alnielsen

iTrader: (4)

It is distribution costs. The closer you live to a major refinery, how close do you live to a pipeline, how much has to be trucked, barged, shipped or brought in by rail to an area. And of course there is all ways how much state and local taxes are collected. This is what causes the variation in price. When the BP refinery in Whiting, Indiana caught fire a couple of years ago, the price of gas went up drastically for Illinois & Indiana and to a lesser extent neighboring states.
There is a pipeline, being built, to bring oil down from Canada. That should help reduce the price of oil slightly. But, without more refining capacity it won't drop the price of gas much. Jet fuel and diesel require less time to refine, so it will affect their price more.

kartweb

According to the API in 2006 our refineries were running about 75% capacity out of a possible 90% maximum - 10% downtime. I keep hearing the rumor that we need more refibery capacity and no doubt it probably wouldn't hurt.

What I don't understand is why did we allow the bigger oil companies gobble up smaller ones? Thats what shut down over half of our refineries.

Razz1

That's not true. We produce Oil and refine Oil here in Calf. yet we have the highest prices.

I know why do you?

whitebeau

well... on the bright side, the increase in gas prices is also increasing the drive for alternate fuel source..... battery is the easiest to bring to the table, but eco friendly wise, it is probably one of the worst unless a recycle process is promptly put into place with all the hybrids expected to come out.

Funny thing is, the rotary is in good position to make a great comeback if hydrogen can be standardized. But do we really want to start paying for water?

yeah 80miles to a tank is pretty bad, but look at the combustion engine in the last 100 years. It will get better, i think safety of the tanks compression is the biggest hurdle.

Even mercedes is looking at bringing out a bling v8 that will switch to hydrogen, if not just a a proof of concept, to the filthy rich that want to be filthy clean pimp at the same time.


at rants end, it's crazy silly that oil company's are posting record profits IMO. but the double edge sword is something i think they are trying to curb by making sure the cost atleast for USA that i am aware by perspective, will not jump to the way it is in Europe, which is what... 6-8 dollars a gallon? besides the fact the dollar is weak right now, (another tangent).


Time to see if the 'leading industry' players will let the dice role, or if they will try to curb it the way they did in the 80's.

notice that cars over the last 20 years haven't really increased in MPG performance, but better performance with increased weight, while maintaining the same MPG? yeah the CAFE regulation is doing great, there will always be a loophole in the system, like any system admin those that build it will secure the foundation they set it on by giving themselves privileged access, also referred to as a back door.

hope that makes sense to some degree....

alnielsen

iTrader: (4)

I remember something about older small inefficient refineries being shutdown a few years ago. I don't think it was half. I heard there are 2 reasons why more aren't being built. EPA regulations and it takes a butt load of money to build new ones. Anyone that built a new refinery would want to make sure that they got a return on investment.

Razz1

Do you really think there wouldn't be a good return on your investment if you built a refinery?

Flashwing

Cause building one is next to impossible...

"A new oil refinery has not been built in the United States since 1976. During that time, our gasoline use has increased over 25 percent. The nation's 149 existing refineries have been running at maximum capacity trying to meet record demand and, as a result, not only do we import oil, we actually have to import 10 percent of our daily gasoline from refineries overseas. "

"Consider the example of Arizona Clean Fuels, which has been trying to build a small refinery outside Yuma for almost 10 years. It took five years just to get air-quality permits. Now they hope to be operational in 2010, 15 years after they started the project. "

http://www.reason.org/commentaries/moore_20050901.shtml

Currently it's not profitable for the oil companies to build. It could take up to 10 years to get one built and there's no guarentee what shape the market will be in. This is due to the "Not in my backyard" environmentalist movement. People complain about energy costs but do nothing to assist in building facilities to produce energy.

Nobody ever said we would stop importing our supplies of oil. Our largest importers are Canada and South America. The problem is a good portion (at least 1/3) of our imported oil comes from Africa and the middle east. Price and supply controls drive up our cost. What we could do is suppliment middle eastern oil with oil from ANWR. It would put more oil on the market forcing OPEC to drop prices to sway our business. When prices get to high we start bringing in more oil from ANWR instead.

The primary issue we face is demand is so high that there's nowhere else to go for oil. If we provide our own sources then we can manage our own energy and in some cases we might be able to export oil to other countries for a profit.

WoodsOfGreenRx8

Ack, last time I was in downtown San Fransico, minus hitting SFO for 20 mins to get some where else yesterday gas was about $4.25 for premium! I could believe it, yet I could..

Startl_Respons

You guys are all talking about the surface-level factors that many people, as you say, fail to take into consideration or don't know about. I'm talking about what's going on underneath and the larger picture of a global master plan that has been and is being shaped.

There is collusion, and this collusion explains what we are seeing. Market forces are always part of the picture but do not explain what has been going on the last 4 years. These other factors go beyond what you learned in your economics degrees.

I think it was CNN or whatever that recently reported surveys showing most Americans think the president can have influence over the price of gas. Why then have I heard absolutely nothing during the election battles about gas? Why is it never brought up during the debates, while economy and Iraq War are constantly brought up? The tv/cable stations who run the news and debates are owned and controlled by world players. It is very obvious they are obfuscating the gas price issue with other issues like economy and Iraq War. Would everyone here agree that the gas price issue is 1 of the top 3 issues on Americans' minds? The fact that it is virtually never mentioned during the election process is mindblowing. Haven't any of you noticed this? The LA Times this Sunday has a table of all of the remaining candidates and their positions on around 10 major issues. Gas prices is not one of them. This is being done purposefully. Duh.

Flashwing

You answered your own question...the President doesn't have control over gas prices EXCEPT in the case of federal gas taxes. This is just the same as the President not having direct control over the economy nor being directly responsible for economic ups or downs.

Gas prices are tied to the economy, as they are tied to energy. One half of the candidates have made their case about gas prices in that they are more concerned about global warming than they are your pocket book.

So far, the top 3 issues are taxes, the economy and national security pretty much in that order.

alnielsen

iTrader: (4)

Accually, taxes are levied by Congress. The Executive branch, in which the President is in charge of, is responsible for collecting these taxes.

Startl_Respons

There is much the president can do about oil. No one wants to touch the issue because there are forces behind the scene who control each and every one of the presidential candidates and have made it clear it is an untouchable issue.

But it's not untouchable if the voters demand to hear a detailed plan from each candidate on how they plan to deal with oil prices. Voters should make it the number 1 or 2 issue and require each candidate to answer to the issue or they will be unlikely to be voted the next president. Right now, there is NO pressure for any of the candidates to deal with this issue because it's not even on the board, which is absurd.

Just curious. Before the Iraq War, where was the Iraq oil going to? And now, where is the Iraq oil going to?

alnielsen

iTrader: (4)

We have to be careful of where we go with this discussion due to the site rules which forbid political discussion.
I believe that before the war, the Iraqi oil system was pretty much broke down and was only working at a fraction of what was possible. Since the war, we have helped Iraq rebuild it's infrastructure to a point that it is producing again. Where is it going, to the open market. The revenue from a pecentage of their oil is suppose to repay the US for war related expences.

tdiddy

The problem there is that the US never really sees the money that other countries owe us for wars. How much money does Europe owe us from WWI & WWII? How much money does South Korea owe us from the Korean War? How much money does Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Philippines, and Thailand owe us from Vietnam? How much does Iraq or Israel owe us?

Socket7

I think it's interesting that nobody has mentioned the fact that Iran is our second largest supplier for light crude, and that they stopped accepting payment in US dollars for their oil.

Red Devil

This thread, it's kind of funny and appalling at the same time. But instead of correcting all the numerous flaws, and I really don't feel like it, I'll just write a few things:
-There are roughly 50% less refineries in North America than there were 35 years ago - look to the EPA.
-Making cars inaccessible may work in Maylasia, but that discounts the different geographic and developed population of the U.S. Sorry, that was just about the dumbest argument.
-I like political conspiracy theory as much as the next guy, but this has been picked to death, and mainly by those that don't do their homework because it's really just easier to blame someone than take responsibility - hence the conspiracy.
-True, companies like ExxonMobil have record profits. Many should look into that corporation's history. It then becomes obvious how they're making their money - and much of their income really isn't from fossil fuels. If that confuses you, looking at their balance sheets explains everything.
-There's a lot of oil in North America, from California to Colorado to Alberta to Alaska, and the list goes on...the problem is most of it is at current not economically viable - but at the moment, foreign oil from Venezuela and the Mid East is...of anything in North America, there is an abundance specifically of coal.

Socket7

And I bet those 50% produce more then double what refineries put out 35 years ago, what with improved hydrocarbon cracking technology and computerization. Saying there are fewer refineries is a straw man. You should be looking at the capacity of the system not the number of plants.

Red Devil

No, capacity has not been improved by as much as you imply. Most improvements have been in making them more eco-friendly. Granted, there are increases in production from time to time through newer methods. But to call that a "straw man" is inaccurate. It doesn't come close to making up for what has been lost through the downsizing of that sector.

Bottom line, the demand/population locally in North America is increasing. The number of refineries has at the same time decreased - and as of late has hit a plateau. Numerous times have companies attempted to build refineries only to stop due to EPA and state red tape. It's two issues, one getting the crude to the refinery, and then what is our capacity to refine it at a rate that matches the demand. Both issues are seriously lacking due to various independent and interrelated issues.

Also, what hasn't been brought up in increased demand is that oil is used in everything - roads/asphalt, plastics, tires, etc...the list goes on and on.

On another note, someone commented that the transportation/logistics industry isn't making an effort to use less fuel. That's complete BS. All logistics/transportation companies are constantly making strides to be more efficient and eco-friendly.

Startl_Respons

Turducken. Can you tell us where petroleum comes from? What is the process that creates petroleum under the earth?

Red Devil

How does the context of your question relate to the subject? Now we're going to revert to Fossil Fuels 101, and discuss things like oil shale, or light and sweet crude and their pros and cons, etc...? Maybe because you can't argue politics you're changing course? I really have zero idea where you're going.

If the implication is that we're running out of oil...that's both correct and incorrect. We're running out of economically viable oil. But the difference between what is economically viable, and what is known is enormous.

Startl_Respons

My question is relevant. Does petroleum come from fossils or not? Answer the question.

dmc27

Wait, what? So the poor not only shouldn't be allowed vehicles, but they shouldn't be allowed nature preserves either? The whole point of such preserves is the simple fact that NO amount of oil will be enough - we will run out. So why the hell should we have no oil AND no wilderness? Oh, and we are drilling in Alaska.

Amen. Ah-Say Amen-ahh!!

Massive tax breaks for energy companies who then post record profits - there's a nice coincidence. Don't even get me started on the increase in my electric bill several months after their energy bill saved them billions. Huh? You got a huge tax break, but I have to pay MORE?? w/e - It's nice that the government has spent so much time making sure big business is doing well. Guess they were in less trouble than we thought - but I'm sure it's not like the people writing the bill are/were insiders who used to be employed as lobbiests.

k - thanks. I feel better now.

Red Devil

Ah...so we're going from the other side of the argument that petroleum is not in fact from fossils, but rather it is renewable. I've read about it, not sure whether I buy it or not.

Vasichko

iTrader: (1)

I actually just watched this on the History Channel.

They were saying that in the oceans is where crude orginally starts to be created. This happens when krill falls into the ocean, bacteria gathers, and creates an environment where no oxygen is in the water. This creates a state where decomposition of krill is no longer able to happen since there is no bacteria to do it. Eventually it just stacks up and goes under ground.

That is about as much as I remember from 3 weeks ago.

They said the perfect example of this is Green Lake or something of that name in New York.

Vasichko

iTrader: (1)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Lake_(New_York)

Link above for Green Lake.