Why are Gas Prices High and Oil at $90 a Barrel? One Answer Is Here.
#26
i think the real question should be, why is there a 1 dollar difference in gas prices from lets say vegas, to Minnesota (i don't actually know the prices of gas there but why is gas more expensive in big cities compared to rural areas)
my main point is, there should be an average gas price throughout the country....a 1/3 deviation is not right.
my main point is, there should be an average gas price throughout the country....a 1/3 deviation is not right.
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.
Last edited by alnielsen; 02-04-2008 at 09:35 PM.
#27
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.
#28
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.
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.
I know why do you?
#29
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....
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....
Last edited by whitebeau; 02-05-2008 at 12:10 AM. Reason: grammer correctiong.
#30
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.
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.
#32
"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.
There are estimated to be 16 billion barrels of oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). The United States consumes roughly 20.7 million barrels of oil per day, of which 12.4 million barrels are imported.
If we drained every last barrel from ANWR, it would allow us to stop importing oil... for a whopping three and a half years. What do you propose we do after that?
If we drained every last barrel from ANWR, it would allow us to stop importing oil... for a whopping three and a half years. What do you propose we do after that?
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.
#33
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Omaha
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Icon No2](https://www.rx8club.com/images/smilies/icon_no2.gif)
#34
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.
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.
Last edited by Startl_Respons; 02-05-2008 at 04:53 AM.
#35
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.
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.
#37
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?
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?
#38
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?
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?
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.
#39
Finally Boosted!!!!!!!
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?
#40
ಠ_ಠ
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Under the Dumbarton Bridge
Posts: 2,228
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
5 Posts
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.
#41
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Misinformation Director - Evolv Chicago
Posts: 3,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
-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.
#42
ಠ_ಠ
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Under the Dumbarton Bridge
Posts: 2,228
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
5 Posts
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.
#43
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Misinformation Director - Evolv Chicago
Posts: 3,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by Red Devil; 02-05-2008 at 10:39 AM.
#44
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.
-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.
#45
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Misinformation Director - Evolv Chicago
Posts: 3,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
#47
doin' the bull dance
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Quahog, RI
Posts: 3,174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Rofl](https://www.rx8club.com/images/smilies/rofl.gif)
^^^Everyone is well aware about the recent announcement of record profit (I think it was 40 billion, but I forgot which company). I don't think there is collusion amongst the oil companies, but the fact is they don't reinvest those profits in to their companies (ie new refineries or improve existing ones). That's what angers people. There is no reason to give these oil companies any tax breaks at all. They obviously don't need them and they all should be taken away immediately.
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.
#48
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Misinformation Director - Evolv Chicago
Posts: 3,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
#49
Registered
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Plano, TX
Posts: 522
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.