what not).
PsychoticDan
20-04-2006, 21:54
I would not say oil prices are set. Gas is a good with an inelastic demand, so the gas companies know that people will pay what ever they charge for it. And I still like may idea of invading canada instead of iraq for oil lol.
It is set. Right here: www.nymex.com
Fascist Emirates
20-04-2006, 21:56
Perhaps most people don't know the difference between Crude oil and Gasoline. Gasoline, amongst other hydrocarbons, is refined from Crude oil.
PsychoticDan
20-04-2006, 21:57
i live in Dubai and I have to pay 10 dirhams per litre...thats somewhere between 2-4 dollars. and i own an suv along with mostly everyone else who lives here simply because we need them. i mean, when i know im going to be driving in the city i use my other car but when there are sandstorms or if we have to go out in the desert you kind of need an suv...i dont really see how else your going to make it. ive seen people try, but they got stuck or totalled their car or something of that nature. oh, and public transportation here....dont even think about it. the only ones who use the buses here are the workeres (construction and what not).
There are people who need SUVs and large trucks, but an accountant doesn't need one to drive 70 miles on the freeway to his office.
MrMopar
21-04-2006, 05:26
No. My families combined annual income is just over $50,000, that 2 cars we own aren't exactly hybrid fuel efficient (compact SUV and a 90s sports car), and yet, gas still isn't too much for us.
Anti-Social Darwinism
21-04-2006, 05:48
It's not just the direct effect of the gas prices on driving, it's the indirect effect on the prices of everything. Transporting goods to market uses gas, growing food uses gas. When gas prices go up, the cost of everything goes up, even wages. The percent increase in wages, however, always lags behind the rate of inflation (unless you're in upper level management, then it's usually ahead of the rate of inflation), so if gas goes up to $3.00/gallon at the pump, the real cost to the average wage earner is probably more like $3.75/gallon because the wage earner's real buying power is less.
Wallonochia
21-04-2006, 05:53
i mean, when i know im going to be driving in the city i use my other car but when there are sandstorms or if we have to go out in the desert you kind of need an suv...

I fell your pain. I remember driving around in northern Kuwait in a GMC Envoy and almost getting stuck on several occaisions.

As for public transit, I'm told that Detroit used to have one of the best trolley systems in the world until GM decided they wanted Detroit to use their buses instead of trolleys. I almost wish the auto industry had sprung up in some other state.
Terrorist Cakes
21-04-2006, 05:55
Gas is cheaper than water. Suddenly, the tides are turing in Canada's favour *sniggers*.
Fascist Emirates
21-04-2006, 14:15
Gas is cheaper than water. Suddenly, the tides are turing in Canada's favour *sniggers*.

What the......
Fascist Emirates
21-04-2006, 17:49
Keeping the thread alive selfishly.
PsychoticDan
21-04-2006, 18:08
LONDON (Reuters) - Oil prices turned higher and hit a record above $74 in New York Friday on fresh worries over Iran's nuclear program and Nigeria's supply outages.

U.S. oil for June delivery rose as high as $74.15 a barrel, a record for a front-month contract, and stood at $73.95, up 26 cents at midday on the New York Mercantile Exchange. The May contract expired on Thursday at $71.95.

London Brent also turned up and rose 34 cents to $73.54, after touching a record of $74.22 on Thursday.

U.S. oil has rallied around $12 this year on supply concerns and as investment funds plough billions of dollars into commodities. Profit-taking also took hold in precious metals markets on Friday.

A war of words between Iran and the West over Tehran's resolve to continue its nuclear program have triggered concern that oil supplies could be disrupted from the world's fourth biggest exporter.

OPEC powerless
Members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries were set to meet informally in Qatar on the sidelines of discussions between energy consumers and producers.

But several OPEC ministers have said there is little more the group can do to bring down high prices as it is already pumping at near full capacity.

"OPEC can deal with issues it can control but... we can't do anything about the politics in the world," said Algerian Oil Minister Chakib Khelil.

He said oil markets were well-supplied and crude inventories high, so any action to increase output would only be a gesture.

"The market would see through that. If we do something, it has to be credible. Why should we hide the truth?" he said.

OPEC has pumped 29.9 million barrels per day (bpd) so far in April, up 100,000 bpd from March, tanker-tracking consultancy Petrologistics said on Friday.

Prices hit fresh highs this week after U.S. gasoline stocks slumped to nearly 5 percent below levels this time last year.

While stocks fell, demand increased. Gasoline consumption in the world's largest consumer was up 0.8 percent on the year.
Fascist Emirates
21-04-2006, 18:20
I wasn't cognisant of the Nigerian shortages.
PsychoticDan
21-04-2006, 18:21
I wasn't cognisant of the Nigerian shortages.
Rebels keep threatening to attack Shell oil facilities.
Fascist Emirates
21-04-2006, 18:23
Rebels keep threatening to attack Shell oil facilities.

One mans terrorist...... You know the cliche.

Are they exclusively going after Shell?

Probably all American Oil interests as well.
PsychoticDan
21-04-2006, 18:28
One mans terrorist...... You know the cliche.

Are they exclusively going after Shell?

Probably all American Oil interests as well.
Shell's the largest oil company there and they're the only one's I've heard about. They're not American, BTW. Royal Dutch Shell.
The real Angles
21-04-2006, 18:49
In correction, the price of petrol here in the UK is slowly edging its way further up, it now stands at about 95p (Americans: don't think you're hard done by) down here in the West country.

And I thought you might like to know what the least efficient car in production is, the (american) Ford GT at 2mpg.

IN MY OPINION. As far as supply and demand are concerned, people will continue to drive as long as there is petrol to be used. The problem which is now occurring is most of the oil is in the Middle East, and as we know they aren't on the best terms with 'the west', especially the US. Also western countries are now far too dependant on oil but, as i said, it will continue until there are no oil reserves left.

One thing that I find very annoying and quite stupid is when the president of the US says that developing countries need to become more economic 1) they can't afford to, economically and finantially and 2) some talk from the head of a country which produces 33% of carbon emissions.
Tactical Grace
21-04-2006, 18:57
The trouble in Nigeria is nothing to do with the US. It's about Royal Dutch Shell's oil and gas operations in the deltas. It's a maze of rivers and jungles, and the locals have been protesting about environmental and security policies since at least the early 1990s. They have finally had enough and after a number of boat attacks have shut down half a million barrels a day of production since the start of the year. This looks set to be long-term if not permanent as local government forces are increasingly outclassed. It has taken them a while, but the rebels now pwn fast boat hit and run tactics, and along with that, the swamps and rivers. The Nigerian government in comparison reportedly has a few boats of their own and one Mi-35P to deal with the threat, and zero cooperation from the locals.
Fascist Emirates
21-04-2006, 19:24
They're not American, BTW. Royal Dutch Shell.

Hence the 'as well' I posted.
PsychoticDan
21-04-2006, 19:33
And I thought you might like to know what the least efficient car in production is, the (american) Ford GT at 2mpg.
Just a note...

The GT is a $300,000.00 car. It is not contributing to the problem because almost no one owns one and when they do they use it for Sunday drives, not commuting to work.
PsychoticDan
21-04-2006, 19:35
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) - Gasoline prices popped above $3 a gallon in more parts of the U.S. this week, amid reports of spot shortages in some markets.

Gas prices shot up three cents on average Friday, to $2.855 for a gallon of regular, according to the motorist organization AAA, which says the average is above $3 a gallon in California, Washington D.C., Hawaii and New York, .

But although there were widespread media reports of shortages, experts say any disruptions are normal, as gas stations make the switch to cleaner-burning summer fuel.
Bushanomics
21-04-2006, 21:06
This is bushanomics here. I'm bush like. The president is already going to war to get more earl, shit, I mean liberate people. The earl, damn, I mean liberation, hell, um uh. Gas prices are not too high. It is all just a bunch of laberals being all laberal. If they werent so poor then they could afford it. The president has already given them a bunch of tax cuts.