...How Much is Gas in your Area...? ? ?



The other day when I posted it was $1.86, today it's $2.07. I say, "WTF?!?!"

--
~*~ Keeper of Monica Bellucci ~*~
 
"AKA" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Rick" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Bob (this one)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > duke wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 10:17:40 -0500, Alan Figgatt
>> >> <[email protected]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> This is getting way OT for these groups, but the core truth is that
>> >>> allowing off-shore drilling is not going to make any difference to
>> >>> the
>> >>> price at your pump. The amount of oil we could get from ANWAR or more
>> >>> off-shore rigs is a relative drop in the bucket compared to daily US
> and
>> >>> world consumption of oil. Oil is an international commodity, the
>> >>> price
>> >>> the US pays for oil is set by and large by the world wide demand. And
>> >>> world wide demand is up because of booming economies, namely China.
> More
>> >>> oil produced in the US will help the trade balance, but not the price
> we
>> >>> pay at the pump.
>> >>
>> >> Gasoline is gasoline. We have three choices:
>> >>
>> >> 1. More drilling in the continental US and Alaska.
>> >> 2. Invade the Middle East.
>> >> 3. Pay the price.
>> >
>> > Actually, it's not just the supply that's the problem. It's also
> refining
>> > capacity. We haven't built a new refinery in the US in nearly three
>> > decades. The ones we have are essentially working at full capacity. The
>> > technology is older than what's being done in developing countries
>> > where
>> > the newest, more efficient ways are being built. But oil is being used
>> > unwisely around the world for things that other fuels could be used
>> > for.
>> > Generating electricity being the biggest.
>> >
>> >> It's going to be interesting to see if the US populace willingly pays
> $5
>> >> at the
>> >> pump as good little "pc" people or screams for "more" ME oil.
>> >>
>> >>> I doubt that we will see $5 a gallon in 3 years, because if oil gets
>> >>> that expensive that fast, it triggers a recession which in turn
>> >>> lowers
>> >>> the demand for oil. But the long term trend (5 to 10 years) for
> gasoline
>> >>> price is up. Supply and demand still rules.
>> >>
>> >> $5 a gallon is all the rage of the talk circuits right now.
>> >
>> > In the 1970's, I helped write about "The Impending Energy Crisis" (a
>> > series of energy forecasts) while working for a company that was
>> > working
>> > on nuclear and alternative energy sources. Many ideas were proposed
> that,
>> > at the time, were economically infeasible. As the cost of energy rises
> and
>> > petroleum stock is being used for plastic-making, and other industrial
>> > procedures, these alternatives become more attractive. Things like coal
>> > gasification, tidal power, geothermal, hydro, wind and others. There
> were
>> > many other interesting ones proposed that wouldn't fly today, but could
> be
>> > significant. Floating nukes on huge barges anchored offshore. All the
>> > cooling water you could want right there. Deep-mine or deep-water
>> > temperature differential generation where the temperature differences
>> > between two (or more) areas can be used to generate electricity. Solar
>> > panels in geosynchronous orbit microwaving power down to the earth's
>> > surface to giant antennae.
>> >
>> > Using alternate power sources largely reverses trends of the past
> century
>> > of concentrating energy production into small, centralized areas and
>> > spreads it out so it becomes much more localized. Another major issue
>> > is
>> > our national power grid. It's mostly old and tired, cobbled together
> from
>> > smaller grids designed for local conditions. The engineers who have
> pulled
>> > it together have done a good job with what they had to work with, but
> it's
>> > a new era that demands a different, more distributed system with newer
>> > controls.
>> >
>> > I paid $1.939 yesterday. Same station today was $1.999 today.
>> >
>> > Pastorio
>> >
>> We don't really know how much oil is under the ground until you drill.
>> They're isn't really any good reason that I have heard to not drill up in
>> anwar.
>>
>>
> Because it won't do squat to lower oil prices.
>
How much do you think the oil up in Alaska has lowered prices at the pump?
It will have some effect just as drilling offshore of California and Florida
will have an effect at the pump.
 
Rick wrote:

> How much do you think the oil up in Alaska has lowered prices at the pump?
> It will have some effect just as drilling offshore of California and Florida
> will have an effect at the pump.

Actually, it won't have much effect. Barrel prices are dictated by
international demand. If Exxon can get a better price in China than
here, that's where it'll go. The other problem is that we just can't
refine any more than we are, so more crude does nothing for what comes
out the other end of the pipe.

Pastorio
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Bob (this one)" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Rick wrote:
>
> > How much do you think the oil up in Alaska has lowered prices at the pump?
> > It will have some effect just as drilling offshore of California and
> > Florida
> > will have an effect at the pump.
>
> Actually, it won't have much effect. Barrel prices are dictated by
> international demand. If Exxon can get a better price in China than
> here, that's where it'll go. The other problem is that we just can't
> refine any more than we are, so more crude does nothing for what comes
> out the other end of the pipe.
>
> Pastorio
>

Then why does the stockmarket price of oil affect the daily price at the
pumps? ;-)

If we could produce our own oil for less than OPEC is selling it for,
(currently around $55.00 per barrel), wouldn't that make a difference?

--
K.

Sprout the Mung Bean to reply...

There is no need to change the world. All we have to do is toilet train the world and we'll never have to change it again. -- Swami Beyondanada

>,,<Cat's Haven Hobby Farm>,,<Katraatcenturyteldotnet>,,<

http://cgi6.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewSellersOtherItems&include=0&userid=katra
 
Katra wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Bob (this one)" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Rick wrote:
>>
>>>How much do you think the oil up in Alaska has lowered prices at the pump?
>>>It will have some effect just as drilling offshore of California and
>>>Florida
>>>will have an effect at the pump.
>>
>>Actually, it won't have much effect. Barrel prices are dictated by
>>international demand. If Exxon can get a better price in China than
>>here, that's where it'll go. The other problem is that we just can't
>>refine any more than we are, so more crude does nothing for what comes
>>out the other end of the pipe.
>>
>>Pastorio
>
> Then why does the stockmarket price of oil affect the daily price at the
> pumps? ;-)

It doesn't. It's not the stock market but the oil market. And it's a
bidder's game. The barrel price is determined by how much people who
want it are willing to pay the guys who own it.

The prices of the refined products are determined by what they've made
it into. And how much they've made. This time of year American
refiners make a lot of heavy heating oil. In the summer it's more gas
and the lighter products. Gas and kerosene are just two of literally
thousands of products that are refined. Petrochemicals account for a
big percent of where the oil goes. You'll find plastics being more
expensive now, too, because that's where most of them come from.

> If we could produce our own oil for less than OPEC is selling it for,
> (currently around $55.00 per barrel), wouldn't that make a difference?

The people that drill for it and the people who process it are driven
by international prices. If the Chinese and Indian markets will pay
more for it, then that's where it'll go. The only way we could produce
it more cheaply is to have more refining capacity. But even then, the
big oil guys will sell to the highest bidder. Just like all businesses do.

So, no.

Pastorio
 
"Bob (this one)" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Katra wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "Bob (this one)" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Rick wrote:
>>>
>>>>How much do you think the oil up in Alaska has lowered prices at the
>>>>pump? It will have some effect just as drilling offshore of
>>>>California and Florida
>>>>will have an effect at the pump.
>>>
>>>Actually, it won't have much effect. Barrel prices are dictated by
>>>international demand. If Exxon can get a better price in China than
>>>here, that's where it'll go. The other problem is that we just can't
>>>refine any more than we are, so more crude does nothing for what
>>>comes out the other end of the pipe.
>>>
>>>Pastorio
>>
>> Then why does the stockmarket price of oil affect the daily price at
>> the pumps? ;-)
>
> It doesn't. It's not the stock market but the oil market. And it's a
> bidder's game. The barrel price is determined by how much people who
> want it are willing to pay the guys who own it.
>

Which is in turn affected by how much the "guys who own it" are
producing. But in fact the ANWR fields are not the US's greatest
potential source of petroleum. Our "oil shale" deposits are enormous, in
the trillions of barrels, but they require some serious technological
development in the extraction process and that process is not exactly
"environmentally friendly" either. Current estimates run around $30 per
barrel to make oil shale development economically feasible.

> The prices of the refined products are determined by what they've made
> it into. And how much they've made. This time of year American
> refiners make a lot of heavy heating oil. In the summer it's more gas
> and the lighter products. Gas and kerosene are just two of literally
> thousands of products that are refined. Petrochemicals account for a
> big percent of where the oil goes. You'll find plastics being more
> expensive now, too, because that's where most of them come from.
>
>> If we could produce our own oil for less than OPEC is selling it for,
>> (currently around $55.00 per barrel), wouldn't that make a
>> difference?
>
> The people that drill for it and the people who process it are driven
> by international prices.

And the prices are driven by the amount the drillers and processors
produce.

> If the Chinese and Indian markets will pay
> more for it, then that's where it'll go. The only way we could produce
> it more cheaply is to have more refining capacity. But even then, the
> big oil guys will sell to the highest bidder. Just like all businesses
> do.
>
> So, no.
>

The oil market is not immune from supply and demand. Just watch what
happens to the price per barrel when OPEC announces new production
limits.

Yes, refining capacity also affects the price at the pump, which only
reinforces the point.

--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
 
Fred Flint Stone wrote:
>
> Our "oil shale" deposits are enormous,
> Fred Flint Stone

Fred Flintstone writing about Earl Shale! <G>

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. . . . .

Sheldon
 
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 03:20:22 -0600, Katra
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> "Bob (this one)" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Rick wrote:
>>
>> > How much do you think the oil up in Alaska has lowered prices at the pump?
>> > It will have some effect just as drilling offshore of California and
>> > Florida
>> > will have an effect at the pump.
>>
>> Actually, it won't have much effect. Barrel prices are dictated by
>> international demand. If Exxon can get a better price in China than
>> here, that's where it'll go. The other problem is that we just can't
>> refine any more than we are, so more crude does nothing for what comes
>> out the other end of the pipe.
>>
>> Pastorio
>>
>
>Then why does the stockmarket price of oil affect the daily price at the
>pumps? ;-)
>
>If we could produce our own oil for less than OPEC is selling it for,
>(currently around $55.00 per barrel), wouldn't that make a difference?

Because we became a net importer several decades ago.
 
"Sheldon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Fred Flint Stone wrote:
>>
>> Our "oil shale" deposits are enormous,
>> Fred Flint Stone
>
> Fred Flintstone writing about Earl Shale! <G>
>
> Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. . . . .

We are paying UKP 3.55 per gallon

Ophelia
Scotland
 
Bob (this one) wrote:
> duke wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 10:17:40 -0500, Alan Figgatt
<[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> This is getting way OT for these groups, but the core truth is
that
> >>allowing off-shore drilling is not going to make any difference to
the
> >>price at your pump. The amount of oil we could get from ANWAR or
more
> >>off-shore rigs is a relative drop in the bucket compared to daily
US and
> >>world consumption of oil. Oil is an international commodity, the
price
> >>the US pays for oil is set by and large by the world wide demand.
And
> >>world wide demand is up because of booming economies, namely China.
More
> >>oil produced in the US will help the trade balance, but not the
price we
> >>pay at the pump.
> >
> > Gasoline is gasoline. We have three choices:
> >
> > 1. More drilling in the continental US and Alaska.
> > 2. Invade the Middle East.
> > 3. Pay the price.
>
> Actually, it's not just the supply that's the problem. It's also
> refining capacity. We haven't built a new refinery in the US in
nearly
> three decades. The ones we have are essentially working at full
> capacity. The technology is older than what's being done in
developing
> countries where the newest, more efficient ways are being built. But
> oil is being used unwisely around the world for things that other
> fuels could be used for. Generating electricity being the biggest.
>
> > It's going to be interesting to see if the US populace willingly
pays $5 at the
> > pump as good little "pc" people or screams for "more" ME oil.
> >
> >> I doubt that we will see $5 a gallon in 3 years, because if oil
gets
> >>that expensive that fast, it triggers a recession which in turn
lowers
> >>the demand for oil. But the long term trend (5 to 10 years) for
gasoline
> >>price is up. Supply and demand still rules.
> >
> > $5 a gallon is all the rage of the talk circuits right now.
>
> In the 1970's, I helped write about "The Impending Energy Crisis" (a
> series of energy forecasts) while working for a company that was
> working on nuclear and alternative energy sources. Many ideas were
> proposed that, at the time, were economically infeasible. As the cost

> of energy rises and petroleum stock is being used for plastic-making,

> and other industrial procedures, these alternatives become more
> attractive. Things like coal gasification, tidal power, geothermal,
> hydro, wind and others. There were many other interesting ones
> proposed that wouldn't fly today, but could be significant. Floating
> nukes on huge barges anchored offshore. All the cooling water you
> could want right there. Deep-mine or deep-water temperature
> differential generation where the temperature differences between two

> (or more) areas can be used to generate electricity. Solar panels in
> geosynchronous orbit microwaving power down to the earth's surface to

> giant antennae.
>
> Using alternate power sources largely reverses trends of the past
> century of concentrating energy production into small, centralized
> areas and spreads it out so it becomes much more localized. Another
> major issue is our national power grid. It's mostly old and tired,
> cobbled together from smaller grids designed for local conditions.
The
> engineers who have pulled it together have done a good job with what
> they had to work with, but it's a new era that demands a different,
> more distributed system with newer controls.

Here's a link to an article about how ethanol could be produced cheaper
than gasoline, and it's about TV a little too....
http://www.evergreenmonthly.com/2005/em2103/backwoods2103.html

> I paid $1.939 yesterday. Same station today was $1.999 today.
>
> Pastorio

Someone mentioned the price jumping up 10 or 15 cents at once. That's
normal here in Michigan's capital. I moved here a year and a half ago,
and I've never seen pricing as weird as around here. Will jump up 10 or
15 or 20 cents overnight, then fall by a few cents each day for a week
or two, then jump back up again. Last week's high price went from $1.94
to $2.15. Went down to just under $2 and then Friday back up to $2.14.
Really strange!

sue
 
[email protected] wrote:

> Here's a link to an article about how ethanol could be produced cheaper
> than gasoline, and it's about TV a little too....
> http://www.evergreenmonthly.com/2005/em2103/backwoods2103.html

There's a problem with ethanol. It eats car parts. That's why it
hasn't caught on as a substantial contributor to fuel for automobile
engines.

> Someone mentioned the price jumping up 10 or 15 cents at once. That's
> normal here in Michigan's capital. I moved here a year and a half ago,
> and I've never seen pricing as weird as around here. Will jump up 10 or
> 15 or 20 cents overnight, then fall by a few cents each day for a week
> or two, then jump back up again. Last week's high price went from $1.94
> to $2.15. Went down to just under $2 and then Friday back up to $2.14.
> Really strange!

Get used to it for at least the rest of the winter. Unless something
relatively drastic happens, we're going to be living up at these
ranges for a while.

Why is this crossposted to all these groups?

Pastorio
 
Fred Stone wrote:

> "Bob (this one)" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>>Katra wrote:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>> "Bob (this one)" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>>Rick wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>How much do you think the oil up in Alaska has lowered prices at the
>>>>>pump? It will have some effect just as drilling offshore of
>>>>>California and Florida will have an effect at the pump.
>>>>
>>>>Actually, it won't have much effect. Barrel prices are dictated by
>>>>international demand. If Exxon can get a better price in China than
>>>>here, that's where it'll go. The other problem is that we just can't
>>>>refine any more than we are, so more crude does nothing for what
>>>>comes out the other end of the pipe.
>>>>
>>>>Pastorio
>>>
>>>Then why does the stockmarket price of oil affect the daily price at
>>>the pumps? ;-)
>>
>>It doesn't. It's not the stock market but the oil market. And it's a
>>bidder's game. The barrel price is determined by how much people who
>>want it are willing to pay the guys who own it.
>>
> Which is in turn affected by how much the "guys who own it" are
> producing. But in fact the ANWR fields are not the US's greatest
> potential source of petroleum. Our "oil shale" deposits are enormous, in
> the trillions of barrels, but they require some serious technological
> development in the extraction process and that process is not exactly
> "environmentally friendly" either. Current estimates run around $30 per
> barrel to make oil shale development economically feasible.

Fluidized bed coal gasification was highly touted back a couple
decades ago as a perfect fuel source for generating electricity.
Clean, non-polluting, less handling needed than coal. It went away,
though, because it cost more than the other available sources. Same
with oil shale. Our company built a demo plant that lasted a couple
years until the gee-whiz wore off. Then it went the way of the
nuclear-powered NERVA rocket engine and the oxygenated sewage
processing plant.

>>The prices of the refined products are determined by what they've made
>>it into. And how much they've made. This time of year American
>>refiners make a lot of heavy heating oil. In the summer it's more gas
>>and the lighter products. Gas and kerosene are just two of literally
>>thousands of products that are refined. Petrochemicals account for a
>>big percent of where the oil goes. You'll find plastics being more
>>expensive now, too, because that's where most of them come from.
>>
>>
>>>If we could produce our own oil for less than OPEC is selling it for,
>>>(currently around $55.00 per barrel), wouldn't that make a
>>>difference?
>>
>>The people that drill for it and the people who process it are driven
>>by international prices.
>
> And the prices are driven by the amount the drillers and processors
> produce.

Of course. Relative to demand. But those guys have to watch their
steps, too. If they throttle it back too far, it's recession time and
people won't have the money to buy it so freely.

>>If the Chinese and Indian markets will pay
>>more for it, then that's where it'll go. The only way we could produce
>>it more cheaply is to have more refining capacity. But even then, the
>>big oil guys will sell to the highest bidder. Just like all businesses
>>do.
>>
>>So, no.
>
> The oil market is not immune from supply and demand. Just watch what
> happens to the price per barrel when OPEC announces new production
> limits.
>
> Yes, refining capacity also affects the price at the pump, which only
> reinforces the point.

Exactly. As long as we're a net energy importer, this is what life
will be like. Drilling for more oil in the US isn't likely to do us
much good because the oil will find its way into the market to the
highest prices. It's a balancing act. But those fossil fuels are
finite. When it starts becoming more expensive to pull that oil out of
the ground, then the whole world will suddenly press for new
technologies. There haven't been any developed beyond
demonstration-of-concept in 40 years.

It will be a very large fan, indeed, that the problem hits.

Pastorio
 
"Bob (this one)" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Fred Stone wrote:
>
>> "Bob (this one)" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>>Katra wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>>> "Bob (this one)" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Rick wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>How much do you think the oil up in Alaska has lowered prices at
>>>>>>the pump? It will have some effect just as drilling offshore of
>>>>>>California and Florida will have an effect at the pump.
>>>>>
>>>>>Actually, it won't have much effect. Barrel prices are dictated by
>>>>>international demand. If Exxon can get a better price in China than
>>>>>here, that's where it'll go. The other problem is that we just
>>>>>can't refine any more than we are, so more crude does nothing for
>>>>>what comes out the other end of the pipe.
>>>>>
>>>>>Pastorio
>>>>
>>>>Then why does the stockmarket price of oil affect the daily price at
>>>>the pumps? ;-)
>>>
>>>It doesn't. It's not the stock market but the oil market. And it's a
>>>bidder's game. The barrel price is determined by how much people who
>>>want it are willing to pay the guys who own it.
>>>
>> Which is in turn affected by how much the "guys who own it" are
>> producing. But in fact the ANWR fields are not the US's greatest
>> potential source of petroleum. Our "oil shale" deposits are enormous,
>> in the trillions of barrels, but they require some serious
>> technological development in the extraction process and that process
>> is not exactly "environmentally friendly" either. Current estimates
>> run around $30 per barrel to make oil shale development economically
>> feasible.
>
> Fluidized bed coal gasification was highly touted back a couple
> decades ago as a perfect fuel source for generating electricity.
> Clean, non-polluting, less handling needed than coal. It went away,
> though, because it cost more than the other available sources. Same
> with oil shale.

Well, that's rather the point. If oil prices stay high, as they will if the
present supply is drying up, it will be feasible to look again at oil shale
and other resources that aren't currently economical.

> Our company built a demo plant that lasted a couple
> years until the gee-whiz wore off.

Probably because they couldn't process the stuff cheaply enough at the
time?

> Then it went the way of the
> nuclear-powered NERVA rocket engine and the oxygenated sewage
> processing plant.
>

NERVA had other problems, not least the idea of flying nuclear reactors.
:)

>>>The prices of the refined products are determined by what they've
>>>made it into. And how much they've made. This time of year American
>>>refiners make a lot of heavy heating oil. In the summer it's more gas
>>>and the lighter products. Gas and kerosene are just two of literally
>>>thousands of products that are refined. Petrochemicals account for a
>>>big percent of where the oil goes. You'll find plastics being more
>>>expensive now, too, because that's where most of them come from.
>>>
>>>
>>>>If we could produce our own oil for less than OPEC is selling it
>>>>for, (currently around $55.00 per barrel), wouldn't that make a
>>>>difference?
>>>
>>>The people that drill for it and the people who process it are driven
>>>by international prices.
>>
>> And the prices are driven by the amount the drillers and processors
>> produce.
>
> Of course. Relative to demand. But those guys have to watch their
> steps, too. If they throttle it back too far, it's recession time and
> people won't have the money to buy it so freely.
>

I think the economists call that "elasticity of demand".

>>>If the Chinese and Indian markets will pay
>>>more for it, then that's where it'll go. The only way we could
>>>produce it more cheaply is to have more refining capacity. But even
>>>then, the big oil guys will sell to the highest bidder. Just like all
>>>businesses do.
>>>
>>>So, no.
>>
>> The oil market is not immune from supply and demand. Just watch what
>> happens to the price per barrel when OPEC announces new production
>> limits.
>>
>> Yes, refining capacity also affects the price at the pump, which only
>> reinforces the point.
>
> Exactly. As long as we're a net energy importer, this is what life
> will be like. Drilling for more oil in the US isn't likely to do us
> much good because the oil will find its way into the market to the
> highest prices. It's a balancing act. But those fossil fuels are
> finite. When it starts becoming more expensive to pull that oil out of
> the ground, then the whole world will suddenly press for new
> technologies. There haven't been any developed beyond
> demonstration-of-concept in 40 years.
>

Nuclear is one clear alternative that is highly developed already, and the
political climate is changing to where it might actually be possible to get
new plants approved again. We should be getting more of our electricity
from nuclear plants.

> It will be a very large fan, indeed, that the problem hits.
>
> Pastorio
>
>



--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
 
Fred Stone wrote:

> Nuclear is one clear alternative that is highly developed already, and the
> political climate is changing to where it might actually be possible to get
> new plants approved again. We should be getting more of our electricity
> from nuclear plants.

I agree. But the specter of that supremely lousy Soviet engineering at
Chernobyl will haunt the discourse, reasonable or not. I still can't
believe that they didn't build any redundancy into their systems - no
real fail-safes; no real backups. So any problem was automatically a
disaster.

We had discussions in the 60's and 70's about putting the nukes inside
mountains or down in exhausted mines and even undersea. But then the
public sentiment turned away thanks in part to wooly-headed nonsense
like that movie "China Syndrome" where they posited that a meltdown
would reduce the core to a superheated liquid and it would melt its
way through the earth and come out in China. Great understanding of
physics. There were also too many activists who didn't know what they
were talking about but pressed on anyway.

The engineering nowadays is much better than those early plants and
the materials are better still.

Pastorio
 
"duke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 11:54:36 GMT, Sue <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>At the station around the corner from me it's $1.99 (in suburban
>>Detroit), but I've seen $2.01-2.05 around town.
>
>>Have they made any projections as to the economic effects of $5-a-gallon
>>gas?
>
> I'm sure it's going to curtail a lot of automobile travel.
>
>
> duke
> *****
> Acts 2
> 38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every
> one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the
> forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive
> the gift of the Holy Spirit".
> *****

I wonder what's their record on their other forecasts? It seems they can
always find new sources of oil.
 
"Bob (this one)" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Fred Stone wrote:
>
>> "Bob (this one)" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>>Katra wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>>> "Bob (this one)" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Rick wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>How much do you think the oil up in Alaska has lowered prices at the
>>>>>>pump? It will have some effect just as drilling offshore of
>>>>>>California and Florida will have an effect at the pump.
>>>>>
>>>>>Actually, it won't have much effect. Barrel prices are dictated by
>>>>>international demand. If Exxon can get a better price in China than
>>>>>here, that's where it'll go. The other problem is that we just can't
>>>>>refine any more than we are, so more crude does nothing for what
>>>>>comes out the other end of the pipe.
>>>>>
>>>>>Pastorio
>>>>
>>>>Then why does the stockmarket price of oil affect the daily price at
>>>>the pumps? ;-)
>>>
>>>It doesn't. It's not the stock market but the oil market. And it's a
>>>bidder's game. The barrel price is determined by how much people who want
>>>it are willing to pay the guys who own it.
>>>
>> Which is in turn affected by how much the "guys who own it" are
>> producing. But in fact the ANWR fields are not the US's greatest
>> potential source of petroleum. Our "oil shale" deposits are enormous, in
>> the trillions of barrels, but they require some serious technological
>> development in the extraction process and that process is not exactly
>> "environmentally friendly" either. Current estimates run around $30 per
>> barrel to make oil shale development economically feasible.
>
> Fluidized bed coal gasification was highly touted back a couple decades
> ago as a perfect fuel source for generating electricity. Clean,
> non-polluting, less handling needed than coal. It went away, though,
> because it cost more than the other available sources. Same with oil
> shale. Our company built a demo plant that lasted a couple years until the
> gee-whiz wore off. Then it went the way of the nuclear-powered NERVA
> rocket engine and the oxygenated sewage processing plant.
>
>>>The prices of the refined products are determined by what they've made
>>>it into. And how much they've made. This time of year American refiners
>>>make a lot of heavy heating oil. In the summer it's more gas and the
>>>lighter products. Gas and kerosene are just two of literally thousands of
>>>products that are refined. Petrochemicals account for a big percent of
>>>where the oil goes. You'll find plastics being more expensive now, too,
>>>because that's where most of them come from.
>>>
>>>
>>>>If we could produce our own oil for less than OPEC is selling it for,
>>>>(currently around $55.00 per barrel), wouldn't that make a
>>>>difference?
>>>
>>>The people that drill for it and the people who process it are driven by
>>>international prices.
>>
>> And the prices are driven by the amount the drillers and processors
>> produce.
>
> Of course. Relative to demand. But those guys have to watch their steps,
> too. If they throttle it back too far, it's recession time and people
> won't have the money to buy it so freely.
>
>>>If the Chinese and Indian markets will pay more for it, then that's where
>>>it'll go. The only way we could produce
>>>it more cheaply is to have more refining capacity. But even then, the big
>>>oil guys will sell to the highest bidder. Just like all businesses
>>>do.
>>>So, no.
>>
>> The oil market is not immune from supply and demand. Just watch what
>> happens to the price per barrel when OPEC announces new production
>> limits.
>>
>> Yes, refining capacity also affects the price at the pump, which only
>> reinforces the point.
>
> Exactly. As long as we're a net energy importer, this is what life will be
> like. Drilling for more oil in the US isn't likely to do us much good
> because the oil will find its way into the market to the highest prices.
> It's a balancing act. But those fossil fuels are finite. When it starts
> becoming more expensive to pull that oil out of the ground, then the whole
> world will suddenly press for new technologies. There haven't been any
> developed beyond demonstration-of-concept in 40 years.
>
> It will be a very large fan, indeed, that the problem hits.
>
> Pastorio
>
Well there's always the most clean energy source nuclear power to power all
those hybrid and electric cars of the future. I just hope they don't store
all that waste on the moon.
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Bob (this one) wrote:
>> duke wrote:
>>
>> > On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 10:17:40 -0500, Alan Figgatt
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> This is getting way OT for these groups, but the core truth is
> that
>> >>allowing off-shore drilling is not going to make any difference to
> the
>> >>price at your pump. The amount of oil we could get from ANWAR or
> more
>> >>off-shore rigs is a relative drop in the bucket compared to daily
> US and
>> >>world consumption of oil. Oil is an international commodity, the
> price
>> >>the US pays for oil is set by and large by the world wide demand.
> And
>> >>world wide demand is up because of booming economies, namely China.
> More
>> >>oil produced in the US will help the trade balance, but not the
> price we
>> >>pay at the pump.
>> >
>> > Gasoline is gasoline. We have three choices:
>> >
>> > 1. More drilling in the continental US and Alaska.
>> > 2. Invade the Middle East.
>> > 3. Pay the price.
>>
>> Actually, it's not just the supply that's the problem. It's also
>> refining capacity. We haven't built a new refinery in the US in
> nearly
>> three decades. The ones we have are essentially working at full
>> capacity. The technology is older than what's being done in
> developing
>> countries where the newest, more efficient ways are being built. But
>> oil is being used unwisely around the world for things that other
>> fuels could be used for. Generating electricity being the biggest.
>>
>> > It's going to be interesting to see if the US populace willingly
> pays $5 at the
>> > pump as good little "pc" people or screams for "more" ME oil.
>> >
>> >> I doubt that we will see $5 a gallon in 3 years, because if oil
> gets
>> >>that expensive that fast, it triggers a recession which in turn
> lowers
>> >>the demand for oil. But the long term trend (5 to 10 years) for
> gasoline
>> >>price is up. Supply and demand still rules.
>> >
>> > $5 a gallon is all the rage of the talk circuits right now.
>>
>> In the 1970's, I helped write about "The Impending Energy Crisis" (a
>> series of energy forecasts) while working for a company that was
>> working on nuclear and alternative energy sources. Many ideas were
>> proposed that, at the time, were economically infeasible. As the cost
>
>> of energy rises and petroleum stock is being used for plastic-making,
>
>> and other industrial procedures, these alternatives become more
>> attractive. Things like coal gasification, tidal power, geothermal,
>> hydro, wind and others. There were many other interesting ones
>> proposed that wouldn't fly today, but could be significant. Floating
>> nukes on huge barges anchored offshore. All the cooling water you
>> could want right there. Deep-mine or deep-water temperature
>> differential generation where the temperature differences between two
>
>> (or more) areas can be used to generate electricity. Solar panels in
>> geosynchronous orbit microwaving power down to the earth's surface to
>
>> giant antennae.
>>
>> Using alternate power sources largely reverses trends of the past
>> century of concentrating energy production into small, centralized
>> areas and spreads it out so it becomes much more localized. Another
>> major issue is our national power grid. It's mostly old and tired,
>> cobbled together from smaller grids designed for local conditions.
> The
>> engineers who have pulled it together have done a good job with what
>> they had to work with, but it's a new era that demands a different,
>> more distributed system with newer controls.
>
> Here's a link to an article about how ethanol could be produced cheaper
> than gasoline, and it's about TV a little too....
> http://www.evergreenmonthly.com/2005/em2103/backwoods2103.html
>
>> I paid $1.939 yesterday. Same station today was $1.999 today.
>>
>> Pastorio
>
> Someone mentioned the price jumping up 10 or 15 cents at once. That's
> normal here in Michigan's capital. I moved here a year and a half ago,
> and I've never seen pricing as weird as around here. Will jump up 10 or
> 15 or 20 cents overnight, then fall by a few cents each day for a week
> or two, then jump back up again. Last week's high price went from $1.94
> to $2.15. Went down to just under $2 and then Friday back up to $2.14.
> Really strange!
>
> sue
>
I know what you mean I live in one of Detroit's suburbs and routinely see
gas stations with 10 to 20 cent differentials some times only blocks away.
 
"Bob (this one)" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Fred Stone wrote:
>
>> Nuclear is one clear alternative that is highly developed already,
>> and the political climate is changing to where it might actually be
>> possible to get new plants approved again. We should be getting more
>> of our electricity from nuclear plants.
>
> I agree. But the specter of that supremely lousy Soviet engineering at
> Chernobyl will haunt the discourse, reasonable or not. I still can't
> believe that they didn't build any redundancy into their systems - no
> real fail-safes; no real backups. So any problem was automatically a
> disaster.
>

Nobody seems to remember that Three Mile Island never actually harmed
anybody and that they're still running one of the reactors there.

> We had discussions in the 60's and 70's about putting the nukes inside
> mountains or down in exhausted mines and even undersea. But then the
> public sentiment turned away thanks in part to wooly-headed nonsense
> like that movie "China Syndrome" where they posited that a meltdown
> would reduce the core to a superheated liquid and it would melt its
> way through the earth and come out in China. Great understanding of
> physics. There were also too many activists who didn't know what they
> were talking about but pressed on anyway.
>

Wasn't it Hanoi Jane who said, proudly, "The only physics I ever took
was Ex-Lax?"

> The engineering nowadays is much better than those early plants and
> the materials are better still.
>

Yes, and they're still stonewalling the Yucca Mountain repository.

--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
 
in article [email protected], Bob (this one) at
[email protected] wrote on 3/12/05 9:19 AM:

> There's a problem with ethanol. It eats car parts. That's why it
> hasn't caught on as a substantial contributor to fuel for automobile
> engines.

When they first started trying to shove MTBE down our throats 6 months a
year, they hit the snag that using it voided at least one manufacturers
warranty for that very reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back