Gas on the rise again...

[crank]

We need to buy from our enemies! Then... We will all be safe!

 

[Kurt]

That pipeline deal is gonna bite us in the ass.......big time.

It would have STILL been foreign oil.....but at least it was from a country who does not want to kill us.

I got relatives all over Alberta working at various oil companies... and the main reason Canada wants the XL pipeline is it's cheaper to get to the Gulf of Mexico than it is to run through the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific Ocean. The concession to the US is that Texas refineries can process the oil before being sold on the open market.

One reason fuel is cheaper in the midwest is they have a better pipeline network, including connections to Canadian Oil, problem is there's a few choke points in the system and you have to start transporting everything via oil and truck. Which is why that some of the environmental criticism falls flat, and turns into a case of NIMBY. In my opinion its better to ship oil via a pipeline where damage can be contained vs sea, rail and roads..

Canada has similar problems, not enough pipelines... they are energy independent by a large margin but still has to import oil on the east coast because there isn't a pipeline going that direction to supply the Atlantic side with oil.

That being said I saw a station in Burbank that used to have the cheapest diesel fuel on the fuel prices application/website, and they were sold out of diesel by 5pm and jacked their prices up 25 cents a gallon throughout the day...

Diesel is all over the place in LA, 3.97 a gallon to almost 5 bucks at a few spots.

 

[Dennis]

EIA Petroleum Status Report

Released On 2/23/2012 11:00:00 AM For wk2/17, 2012 Prior Actual Crude oil inventories (weekly change) -0.2 M barrels 1.6 M barrels Gasoline (weekly change) 0.4 M barrels -0.6 M barrels Distillates (weekly change) -2.9 M barrels -0.2 M barrels

With supplies of crude up and gasoline down, it shouldn't effect price much. The dollar is controlling the Market today.
Economic Calendar - Bloomberg

 

[f5moab]

Don't forget that this is the time of the year that the refineries are starting to boot up for the summer formulas and there are almost 100 different formulas to make for different states and regions of the country, for all grades of fuel. This adds greatly to the costs of the fuel.

 

[Hans3T]

It's getting pretty fancy in this here thread...so allow me to dumb it down some...Dang'd 'ol gas is $3.99 here now!

 

[MaxPF]

You guys do realize that oil production peaked in 2005 and is now on the decline, right? So, not only will the gas for your vehicles keep going up (which seems to be what everyone focuses on, probably because it is so noticeable at the pump), but so will EVERYTHING ELSE. Food prices will skyrocket with crude prices, since the ag industry is so heavily dependent on fossil fuel energy and petrochemicals for high yield farming. About all we can do is drive less and eat less. At least eating less will make chunky bastiges like me into skinny bastiges, so there is some kind of upside

 

[hummer3]

$3.50 for regular in Cookeville

 

[HUMMERADDICT]

$3.47 in North Conway, NH. I'm happy as long as it stays under $4. But i'll still love my truck @ $5/Gal

 

[Fish]

$4.29-$4.39-$4.49 for each grade. Went up about 10-15 cents since yesterday

 

[06 H3]

I saw 4.49 today too...

 

[HUMMER INVESTMENTS]

Diesel at 3.79 here

 

[DJinCO]

The US could be free from South West Asian oil if someone would allow the drilling of oil in Alaska.

LOTS of politics.

Drill baby drill.

I wish I had oil in my backyard. I would let an oil company drill. (Hint $$$)
(Yes I have the mineral rights to my land!)

 

[cgalpha08]

Amen to what djinco said. Someone once put it into perspective for me, drilling in anwar would be the equivalent of putting a marble in a pro football stadium, you wouldn't even notice it.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk

 

[Dennis]

Florida congressman upset at Obama for $70 fill-up of his Hummer​

People have asked me before is there any area where I could praise President Obama? Certainly, he has an impeccable penchant for understanding the power of the bully pulpit. President Obama is also very adept at promulgating deceptive language masquerading as policy, actually just insidious political gimmickry. This "tax policy" is an example as well as today's speech on his "energy policy" shall be. Here is the bottom line, last night it took 70 dollars to fill the tank of my 2008 H3 Hummer, what is it costing you? What does it cost the President to fill his gas tank?​

More
​

 

[MaxPF]

The US could be free from South West Asian oil if someone would allow the drilling of oil in Alaska.

LOTS of politics.

Drill baby drill.

I wish I had oil in my backyard. I would let an oil company drill. (Hint $$$)
(Yes I have the mineral rights to my land!)

Sadly, like most people you simply do not grasp the scope of the problem. I'm not saying this to be an *******, I'm just stating simple facts.

Here's the facts: The US is the single largest consumer of oil in the world. We consume approx. 7.15 billion barrels of oil per year. That's 19.6 MILLION barrels per DAY! We import approx. 4.3 billion barrels of oil per year - the remaining 2.85 billion consumed is produced domestically. Of that 4.3 billion barrels imported, 1.79 billion barrels are imported from OPEC countries. Of THAT amount, 624.6 million barrels come from countries in the Persian gulf region. Nearly all of the non-Persian gulf OPEC oil comes from Venezuela (360.5 Mbbl from our buddy Hugo Chavez) and Nigeria (373.3 Mbbl), with the remaining coming from Angola, Ecuador, and Libya. Non-OPEC oil comes from many, many countries, but the largest single source by far is Canada, which supplies us with 925.4 Mbbl annualy - nearly a trillion barrels from our friends up North. Mexico comes in second, at 468.8 Mbbl (probably explains why the .gov is reluctant to enforce border policy - if Mexico cut us off we'd be screwed.) Third is Russia, at 223.7 Mbbl, and Colombia comes in fourth at 133 Mbbl. Brazil rounds out the top 5 non-OPEC exporters to the US with 99.2 Mbbl/year.

So, what does this have to do with ANWR? Well, the mean estimated technically recoverable crude in the ANWR is estimated to be 10.4 billion barrels, which is about a year and a half worth of oil at current consumption rates. Unfortunately, consumption increases (or, at least it will try to increase) by about 2% per year while worldwide production is DECLINING at about 1.7% per year and accelerating. Even if drilling were approved tomorrow, it would take 3-5 years to start pumping ANWR crude into the Alaska pipeline, 10 years to reach peak production, and the fields would be exhausted in 30-40 years. Typical peak production would be somewhere in the vicinity of 1 Mbbl/day, or about 5% of current daily consumption, while average production would be much, MUCH less. Also keep in pind that peak production will be 10 years in the future IF DRILLING STARTED TODAY, so world production would be 17% (or much more, according to the IEA) less. The sad truth is, we ain't gonna drill our way out of this.

 

[Paladine71]

Florida congressman upset at Obama for $70 fill-up of his Hummer​

People have asked me before is there any area where I could praise President Obama? Certainly, he has an impeccable penchant for understanding the power of the bully pulpit. President Obama is also very adept at promulgating deceptive language masquerading as policy, actually just insidious political gimmickry. This "tax policy" is an example as well as today's speech on his "energy policy" shall be. Here is the bottom line, last night it took 70 dollars to fill the tank of my 2008 H3 Hummer, what is it costing you? What does it cost the President to fill his gas tank?​

More
​

Allen West!!! I posted up quite a few days ago that I would prefer him as a Presidential / Vice Presidential contender, AND THAT WAS BEFORE I KNEW THAT HE DRIVES AN H3!!!! Love that guy!

 

[Dennis]

Allen West!!! I posted up quite a few days ago that I would prefer him as a Presidential / Vice Presidential contender, AND THAT WAS BEFORE I KNEW THAT HE DRIVES AN H3!!!! Love that guy!

He's got my vote if he ever ran for POTUS

 

[Ron B]

...The sad truth is, we ain't gonna drill our way out of this.

true -- nice explanation.

 

[DJinCO]

Max, I sure don't want to get into a war, and your numbers seem to be accurate enough for the discussion.

My point is that if the US had allowed to production to operate at 95% 15-20 years ago, we could be utilizing the benefits of that drilling. The US needs to allow more refineries to be built, more pipelines to push the oil to the refineries. Additionally, we really need to exploit natural gas to supplement crude oil.

Sure ANWR wouldn't be producing any miracles by November, but think about if those oil and gas fields were started in 2008?
Including ANWR, the estimate is that 120 BILLION Barrels is technically recoverable across the US and off-shore as of 2007.

So should we just wash our hands of this recoverable resource because it won't be useable this year?

That is why I say, Drill, Drill, DRILL.

OK, for the folks who say we can't drill our way out of this problem, I ask, what is your solution?

I am all ears. :corn:

After all, in 30 years or so, I'll probably be moving around in a battery operated wheelchair. In 20-30 years many of those screaming the most about NIMBY will be 50-60 years old themselves, and they can argue about ANWR and the rest of the Federally protected Wilderness areas. How long will it be before Moab is a protected wilderness area and off-limits to all mechanized means?

 

[Paladine71]

[video=youtube;sQb_4hXLx2Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQb_4hXLx2Q&feature=player_embedded[/video]

Prices were only $1.85 average the day before his coronation. http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2009/01/gas-prices-2.html

 

[MaxPF]

Max, I sure don't want to get into a war, and your numbers seem to be accurate enough for the discussion.

My point is that if the US had allowed to production to operate at 95% 15-20 years ago, we could be utilizing the benefits of that drilling. The US needs to allow more refineries to be built, more pipelines to push the oil to the refineries. Additionally, we really need to exploit natural gas to supplement crude oil.

Why do you think no new refineries have been built? If the oil companies really wanted to build new refineries, the gummint would let them. The fact is, they see no reason to build more refineries to refing a continuously dwindling resource. As for natural gas, hydrofracturing has taken off big time. Natural gas is very abundant and cheap... right now. But for how long?

Sure ANWR wouldn't be producing any miracles by November, but think about if those oil and gas fields were started in 2008?
Including ANWR, the estimate is that 120 BILLION Barrels is technically recoverable across the US and off-shore as of 2007.

Be careful about interpreting the information you look up. 120 billion barrels of technically recoverable is a BIG difference from 120 Gbbl of economically recoverable. It is technically possible to recover over 90% of the oil in the ground, but it is only energetically favorable to recover about 70% or so and economically favorable to recover maybe 60%. It does no good to recover oil from a field if it takes over a barrel worth of energy to recover a barrel of oil. Nor is it economically worthwhile to burn 9 barrels to recover 10. Also, is that conventional oil or unconventional oil? Conventional oil is regular crude pumped out of the ground. Unconventional is stuff like tar sands and oil shale. The unconventional sources are much less favorable on a EROEI (Energy Return On Energy Invested) basis, and typical recovery yields are even less than conventional sources. Finally, you have to ask whether it is ethical to squander the remaining oil resources for energy, since they are also needed for chemical feedstocks. Energy can be obtained from many sources, but petroleum as a chemical feedstock can only be replaced by other sources at great expense in energy, and probably great ecological impact as well.

So should we just wash our hands of this recoverable resource because it won't be useable this year?

That is why I say, Drill, Drill, DRILL.

OK, for the folks who say we can't drill our way out of this problem, I ask, what is your solution?

I am all ears. :corn:

Well, first off, the world population needs to be massively reduced in order to reduce consumption of energy and all other resources. Unlike all other solutions, reducing human population incurs no penalty in energy or the environment. On the contrary, it improves the energy situation, reduces environmental damage, and increases the standard of living. The best estimates are that a max sustainable population that would not negatively impact the environment is about 1.5 billion people. RIght now, we are close to 7 billion, so we need a nearly 80% reduction. There are three ways to do it: voluntarily, involuntarily, or a population crash. Voluntary means everyone abides by the one child per couple rule without having it imposed on them by draconian measures. Involuntary means like China in the best case, or genocide in the worst. Population crash means we keep spitting out babies and get overpopulated to the point that we exhaust our resources, and then famine, plague, and war reduces the population to a sustainable number. I prefer the First method, but I think we are inevitably headed for the Third

Second, we need to utilize ONLY energy sources that are either renewable (solar, wind, hydro, and my fave, algae-based biofuels), or non-renewables that are sufficiently plentiful and yield so much energy that they will last millenia (nuclear fission fuels: uranium, thorium) or longer than the earth will be habitable (nuclear fusion fuels: deuterium, helium-3). Biofuels will be a necessity, since you cannot power aircraft or large land vehicles with windmills and photovoltaics. Besides, biofuels are nothing but indirect solar power, and for those worried about "carbon footprints", they would be carbon-neutral. 100% of our electricity could be generated NOW with fission, with photovoltaics and wind picking up more of the load in the near future and fusion later on as the technology becomes available. Even without fusion, a world with only 1.5 billion would take many millenia to exhaust the available uranium and thorium, assuming 100% of electricity generation for that size population didn't eventually come from renewables.

Fact is, if we keep doing what were doing now with no changes, we will be in the same boat as the ancient Easter islanders. What do you suppose they were thinking as they cut down the last palm tree?

After all, in 30 years or so, I'll probably be moving around in a battery operated wheelchair. In 20-30 years many of those screaming the most about NIMBY will be 50-60 years old themselves, and they can argue about ANWR and the rest of the Federally protected Wilderness areas. How long will it be before Moab is a protected wilderness area and off-limits to all mechanized means?

I'm not sure what to make of that. Are you saying that as long as you have cheap, abundant fuel and places offroad to drive before you end up in a wheelchair, that you don't care otherwise? Heck, in 20-30 years most of us will probably be wondering where our next meal will come from - we won't much give a rat's ass about having fuel to burn or places to drive. I'm not being pessimistic, just realistic. Of course, many would argue that both are the same :wink:

 

[Paladine71]

the world population needs to be massively reduced in order to reduce consumption of energy and all other resources....so we need a nearly 80% reduction. Involuntary means like China in the best case, or genocide in the worst.

Communists and Socialists have been trying this approach for about 95 years. Estimates run up to over 140 million people killed between Russia, China, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Germany, Poland, Ukraine, etc. With an estimated 70 million killed by Mao in China, I'd argue that their method isn't really the best case, but I'm sure that you were referring to the one-child policy that they have. The bad result is what it does to the girls. No family wants their line to end, so they all want boys and kill off the girls. Still not "best case." A quick look at the political situation around the world shows that this same type is in charge in most western countries, so we may see further attempts at population reduction.

 

[DJinCO]

Max,

Hmmm, reduce population. That's sure a popular concept. For the record, my wife and I have no children. Do you use bio-synthetic oil in your engines, transmissions and gear lube? That's a start.

 

[Dennis]

Except for the Brake Fluid..My H3 has totally sythetic lubes and oils...because I want all the crude for my fuel..:neo:

 

[MaxPF]

Communists and Socialists have been trying this approach for about 95 years. Estimates run up to over 140 million people killed between Russia, China, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Germany, Poland, Ukraine, etc. With an estimated 70 million killed by Mao in China, I'd argue that their method isn't really the best case, but I'm sure that you were referring to the one-child policy that they have. The bad result is what it does to the girls. No family wants their line to end, so they all want boys and kill off the girls. Still not "best case." A quick look at the political situation around the world shows that this same type is in charge in most western countries, so we may see further attempts at population reduction.

Yes, I was referring to the one child policy. However, don't misunderstand what I am saying: I don't approve of China's policy of enforcing it as law. Sadly, human nature being what it is, you can rarely count on people to do the right thing unless it is imposed upon them I certainly don't approve of genocide, but I can see it being resorted to in the future by those in power in order to maintain their position, and their lifestyle. History has certainly shown that to be the case

Max,

Hmmm, reduce population. That's sure a popular concept.

I never said it was popular, only that it will happen - most likely in the form of a population crash.

Do you use bio-synthetic oil in your engines, transmissions and gear lube? That's a start.

Nope. Lubricants are a valid use of petroleum. It makes no sense to save a few gallons of crude by using less effective lubricants just to turn around and burn hundreds of barrels as fuel in the vehicle. Wouldn't it be more logical to use petroleum-based lubricants (which are recycleable, by the way), and burn bio-based fuels instead?