beyondtherim55008@yahoo.c
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2006
- Messages
- 187
- Reaction score
- 0
- Location
- Among the White US Terrorists
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
vauge said:We can thank the tree huggers and enviormentalists for this. The required ethanol and additional "cleaning" additives needed during the summer always spike everything up.
Kandahar said:Good. The faster gas prices go up, the faster we stop using it. Now would be a good time to start phasing in a $2 per gallon gas tax.
AndrewC said:That is a bit harsh don't you think? So you don't blame the profiteers at all? Interesting how they can gouge consumers and still keep a clean image. I guess they learned it from the tobacco industry.
That I have to strongly disagree with you on. The government is already robbing us blind.Kandahar said:They aren't "gouging" anyone. Oil prices obey the laws of supply and demand, just like every other commodity. However, the government should step in to gouge consumers. It'd reduce the demand and take money out of the pockets of dictators and terrorists.
danarhea said:That I have to strongly disagree with you on. The government is already robbing us blind.
I have difficulty with this. Yes I know the world market scheme with regards to oil. However being that the worlds oil is marketed by only a very select few companies (the former Rockefeller trusts and some more foreign ie bp) and the fact that last year in the 3rd quarter oil companies reported record profits (think August and Sept during Katrina) and then ended the year with a record of $36 billion for one company alone; Exxon Mobile. Slap me but I find it a bit hard to believe that these sharks have no control over thier profits, and especially when the administration and congress are all in thier pockets (ie Phil Cooney)Kandahar said:They aren't "gouging" anyone. Oil prices obey the laws of supply and demand, just like every other commodity. However, the government should step in to gouge consumers. It'd reduce the demand and take money out of the pockets of dictators and terrorists.
oldreliable67 said:In the longer run, we probably do need a fairly hefty gasoline tax, with the proceeds specifically allocated to energy R&D.. The problem with such is the tendency of Congress to spend the proceeds of any tax for any and all purposes other than that for which the tax is intended. Too often, once they get their hands on the money, its all over.
Not entirely accurate. The switch was not to ethanol but swapping the methyl group in MTBE to an ethyl group. ETBE is more expensive then MTBE. MTBE though produced cleaner burning fuel, however, it ironically directly contaminates grown water.oldreliable67 said:A large part of the current price increases are the fault of changing EPA regs, including the phasing out of MTBE and the switch to ethanol.
This is mainly from state regulations that are in place. Colorado burns crap for fuel while CA and MA both burn the cleanest fuel (relatively) in the US.oldreliable67 said:More specifically, the EPA now requires 18 regional blends of gasoline. This is very costly, not only in terms of the much shorter production runs over which to spread the cost, but the infrastructure with which to distribute this many blends is not yet fully in place in all regions.
Various refining stations that have been "shut down" for maintainance has substantially contributed to the higher prices in the US.oldreliable67 said:Crude had dropped back to the high $58 - $60 price range, which had helped put a bit of damper on potential gasoline price increases, but have now popped back up to the $67+ range, partly as a result of Iranian military exercises and demonstration of hardware that could be used against shipping in the Straits of Hormuz and other adversaries in the ME.
I do not trust congress to spend a single penny. They only pay lip service and spend what is popularly correct and not what is scientifically sound. ie hydrogen as a fuel source. Liquid fuels just can not be practically and safely substituted by gaseous fuels.oldreliable67 said:In the longer run, we probably do need a fairly hefty gasoline tax, with the proceeds specifically allocated to energy R&D.. The problem with such is the tendency of Congress to spend the proceeds of any tax for any and all purposes other than that for which the tax is intended. Too often, once they get their hands on the money, its all over.
Various refining stations that have been "shut down" for maintainance has substantially contributed to the higher prices in the US.
In 2005, a number of petroleum companies announced their intent to remove methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) from their gasoline in 2006. Companies’ decisions to eliminate MTBE have been driven by State bans due to water contamination concerns, continuing liability exposure from adding MTBE to gasoline, and perceived potential for increased liability exposure due to the elimination of the oxygen content requirement for reformulated gasoline (RFG) included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. EIA’s informal
discussions with a number of suppliers indicate that most of the industry is trying to move away from MTBE before the 2006 summer driving season.
Currently, the largest use of MTBE is in RFG consumed on the East Coast outside of New York and Connecticut (Figure 1) and in Texas.1 The other RFG areas in the Midwest and California have already moved from MTBE to ethanol. Most companies eliminating MTBE in the short-run will blend ethanol into the gasoline to help replace the octane and clean-burning properties of MTBE. The rapid switch from MTBE to ethanol could have several impacts on the market that serve to increase the potential for supply dislocations and subsequent price volatility on a local basis. These impacts stem mainly
from:
• Net loss of gasoline production capacity
• Tight ethanol market, limited in the short-run by ethanol-production capacity and transportation capability to move increased volumes to areas of demand
• Limited resources and permitting issues hampering gasoline suppliers abilities to quickly get terminal facilities in place to store and blend ethanol
• Loss of import supply sources that cannot deliver MTBE-free product, or that cannot produce the high-quality blendstock needed to combine with ethanol The different properties between MTBE and ethanol affect not only production, but distribution and storage of gasoline as well. Ethanol-blended gasoline cannot be intermingled with other gasolines during the summer months,2 and ethanol, unlike MTBE, must be transported and stored separately from the base gasoline mixture to which it is added until the last step in the distribution chain.3 Many areas of the distribution system cannot handle additional products without further investments.
A large number of changes are required to the supply and distribution system to make the transition from MTBE-blended RFG to ethanol-blended RFG: contracting for and moving more ethanol to the East Coast and Texas, converting terminal tanks from petroleum to ethanol, adding blending equipment at many terminals, and finding new sources of supply – both ethanol and RFG blending components. In general, areas on the East Coast served by imports into the Northeast and East Coast refineries will likely need
more gasoline supply from imports and from the Gulf Coast than previously used. The areas further south in Maryland, Delaware, Washington DC and Virginia will still receive the reformulated gasoline blendstocks for oxygenate blending (RBOB) for their RFG from the Gulf Coast, but ethanol must be brought in by rail car to major terminals serving those areas.
There's really no reason why ethanol can not be "shipped" by piplines. There is also no reason that the oil companies are not using ETBE, same property and "shippability" as MTBE, just without the watersource hazard.oldreliable67 said:Right. Katrina left about 800,000 b/d of refining capacity out of action. In the aftermath, the sector put off much of its scheduled maintenance from last fall to try to catch up with demand, rescheduling that work for this spring.
For clarity purposes, here is a portion of the summary of the EIA presentation to the Senate on the effects of eliminating MTBE:
Source.
A drive from the Washington, DC area to New Jersey this past week-end provided confrimation of exactly what Caruso was referring to: in northern Virginia, regular gasoline was about $2.65/gal; on the New Jersey Turnpike, it was about $2.35/gal. The added expense of bring in the ethanol by rail to the terminals serving the DC area is substanial.
jfuh said:There's really no reason why ethanol can not be "shipped" by piplines.
XShipRider said:"Wait. Stop. Don't." Willy Wonka.
Gas prices going up...? Frankly, I'm shocked.:mrgreen:
Price of gas in 1970 vs. today...
1970 - $.50 / gallon
2005 - $2.52 / gallon
Difference after adjustment for inflation = zero.
http://www.westegg.com/inflation/
THis sounds about right to me.oldreliable67 said:xshipper,
Thats a neat site, thanks for posting the link!
I get a bit of a different result than you did:
given 1970 price = $0.50 per gallon
using the westegg.com 1970 conversion factor:
$0.50 / 0.199 = $3.52
Hence, gasoline should be $3.52 per gallon to equal the rate of inflation since 1970. Consequently, using these metrics, one would conclude that at $2.52 per gallon, gasoline is incredibly cheap!
You might check me on this: have I used the westegg.com conversion factors correctly?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?