PDA

View Full Version : Fuel Prices



M&K's Retrievers
10-13-2012, 01:47 PM
What's the deal? Diesel has gone from $3.88 to $4.05 in one week and is higher than all grades of gasoline. I guess Obama can juggle the fictional unemployment numbers but there is not much he can do about the real world fuel prices.

gmhr1
10-13-2012, 01:57 PM
3.85 for regular

helencalif
10-13-2012, 01:58 PM
Be happy you aren't in California. Regular well over $4 and over $5 in some areas. Diesel almost $6 or more in some areas.

Sue Kiefer
10-13-2012, 02:24 PM
And diesel the less refined gas. :(
Sue

Franco
10-13-2012, 02:32 PM
$3.54 here for gasoline. Production is way up but the value of the dollar is down.

paul young
10-13-2012, 03:56 PM
And, we're still exporting both gasoline and diesel overseas. The oil companies are managing (limiting) supply on the domestic market to KEEP prices high. We have been producing more fuel every year since 2005.-Paul

BonMallari
10-13-2012, 04:40 PM
its in the 3.80+ range here in Vegas...but what hurts us is the decreased traffic from Southern Calif due to the 5-6 dollar gas...its past 4 dollars a gallon in many spots in Idaho from the reports I have

HPL
10-13-2012, 04:49 PM
$3.21 (with $0.12 discount card) but need to fill up today as they say going back up. Was $3.55 in Corpus Christi yesterday (and they refine it right there).

Franco
10-13-2012, 06:22 PM
And, we're still exporting both gasoline and diesel overseas. The oil companies are managing (limiting) supply on the domestic market to KEEP prices high. We have been producing more fuel every year since 2005.-Paul

Have a link for that info?

We have always exported diesel and gas. Yet, you still don't know how the price of fuel is determined! Fuel retailers can buy all the fuel they want. Domestic supply is up but the dollar is weak!

tucker
10-13-2012, 07:55 PM
The oil/gas system is rigged it does not matter who is in office. When Bush was in gas prices were $4.00 plus. Obama elected gas prices suddenly drop why? Can you say price manipulation. Exxon and the rest of the oil boys and politicians have rigged the system. What happened to supply and demand. Its all about the futures market and Wall Street, most of all futures sold are sold to "investors" that will never use the oil they bought. They hold it to drive up the price and sell it for a profit. The futures market was set up for company's that "USE" oil/gas to buy so they would have a set price for oil for 6 to 12 months at a time.
It does not matter if the government demands all cars get 50 mpg or if they start drilling oil wells in VT or ND or where ever. The oil companies will close refineries and only make limited amounts of gasoline and fuel oil to keep prices high. I believe the economy will never get going when gas and fuel oil are as high as they are. Its called the fleecing of middle America, and it will never end until average Americans stand up together and say enough. Lets face it "MONEY IS POWER" so those with money have the power and the politicians.

paul young
10-13-2012, 09:47 PM
Have a link for that info?

We have always exported diesel and gas. Yet, you still don't know how the price of fuel is determined! Fuel retailers can buy all the fuel they want. Domestic supply is up but the dollar is weak!

http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2012/01/09/whats-so-bad-about-exporting-gasoline/

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42465.pdf

Franco
10-13-2012, 10:58 PM
http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2012/01/09/whats-so-bad-about-exporting-gasoline/

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42465.pdf

I agreed with you and I said we have always exported gas and diesel!

I was asking for a link that backs up your theory that producers are manipulating prices by limiting production. US and Saudi production are at all time highs!

paul young
10-14-2012, 06:34 AM
I agreed with you and I said we have always exported gas and diesel!

I was asking for a link that backs up your theory that producers are manipulating prices by limiting production. US and Saudi production are at all time highs!

Not limiting production; limiting what is available for use in the USA. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.-Paul

Gerry Clinchy
10-14-2012, 10:13 AM
Not limiting production; limiting what is available for use in the USA. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.-Paul
Have prices commensurately increased in other parts of the world?

Or could that increase be due to the weak dollar since the dollar is the currency that oil products are priced with?

And, I think there has to be some truth in the fact that the cost of gasoline (and other energy) has compelled people to use less of both in any way that they can think of. (driving less, using wood for home heating; setting thermostats higher in summer and lower in winter).

The problem is that conservation of energy has not decreased the overall cost to consumers; it has not created more disposable income ... in fact, in spite of conservation, consumers are paying more for the lesser amounts of energy they use.

Seems reasonable to me that if the US were committed to a long-term increase in the supply of oil and natural gas, the energy markets would stabilize. Presently those markets are subject to a lot of variation because the expectation is that the US is subject to a lot of variation.

When EPA's coal limitations are implemented fully, it could be disaster. The vast majority of electricity in Ohio is coal-generated. If Ohio goes for Obama, they could live to regret that greatly when the EPA regs kick in for coal plants.

The report cites that imported oil is now ONLY 45% of domestic usage. Though down from 60%, that means we're still greatly dependent on outside sources for our energy.

OTOH, I would agree with the first analysis ... if we import raw material in order to refine that raw material and sell it back to the raw material supplier at a profit, then that should result in a favorable balance of trade for the US. Conversely, it should also be beneficial to use our own raw materials to sell within our own country if it can be done to price advantage.

Since the US energy supply is now estimated to far exceed the supplies in many of the countries from which we now import, eventually, if those countries deplete their own supplies, we will be using our own raw materials to produce an even larger US-favorable balance of trade? Or is that too simplistic a conclusion?

Franco
10-14-2012, 10:22 AM
Have prices commensurately increased in other parts of the world?

Or could that increase be due to the weak dollar since the dollar is the currency that oil products are priced with?

And, I think there has to be some truth in the fact that the cost of gasoline (and other energy) has compelled people to use less of both in any way that they can think of. (driving less, using wood for home heating; setting thermostats higher in summer and lower in winter).

The problem is that conservation of energy has not decreased the overall cost to consumers; it has not created more disposable income ... in fact, in spite of conservation, consumers are paying more for the lesser amounts of energy they use.

Seems reasonable to me that if the US were committed to a long-term increase in the supply of oil and natural gas, the energy markets would stabilize. Presently those markets are subject to a lot of variation because the expectation is that the US is subject to a lot of variation.

When EPA's coal limitations are implemented fully, it could be disaster. The vast majority of electricity in Ohio is coal-generated. If Ohio goes for Obama, they could live to regret that greatly when the EPA regs kick in for coal plants.

The report cites that imported oil is now ONLY 45% of domestic usage. Though down from 60%, that means we're still greatly dependent on outside sources for our energy.

OTOH, I would agree with the first analysis ... if we import raw material in order to refine that raw material and sell it back to the raw material supplier at a profit, then that should result in a favorable balance of trade for the US. Conversely, it should also be beneficial to use our own raw materials to sell within our own country if it can be done to price advantage.

Since the US energy supply is now estimated to far exceed the supplies in many of the countries from which we now import, eventually, if those countries deplete their own supplies, we will be using our own raw materials to produce an even larger US-favorable balance of trade? Or is that too simplistic a conclusion?

The USA has never had any reasonable Energy Policy that would help us lessen our addiction to oil. Green Energy is not a solution anytime soon.
If we really wanted to see the price at the pump drop, we would take T Boone Pickens advice and convert out autos and trucks to CNG. And, that won't happen until the Dept Of Energy gets off its arse and functions in the role that they were originally created to do!

Gerry Clinchy
10-15-2012, 03:33 PM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443768804578040873921142716.html?m od=djemEditorialPage_h

Ken Salazar's position on drilling in Alaska won't be helping us out very soon.


President Obama is campaigning as a champion of the oil and gas boom he's had nothing to do with, and even as his regulators try to stifle it. The latest example is the Interior Department's little-noticed August decision to close off from drilling nearly half of the 23.5 million acre National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.

The area is called the National Petroleum Reserve because in 1976 Congress designated it as a strategic oil and natural gas stockpile to meet the "energy needs of the nation." Alaska favors exploration in nearly the entire reserve. The feds had been reviewing four potential development plans, and the state of Alaska had strongly objected to the most restrictive of the four. Sure enough, that was the plan Interior chose.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar says his plan "will help the industry bring energy safely to market from this remote location, while also protecting wildlife and subsistence rights of Alaska Natives." He added that the proposal will expand "safe and responsible oil and gas development, and builds on our efforts to help companies develop the infrastructure that's needed to bring supplies online."


...
Alaskans also worry that the National Petroleum Reserve will become the same political football as the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, or ANWR, which Washington has barred from drilling because of dubious environmental objections. The greens now want Congress to rename the energy reserve the "Western Arctic Reserve" to give the false impression that it is a fragile wildlife area. Some parts of the area are environmentally sensitive, but those 1.5 million acres (around Teshekpuk Lake) had already been set aside. Most of the other 11.5 million acres are almost indistinguishable from acreage owned by the state that is being drilled safely nearby.

...
The Interior power play couldn't come at a worse time for Alaska, whose economy and government are heavily reliant on oil jobs and revenues. As recently as the 1980s, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline carried some 2.2 million barrels of oil a day from the North Slope to the port of Valdez. Yet as the once-rich fields of Prudhoe Bay and the Kuparuk River have declined, oil flow has dropped to one-third of that volume. North Dakota recently passed Alaska as the second highest oil-producing state behind Texas.

The problem isn't that Alaska is running out of oil but that federal rules are preventing the state from developing those resources. No matter what Mr. Obama says now, in a second term his great Alaska energy shutout will continue.

Franco
10-15-2012, 04:46 PM
From the NY Times
May24th 2012

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/24/science/earth/shell-arctic-ocean-drilling-stands-to-open-new-oil-frontier.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all


Industry experts and national security officials view the Alaskan Arctic as the last great domestic oil prospect, one that over time could bring the country a giant step closer to cutting its dependence on foreign oil.
But many Alaska Natives and environmental advocates say drilling threatens wildlife and pristine shorelines, and perpetuates the nation’s reliance on dirty fossil fuels.
In blessing Shell’s move into the Arctic, Mr. Obama continues his efforts to balance business and environmental interests, seemingly project by project. He pleased environmentalists by delaying the Keystone XL pipeline (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/k/keystone_pipeline/index.html?8qa) from Canada and by adopting tough air standards for power plants, yet he has also delighted business concerns by rejecting an ozone standard (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/17/science/earth/17epa.html) deemed too costly to the economy.
And now, the president is writing a new chapter in the nation’s unfolding energy transformation, in this case to the benefit of fossil fuel producers.
“We never would have expected a Democratic president — let alone one seeking to be ‘transformative’ — to open up the Arctic Ocean for drilling,” said Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club (http://sierraclub.org/).


Also, don't forget that Brazil's offshore production will be online soon adding millions a day to the world supply and that drilling in our gulf is at full speed. These are just temp fixes as demand continues to grow. As a country we need to convert our our passenger vehicles to either Hydrogen or CNG or we will always be facing rising prices for gasoline! At some point in time, we consumers need to be responsible!

Also, between a disastrous monetary and energy policy over the last 50 years, importing oil is killing the value of the dollar.

M&K's Retrievers
10-15-2012, 06:32 PM
What's the deal? Diesel has gone from $3.88 to $4.05 in one week and is higher than all grades of gasoline. I guess Obama can juggle the fictional unemployment numbers but there is not much he can do about the real world fuel prices.

The price 2 days later went from $4.05 to $4.15.

Buzz
10-15-2012, 06:33 PM
You're using the liberal NYT as a source? :roll:




From the NY Times
May24th 2012

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/24/science/earth/shell-arctic-ocean-drilling-stands-to-open-new-oil-frontier.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all


Industry experts and national security officials view the Alaskan Arctic as the last great domestic oil prospect, one that over time could bring the country a giant step closer to cutting its dependence on foreign oil.
But many Alaska Natives and environmental advocates say drilling threatens wildlife and pristine shorelines, and perpetuates the nation’s reliance on dirty fossil fuels.
In blessing Shell’s move into the Arctic, Mr. Obama continues his efforts to balance business and environmental interests, seemingly project by project. He pleased environmentalists by delaying the Keystone XL pipeline (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/k/keystone_pipeline/index.html?8qa) from Canada and by adopting tough air standards for power plants, yet he has also delighted business concerns by rejecting an ozone standard (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/17/science/earth/17epa.html) deemed too costly to the economy.
And now, the president is writing a new chapter in the nation’s unfolding energy transformation, in this case to the benefit of fossil fuel producers.
“We never would have expected a Democratic president — let alone one seeking to be ‘transformative’ — to open up the Arctic Ocean for drilling,” said Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club (http://sierraclub.org/).


Also, don't forget that Brazil's offshore production will be online soon adding millions a day to the world supply and that drilling in our gulf is at full speed. These are just temp fixes as demand continues to grow. As a country we need to convert our our passenger vehicles to either Hydrogen or CNG or we will always be facing rising prices for gasoline! At some point in time, we consumers need to be responsible!

Also, between a disastrous monetary and energy policy over the last 50 years, importing oil is killing the value of the dollar.

Franco
10-15-2012, 07:04 PM
You're using the liberal NYT as a source? :roll:

It is not an opinion piece!

Much of the offshore technology is coming from here and creating jobs here in S Louisiana! Support companies are spending a fortune trying to recruit workers all over La, Tx, Ok. A welder can make over $150,000. for nine months of work if they are willing to move up there. A lot on the geology is being done here and Houston.

Gerry Clinchy
10-15-2012, 09:13 PM
Franco, the difference between the NYT and WSJ articles seemed to be that the WSJ indicated that the particular areas Salazar is opening up are one which make pipeline construction more difficult, thus delaying the benefit of drilling in that area. Basically saying that POTUS makes a news story of opening up the area, but glossing over the fact that it will take a long time to actually get that oil to market ... sounds something like the 3-year study on the XL Pipeline that was yet again extended by Obama.

Franco
10-15-2012, 09:32 PM
The area in my article is offshore. Most of that production will go directly into tankers as running pipe underwater in areas prone to earthquakes is risky. Any pipe that is run will be from the wellhead to a nearby terminal for tanker loading. Probably directly above the wellhead. From the time a rig is moved into place till production in this shallow water(one-tenth the depth of the BP well that failed) is under 75 days. Also, when drilling in remote areas, roads have to be constructed as well as working and living quarters. When drilling offshore, no roads are needed and the living/working quarters are on the rig.

I hate to burst anyone's bubble but this is a far more practical plan than drilling in refuges. Plus, the reserves offshore are estimated to be as large if not larger than the NP Reserve.

I hate to admit it but, the current administration is far more cautious about where and who gets to drill. Pre-BP Blowout, the oil companies pretty much ran the show. Today, the Dept of The Interior is running the show.