1. Attachments are working again! Check out this thread for more details and to report any other bugs.

Gas Prices to Jump - Good News for Hybrid Sales

Discussion in 'Prius, Hybrid, EV and Alt-Fuel News' started by eheath, Mar 18, 2012.

  1. spwolf

    spwolf Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2005
    3,156
    440
    0
    Location:
    Eastern Europe
    ok, so explain how the math work - Exxon made 2c profit on gas price, and had 30 billion in profits... while Aramco made most of the profits from the fuel prices ($3?) and yet they had only 4-5x more profits than Exxon?

    Your solution seems to be that Saudi Arabia is the problem, not our own oil consumption. This goes in line with CIA thinking for the past 60 years.

    I say that it is the Government's job to steer our contries toward oil free future. Right now they are not doing their jobs. More drilling just mitigates the same problem to future generations.
     
  2. cycledrum

    cycledrum PSOCSOASP

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2008
    8,245
    1,202
    0
    Location:
    NorCal
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    and any candidate that promises 2.50 gas (campaign lies: Gingrich) just wants to keep the oil, Suburbans and Silverados and their tow toys (boats) flowing.

    GM won't even build a more fuel efficient V6 minivan, that's how jacked up they are.
     
  3. wjtracy

    wjtracy Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2006
    11,307
    3,586
    1
    Location:
    Northern VA (NoVA)
    Vehicle:
    Other Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    SP- ...are you coming from Europe viewpoint or USA?...sounds like a California perspective but your locale says East Europe
     
  4. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,524
    4,054
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    Gasoline use is what drives oil consumption, so exporting versus importing it skews data. But as I said, and your numbers should make it clear in your mind, consumption is in a jerky way going down.
    From your table we can go back to 1999 which was 7125. Population has certainly increased since then. True trend in gasoloine, a better measure has been going down since 2004, but if we ignore imports/exports of refined products oil has been going down since 2005.

    Individual years may go up, but the trend is down, and we should enact policies to continue this downward motion. A number of policies were put in place in 2006-today that are responsible for lower use.

    Higher cafe standards, higher gas prices, cash for clunkers, higher percentage of ethanol, realization that some of that opec money funds terror are all factors also. The recession does not explain all the changes, yet the us needs to change faster. In 2000 projections were much higher.

    This is a complete distortion. If there is a revolution in saudi, or another OPEC reduction for political blackmail, do you really think the Canadian oil will be exported and us drivers will face gas lines? If they want to export it outside the US, the Canadians can just build a pipeline to a port. Its much cheaper, and closer to china, the most likely country to build refining capacity for the syn oil.

    Last year was the first time in a long time US refineries had a net export of refined products. I doubt this export will be as large as oil imported from canada, but if your conspiracy is right, what is your problem with building insurance against Opec? Do you really prefer them shipping ships of money to them, instead of to keeping it in north america?
     
  5. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,524
    4,054
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    Its pretty simple. Aramco/Saudi own the oil and mainly inexpensively pump it out of the ground and put it on ships. Exxon only owns a tiny comparitive amount of oil and must do a great deal more to get it, refine it, and distribute it. Other things like specialty chemicals were a major source of exxon's profits. If you look at how much profit from exxon is at the price in the pump, its is a very small percentage. On gasoline Aramco/Saudi profit margin is about 90%, but some is barried in cash give aways to member of the royal family as espenses. Its much more than 10x more than exxon's in gasoline. In europe the biggest percent is tax, the second biggest is oil which to aramco/saudi is almost pure profit. In the US these are reversed, but still number one and two.

    http://money.cnn.com/2007/11/05/news/companies/exxon_oil/index.htm
    Certainly their is plenty of blaime to go aroung, as I said to you before. Opec is definitely a very large problem when it comes to manipulating oil prices and supplies. There is also opec member Iran's nuclear program and reaction to it, as well as the strife in Sudan in this current crisis. I'm not sure why you keep bringing up the CIA, is it anouther distraction? I certainly would not be against helping the arab spring along, but that would not change the amount of oil. I'm really not sure how much the CIA did in Libya, but it was mainly the Libyans that made the revolution happen.

    The best way to not get hurt by drug dealers in to not buy drugs from them. Certainly reducing consumption needs to be the center piece of the plan.

    How about a lower consumption future, I could agree with that. There aren't fast substitutes. More drilling gives us more time for the transition, its not a long term solution. Not drilling means that there is less money available to transition out of this oil driven transportation structure.
     
  6. SageBrush

    SageBrush Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    11,627
    2,530
    8
    Location:
    Southwest Colorado
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius v wagon
    Model:
    Two
    The trends in energy use in the US have to be corrected for exported manufacturing.

    My main objection to the trans US pipeline are two:
    1. It absolutely should not be subsidized by the gubmint; let the oil companies build it and pass on the real cost to the consumer.

    2. The Canadian resource encourages Merkins to ignore the problems of pollution and dwindling resources overall.

    In a market driven economy like the US has, fossil fuel consumption will drop as prices rise, not before. Half or more of US petrol consumption is poor efficiency and miniscule conservation.

    AG loves his nanny state non-solutions
     
  7. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,524
    4,054
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    Completely agree with the first part. Part two, I can't stand.

    First, by using the term Merikins, I can only assume that you feel superior to your countrymen. Then you put it in a statement that using north american oil will increase consumption, but consumption is already high without the pipeline. Something else must be going on. Will citizens in the united states greatly increase consumption if we build the pipeline? Will canada just stop using oil sands if america doesn't buy them? No of course not. They will refine it themselves and ship the gasoline, or ship it to us or the Chinese. It will keep americans more dependant on opec oil then they would be with it. So I guess you are saying you are more clever than most, and the next time opec uses oil blackmail those "Merkins" that you seem to look down on, will suffer more. Now some do think that canada won't increase production, but at oil prices this high, and with China's growing demand, does this really sound likely? Flawed reasoning. Shipping the oil gives more of a chance of a spill so its even worse for the environment.

    Since you put my name in the post is the only reason I'm replying, since your premise is so poor. No problem insulting me with a valid point. OIl prices have already risen. Oil is subsidiesed. Oil prices are manipulated by a cartel, it is not a free market. The US currently spends a great deal of its wealth keeping a military that can strike if oil is cut off. Your knee jerk, ignorance seems to be drawn from a fox news talking point. You are arguing for a nanny state to reduce oil, because you want foreign countries to increase its price and hurt those bad old oil users.

    My response in this thread was about solutions where the invisible hand does not work. This is clearly a place for good government. Regulations to build the pipeline safely, but not obstruction to it getting built. Higher cafe standards, a slowly rising tax on oil, the end of oil and ethanol subsidies. These are hardly the things you accuse me of. I am in favor of a smaller government, but I do like some nanny state things like unemployment insurance, so I guess you have me there. Are you really against these things.

    IMHO spikes in oil prices are not good things. Slowly rising oil prices based on taxation would do more for efficient car sales, than price manipulation and instability in opec countries, that cause wild swings and hurt the economy.
     
  8. Keiichi

    Keiichi Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2012
    808
    79
    2
    Location:
    Goleta
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius v wagon
    Model:
    Five
    The other thing that is forgotten here, is that the Politicians also have lobbyists supporting them, not just the people who voted for them. Which means, their 'concerns' are weighted more than in general. The Lobbyists will also put in the money which would tend to sway the politicians, so you will find, often, it will be in their own interests than the interests of the people.
     
    1 person likes this.
  9. cycledrum

    cycledrum PSOCSOASP

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2008
    8,245
    1,202
    0
    Location:
    NorCal
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    Uhm, IMNSHO, gas prices seem to pale in comparison to a huge problem here, the US national debt. I'm interested in the candidate with some focus on getting that under control.
     
    1 person likes this.
  10. DeadPhish

    DeadPhish Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2005
    2,010
    353
    0
    Location:
    Outer Banks of NC.. Retired to play golf and poker
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    The EIA data tracks petroleum consumption here in the US. It does not include petroleum imported on a TIB and converted to downstream products then exported. Those supplies never entered the US as far as US Customs is concerned, that's how a TIB works.

    I noted the downward trend since 2008 but IMO this is primarily due to the economic crash, not some sudden 'conservation effect'. However I'm willing to be convinced otherwise depending on how the 2012 and 2013 data comes in. I personally believe that we'll see higher consumption this year and even higher consumption again in 2013 as the economy returns to 2006-2008 levels. We'lll have to await the data.


    Agreed

    In the meanwhile IF there is no supply disruption the oil from the interior of Canada passes thru the interior of the US and goes overseas. We don't own this oil, the Canadian owners control it. IF they want to bypass the US and sell it to China or Colombia or Europe then we have no say in the matter. The pipeline is simply a road through which this product is moved to market. IF the prices overseas are higher than ours here in the US then good economics requires that the seller move it to the most lucrative markets.

    As to the Canadian building their own pipeline. They would have if they had the opportunity. It would be a huge national labor and jobs effort. But they don't have nearby ports and they have no processing refineries for the dirty high-sulphur tar-sand oil like we do in the Gulf. In addition if they were to attempt to export this they'd have to built the pipeline over the Continental Divide and then terminate it on their pristine Pacific Coast. Not gonna happen.

    I am all for US converters making profits by processing petroleum for downstream products for export. It's good for our country. That's why I mentioned above that I believe that the XL Pipeline will be approved.....next year. But let's not delude ourselves and say that building it will solve our problems. It won't. It's only insurance as you say in a possible catastrophic geo-political situation. But we also have to acknowledge that we have no control over the supply, the sales, the prices of the product flowing through the pipeline. We are simply a conduit being used by the Canadian owners and the Gulf refineries.

    Natural Gas is a far better and less expensive solution to our transportation needs; we own it, we control it; it's 1/3 the price of petro-fuel; we have an abundance of it; all of our vehicles can use it; all the money for exploration, drilling, transport, processing and retailing stays here in the US.

    Petroleum-based fuels are a 20th Century solution for our transportation needs. We need 21st Century solutions as we grow.
     
  11. spwolf

    spwolf Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2005
    3,156
    440
    0
    Location:
    Eastern Europe
    both, I lived in USA for 7 years (OC for 3) and now I am in Eastern Europe (i still work for US company). In US, govt can influence a lot more but at the end, we both arrived at the same situation. Here LPG is available everywhere and we have our own production that satisfies 50% of country needs BUT politicians decided to tax LPG cars more so they dont lose the revenue, instead of encouraging the installations.

    so in this case, both govts are being shortsighted.

    in europe, taxes on gas are % based, so right now most european taxes have total of 50%-60% taxes on gas, so when the base price goes up, so do the taxes and they love it, despite showing concern on the tv.

    Our gas right now is $8/gallon, out of which $4.5 goes to the state for various taxes.
     
    1 person likes this.
  12. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,524
    4,054
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    Do you think these evil Canadians will sell the oil to the Chinese or Colombians at a lower price than refineries right at the port? If gulf coast refineries have the need it is more profitable to sell it to them. Otherwise these refineries need to buy opec oil at the market price.

    There has been a lot made of a valero memo, and content has been distorted. Is there where your misconceptions come from? Valero has a plan to take the diesel in its port Arthur faciitity and ship it to foreign countries. This oil would not be taxed in the free trade zone, since the oil nor diesel is produced or consumed in the united states. The plan includes producing gasoline in their english refinery and shipping it to the US. The net result is higher profits and a tax break for valero. It can produce diesel with the fraction its easiest to produce oil from, and gasoline from the fraction it is easiest from. European refineries have greenhouse gas caps that makes using low grades like the syn oil into diesel very expensive. Growth of diesel demand is 2x growth of gasoline demand. I would hope that they also invest in enough refining capacity to move this heavier oil to gasoline in the event of a shortage. Valero has long term contracts with keystone that go in force if the pipeline is built.

    Its more profitable to sell the oil to the US. The back up plan is this Canadian pipeline. If the US pipeline is not approved the Canadian pipeline will be built.

    Canada gets a higher price for their oil since it is less expensive to ship, the refiners get a more stable supply. Its not a solution, its just a small part of the solution.
     
  13. DeadPhish

    DeadPhish Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2005
    2,010
    353
    0
    Location:
    Outer Banks of NC.. Retired to play golf and poker
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    Don't put words in my post that I didn't write. In fact I said that it was good business, good capitalism, for the owners of the oil to sell it at the most lucrative prices. With the low cost of US refineries and high efficiencies it's much more profitable for them to sell the resulting products in the world market rather than to sell it to us. That is unless we outbid our international competitors. Why should they forego massive incremental profits by selling it to us more cheaply?


    Remains to be seen. But I believe that the pipeline gets approved in 2013 in any event.
     
  14. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,524
    4,054
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    I was not trying to put words in your mouth, but you can see how I interpreted your statement the way that I did. Believe it or not, since Reagan got rid of the oil price controls and windfall profits tax, oil and refined products in the US have been at the world market price. Often these prices are locked in with long term contracts. Contrary to many opinions on the web, 2011 was the first year in a long time that the us had net exports of refined products, and this was a direct effect of lower demand in the United States for gasoline and diesel. If there is demand in the US, and Canadian oil at the refineries then refined products will be sold here, unless we have another insane set of policies like nixon put in place. Check out the net imports and imports if you don't believe me, I believe I included one source in a previous link.




    I too expect the president to approve the pipeline, which means we don't need to see a candian only pipeline to their coast. There should be a speach on Thursday, but I don't expect an agreement until after the election.
     
  15. Rybold

    Rybold globally warmed member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    2,760
    320
    3
    Location:
    Southern California
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    On the business end of the land barges, don't forget about the Ford Transit Connect, as an alternative to a full size van or pickup truck. Here in Southern California, although I do not see Transit Connects "everywhere," I do see a lot of them.
     
  16. Erikon

    Erikon Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2009
    819
    105
    0
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    III
    Let's see, we have an oversupply and lower demand situation right now, to the point that refineries in the northeast are being shut down and keep prices climbing. The solution is to increase supplies by building a pipeline across vital water reservoirs to refineries in Texas. Now this pipe will take years to build, and I imagine the demand in the U.S. will hopefully continue to drop, while demand in other countries will increase. So when it's finally operational this oil would for some reason stay here instead of going to where it it could be sold for a much higher profit? If something drastic happens I imagine the U.S. could stop the export and route it for our consumption, but for normal business that oil is heading offshore!
     
  17. ghosteh

    ghosteh Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2010
    146
    57
    0
    Location:
    Illinois
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius
    Model:
    Three
    We have a way to phase out gas-guzzlers & it's called "free economy supply & demand."
    If my neighbor (or me) wants to drive a car that gets 8 mpg, why should that be anyone elses concern? Why should YOU be able to regulate what kind of car I drive? That's the attitude I hate more than anything else, and it smacks of socialism.

    I drive a Prius because I don't want to spend a fortune on my transportation. Good for me, right? Well, I also might like to drive my Dodge Viper on sunny weekends, which gets less than 10mpg. If I can afford it, why shouldn't I be able to do that? What if I wanted to fly my private Mig17, which burns 400gph of jet fuel? again... if I can afford it, then its my right. There is a limit, and when fuel costs rise too high for my pocketbook, I'll stop. But if my wealthy neighbor can keep driving HIS Viper, then more power to him!

    Market prices WILL eventually decide the type of cars we drive. Government has NO place in determining that. Yes, I like to see the alternative fuel markets growing, but let them do that because of consumer demand, not because the government tells them to!

    That's why I also hate the idea that the government has to offer rebates to get people to buy the Chevy Volt. It should be selling on its own merits (and price) and if not, then they shouldn't have built it.


    We need to produce more oil here and rely less on foreign oil. Forget the idea that we'll lower gas prices $2 a gallon by drilling in the national parks. We should drill in the parks (and elsewhere) to ease the grip that the middle east has on our collective throats. I'd like prices to go down, but I'd much rather see our fuel coming from domestic and friendly sources.

    Our boys don't need to be over in the middle east, protecting our interests. Our interests should be in our own backyard.
     
  18. wjtracy

    wjtracy Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2006
    11,307
    3,586
    1
    Location:
    Northern VA (NoVA)
    Vehicle:
    Other Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    ....another Northeast refinery bites the dust...this is the refinery in Aruba (you can see Venezuela from Aruba, so to call it Northeast is a bit of a stretch). The Aruba refinery has been running intermittently as demand requries, so could come back if the picture changes. I am concerned about the loss of refineries, but some of these plants are quite old. Aruba had no nat gas to help process.

    ...as far as Keystone pipeline, I had thought Obama might lose election if he blocked it. Now word he may approve southern part of it by today or tomorrow.
     
  19. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,524
    4,054
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    The refineries in the North East are shutting down because they can't refine the lower grades of crude, the gulf coast refineries can. Right now the spread in prices of crude make it unprofitable to produce gasoline there even at the higher prices, and the owners of the refineries expect this to continue. This, combined with the change over of the California refineries to summer blend has led to a temporary shortage of refining capability, not surplus, which is part of the reason for the price spike.

    The north Sudanese will not allow the south Sudanese to pump oil to port cutting off a supply of oil to China. The Chinese have been forced onto the spot market to replace this source. There is also a deadline of 7/1/12 for the Iranians to act or their will be a boycott. This will cause a shortage of oil unless the Libyans can get their production up for OPEC to continue its supply without Iran. This shortage is partially priced into oil accounting for the rest of the price spike.

    You forgot something there. The pipeline should only be approved if its safe over water reserves, and there is a new plan and environmental impact coming. The biggest danger to Nebraska's water is all the chemical laden corn farming, much more damaging than a pipeline. The pipeline will help prevent price spikes in the future not today. It will also allow the canadians to more easily ramp up production for opec's short falls. The idea is to import a lower percent of oil from countries like those that are causing the current crisis.

    If there is an excess of refined products, ofcourse they will be exported. Normally the US needs to import gasoline because of shortages of refineries, I hope that situation has changed. But in a shortage how in the world would it be more profitable to put gasoline on a ship and sell it somewhere else?:confused: Please look at the numbers of how much we refine and how much gas we exported last year. It was a tiny proportion. Analysts expect that tiny proportion to double but remain tiny, meaning the grand majority of the oil sent down will be for US consumption. One of the biggest increases in exported diesel and gasoline is mexico, so even these increased exports remain in North America. The refineries can run on opec oil or canadian oil, you seem to prefer the opec stuff and future price spikes.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/27/us-keystone-idUSTRE81Q1II20120227
     
    1 person likes this.
  20. ghosteh

    ghosteh Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2010
    146
    57
    0
    Location:
    Illinois
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius
    Model:
    Three

    Most Americans, couldn't care less what powers their car. Oil, CNG, solar, fuel cell... whatever. The only concern is the cost to drive it, and if they can fuel it quickly and conviently when the gauge shows empty.

    Eventually, we'll have a market that explodes with several different types of fuel-powered vehicles. Then in short order, one or two will strongly emerge as the most reasonable & economical alternatives to petro-powered vehicles.

    Unfortunately, there will have to be a painful transition to get there. No one will buy a CNG car if they cost $65,000 and there are only two fueling stations within 100 miles of your home. But as gas prices slowly strangle our pocketbooks, people will start looking and grasping at alternatives.

    CNG is definately a plentyful resource. In fact, most oil wells burn off the natural gas as they extract the petro. That's why you see all the flames as you drive past a producing well.


    Current tax rebates for CNG vehicles exist, and most are claimed by companies that produce & supply CNG. They buy those big Cummins delivery vehicles that burn their own product... at a (taxpayer supplied) discount.