Post by: Seymour Skinner on October 05, 2005, 11:24:20 AM
Today (10/5) oil per bbl has dropped again, to 62.79. The word is that the market is swimming in crude, but we don't have NEAR enough refineries because of the ongoing conspiracy between the oil companies, where they spent the last decade shutting down refineries, knowing full well what would happen.
Maybe I'm unique in that I like to do things out of spite, but I enjoy cutting driving and spending former gas money on guns.
Post by: Art Eatman on October 05, 2005, 12:03:23 PM
Sorry, but that just ain't so.
The last newly-built refinery inthe U.S. came on line in about 1976-ish. It takes some three years to build one.
When you look at the legal hoops a would-be refiner has to go through to get past the environmental-law permitting process, you learn that the only thing worse is a nuke plant. You'll notice we haven't built many of those, lately, either...
The refinery folks, not being stoopid, built refineries outside the U.S. Since the mid-'70s, we've been importing refined products as well as crude.
And guess what? The rest of the world has been industrializing. That means they want more crude and more refined product.
In the mid-1970s, there was a line of tankers, one every eight miles, from the Persian Gulf to Japan. I dunno what it is now, what with China's imports getting right up there with Japan, plus there is the Indian demand. Worldwide, refineries are running at a near-capacity condition. While overseas refineries are most likely being expanded, it still takes time. China's growth in demand is rather sudden, and caught most folks by surprise. You don't just casually stick a billion bucks into a refinery on the off chance something good will happen.
As far as pump prices in the U.S., it's the usual Economics 101. Supply limited and demand fairly constant, the price goes up. Drop the demand and the price will decline, which is beginning to happen. No different from what we saw back in the middle- and late-1970s.
"It''s deja vu all over again."
Art
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 05, 2005, 01:23:33 PM
Post by: ...has left the building. on October 05, 2005, 01:33:22 PM
Post by: Paddy on October 05, 2005, 01:42:55 PM
Post by: mtnbkr on October 05, 2005, 01:49:24 PM
Chris
Post by: Art Eatman on October 05, 2005, 01:59:44 PM
When oil was around $25, we were paying around $1 a gallon, mas o menos. Now oil is about 2.5 times that much. I'd expect a "floor" for gasoline prices of around $2.00 to $2.25 a gallon after the rigs and refineries come back on line. Just a guess, of course.
If Congress votes to open the ANWR, I'd expect maybe a $10 drop in crude, but it would take about three years for that oil to come on line. Same for new refining capacity within the U.S., other than some relatively small expansions of existing refineries. The Sierra Clubbers will give their usual banshee imitation. With ANWR on line, maybe oil at $40--again, just a guess. Gasoline at maybe $175 to $2.00.
What folks better start worrying about is natural gas. It's up from $2/M to $14/M. Yuck! And California's enviornmental purity has had them building gas-fired turbine generating plants for electricity, these last several years. Now that they don't have Enron to blame, who will they jump on?
California being California, I guess they'll still whine about the environmental evils of LNG terminals. But we can't tap into that 40 years' worth of natural gas that's locked up in no-drill areas along the Rocky Mountains. Whee!"May you live in interesting times!" And, boy, do we ever!
Art
Post by: TarpleyG on October 05, 2005, 03:41:55 PM
Greg
Post by: Sindawe on October 05, 2005, 04:55:13 PM
Quote
Have you guys seen the prices drop this week at the pump yet?
When I fueled up just before Katrina came ashore, 91 octane was $2.79/gallon at the local BP. When I fueled up again last Thursday, it was $2.99/gallon for 91 octane at the same station. When I fueld the rental yesteday (the car I refueled thurday went terminal that evening), 91 octane was $3.17/gallon at that same BP. Connaco on the other corner runs ~$0.03 higher.
Post by: Stand_watie on October 05, 2005, 05:14:34 PM
Quote
I will say that if you have your eye on a big truck/SUV for towing or whatever, right now they are giving them away. My wife's Explorer is just about paid off and I have joked that we should get the Expedition that I originally wanted. I can get an Eddie Bauer edition Expidition for a $1000 or so more than I paid for an 2000 XLT Explorer
If you've already got all the energy efficient vehicles you need, and the money for it, why not? Park the beast and drive it when you absolutely need to and have the $$ for the gasoline. If I were wealthy enough to consider buying what for me would be a luxury vehicle, yet concerned enough about cash that I wanted to get a great deal, now would be the time I'd buy.Since I'm not, even though I could manage to pay for a nice new pick up truck, I'm going to buy a trailer for my little economy car.
I think that my little economy car and a trailer is all that 99.9% of Americans really need, but who am I to judge their "need"? If they're willing to put their beer and cigarette money into a big SUV that burns a lot of gas then good for them to keep GM and Texaco employees pulling a check.
Post by: Silver Bullet on October 05, 2005, 05:30:06 PM
Quote
Connaco on the other corner runs ~$0.03 higher.
That's okay. Conoco's on our ... list.
Post by: mtnbkr on October 05, 2005, 06:01:28 PM
Quote
I think that my little economy car and a trailer is all that 99.9% of Americans really need
A few reasons I didn't go that route when I bought my SUV a few years ago:I got educated on FWD sedans and trailers back when I thought it would be fun to get a small popup camper to to with our Pontiac Grand Am (may it rust in hell). I learned that I'd have to get the smallest popup available and that even it would be pushing the limit for the V6 powered coupe. Turns out, few FWD cars can tow anything at all. The ones that can, can't do much. This summer, I towed a trailer loaded with 800lbs of brush to the local transfer station. Between the brush and the trailer's weight, I would've been over the tow limit for most any FWD sedan (most top out at 1500lbs).
My wife can't back a trailer, but she can drive an SUV (hell, I can barely back a trailer and rarely get it right on the first attempt).
A sedan with a trailer won't make it to some of my camping spots.
Depending on where you live, trailer storage is a PITA. Where I live, if I can't store the trailer in my garage, I can't have it here (damn HOAs).
Chris
Post by: Seymour Skinner on October 05, 2005, 11:40:54 PM
I had to start a new thread to rant about that one.
Anyway, Art ended up confirming more of what I said than what he disagreed with.
Quote
A conspiracy is a crime carried out in secret by two or more people. Is it illegal for the oil companies not to build refineries? Were they keeping this a secret, somehow?
Bzzz, sorry, that's incorrect but we have some nice parting gifts for you.A conspiracy is NOT carried out in secret. Webster's dictionary sez that to conspire, it is the PLANNING that is done in secret. The part you got right was the part of an illegal act planned by 2 or more people.
Asking if it's illegal for the conspiring oil companies to NOT build refineries is not the point at all. IT IS DEFINITELY ILLEGAL to engage in collusion to accomplish market manipulation. (BTW, the feds trot out the "national security" line all the time to keep all kinds of government secrets, but this really DOES affect national security. Low refining capacity could spell disaster in a war when all of your equipment needs refined fuel.)
This sort of felony behavior could fall under quite a few federal statutes that have been around since the 1800s to stop just this sort of behind the scenes market manipulation. There is quite a bit of information made public over the course of at least the last decade where the oil companies admit that they were closing certain refineries to squeeze the market and increase profitability. There's as many industry witnesses to this conspiracy as the government had against the tobacco companies. If Reagan can order the air traffic controllers back to work in the name of national security, I think we should at least be upholding laws against big time racketeering (as opposed to prosecuting street corner drug dealers under RICO). Clearly these insider connected oil corporations are not worried about THAT ever happening though.
Post by: Perd Hapley on October 06, 2005, 03:28:21 AM
Thank you, "MasterPiece," for answering my questions in your usual obnoxious fashion. That is an interesting viewpoint you bring up. However, I find it interesting that a libertarian such as yourself is bothered by corporations raising their prices. Shouldn't they be free to do this under libertarian principles?
Post by: El Tejon on October 06, 2005, 03:52:07 AM
There are way too many of you people on my roads. I have things to do! Stay home, watch television and whine about FEMA not cutting your lawn or making you supper, just get off my roads.
Post by: Guest on October 06, 2005, 03:57:46 AM
Quote
Hooray for giant, eeevil oil corporations raising prices to oppress women, minorities and Democrats in sandals!
I would like to take this opportunity to point out that the "grand conspiracy" of OPEC has not been to keep oil prices high. In fact the whole point has been to keep the prices LOW. So low, in fact, that it isnt profitable for competitors to enter the market place. This is why U.S. oil production is lagging so much, it simply hasnt been profitable to explore for oil to the *low* price. An increase in oil prices would lead to OPEC losing their 'monopoly' on oil, this is what they do not want.
Post by: Paddy on October 06, 2005, 05:38:55 AM
Post by: Robert Sears on October 06, 2005, 05:57:18 AM
Bob
Post by: K Frame on October 06, 2005, 06:19:05 AM
Well, not really. It's more about keeping prices and supply stable. If supply and consumption are on par, that means that the pumps keep working at roughly the same rate all the time. What the OPEC nations don't want is for prices to spike through the roof, everyone to go into hyper conservation mode, and all of a sudden prices bottom out because there's now a huge glut of excess oil in the supply line. That forces OPEC to take wells out of production, or slow production considerably.
Oh, and here's the definition of conspiracy from The American Heritage Dictonary of the English Language, the best "American" dictionary there is, bar none...
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=conspiracy
Post by: Waitone on October 06, 2005, 06:30:20 AM
Oh, the latest in our attempts to help the situation? In the next few years something like another dozen environmental initiative kick in. One of which is to either reduce or prohibit the importation of gasoline (looking for sources). If true we deserve everything coming our way. Lay off the evil corporation nonsense. Start blasting those responsible. Corporation merely respond to the laws created by shakedown artists.
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on October 06, 2005, 08:04:29 AM
Quote
Have you guys seen the prices drop this week at the pump yet?
Nope. I've seen prices at the pump go up this week by about 3 cents. And I've seen the price crude drop by several dollars. Something does not compute.
Post by: roo_ster on October 06, 2005, 10:59:56 AM
Post by: atek3 on October 08, 2005, 04:34:21 PM
Quote from: Blackburn
Best picture ever.atek3
Post by: SalukiFan on October 08, 2005, 04:49:24 PM