# Oil Prices Now



## vinny11950

As many of you probably noticed, yesterday oil prices took a dive.  The below article has a good explanation on the geopolitical reasons of why that happened.









						The Great Oil War of 2020 Has Begun. Can Russia Win?
					

Russia enters this oil price war with two overarching objectives: drive U.S. producers out of business, and expose Riyadh to the limits of American support. Will Putin prevail?




					nationalinterest.org


----------



## tadmaz

Local gas station went down to $2.09 today!


----------



## peakbagger

There are lot of long term discussions that with AGW, the price of oil the commodity is on a long term downward trend.  The world can not afford to tap the proven reserves without a major increase in atmospheric carbon so the oil will be taxed to the point where only the lowest cost producers can make a buck. Last thing I knew the gulf states can still produce for less than a buck a barrel, the rest of the cost is the cost to prop up their governments so the people do not riot. Sure the Russians can drive out short term oil production in the US but only in the short term, if the price goes up the rigs will go back out in the field it will just take a year or so.


----------



## vinny11950

peakbagger said:


> There are lot of long term discussions that with AGW, the price of oil the commodity is on a long term downward trend.  The world can not afford to tap the proven reserves without a major increase in atmospheric carbon so the oil will be taxed to the point where only the lowest cost producers can make a buck. Last thing I knew the gulf states can still produce for less than a buck a barrel, the rest of the cost is the cost to prop up their governments so the people do not riot. Sure the Russians can drive out short term oil production in the US but only in the short term, if the price goes up the rigs will go back out in the field it will just take a year or so.



I am not sure the fracking rigs in the US will all come back when oil prices rebound.   A lot of those companies are small with a lot of debt.   Debt has made it possible for them to stay in business, but if the lenders begin to think oil is on a downward trend, then they may not want to invest/lend them money, or at least not lend money to some of them, which puts them out of business.  The other option is for the majors to buy them up, but they are also having issues. 

Like the article says, Russia is doing this to gain a strategic advantage over the US.  However, if the global economy slows down too much, oil prices could keep going down to levels that even the Russians can't bear.


----------



## Grizzerbear

1.79 at Murphy USA in Nixa, Mo. America needs to invest heavily in all forms of renewables to negate Russian antics. Help people convert to electric, solar, wind etc and put gas in the rear view. Sadly lower gas prices are going to encourage the same old status quo I think. If the government would do more to help lower costs associated with solar installations and people buying evs it would go a long way to help the growth of business's in the field and help the movement spread. I'm just a dumb country boy so forgive me if I'm out of line and don't have a clue what I'm talking about but that's my belief.


----------



## begreen

We could have put some stiff sanctions on the two bad players. In other times, congress would be demanding it.

Time to stop the corporate welfare subsidies for the fossil fuel industry to equalize the playing field and get renewables online.


----------



## vinny11950

Well oil keeps taking the express elevator down.  Now around $22.

I saw a headline of an oil deal breaking up because the investors were walking away.


----------



## SpaceBus

They won't need subsidies soon, oil just keeps falling through the floor. Opec and Russia are going to produce as much as they want. I heard on NPR that OPEC can produce oil at $1/barrel before shipping costs, so they won't stop until everyone is bankrupt I guess. Things look pretty wild.


----------



## begreen

These times are going to be a milestone in human history. I hope most communities learn to be more resilient and greatly reduce dependencies on long supply lines.


----------



## ABMax24

SpaceBus said:


> They won't need subsidies soon, oil just keeps falling through the floor. Opec and Russia are going to produce as much as they want. I heard on NPR that OPEC can produce oil at $1/barrel before shipping costs, so they won't stop until everyone is bankrupt I guess. Things look pretty wild.



Some of this has already begun, oil companies here have slashed billions of dollars in capital spending in the last week, most companies have seen their stock prices halve or worse. We sell WCS (Western Canadian Select) oil, today the price was about $11USD/barrel, no company in this area that I'm aware of can operate at those prices.

I work for a construction company that builds the oil and gas processing facilities for these oil companies. Today I was given notice that Monday would be my last day at work. Sad part is I am just one of tens of thousands that will be laid off up here in the coming months.


----------



## SpaceBus

ABMax24 said:


> Some of this has already begun, oil companies here have slashed billions of dollars in capital spending in the last week, most companies have seen their stock prices halve or worse. We sell WCS (Western Canadian Select) oil, today the price was about $11USD/barrel, no company in this area that I'm aware of can operate at those prices.
> 
> I work for a construction company that builds the oil and gas processing facilities for these oil companies. Today I was given notice that Monday would be my last day at work. Sad part is I am just one of tens of thousands that will be laid off up here in the coming months.


It's going to be rough for a lot of industries. Very few sectors will make any money.


----------



## ABMax24

SpaceBus said:


> It's going to be rough for a lot of industries. Very few sectors will make any money.



This is very true. My fear is the current economic downturn will make 2008 look like a small blip in comparison.


----------



## vinny11950

ABMax24 said:


> Some of this has already begun, oil companies here have slashed billions of dollars in capital spending in the last week, most companies have seen their stock prices halve or worse. We sell WCS (Western Canadian Select) oil, today the price was about $11USD/barrel, no company in this area that I'm aware of can operate at those prices.
> 
> I work for a construction company that builds the oil and gas processing facilities for these oil companies. Today I was given notice that Monday would be my last day at work. Sad part is I am just one of tens of thousands that will be laid off up here in the coming months.



Sorry you are getting laid off.  All the best.


----------



## Grizzerbear

vinny11950 said:


> Sorry you are getting laid off. All the best.



+1. I hate to hear that. I worked in a oil and gas related construction field through the last recession. Luckily we made it through pretty good but I fear this is going to be worse.


----------



## begreen

ABMax24 said:


> This is very true. My fear is the current economic downturn will make 2008 look like a small blip in comparison.


There is a distinct possibility of this with world economies on the brink. I hope you can translate your construction experience into other gainful employment.


----------



## ABMax24

begreen said:


> There is a distinct possibility of this with world economies on the brink. I hope you can translate your construction experience into other gainful employment.



I'm sure I'll find something, there are a few other competing companies out there with some work still. We are fairly prepared for this, this industry is cyclic by nature and we have planned our finances accordingly.


----------



## Z33

ABMax24 said:


> I'm sure I'll find something, there are a few other competing companies out there with some work still. We are fairly prepared for this, this industry is cyclic by nature and we have planned our finances accordingly.




Very wise of you. You'd be amazed at those that work in cyclical industry and live paycheck to pay check. 

Good luck to you and the family.


----------



## Baddyart

I hope so too!


----------



## vinny11950

Crazy price action in the oil futures markets.  Some contracts ending this week have gone negative.  hmmm









						An oil futures contract expiring Tuesday went negative in bizarre move showing a demand collapse
					

US crude prices turned negative on Monday as one analyst told CNBC that the situation stateside is "quite dire."




					www.cnbc.com


----------



## SpaceBus

vinny11950 said:


> Crazy price action in the oil futures markets.  Some contracts ending this week have gone negative.  hmmm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An oil futures contract expiring Tuesday went negative in bizarre move showing a demand collapse
> 
> 
> US crude prices turned negative on Monday as one analyst told CNBC that the situation stateside is "quite dire."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnbc.com


Wow, the future is going to be weird.


----------



## CaptSpiff

vinny11950 said:


> Crazy price action in the oil futures markets.  Some contracts ending this week have gone negative.  hmmm


Super tanker pulls up to home of options holder:
Capt yells down from bridge: Where would you like me to unload your 100000 barrels?
Options holder: (_silence with bulging eyes_)
Capt yells down from bridge: And will that be cash or charge?

That's what I think when I hear the price of options going negative.


----------



## begreen

I heard this morning on the radio that oil bounced off $12 a barrel today, but did not catch which market this was. The oil industry is tanking. It holds the majority of US corporate debt. Apparently the whole fracking industry is fueled by debt. Word is that banks are ready to foreclose some fields.








						Opinion | Coronavirus May Kill Our Fracking Fever Dream (Published 2020)
					

America’s energy independence was an illusion created by cheap debt. All that’s left to tally is the damage.




					www.nytimes.com


----------



## mcdougy

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/oil-price-monday-1.5538048


----------



## mcdougy

Are they going to pay for us to fill our tanks? Or force us to buy solar panels?


----------



## SpaceBus

begreen said:


> I heard this morning on the radio that oil bounced off $12 a barrel today, but did not catch which market this was. The oil industry is tanking. It holds the majority of US corporate debt. Apparently the whole fracking industry is fueled by debt. Word is that banks are ready to foreclose some fields.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Opinion | Coronavirus May Kill Our Fracking Fever Dream (Published 2020)
> 
> 
> America’s energy independence was an illusion created by cheap debt. All that’s left to tally is the damage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com


What will they do with the fields?


----------



## ABMax24

This is just temporary. Basically a bunch of commodity traders got caught with their pants down on and are now having to pay to get rid of May oil contracts they tried to gamble on.


----------



## begreen

Consumption decline is not temporary. Travel will not be the same for a while.


----------



## ABMax24

begreen said:


> Consumption decline is not temporary. Travel will not be the same for a while.



I was referring to negative/extremely low oil prices. $20 oil is here for awhile, $-37 sure isn't here to stay.

Many producers will just shut in for awhile. I expect oil prices to swing hard the opposite way as we come out of this though. The world has never experienced an extended period of time when new wells and new production capacity haven't been brought on line like we will see the next year, and in that time many semi marginal wells will be capped during that time, further reducing supply.

Given the current position of US producers they will not come out of this ahead and will loose market share. I fully expect to see the US return to a net oil importer within a year.


----------



## begreen

Ah, that is price decline. It went positive today to a whopping  $0.54. 


ABMax24 said:


> Given the current position of US producers they will not come out of this ahead and will lose market share. I fully expect to see the US return to a net oil importer within a year.


Yes, I think we are in for a bumpy ride.


----------



## mcdougy

I'm guessing 2$ a litre for regular gas by December. I hope I'm wrong.


----------



## ABMax24

mcdougy said:


> I'm guessing 2$ a litre for regular gas by December. I hope I'm wrong.



I think your wrong. That would require ~$150 oil, or the carbon tax to increase exponentially which they are intent on doing but not by December.

But I'm okay with high oil prices, my income is directly tied to it.


----------



## johneh

ABMax24 said:


> But I'm okay with high oil prices, my income is directly tied to it.


So is my income 
The higher the price for fule the 
less money I have for other bills 
and food and other things needed
to run a family farm


----------



## ABMax24

johneh said:


> So is my income
> The higher the price for fule the
> less money I have for other bills
> and food and other things needed
> to run a family farm



If only we could build a pipeline to ship cheap Alberta oil east to Ontario, what a win win that would be, you'd have a cheap and stable source of domestic petroleum, we'd have another market to sell to. But of course we all know how the Energy East Pipeline went...


----------



## mcdougy

Excuse my lack of knowledge...can Alberta oil be refined to petroleum? I seem to think that it needs "higher grade" mixed?  Is there truth to that?


----------



## johneh

If crude oil could be piped from Alberta and the rest of the
 Western Provinces across Canada we would be self-sufficient 
in fule oil and Gasoline. There are 17 refineries in Canada  6 in western Canada,
 4 in Ontario, 2 in Quebec, and 2 in the Atlantic Provinces.  In 2018, Canadians 
consumed 46 billion liters of gasoline. That's a lot of gas for just over 40 million people


----------



## ABMax24

mcdougy said:


> Excuse my lack of knowledge...can Alberta oil be refined to petroleum? I seem to think that it needs "higher grade" mixed?  Is there truth to that?



Yes it can be. We do have conventional oil as well that is the same as all other crude. What you are referring to is the heavy oil from the oil sands, which is the bulk of the oil we produce. This heavy oil is mixed with lighter solvents to make it able to be shipped by pipeline. In my area of the province we produce the solvents, we have a lot of natural gas wells that produce short chain hydrocarbons (condensate), this condensate contains many of the components in gasoline, and sometimes used to be called straight run gasoline. Heavy oil (bitumen) is mixed with this condensate to form Diluted Bitumen, also referred to as Dilbit.

Upon processing our heavy oil (bitumen) does require more specialized equipment to first break the long hydrocarbon chains into the shorter ones used for gasoline and diesel. Currently we have 4 upgraders in the province capable of doing this, they effectively sell synthetic crude oil  which can be used at a traditional refinery. These upgraders also make fully refined products for use in Western Canada. Actually most of the diesel sold in the province comes from these upgraders, making most of it synthetic diesel (although it's not labelled as such). So I get to run both synthetic oil and synthetic diesel in my truck.

The one thing I don't understand is in Eastern Canada where jobs are more scarce why they wouldn't want this work. Oil upgraders are some of the most labour intensive facilities that I'm aware of, the billions of dollars invested and man hours required in their construction and maintenance easily rival that of nuclear power plants. They employ almost every trade imaginable on top of a dozen different professions.


----------



## ABMax24

johneh said:


> If crude oil could be piped from Alberta and the rest of the
> Western Provinces across Canada we would be self-sufficient
> in fule oil and Gasoline. There are 17 refineries in Canada  6 in western Canada,
> 4 in Ontario, 2 in Quebec, and 2 in the Atlantic Provinces.  In 2018, Canadians
> consumed 46 billion liters of gasoline. That's a lot of gas for just over 40 million people



That fuel also came from 593,000 barrels per day of oil being imported into Canada, most of it from the US. Quite the scheme the US has going on, in the west we sell crude to the US at often less than half its value because of lack of other domestic or foreign markets, and the east buys oil back from the US at full price.






						CER – Market Snapshot: Imports of crude oil continue to decrease in 2018
					

Market Snapshot: Imports of crude oil continue to decrease in 2018




					www.cer-rec.gc.ca


----------



## mcdougy

Sarnia, Ontario isn't too far from me, maybe 120kms. Also known as chemical alley, what "oil" are they processing? My aunt works for Suncor and others over here career as a biologist. She is close to retirement age and was expressing deep concern that everything may get shut down due to pricing. She claimed the company doesn't make a nickel until a barrel sells for 42$. They were having a burn rate of 68$ million a day for her plant. Her retirement (stocks) had taken a 40% loss. A rough spot to be in for everyone for sure.


----------



## mcdougy

Sarnia Refinery – Refining and Marketing  | Suncor
					

Located along the St. Clair River in Sarnia-Lambton, the Sarnia refinery has been an important part of local industry for the past 65 years. The refinery is an 85,000 barrel per day operation that produces gasoline, kerosene, jet and diesel fuels, asphalt and petrochemical feedstock.




					www.suncor.com
				



Here's what they are making.


----------



## ABMax24

mcdougy said:


> Sarnia, Ontario isn't too far from me, maybe 120kms. Also known as chemical alley, what "oil" are they processing? My aunt works for Suncor and others over here career as a biologist. She is close to retirement age and was expressing deep concern that everything may get shut down due to pricing. She claimed the company doesn't make a nickel until a barrel sells for 42$. They were having a burn rate of 68$ million a day for her plant. Her retirement (stocks) had taken a 40% loss. A rough spot to be in for everyone for sure.



The Sarnia plant can process some heavy oil, how much I'm not sure though, I'm assuming it uses conventional crude mostly though.

I am curious how they are loosing money though, times of low oil prices are usually best for our refineries as the price of the produced fuel never drops nears as much as the price of oil used to make it. Unless they are still buying oil from an existing contract at significantly above today's prices, then that would explain such a loss.

Suncor is a huge company though, their current market capitalization on the TSX is over $31 billion. I've even got shares in them, most people with mutual funds probably do to.


----------



## mcdougy

Does Exxon have a stake in /own Suncor?


----------



## Sodbuster

begreen said:


> There is a distinct possibility of this with world economies on the brink. I hope you can translate your construction experience into other gainful employment.



So Begreen, what's your long term way in which to weather this storm?


----------



## Jan Pijpelink

mcdougy said:


> Does Exxon have a stake in /own Suncor?


I do not think so. Suncor is a 100% subsidiary of the US Sunoco, which has stopped their refinery business in the US a few years back.


----------



## ABMax24

Jan Pijpelink said:


> I do not think so. Suncor is a 100% subsidiary of the US Sunoco, which has stopped their refinery business in the US a few years back.



Canadian Suncor is not owned by US Sunoco. Suncor is it's own independant business.


----------



## Jan Pijpelink

ABMax24 said:


> Canadian Suncor is not owned by US Sunoco. Suncor is it's own independant business.


My mistake. They maintained the Sunoco brand in Canada. Thanks for correcting me.


----------



## vinny11950

Here is a Bloomberg article on the current fracking situation:



			Bloomberg - Are you a robot?


----------



## begreen

And the shale oil situation








						Why Shale Oil Production May Take Years to Recover
					

U.S. shale production may recover in the next couple of months then decline again, pulling U.S. shale oil output down, analysts say.




					www.barrons.com


----------



## ABMax24

The US shale oil industry is in for a world of hurt. The Keystone XL Pipeline is under construction and will displace another 830,000 bpd of domestic US crude with Canadian Heavy oil.


----------



## begreen

ABMax24 said:


> The US shale oil industry is in for a world of hurt. The Keystone XL Pipeline is under construction and will displace another 830,000 bpd of domestic US crude with Canadian Heavy oil.


Or not








						Keystone XL pipeline remains blocked in Supreme Court order
					

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to let construction start on TC Energy Corp.’s Keystone XL oil-sands pipeline, rejecting a bid by President Trump’s administration to jump-start the long-delayed project.




					www.latimes.com


----------



## ABMax24

begreen said:


> Or not
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keystone XL pipeline remains blocked in Supreme Court order
> 
> 
> The U.S. Supreme Court refused to let construction start on TC Energy Corp.’s Keystone XL oil-sands pipeline, rejecting a bid by President Trump’s administration to jump-start the long-delayed project.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.latimes.com



Not sure what to tell you. Construction is still happening, the right-of-way is being cleared, lay-down yard are being filled with pipe, work camps being built.









						TC Energy says Keystone XL construction continuing despite U.S. court ruling - BNN Bloomberg
					

TC Energy Corp. reported a first-quarter profit of $1.15 billion, up from $1.0 billion a year ago.




					www.bnnbloomberg.ca


----------



## peakbagger

My guess is we are looking at similar cyclical curve for non conventional oil as there was for natural gas. Interposed on this is the big unknown of the worldwide response to climate change and how it impacts fossil fuels. The Biden plans are a Green New Deal version that means a reduction in fossil fuels. If Europe and the US are on roughly the same bandwagon they can impose punitive carbon surcharges on other countries like China to force carbon reduction. 

Natural gas used to cycle "like clockwork" until directional drilling and fracking made a gas glut. The price would creep up, drillers would start drilling new wells based on high prices, that would take 12 to 18 months for the new production to come on line and then the prices would start going down due to new supply. The rigs would pull out because the prices were low and then supply would drop which would raise prices and the cycle would start all over again. Fracking and uncoventional drilling will do the same, rigs will pull out and get auctioned investors will lose money but if the prices rise some other firms will head back into the field  and start drilling, eventually it will make a dent in supplies and the prices will drop and the cycle will begin again.  The big game changer is the US prior to this new unconventional recovery wasn't in the game so we were  dependent on supporting some pretty nasty regimes.


----------



## ABMax24

Figure I'll bring this thread back to the top. Amazing how things have changed in the last year, looking back at my own posts I was right about much of what I posted, except Keystone XL, dead wrong on that. Oil prices are way up, WTI was at $68 last I checked, and lots of room for it to run yet, I don't see how oil won't hit $100 by the end of the year.


----------



## clancey

Like you but I think it will go over even that amount for more reasons than one...clancey


----------



## ABMax24

WTI broke $70/barrel today.

What's interesting is rig counts in the US and Canada are roughly half of what they would traditionally be given current oil prices. The US will have to further rely on imported oil, the question is will OPEC+ continue to open the taps to make up the difference? Or will they maintain current production and drive up prices for higher profits?


----------



## EatenByLimestone

Prices will go up.


----------



## vinny11950

ABMax24 said:


> WTI broke $70/barrel today.
> 
> What's interesting is rig counts in the US and Canada are roughly half of what they would traditionally be given current oil prices. The US will have to further rely on imported oil, the question is will OPEC+ continue to open the taps to make up the difference? Or will they maintain current production and drive up prices for higher profits?



I don't think the capital is available to the smaller drillers to just keep on drilling.  10 years ago, capital just plowed into the sector.  Now not so much.  The lenders have tightened their lending standards to the industry.   Also, the Anadarko merger was a big mistake for Occidental, as they overpaid for an asset right before the price collapsed.  

Add to this the hype of the EVs, and lenders will be wondering if the price will maintain 5 years out when they need to be paid.


----------



## begreen

ABMax24 said:


> WTI broke $70/barrel today.
> 
> What's interesting is rig counts in the US and Canada are roughly half of what they would traditionally be given current oil prices. The US will have to further rely on imported oil, the question is will OPEC+ continue to open the taps to make up the difference? Or will they maintain current production and drive up prices for higher profits?







__





						The US exported more petroleum than it imported for the first time in at least 70 years
					

https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1189-june-7-2021-us-net-petroleum-imports-negative-2020




					www.hearth.com


----------



## EatenByLimestone

The hype over EVs are why the price will stay up.

The politicians dont gave any incentive to increase supply.   Expensive gas will get more people to buy an EV.


----------



## ABMax24

vinny11950 said:


> I don't think the capital is available to the smaller drillers to just keep on drilling.  10 years ago, capital just plowed into the sector.  Now not so much.  The lenders have tightened their lending standards to the industry.   Also, the Anadarko merger was a big mistake for Occidental, as they overpaid for an asset right before the price collapsed.
> 
> Add to this the hype of the EVs, and lenders will be wondering if the price will maintain 5 years out when they need to be paid.



I agree, the days of small oil producers are over. We experienced that here years ago, the vast majority of our small producers have disappeared, even the mid-sized ones are now merging or being bought out. Part of me believes the lack of new development is a strategic business decision, would you rather sell half as much oil for double the price, or spend billions to produce double the oil to sell at half the price? I know what I'd pick out of those two.

IMO EV's aren't yet playing into the 5 year time horizon, manufacturers can't get enough of them on the roads in 5 years to make a significant impact, 10 years might be a different story.


----------



## ABMax24

begreen said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US exported more petroleum than it imported for the first time in at least 70 years
> 
> 
> https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/articles/fotw-1189-june-7-2021-us-net-petroleum-imports-negative-2020
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.hearth.com



Current data tells a different story, looks like the US is back to being a net importer, or at best breaking even.





__





						U.S. Imports & Exports
					





					www.eia.gov


----------



## blades

problem with those evs in quanity is the grid can't support them. power companies are not particularly fond of improvements unless someone else is footing the tab.


----------



## peakbagger

Most utilities are monopolies that supply power as regulated utilities. They are by law effectively cost plus. if the state wants them to spend money on something, they are guaranteed a profit. If they are told to upgrade the grid to be EV friendly by the state that regulates them, they will gladly do so as they are guaranteed a profit on that expenditure. They will not do it on their own unless the states rate setting board agrees. Many utilities no longer produce power, they just move it around and sell it to a customer. If the price of power they purchase goes up they just mark it up and sell it to the consumer.


----------



## SpaceBus

peakbagger said:


> Most utilities are monopolies that supply power as regulated utilities. They are by law effectively cost plus. if the state wants them to spend money on something, they are guaranteed a profit. If they are told to upgrade the grid to be EV friendly by the state that regulates them, they will gladly do so as they are guaranteed a profit on that expenditure. They will not do it on their own unless the states rate setting board agrees. Many utilities no longer produce power, they just move it around and sell it to a customer. If the price of power they purchase goes up they just mark it up and sell it to the consumer.



There's some kind of attempted referendum happening in Maine right now to try and get a bill through that will force Versant and CMP owners to sell their assets and have them managed by a publicly elected body. I kind of doubt it will happen, but I think Mainers are scared after watching what happened to Texas, who has a similar method of regulation.


----------



## peakbagger

I am watching the Maine legislative debate  closely, I dont think its a referendum yet but no doubt if the legislature votes to proceed there could be one. Both CMP and Versant are an ideal setup, they get guaranteed profits on buying power wholesale and reselling it to retail customers. Investors like that as its money in the bank no matter how bad the economy is as everyone needs power.  Their labor, management and infrastructure costs are kept under the regulated side of the business so every dime they spend is a guaranteed profit. Sure they can commiserate with the rate payers when the power rates are high but the higher the power cost they buy, the more they make.  Mixed in with that is the ability to set up separate operating entities that are non regulated like CMP is doing with the Clean Power Connect transmission line project in western Maine . CMP set up the CPC project as a subsidiary that is not regulated by the PUC, their return on equity is significantly higher on CPC but those profits are kept in a separate pool for the investors, they are not subsidizing the retail customers with the profits from CPC, they just throw enough crumbs to the state for using transmission facilities and right of ways long since bought by the ratepayers that the state lets it happen.  The bet is southern New England does not want wind turbines and solar farms in their backyard if they can get the relatively poor neighboring states host the facilities that is their choice. So both companies are banking on being able to set up ways of sidestepping the regulated side of the business and planning on running more transmission lines on the non regulated side.  

If the state sets up publicly owned utility, there are no investors, projects like CPC go right back in the pot to reduce rates. The problem is the devil is in the details, a large publicly owned utility is ripe for the picking by politicians, they want their paws in it. The proposed entity is claimed to be an independent of state government but it can become the 800 pound gorilla in the room. Hydro Quebec has that reputation in Quebec province where they were big enough that they were calling the shots politically in the province.


----------



## CaptSpiff

peakbagger said:


> .......when the power rates are high but the higher the power cost they buy, the more they make.


Great fact based post as usual, however I do not think the above statement is true.
Here on L.I. the utility buys power at wholesale rates which swing significantly thru out the day and season, but the retail price charged via the tariff (analysed several times in-year) has been remarkably stable. There is a monthly Fuel Price Adjustment added on the monthly bill to keep the Utility from needing to make published tariff rate adjustments in-year. Some months it's a credit and some it's a debit. A major function of this monthly adjustment is to prevent the "wholesale price" from becoming a big profit center. Otherwise they would have no incentive to buy at the lowest cost.


----------



## begreen

ABMax24 said:


> IMO EV's aren't yet playing into the 5 year time horizon, manufacturers can't get enough of them on the roads in 5 years to make a significant impact, 10 years might be a different story.


Agreed, it will take a while for the impact to be noticed. The US government is the largest institutional consumer of oil in the world. When their procurements change the impact will be notable. Also, increasing pressure on the plastics industry will start having an impact as new legislation gets passed constricting single-use plastics and requiring greater producer responsibility for plastic waste.


----------



## ABMax24

begreen said:


> Agreed, it will take a while for the impact to be noticed. The US government is the largest institutional consumer of oil in the world. When their procurements change the impact will be notable. Also, increasing pressure on the plastics industry will start having an impact as new legislation gets passed constricting single-use plastics and requiring greater producer responsibility for plastic waste.



I know the US government is pushing toward renewables and EV's, but I'm not sure how the military will reduce it's carbon footprint, it takes lots of JP-8 to keep the planes in the air, and a bunch more DFM to keep the destroyers and other ships moving.

As for plastics there may be some decrease in oil demand, but at least at our petrochemical plants the majority of plastics are made from natural gas. What I'm curious about is what will be done with agriculture, particularly fertilizers, without converting much more un-disturbed land to agriculture it's very difficult to get away from synthetic fertilizers while still feeding the global population.


----------



## peakbagger

The point where it get real interesting is when folks buying


ABMax24 said:


> I know the US government is pushing toward renewables and EV's, but I'm not sure how the military will reduce it's carbon footprint, it takes lots of JP-8 to keep the planes in the air, and a bunch more DFM to keep the destroyers and other ships moving.
> 
> As for plastics there may be some decrease in oil demand, but at least at our petrochemical plants the majority of plastics are made from natural gas. What I'm curious about is what will be done with agriculture, particularly fertilizers, without converting much more un-disturbed land to agriculture it's very difficult to get away from synthetic fertilizers while still feeding the global population.


The Us Military is actual spending a lot of money on bio based fuels. There are plenty of options, they are just not cheap.


----------



## ABMax24

peakbagger said:


> The Us Military is actual spending a lot of money on bio based fuels. There are plenty of options, they are just not cheap.



I'll believe it when I see it, in 2012 there were big promises to have a significant portion of military aviation fuel be bio-based by 2016, that never materialized. 

As time goes on I become more and more skeptical of biofuels, the amount of land required to grow enough fuel to make a sizable difference in energy supply is staggering. Quite frankly I have no desire to see more land cleared for farm land, particularly if it is being used for fuel. I look at the US ethanol industry, ethanol corn is grown on millions of acres of land, much of which the long term sustainability of is highly questionable, especially considering the use of herbicides, pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, just to eek out a measly 2.1-4:1 (depending on the study) energy return. If the goal is to subsidize corn farmers its a great plan, but the side effect is corn prices are now directly tied to oil prices (price of ethanol rises and falls with the gasoline it is blended with), which allows farmers to offset higher fuel prices, but also increasingly ties the price of food with the price of oil, which further correlates the CPI (consumer price index) with oil prices.


----------



## EatenByLimestone

How would the price of food not be tied to oil?  Mechanization gets it in the ground, mechanization harvests it.  Mechanization gets it to the grocery store.

The only way to change that is if everybody has a victory garden.


----------



## ABMax24

EatenByLimestone said:


> How would the price of food not be tied to oil?  Mechanization gets it in the ground, mechanization harvests it.  Mechanization gets it to the grocery store.
> 
> The only way to change that is if everybody has a victory garden.



Absolutely it is, to a point. But when $4/bushel corn becomes $7/bushel corn, because that's what ethanol plants can afford to pay, it has a compounding effect on top of the increased costs of transportation. When gasoline prices drop so do ethanol prices, sometimes to the point that these ethanol plants shut down temporarily because it costs more to produce than the ethanol is worth.

I understand that ethanol isn't the only user for corn, but it is close to 40% of demand in the US, and has a pretty significant influence on pricing.


----------



## SpaceBus

Corn for fuel is definitely a problem, but I am not convinced carbon neutral bio fuels will be such an issue. Corn just doesn't have the yield that some other feedstocks do, like the algae, wheat grass, etc.


----------



## paulnlee

Once upon a time we were energy independent , like two years ago


----------



## SpaceBus

paulnlee said:


> Once upon a time we were energy independent , like two years ago



This country is a net producer, but market forces choose to import some energy rather than deplete domestic reserves just to say we can.


----------



## bholler

paulnlee said:


> Once upon a time we were energy independent , like two years ago


Although the official numbers aren't out yet many indicators say we still are.  And if we are not it is due to the fact that production was cut due to low demand during the pandemic and demand has now increased but production hasn't caught up yet.  Not because of any policy changes.


----------



## begreen

peakbagger said:


> The point where it get real interesting is when folks buying
> 
> The Us Military is actual spending a lot of money on bio based fuels. There are plenty of options, they are just not cheap.


But they are attractive. An EV has a lower heat signature and is a lot quieter.


----------



## begreen

paulnlee said:


> Once upon a time we were energy independent , like two years ago


Promise made in 2008. Between 2008 and 2015, American oil production increased by 88%, the fastest increase in history. By 2016 we were seeing the biggest oil boom ever in the US.


----------



## blades

Won't see that again as the banking area has significantly changed their policies-


----------



## ABMax24

WTI at $75/barrel today, and even touched $76.


----------



## Sodbuster

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but i remember reading that under $60 a barrel, US production wasn't profitable. It would be nice to pull our service  members home rather than protect the free flow of oil.


----------



## blades

Sodbuster said:


> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but i remember reading that under $60 a barrel, US production wasn't profitable. It would be nice to pull our service  members home rather than protect the free flow of oil.


careful you are going to let the cat out of the bag as it were. Ref. last sentence.


----------



## SpaceBus

I bet taxpayers would rather have the boots on the ground protecting the flow of oil rather than pay $12/gallon of gas.


----------



## clancey

Give it time and soon it will be 100 a barrel...clancey


----------



## bholler

clancey said:


> Give it time and soon it will be 100 a barrel...clancey


And we will still be much cheaper per gallon than most other developed countries.


----------



## clancey

What we should be thankful for paying less than other countries when we all at this moment in time lost money out of our pocket that we should not have lost...Its going to have a very large impact on all products across the board especially shipping that is too high now..Not only that we might have to depend on people in the future who are not our friends for we are not self sufficient no more nor can we have enough to sell at a good price to other countries.. Yes one hundred dollars a barrel real soon--give it time...clancey


----------



## peakbagger

OPEC and the non aligned countries have a window of pricing they need to hit. Many oil regimes use oil dollars to prop up political support at home by subsidizing commodities and social programs with oil dollars. They plan on minimum oil price, if they go below they have to cut back on social programs and subsidies and the natives get restless. There is also a upper limit, shale, unconventional oil and tar sands get profitable and the oil fleet goes out back in the fields. That is around the $100 mark . It does not happen instantly so in the short term price swings up due to supply imbalances but OPEC and others realize that they need to pump more oil into the market in the short term to let prices float down so the US and Canadian capacity does not decide its trend and head back in the fields. 

The other aspect is global warming, transportation fuel is huge chunk of the problem, cheap gas means lots of gas hogs get bought. Let the price drift up for the long term to the point its a bit more painful, then fewer gas hogs get sold. Ideally if a politician can blame normal market forces its the way to go. The Europeans have heavily taxed gas for decades as a means of forcing conservation, the US will also need to do it either directly or indirectly to meet global warming commitments.  The alternative is gas guzzler surcharges to the car industry, if someone really wants a gas hog they pay a surcharge and the surcharge goes to subsidize fuel efficient cars or electric cars.  I previously owned  a Ford Fiesta, Ford admitted they lost a couple of thousand bucks for everyone they sold but the high fuel mileage allowed them to sell a couple of more big Ford trucks.


----------



## bholler

clancey said:


> What we should be thankful for paying less than other countries when we all at this moment in time lost money out of our pocket that we should not have lost...Its going to have a very large impact on all products across the board especially shipping that is too high now..Not only that we might have to depend on people in the future who are not our friends for we are not self sufficient no more nor can we have enough to sell at a good price to other countries.. Yes one hundred dollars a barrel real soon--give it time...clancey


The only reason we may not be oil independent any more is due to the extremely low price of oil previously that made oil companies cut production because it wasn't profitable.   As price goes up so will production.   

And btw there are no numbers out that say we are not oil independent.   While production dropped allot during the pandemic consumption did as well.


----------



## clancey

I guess the passing of time will set the situation in full display. Time will tell...clancey


----------



## bholler

clancey said:


> I guess the passing of time will set the situation in full display. Time will tell...clancey


A look at history and an understanding of the actual issues at play gives you a pretty good idea of what will happen


----------



## ABMax24

This time around the market is different, capital isn't as readily available to drill and develop new wells. Ever more stringent environmental regulations are making building infrastructure like pipelines ever more difficult and the process more lengthy, a change in US politics has moved from the goal of plentiful cheap oil to reductions on production and movement toward alternatives. OPEC has welcomed Russia into their organization to become OPEC+ further increasing their control of world oil prices, I don't believe their goal any longer is to try and squash the North American oil producers, the environmental movement will complete this task for them. OPEC+ has just agreed to slowly increase production by 2 mmb/d by the end of the year, which leaves total OPEC+ output 3.5 mmb/d below pre-covid levels, which points toward looming supply shortages.

What I know here in Canada is oil production will never significantly increase from current levels. Western Canada is flooded with oil we can't get rid of, the Transmountain pipeline is the only hope to increase our access to markets, and this is under construction by the federal government and will certainly miss it's opening date in 2022, if it ever does ship a drop of oil. The oil sands will maintain production, but another open pit mine will never be built, the federal government has somehow got its hands deciding approvals of these projects, which has added years to an already lengthy process, the last mine application was withdrawn without a decision. I don't expect any investors to ever apply for a permit for a new mine. SAGD operations will continue to be developed in the oil sands, but again hampered by access to pipeline capacity to ship the product out of Canada. Add to this a carbon tax and production costs jump up a bit slowly over the next 10 years, to the point long term projects are being shelved or at least reconsidered. Active drilling rig counts in Western Canada are extremely low considering the higher oil prices, which currently stand at 138, normally at this price there would be around 400 active rigs.

In the US the last Shale Oil boom created a few winning oil companies, and a whole bunch of bankrupted losers, making banks and investors leery of tempting fate on US oil again. The anti-fracking group continues to grow which has significant effect on the development of shale oil. Now politicians are attempting to overstep their bounds and regulate oil and gas infrastructure (think Michigan's Governor and Enbridge Line 5).

Long story short I'm skeptical that North America has the ability to quickly bring on line new production to absorb the post-covid surge in oil demand, and from what I'm seeing in my own backyard this statement so far holds true, new investment is barely trickling in. As an investor I'm very bullish towards high oil prices, I think demand outstrips supply by the end of the year, I see $80 oil this summer, and I think it's a probable bet to see $100 oil by Christmas.


----------



## BCC_Burner

While we're throwing out anecdotal evidence about future demand for fossil fuels, I think it's worth noting that electric vehicles are rapidly becoming mainstream. 

Of the 5 or 6 people I know who have purchased new cars this year, not a single one of them bought a vehicle with an ICE, and that is living in a cold, snowy, mountainous area where people regularly commute 100+ miles per day.  These are not urban runabout vehicles.

By 2030, I bet more than 50% of the vehicles sold in the US will be fully electric or plug-in hybrids with small ICE's that sip gas a miserly rate.

Personal transportation is going to change more in the next decade than it has since large-scale production of the automobile in the early 20th century.

It's going to be awfully hard to charge a whole lot of money for something that is going to be needed in smaller quantities by fewer people.  I live in a town where it's legal to ride atv's and sxs's around on town streets, and I'll be waiting to buy an electric quad myself.  Hate the noise and smell of those things. 

We can't be done burning fossil fuels for personal transportation soon enough.  There are other, better uses for those raw materials.


----------



## peakbagger

I tend to agree with you, the trend is towards electric vehicles. Once the F150 electric trucks start getting shipped I expect a lot of truck folks may make the switch. Battery tech is getting better. I think ICE vehicles will remain for long haul use but they and their fuel will be at a premium.  One thing many folks dont realize is that with a bit of software tuning electric vehicles can have a lot of torque and speed off the line. I am still getting used to my Toyota plug in hybrid, when I stomp on it it really moves. 5.3 seconds zero to 60 is quick.

Battery tech is getting better exponentially and my guess is companies will offer longer range batteries as an option like Ford and Tesla are doing now.   The actually running gear is far less costly to the manufacturers and as battery size shrinks packaging is easier, my guess is at some point battery vehicles will be less costly. Folks are freaking out over the F150 Lightning front trunk (FRUNK) and expect once they start designing trucks for electric only the looks may change(hopefully Tesla eventually removes the packaging off their truck )

I figure by the time my plug in hybrid needs to be replaced in 6 or 7 years, the fully battery options will be even more attractive for the rural dweller like me. I still need an ICE for long trips as the 150 mile Tesla Supercharger boosts would really mess up long trips for me.


----------



## clancey

Our whole society will change on the way we do things in the future especially transportation. I love my electric lawn mower because of it being so clean and quick and good at mowing and when I store it --it is safe for the wintertime with no smell. These new vehicles in the future with electric are wonderful and I can imagine just a truck driving down a street with no person in it just computer ran. I can imagine ordering a car and going anywhere you want by just putting in the information on where you want to go---how nice especially for seniors. But on the other side I am sure there are downsides to this as well environmentally. Everything has downsides. I could get into more details but I need to "cool it" because of being censored and being accused of being part of "the fringe"--lol lol  How far from the truth... We all have our different views and it is so interesting to read about all your different "takes" on this subject...I am looking forward to the electric vehicles and they will certainly enhance society and the clean air aspect of it as well as being quiet and quick with movement...Oil and gas have their purposes---many purposes--not only with "transportation" but it has made our country the greatest country in the world and brought so much technological advances to civilizations and life has been made into a easier living . So I will not knock "oil and gas" at this point and I will thank God that we have it so that we can perfect the wonderful new vehicles that are coming in the future...Our oil prices are raising rapidly and this will make everything rise in the future and this rise in prices is only the beginning. If your standing in your kitchen so to say---everything in that kitchen would disappear ----no stoves, so iceboxes, no sinks or plumbing,,,no flooring, etc etc --on and on so and these things need to be thought about with all of this discussion about the price of oil in my opinion., not just one aspect of it where just electric vehicles are discussed...Hold tight your money for higher "everything" is coming especially "oil and gas"...clancey


----------



## SpaceBus

I really can't wait for electric tractors, ATVs, etc.


----------



## clancey

They are going to be neat...clancey


----------



## begreen

I love electric cars and drive one. However, without a dramatic shift in building out infrastructure for alternative energy and a dramatic increase in safe nuclear plant building, I don't think we will not be able to make the transition to support the huge shift off of fossil fuels quickly enough. This should have started at least a decade ago.


----------



## fbelec

i agree with you begreen. our power plants are running at almost 100% if we start throwing battery charging into the mix we will have what has been done before, rolling black outs. i thought that the way everything from kitchens appliances to light bulbs are energy efficient the home might not need 200 amp services they would stay at 100, but now i think that if the normal household has 3 cars charging at once we are going to be looking at 400 amp services for the simple home. for example if a house had 3 tesla's just in charging there would be 150 amps running never mind air conditioning and the normal house electrics. the power generators would not handle the load and we would have generation issues. it takes years to build a generating plant and fuel to run them. just my thought as a electrician.


----------



## peakbagger

To throw a bit of reality in the doom and gloom, charging demand is related to miles driven.  Lets run some numbers. Assume a typical commuter drives 40 miles round trip a day. Multiply by 5 days a week 50 weeks a year and get a nice round 10000 miles per year. My plug in AWD  Rav 4 SUV gets about 3 KW per mile (with a 45 mile electric range). So I need 120 KW every day to recharge overnight for a 40 mile range. Lets make it simple and assume 12 hours of plug in or 10 KW per hour (KWH). I have a Level 1 charger (120 volts) and typical efficiency is wall to battery is 85% so I really need roughly 12 KW.  12 KW equals 12000 watts, divide by 120 volts and I need 100 amps of power over 12 hours of charging or 8.3 amps per hour.  So the dire predictions of massive power demand for charging doesnt line up with reality.

The grid has lots of extra capacity, it just does not have peak capacity. In areas where solar generation is big part of the power mix there is the dreaded "duck curve"  where solar generation has covered a lot of daily power demand but around 3 PM to 8 PM the solar is ramping down but the demand is going up to cover AC, dinner hour and evening loads (dishwashing and laundry). In the vast majority of the US the price of power is the same 24/7 even though the cost to generate that power varies wildly during the time of day and time of week.  So the big trick is to shift the extra power demand from times of high power demand to low power demand so the grid doesnt need to be oversized to handle the peak and idle the rest of the time. The way to do this is peak power pricing. Vary the price of power to line up with demand. This used to be tricky as meters were "dumb" they just added up how many KWH used between meter readings by the guy in truck.

Much of country already has smart meters that talk to the power company and most homes have internet service even if they do not they have access to cell networks. So most of the parts are in place to put in peak power pricing. So when the demand for power is high, charge more for it and charge less when its not in demand. Some utilities in California have up to 5 power rates depending on system demand.  There is feedback to the consumer so they know when the power cost is high so they can voluntarily push their power use into the low rate periods. With basic IOT (internet of things) systems in many homes (think Alexa and Apple products) many appliances already have the brains to be switched on and off remotely and tying this to power demand is pretty simple.  My Rav4 has an ap that can turn the charger on and off and that comes in via the internet. I have a dumb meter so no incentive for me to hassle with it, but if the power company gives me the incentive to do so I will go to the trouble to figure it out. Even if I have dumb appliance there are plug in or wire in boxes to cycle their power remotely. I have a dumb freezer. It can go without power for hours. If someone pays me to have it cycle off on occasion during high power and its transparent to me I will do so.  All that is needed is a sensor to detect that its temp is rising to the point where the remote off is overriden. 

One of the other big technology leaps is to add storage to the grid so that power is stored when its not needed and put back in the grid when it is. This deals with the Duck curve. There are a lot of storage options some currently deployed and some waiting to be employed . Put the right incentives in place and storage gets built. Massachusetts is putting in "clean peak" standard which is giving incentives to have batteries installed so when the demand for power from the grid is nearing its peak that battery systems will pump power back into the grid. Right now those batteries are fixed in place but the capability to have an automotive battery to pump power back into the grid is getting close.

Many EV folks have installed solar panels to generate the power for their EV. Using my example for battery charging 12KWH per day in my location in northern NH, I need to add about 2.2 KW of panels to my array to cover my batter (note the math is complex so I went to PV WATTs to get the 2.2 KW) Folks with longer days south of me would need less. Assuming 300 watt panels that is about 8 additional PV panels on the roof to cover the car. I do have more PV generation than I use so I run a surplus, I currently use that surplus to heat my house with a minisplit in the shoulder seasons instead of running my wood boiler.  I may just need to run the wood boiler a for more weeks but the reality if I work from home and do not drive a lot so it may not be big impact. I have a total of 4.6 KW of PV currently with a possible increase to of 2.3 KW of panels coming on line soon.

I do agree that Tesla and other EV folks may want big amperage chargers to quick charge for trips but they only need them if they want to drive the miles. Its pretty simple, if they want the quick charge and the grid has high demand, they pay a premium or they wait. Factor in big improvements in battery capacity and range will increase  so that for most drivers they have enough daily capacity that the majority of their charging will be at night.

So many aspects are in place to shift vehicle use to predominantly electric without radical grid changes. it just takes government focus to guide the transition. The US lost out on 4 years of government guidance with the last administration and given the current congressional gridlock we may loose out on another 4 years.  IMO far better to upgrade the US grid to support EV with domestic renewable power and reduce the demand for fossil than being forced to spend military dollars and lives propping up dictatorships around the world to keep pumping oil.


----------



## fbelec

i'm glad your system works for you. i install car chargers all the time no one down here in mass wants to use the 120 volt chargers because they take to long to charge. almost everybody i install chargers for is using the 50 amp tesla or it's a toss for 50 or 30 amp chargers at 240 volts. when they get home at 6:00 to 7:00 they don't have time to play around and everything goes on laundry, dishwasher, car charger, electric stove, and if winter electric heat which in mass is the most expensive way to heat. everybody did that all at the same time something would have to give. the reason that the led bulbs and insulation around here is dam close to being free is all funded by us thru the utility company. they are doing that because they the company don't have the capacity to keep going in the direction we are going. in the past when it was 100 degrees there would be so many air conditioners running that they had to go to rolling black outs. whether people knew it or not that was what happened.3 to 4 hours of black out won't bother the fridge or freezer and that is why it is only 3 to 4 hours. the last time a power plant was trying to go up people stopped it because they don't want that in their neighborhood but people want power. nuclear is clean but they have to come up with a better way to control it. hydrogen power is not bad but there is no way to make lots of it inexpensively. if our oil price goes up then the oil fired plants make expensive power. in a perfect world we can do anything but it is not perfect. unfortunately.


----------



## peakbagger

Power plants are going up in Mass, just not the type you would imagine. I have installed 14 MWs of generation in the last 5 years with another 7.5 going on line soon and my firm is not the only one. The utilities are paying businesses and institutions to build on site combined heat and power plants that generate all the power the facility needs which frees up capacity for the grid. This eliminates transmission loss as the generation is hooked directly to the incoming switchgear. The institutions get free heating and cooling from the waste heat from the generator.  Unless someone tells the neighbors they do not even know the plant was built. Most of the big hospitals and lot of the colleges in the Boston area have done the same thing.  

I do not see a lot more conventional nukes being built. The new liquid metal "nuclear battery" style plants that are on track to be deployed in Wyoming are a far more viable option. Mass is betting on off shore wind with a long extension cord to Canadian "Hydro" which eventually leads to a couple of natural gas power plants that Hydro Quebec was paying for but not using.  

Mass long ago decoupled utility profits from sales of power. The utilities do not own generation, they just deliver it. They get paid a base rate for transmission but their big profit is conservation. The state PUC sets targets for reducing demand and they get a reward for meeing the target by pushing demand reduction, batteries and conservation.

I agree that unless there is an economic penalty, most folks will go with fast charging and that is going to load up the grid. Put in tiered rates tied to grid congestion and my guess is they will change the way they use power.  Interesting how things change, many states were discussing charging a premium for power connections in excess of 100AMPs and I even saw proposals to charge a premium for over 60 amps.


----------



## SpaceBus

Why can't most people slow charge EVs at night while they sleep? Seems like an easy choice that won't lead to any problems for the user or the provider of power.


----------



## ABMax24

Most people don't even have a basic understanding of how the electrical grid works.

It's quite a common problem here, so many people argue against the adoption of EV's citing "the grid" or "the grid can't support it" as the reason. When questioned why "the grid" is an issue they can't give a more detailed explanation, because they are simply headline readers on Facebook and have formed their entire opinion based on the headline of a biased article that was created by some content provider simply to sell ad-space.


----------



## peakbagger

SpaceBus said:


> Why can't most people slow charge EVs at night while they sleep? Seems like an easy choice that won't lead to any problems for the user or the provider of power.



Common sense is a rare commodity. . Adding an economic incentive to reduce their peak loads and do load shifting may get some folks over the fairly "low fence" but many people assume that power from the grid is not anything until its gone. Talk to any rural person who has to run off a generator for a few days and they will be very much aware of load shifting and peak loads.


----------



## clancey

Its all corruption that what it is...clancey


----------



## begreen

peakbagger said:


> Common sense is a rare commodity. . Adding an economic incentive to reduce their peak loads and do load shifting may get some folks over the fairly "low fence" but many people assume that power from the grid is not anything until its gone. Talk to any rural person who has to run off a generator for a few days and they will be very much aware of load shifting and peak loads.


Frugality and commonsense used to be national virtues. Now it is all about entitlement and what's in it for me.


----------



## johneh

The ME ME ME generation


----------



## begreen

johneh said:


> The ME ME ME generation


Seems to be more than that. This spans generations from boomers to millennials. It's more of a national mindset that has been developing for many decades.


----------



## fbelec

that's right if one house has something the next couple of houses has to have the same thing even tho they don't really need it.
solar is good till we need power and we are having 4 straight day of rain. wind is better except it's mechanical. we have a few wind machines in boston but they who run them choose to not run them for quite a few days if not weeks in a row then it might run for a day or two. doesn't make sense to spend the money to put up a wind machine and not run it. if we all had battery's for storage it would be a great option to have for those night or cloudy day when the solar is not making much. when i put up my solar thru a company the power company would not allow a battery installation. that was six years ago.


----------



## peakbagger

Mass will gladly have you install a battery these days as long as the capacity can be borrowed on occasion which requires a UL 1741 SA inverter and an intermediate company like Tesla to send signals to your inverter to dispatch the power when needed. Right now I think Solar Edge and Tesla are the only firms supporting this dispatch.  If you have the right setup you can basically get a battery for free.  Yes the rule change typically every few years the Mass DOER changes the rules to reflect new technology and changing goals.

The wind turbines you see in urban Mass are PR devices more than viable generators. Towers need to go where the wind is and in most cases thats at high elevations or off shore. The company I used to work that built 100 KW turbines had an option to turn the blades slowly with power from the grid if there was no wind.


----------



## EbS-P

We might be getting an EV.  Been doing the charging math.  I think I could get by with a 20 amp 120v slow charger.  Except for those times when we come home late  from longer day trip and want to leave the next morning on the normal routine and can’t charge until we get home from work.  Couple times a year.  Could just plan lunch near a fast charging station.
   now how often Is your gas gauge always clear full?   I think once you get used to it you won’t need your EV battery always topped clear off.  I figure we drive 100-150 miles in an average week. That’s a full charge every week or two.  


Just like we have a “smart” shut off on the HVAC unit controlled by the utility company we will have those on the chargers as well in the future. I get a 25$ annual credit for my participation.  

I probably will go with a larger 220v charging circuit. Pulling all the wire once just seems like the best future proofing decision. 
Electrical demand will increase and with that there will be opportunities to generate more revenue.  
Evan


----------



## peakbagger

FYI, there are no standards for EV chargers that I can figure. My plug in Toyota came with 120 VAC charger that puts out 8 AMPs and that is all the car can take for 120VAC, I can switch it to 16 AMPs 240 volts. If I want or need to charge faster I need to buy a $5000 option that puts in all sorts of goodies.  The folks with Tesla's who are working on project with me seem to a have 150 miles range point. They are in CT and work along the I95 corridor lots of charging options. I on the other hand have few if any options in a rural area.  My guess is charging will be free initially but surge pricing is on the horizon for charging. 

I was on the phone the other day with a firm that does a lot of commercial buildings and EV charging is giving them fits. It turns out that the building electric load is minimal compared to the possible EV charging load if everyone plugs in at the same time when they drive into work. To make it practical there has to be some load management of the chargers or the wiring and support equipment gets vastly oversized.


----------



## CaptSpiff

peakbagger said:


> I was on the phone the other day with a firm that does a lot of commercial buildings and EV charging is giving them fits. It turns out that the building electric load is minimal compared to the possible EV charging load if everyone plugs in at the same time when they drive into work. To make it practical there has to be some load management of the chargers or the wiring and support equipment gets vastly oversized.


That's cause every Facilities Manager wants the 240v 50amp charging circuit, times 5 parking spaces, because every FM knows bigger is better. Most employees could do quite well with a 240v 16amp EVSE. Connected for 7 hours, that's about 23kwh into the car battery assuming 85% efficiency. At 3 miles per kw (most little EVs do better), you won't need to charge at home.
My company's building (I work there, I don't own it) is supplied 120/208 3-phase in the utility room, so it's really limited. But we got 3 parking spaces with 16amp level-2 Clipper Creek EVSE's happily running at 208v. The plan is to add 3 more spaces in the Fall.
What kind of miles are you getting for each kw into the battery?


----------



## ABMax24

We have the opposite problem, the welding shop I work at has a three phase 480 volt 400 amp feed, we have 120kw in welding machines and this week are commissioning an automated rotary pipe cutter/plasma table combo with a 300 amp power source that pulls 66.5kw at full output, and we still have lots of power to spare. Management however will never allow EV charging, stating that they won't pay to power employees vehicles in the same way they don't buy us gas/diesel. I'm sure glad they haven't figured out how much power us employees draw for the 3 months of winter when we keep our vehicle block heaters plugged in...


----------



## peakbagger

CaptSpiff said:


> That's cause every Facilities Manager wants the 240v 50amp charging circuit, times 5 parking spaces, because every FM knows bigger is better. Most employees could do quite well with a 240v 16amp EVSE. Connected for 7 hours, that's about 23kwh into the car battery assuming 85% efficiency. At 3 miles per kw (most little EVs do better), you won't need to charge at home.
> My company's building (I work there, I don't own it) is supplied 120/208 3-phase in the utility room, so it's really limited. But we got 3 parking spaces with 16amp level-2 Clipper Creek EVSE's happily running at 208v. The plan is to add 3 more spaces in the Fall.
> What kind of miles are you getting for each kw into the battery?


Around 3 miles per KW . If I do lot of local driving in the 40 to 50 MPH range it goes up to 3.1. Some folks claim 3.3. Its very outdoor temp related, the battery is kept within a temperature range with either heat or cooling from the HVAC system.


----------



## begreen

The Volt gen2 will take either 8 or 12 amps from 120vac. We run ours on a 20a Clipper Creek, but the car only takes 16a on 240vac. On average we are getting about  4.3 miles/kW with the car, driving on local roads, under 50mph.


----------



## Bad LP

So who owns an electric car that thinks it’s fair to use the roads for free?? Fuel taxes help keep the roads in fair condition. 
How is a charge at work not being paid for by the employer or Owner of the space?


----------



## peakbagger

Its all carrot and stick. Society wants to shift to EVs so the "carrot" is to make EV more affordable to overcome perceived and current  limitations. The stick would be to slowly drive up the cost for ICE vehicles but letting prices drift up enriching foreign producers or adding taxes and enriching governments. Use some portion of the taxes on fossil to cover the extra EV costs and eventually switch to pay per mile for all users including EV. Private businesses will get tax write offs for EV costs shifting it to overall society.


----------



## begreen

Pay per mile burns people that live on state borders and work in the adjacent state. And unless the funds trickle down to the county or town level, state collected EV taxes don't help local town and county roads which may be 90% of all that the EV is driven on.


----------



## fbelec

the only fare way i see it is pay per mile. so if you put 5000 miles on a car like i do it's so much and for 10,000 double. i get hit twice but still pay how ever miles i drive. i don't have a problem paying a little bit more if the roads are ok but that subject is a whole other ball of wax.


----------



## fbelec

and to keep with oil prices if they go up so do the roads


----------



## SpaceBus

EV's are not damaging roads, big over the road trucks tear up roads, along with plows and other winter stuff.


----------



## stoveliker

begreen said:


> Pay per mile burns people that live on state borders and work in the adjacent state.




Why is that? Pay per mile deals with distance, not state lines in my understanding?


----------



## peakbagger

I think the issue is which state gets the revenue. An example is many folks live on the NH border but commute to Mass due to lower overall NH taxes. So they are putting wear and tear on Mass roads yet NH would most likely collect the pay per mile fee as most pay per mile schemes are tied to recording the data during annual inspections. It also may be tricky if one state puts in pay per mile and one does not. Not all state require annual inspections so how would the data be recorded?  Oregon is looking at it and Illinois reportedly do it with trucks but I havent  looked up any details. 

Folks are getting pay per mile car insurance usually combined with nanny software that detects unusual vehicle operation like aggressive acceleration, hard braking or operation over the speed limit. That effectively allows the insurance company to pick low risk drivers who are more profitable. They usually get the data from a plug in device on the OBD port. Many new cars now have cell phone transmitters in them that communicate to the manufacturer so it would not be hard to piggyback mileage data to a state via the manufacturer. 

Of course pay per mile hits the folks in rural areas far worse than in urban areas so its another regressive tax.


----------



## stoveliker

peakbagger said:


> I think the issue is which state gets the revenue. An example is many folks live on the NH border but commute to Mass due to lower overall NH taxes. So they are putting wear and tear on Mass roads yet NH would most likely collect the pay per mile fee as most pay per mile schemes are tied to recording the data during annual inspections. It also may be tricky if one state puts in pay per mile and one does not. Not all state require annual inspections so how would the data be recorded?  Oregon is looking at it and Illinois reportedly do it with trucks but I havent  looked up any details.
> 
> Folks are getting pay per mile car insurance usually combined with nanny software that detects unusual vehicle operation like aggressive acceleration, hard braking or operation over the speed limit. That effectively allows the insurance company to pick low risk drivers who are more profitable. They usually get the data from a plug in device on the OBD port. Many new cars now have cell phone transmitters in them that communicate to the manufacturer so it would not be hard to piggyback mileage data to a state via the manufacturer.
> 
> Of course pay per mile hits the folks in rural areas far worse than in urban areas so its another regressive tax.



So it burns the people living on a border not directly but only in second order, because it burns the state (not getting paid for miles driven there) and the state has less to spend "on the amenities for their people".

Yes, rural gets hit - but for their higher use of (road) amenities.  Turns out there is a cost (too) for living away from the burbs.


----------



## ABMax24

SpaceBus said:


> EV's are not damaging roads, big over the road trucks tear up roads, along with plows and other winter stuff.



Road signage, line painting, extra lanes for increased traffic, access roads to shopping centers, subdivisions etc are all directly related to the amount of vehicles on the road regardless of fuel type. Take all the passenger vehicles off the roads and the infrastructure required to just support transport trucks would be significantly smaller than it is today, there is a cost associated with passenger vehicles.

EV owners need to pay for the roads they operate on, and I suspect most jurisdictions will enact road use taxes on EVs in the coming years.


----------



## CaptSpiff

Maybe someone involved in OTR trucking  can revive my memory on this: Don't truckers have to show fuel purchases in every State they travel thru, commensurate with distance traveled in that State, in their log books?


----------



## EbS-P

Bad LP said:


> Fuel taxes help keep the roads in fair condition.


Many states have an extra EV fee paid at the time of registration.  In NC it’s 130$ a year 
evan


----------



## SpaceBus

ABMax24 said:


> Road signage, line painting, extra lanes for increased traffic, access roads to shopping centers, subdivisions etc are all directly related to the amount of vehicles on the road regardless of fuel type. Take all the passenger vehicles off the roads and the infrastructure required to just support transport trucks would be significantly smaller than it is today, there is a cost associated with passenger vehicles.
> 
> EV owners need to pay for the roads they operate on, and I suspect most jurisdictions will enact road use taxes on EVs in the coming years.


The companies employing the OTR trucks and selling us goods are profiting off of the roads. I get it, EVs and commuters use roads too, but the fees at time of registration more than cover the percentage of damage caused by said commuters. The endless dump trucks, semi trucks, and other heavy vehicles cause the overwhelming majority of the damage but only pay for it in fuel tax. Trucks have only gotten more fuel efficient, as have all other vehicles for that matter. As usual the corporations are making record profits and passing on the expenses to the consumers. No thanks, I'll let the people making money off the road maintain it.


----------



## clancey

inflation is here and its coming even more..clancey


----------



## stoveliker

clancey said:


> inflation is here and its coming even more..clancey



That is not the expectation of the experts who make their money gambling on these things - see the bond prices.


----------



## clancey

Yea the bond prices are  going up and they were down for a long time  but that is not the only judge of the stock market.. Right now basics like milk and beef is really high and in the next few weeks all kinds of food prices will be double or less in the containers.. I worry when the gold prices rise because that means less cash flow and that's why they are selling gold and silver right now to begin with--see all the advertisements..Oil will be 100 a barrel in my estimation real soon before christmas,,, I could be wrong but I do not think so...Glad you all got some wood stocked up because prices will be going out the window especially right before winter (my predictions here nothing backing it)..People are really into bit coin but I say that market is just too crazy and it moves up and down in a erratic way as well and their might be some kind of enforcement in regarding it..Maybe who knows and I do know that I spent a lot of money on a wood stove because of my concerns and convictions and I could be wrong but my brain does not think so...lol lol  clancey...


----------



## Bad LP

SpaceBus said:


> The companies employing the OTR trucks and selling us goods are profiting off of the roads. I get it, EVs and commuters use roads too, but the fees at time of registration more than cover the percentage of damage caused by said commuters. The endless dump trucks, semi trucks, and other heavy vehicles cause the overwhelming majority of the damage but only pay for it in fuel tax. Trucks have only gotten more fuel efficient, as have all other vehicles for that matter. As usual the corporations are making record profits and passing on the expenses to the consumers. No thanks, I'll let the people making money off the road maintain it.


You do realize that they are paying thousands of dollars for yearly registration, taxes, permits and many other costs but they also pay a crap ton in fuel taxes.
If cars don’t damage roads please explain the parkways in NY and CT where trucks are not allowed at all.


----------



## stoveliker

Bad LP said:


> You do realize that they are paying thousands of dollars for yearly registration, taxes, permits and many other costs but they also pay a crap ton in fuel taxes.
> If cars don’t damage roads please explain the parkways in NY and CT where trucks are not allowed at all.



Frost 

But, you're right. I just don't know what the relative damage is between a 2500 lbs car or a truck. It might not scale linearly with weight...


----------



## SpaceBus

Bad LP said:


> You do realize that they are paying thousands of dollars for yearly registration, taxes, permits and many other costs but they also pay a crap ton in fuel taxes.
> If cars don’t damage roads please explain the parkways in NY and CT where trucks are not allowed at all.



I didn't say they don't damage roads, I said heavy trucks do the overwhelming majority of the damage. Many of which are not registered were they are primarily operated. The trucks that go up and down my three digit road are not registered in my town, don't buy fuel near here, and do not contribute to the repairs to that road. It's the only road around besides Route One and it's maintained at the municipal level. A Chevy Bolt is not doing the same amount of damage that a fully loaded log truck, etc. will. The corporations and businesses profiting off of the existence of the roads and the consumers that live on them should be responsible for the upkeep.


----------



## Bad LP

SpaceBus said:


> I didn't say they don't damage roads, I said heavy trucks do the overwhelming majority of the damage. Many of which are not registered were they are primarily operated. The trucks that go up and down my three digit road are not registered in my town, don't buy fuel near here, and do not contribute to the repairs to that road. It's the only road around besides Route One and it's maintained at the municipal level. A Chevy Bolt is not doing the same amount of damage that a fully loaded log truck, etc. will. The corporations and businesses profiting off of the existence of the roads and the consumers that live on them should be responsible for the upkeep.


Every mile operated in a state is taxed. Log books prove where they have been as well as their hours of driving.


----------



## Bad LP

stoveliker said:


> Frost
> 
> But, you're right. I just don't know what the relative damage is between a 2500 lbs car or a truck. It might not scale linearly with weight...


I think the Fed tax on tires just for the tractor is a lot more than the 130 bucks mentioned.

I’ll show you frost heaves no problem but you better have your rubber teeth handy.


----------



## SpaceBus

Bad LP said:


> Every mile operated in a state is taxed. Log books prove where they have been as well as their hours of driving.


Odd, you should tell the state. The roads certainly don't reflect that.


----------



## ABMax24

SpaceBus said:


> The companies employing the OTR trucks and selling us goods are profiting off of the roads. I get it, EVs and commuters use roads too, but the fees at time of registration more than cover the percentage of damage caused by said commuters. The endless dump trucks, semi trucks, and other heavy vehicles cause the overwhelming majority of the damage but only pay for it in fuel tax. Trucks have only gotten more fuel efficient, as have all other vehicles for that matter. As usual the corporations are making record profits and passing on the expenses to the consumers. No thanks, I'll let the people making money off the road maintain it.



What a shame that owner/operators or truck drivers try to make a couple bucks to feed their families while delivering your groceries to the store or your Amazon package to your door.

I wish I lived where you live, around here truck driver and rich don't go together in the same sentance.


----------



## Bad LP

SpaceBus said:


> Odd, you should tell the state. The roads certainly don't reflect that.


Ya. Maybe they should have stopped building them on top of substandard materials versus just covering them with years of skim coats. They could have used the money to drive on that they wasted on free give aways.  It’s not like Maine doesn’t have harsh winters and improper road beds. 
No?


----------



## SpaceBus

ABMax24 said:


> What a shame that owner/operators or truck drivers try to make a couple bucks to feed their families while delivering your groceries to the store or your Amazon package to your door.
> 
> I wish I lived where you live, around here truck driver and rich don't go together in the same sentance.


Lol, I'm not complaining about the truck drivers. What are you talking about? I'm saying the big trucks do the most damage to the roads. The truck drivers aren't at fault and I haven't said anything about them. Their employers and the companies selling goods that must be transported are making money hand over fist at the EXPENSE of truckers and consumers. I'm not saying truck drivers should be personally responsible for the roads, I'm saying their employers and the companies selling the transported goods need to be responsible. 

You, and others, seem to have a chip on your shoulder and think myself and others hate the working class or working people. I'm a military veteran from a military/rural working family. Certainly I don't hate truckers and my last landlord, before moving to Maine, was a trucker. 

So these big trucks do the majority of damage to the roads, that's indisputable. Obviously the current system isn't working for employers of the OTR and other heavy trucks to keep the roads maintained, which are in poor shape nationwide. The tax per mile and fuel tax is undeniably working poorly at best. Why even bring up a future problem where EVs don't pay for fuel tax thereby destroying the roads? That's just propaganda against EVs. The roads have already been destroyed, obviously EVs are not the problem.


----------



## SpaceBus

By the way, the damage does not scale linearly as another poster theorized. Here is one source among many others.

"A study by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) determined that the road damage caused by a single 18-wheeler was equivalent to the damage caused by 9,600 cars" 

I think we can all agree that the shipping companies do not pay 9,600 cars worth of tax/fees to maintain the roads.


----------



## Bad LP

SpaceBus said:


> By the way, the damage does not scale linearly as another poster theorized. Here is one source among many others.
> 
> "A study by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) determined that the road damage caused by a single 18-wheeler was equivalent to the damage caused by 9,600 cars"
> 
> I think we can all agree that the shipping companies do not pay 9,600 cars worth of tax/fees to maintain the roads.


GREAT!! Let's add 9600 elecrtic cars going past your house for every truck rumbling by. What a shame that Maine law doesn't allow trucks greater than 80000 pounds to travel the interstate. That would put more trucks on roads that were designed for greater load ratings.
My 10 wheeler in MA was registered for 68K and a properly set up tri-axle can go to 73K. I've been out of trucking for a while but I'm rather confident that the yearly registration fees my friends pay (1 has three tri axles on the road) is around 5000/per truck. I think that exceeds my own fees by a lot.

If logging trucks are limited to 80K like all other TT units the price of lumber and toilet paper is going to be on the moon.


----------



## ABMax24

SpaceBus said:


> Lol, I'm not complaining about the truck drivers. What are you talking about? I'm saying the big trucks do the most damage to the roads. The truck drivers aren't at fault and I haven't said anything about them. Their employers and the companies selling goods that must be transported are making money hand over fist at the EXPENSE of truckers and consumers. I'm not saying truck drivers should be personally responsible for the roads, I'm saying their employers and the companies selling the transported goods need to be responsible.
> 
> You, and others, seem to have a chip on your shoulder and think myself and others hate the working class or working people. I'm a military veteran from a military/rural working family. Certainly I don't hate truckers and my last landlord, before moving to Maine, was a trucker.
> 
> So these big trucks do the majority of damage to the roads, that's indisputable. Obviously the current system isn't working for employers of the OTR and other heavy trucks to keep the roads maintained, which are in poor shape nationwide. The tax per mile and fuel tax is undeniably working poorly at best. Why even bring up a future problem where EVs don't pay for fuel tax thereby destroying the roads? That's just propaganda against EVs. The roads have already been destroyed, obviously EVs are not the problem.



I'm arguing against your premise that the trucking industry is some giant profit making machine that destroys the roads in return for some outlandish profit.

The trucking industry is extremely competitive and anyone with a work ethic and enough money to purchase a truck can enter it. In the US 20% of trucks are owner/operators and in Canada that figure is 22%, ie the owner owns one truck and drives it him/herself. Competition drives down prices, and as such lowers profitability, that's where my comment about owner/operators and truck drivers come from, they're not making it rich owning or operating these trucks, they're making a living and really not much more. 

As for profit over the expense of the drivers, lots of drivers at some point have believed this to be true as well, and have went out on their own, many at that point realize that by time they make payments on the trucks, pay for maintenance; fuel, registration, insurance, inspections, etc on the truck, they're not making a whole lot more than just driving for someone else, but have greatly increased their stress levels due to increased exposure to financial failure.

Maintenance of the roads is only one part of the equation, new roads need to be built all the time, lanes are added to highways and freeways because of increased traffic flows. These aren't the problem of trucks, but often due to urban sprawl and that of increased passenger vehicle traffic. All vehicles need to pay their share for these upgrades, yes heavy vehicles driven more should pay a higher share, but that shouldn't in some way exclude passenger vehicles from contributing. None of this is anti-EV propaganda, it simple facts and basic math.

If we really want to go down the environmental rabbit hole, wouldn't it make sense to have a per mile tax on EV's to incentivize car pooling and limit miles driven? At least a portion of the electricity that is used to charge most of these EVs is still generated by the combustion of fossil fuels, so although efficiency is on the side of the EV and overall CO2 production has been reduced, to some extent we've just moved CO2 emission from a tailpipe to a powerplant stack.


----------



## SpaceBus

Bad LP said:


> GREAT!! Let's add 9600 elecrtic cars going past your house for every truck rumbling by. What a shame that Maine law doesn't allow trucks greater than 80000 pounds to travel the interstate. That would put more trucks on roads that were designed for greater load ratings.
> My 10 wheeler in MA was registered for 68K and a properly set up tri-axle can go to 73K. I've been out of trucking for a while but I'm rather confident that the yearly registration fees my friends pay (1 has three tri axles on the road) is around 5000/per truck. I think that exceeds my own fees by a lot.
> 
> If logging trucks are limited to 80K like all other TT units the price of lumber and toilet paper is going to be on the moon.


I don't understand your point at all. Neither of you are actually arguing with me, but with some point you think I'm making. Each log truck that drives down the road is equivalent in damage to 9,600 passenger cars driving in the same place. Where did I say weight limits should be altered? Where did I complain about how heavy trucks are? I do know that transportation companies and retailers are not paying the equivalent of 9,600 passenger cars worth of damage to the road. If those fees were really being paid accurately then why are roads nationwide in horrible shape? If municipalities don't have the budget, then the fees to use the road should increase and the fee should obviously be based on weight since that is what damages the roads. What do you think is going to happen to the roads when EV trucks are out there causing the same damage but paying even less into the system to fix the roads? Retailers and transport companies will have to pay more to fix the roads if they want to make any money.


----------



## SpaceBus

ABMax24 said:


> I'm arguing against your premise that the trucking industry is some giant profit making machine that destroys the roads in return for some outlandish profit.
> 
> The trucking industry is extremely competitive and anyone with a work ethic and enough money to purchase a truck can enter it. In the US 20% of trucks are owner/operators and in Canada that figure is 22%, ie the owner owns one truck and drives it him/herself. Competition drives down prices, and as such lowers profitability, that's where my comment about owner/operators and truck drivers come from, they're not making it rich owning or operating these trucks, they're making a living and really not much more.
> 
> As for profit over the expense of the drivers, lots of drivers at some point have believed this to be true as well, and have went out on their own, many at that point realize that by time they make payments on the trucks, pay for maintenance; fuel, registration, insurance, inspections, etc on the truck, they're not making a whole lot more than just driving for someone else, but have greatly increased their stress levels due to increased exposure to financial failure.
> 
> Maintenance of the roads is only one part of the equation, new roads need to be built all the time, lanes are added to highways and freeways because of increased traffic flows. These aren't the problem of trucks, but often due to urban sprawl and that of increased passenger vehicle traffic. All vehicles need to pay their share for these upgrades, yes heavy vehicles driven more should pay a higher share, but that shouldn't in some way exclude passenger vehicles from contributing. None of this is anti-EV propaganda, it simple facts and basic math.
> 
> If we really want to go down the environmental rabbit hole, wouldn't it make sense to have a per mile tax on EV's to incentivize car pooling and limit miles driven? At least a portion of the electricity that is used to charge most of these EVs is still generated by the combustion of fossil fuels, so although efficiency is on the side of the EV and overall CO2 production has been reduced, to some extent we've just moved CO2 emission from a tailpipe to a powerplant stack.


Why are you so hung up on how much money the transport companies make? Without the roads, they make no money. Without the roads retailers also don't make any money. The suburbs are sprawling so more retailers can sell more things to more consumers. The roads are in place to move goods, not for the "privilege" of driving to work or living even further from a city center. Most sub divisions don't have cracking and heaved roads, but just outside of them where the HD trucks drive around the roads are busted. Obviously the damage is being done primarily by large trucks and the companies profiting off of the roads should be responsible for fixing the roads. If retailers and manufacturers want consumers to be able to drive to work, then they better make sure the road is in good shape. Without employees businesses make no money. The roads are for profit, not for consumers.


----------



## Bad LP

SpaceBus said:


> I don't understand your point at all. Neither of you are actually arguing with me, but with some point you think I'm making. Each log truck that drives down the road is equivalent in damage to 9,600 passenger cars driving in the same place. Where did I say weight limits should be altered? Where did I complain about how heavy trucks are? I do know that transportation companies and retailers are not paying the equivalent of 9,600 passenger cars worth of damage to the road. If those fees were really being paid accurately then why are roads nationwide in horrible shape? If municipalities don't have the budget, then the fees to use the road should increase and the fee should obviously be based on weight since that is what damages the roads. What do you think is going to happen to the roads when EV trucks are out there causing the same damage but paying even less into the system to fix the roads? Retailers and transport companies will have to pay more to fix the roads if they want to make any money.


All I’m doing is shining a small light on what trucks pay. You sounded like they are responsible for damaging the roads and they are not paying their fair share.  I’m pointing out that’s wrong.  We typically build roads based on low bid. Trucking is paid by the mile or weight. Agreed?

Maine State Diesel  is .312/gallon. Gas is .30/gallon. Let’s assume the truck gets 6MPG but the gas car gets 28. The electric car is over 50MPG.
Now run your numbers on who is paying for what. God help us all if we include what a truck pays to run the Maine Turnpike versus a car that only costs a few bucks.

EV owners are not and have never paid their fair share even when compared to my pick up truck at 13 MPG. Clearly my truck damages the roads at the same rate or very close to an EV. 
Again, the 150.00 mentioned prior is a joke.


----------



## stoveliker

The bottom line is that even if trucks would pay for what they damage, given the small margins, it'd be fed forward into consumer pricing. We'd be paying more for goods so that their real cost to society is recouped.

The bottom of the bottom line is that more money needs to flow into infrastructure maintenance (and less needs to get hung up in the bureaucracy that has been set up to manage tax payer money).


----------



## ABMax24

SpaceBus said:


> Why are you so hung up on how much money the transport companies make? Without the roads, they make no money. Without the roads retailers also don't make any money. The suburbs are sprawling so more retailers can sell more things to more consumers. The roads are in place to move goods, not for the "privilege" of driving to work or living even further from a city center. Most sub divisions don't have cracking and heaved roads, but just outside of them where the HD trucks drive around the roads are busted. Obviously the damage is being done primarily by large trucks and the companies profiting off of the roads should be responsible for fixing the roads. If retailers and manufacturers want consumers to be able to drive to work, then they better make sure the road is in good shape. Without employees businesses make no money. The roads are for profit, not for consumers.



You brought up the whole topic of the "massive profits" transport companies make as your justification to not pay an EV tax, citing those companies should pay your share instead. My posts are in response to that.

I will end this conversation here, I do not share your philosophy that I should get something for free while someone else must pay for the cost of that something.


----------



## peakbagger

The most efficient way to transport freight over land  is by rail. That has been pretty well established for a long time. Its the least carbon per ton per mile. Its substantially more carbon efficient than trucking with fossil fuels. About the only more efficient long term transport is by sail but its been awhile since sailing ships have been used in the oceans for freight. BTW the clipper ships of the era were typically getting 250 mile per day. Railroad tracks are designed to carry high loads and the weight is spread out over thousands of feet. So why are we not shipping items by rail freight or clipper ship? The answer is basically two factors, the last miles problem and speed. Rail can be reasonably speedy on main trunk lines but switching and less than car loads add a lot of lag into the picture. Eventually the rail car needs to be broken down, stored and then the individual loads need to be transported to the customer. Years ago the post office was the only entity that delivered to every address in the country. I remember as a kid when UPS started growing and it was commercial use only to selected addresses and the PO made sure it was freight only. Fed Ex was a late comer and their basis was air freight.  UPS and Fed Ex gradually morphed so that they look alike. UPS added air freight and Fed Ex added ground.

Rails do not go everywhere and short line rails become non profitable as trucks are cheaper and far quicker for short haul as they cut out the middleman. Public roads do tend to go near everwhere people live. Years ago there was no residential tailgate delivery by many firms.  I remember going to the UPS terminal to pick up and drop off packages with my mom since they did not delvier to residential addresses in my town,  If you wanted to get truck freight you needed to drive to the local trucking terminal in the nearest large town with an appropriate truck and hand them your paperwork and once your parcel was located a guy with a forklift would deliver it to a dock and it was up to you to get it on the truck and hope the pallet fit in the truck.  These days I dont even know where the nearest terminal is to me.  Even long distance LTL (less than a load) freight could take weeks and unless things were packaged correctly they frequently got damaged along the way.

So we pay for convenience and speed but we make trade offs that we take more damage on our roads and put more carbon in the air, that is decision that society has made and subsidizes it.

I like my fresh cherries from Washington State and veggies from CA and FL or even South America in winter and they all only exist because of high carbon intensity fast shipping.  Add a price for carbon intensity and the choice is find a way to do it local by greenhouses or just stop selling it.  There are various articles that pop up on being a localvoire eating only local food and in most cases it comes down to very boring monotonous diet in winter for us folks up north.  I do not think the general public will accept stopping selling it as an option, so the choice is find a way of reducing the carbon intensity of shipping. Various companies are on the cusp of Hydrogen trucks and CNG truks are already being used for shorthaul. There is lot of buzz on battery trucks but unless there is major change in battery charge density I do not see it happening.


----------



## moresnow

peakbagger said:


> The most efficient way to transport freight over land is by rail.



Agreed. We should have never let the railroads diminish as far as we have. Stupid. They are so much more efficient, with far less overall impact in almost every respect.  Sad.

BTW I made my living building the 4 lane road system. I am definitely not biased towards the railroad.
  I can certainly see the obvious benefit of the rail however.  Good topic!


----------



## clancey

I love trucks and they will figure out a way for the future and maybe some kind of a vacuum for smaller items and "freight" by truck or train for the larger items.. Banks had vacuum systems to transport things to the teller why not smaller special delivery things going to a central location in the cities and it would be faster too---Heck build them in the air--clear tunnels and stuff so that you can see them moving. Maybe hard plastic things that can be made from recycled material to get rid of it...I can see this but of course at that time I might have another address.. lol  Love the discussions to and fro was interesting to read your different points of view..Love it clancey


----------



## ABMax24

WTI broke $110/barrel this morning.

I guess I was 2 months early on my $100 oil prediction, but here we are.

Hang on, I don't think this is the end of the price increases yet...


----------



## EbS-P

Nope not yet.  Palm oil was way up too. Didn’t know Ukrainian grows so many sun flowers.  I don’t see this dropping back below 95$ 6 in months or even longer.


----------



## stoveliker

I wonder what will happen with natural gas, in Europe. If at some point Russia stops pumping gas (b/c Europe can't pay for it, no SWIFT for Russia?), it'll be a bad energy situation even worse.

Of course this does not compare to the troubles people go through that are in war zones.


----------



## ABMax24

European gas prices are approaching all time highs right now.

Germany has already promised to build 2 new LNG offload terminals to replace Russian gas. I suspect that countries with new oil and gas development bans will relax these to some extent. Short term national security/sovereignty concerns are going to trump long term environmental concerns.


----------



## EbS-P

stoveliker said:


> I wonder what will happen with natural gas, in Europe. If at some point Russia stops pumping gas (b/c Europe can't pay for it, no SWIFT for Russia?), it'll be a bad energy situation even worse.
> 
> Of course this does not compare to the troubles people go through that are in war zones.


It’s a whole energy policy rethink.   Quickest way to restart coal and nuclear that recently went offline and delay those that were scheduled to be decommissioned.  Short term is not a good solution environmentally but an accelerated transition to electric heat and putting that infrastructure in place that can be power with renewables sooner is good long term.  It’s going to be a rough 12 months for the EU energy sector in particular.   And of course pail in comparison with to what people in Ukraine are personally experiencing.   I don’t see how the conflict will be resolved in 12 months.


----------



## peakbagger

Lots of large players are not going out in the field in the US doing new drilling as they are betting this is short term and they will get nailed with a lot of expensive oil when the supply swings back to oversupply. Make them some guarantees that they will be covered and they will head back into the fields.


----------



## SpaceBus

I suspect Germany is going to be importing way more wood pellets from the forests of Eastern NC for a while.


----------



## EbS-P

SpaceBus said:


> I suspect Germany is going to be importing way more wood pellets from the forests of Eastern NC for a while.


A sad reality but one I am ok with given the situation.  I guess. NCDEQ approved dredging to make the turning basin larger at the port of Wilmington so we can accommodate bigger boats.  Not sure what the bulk transport ships need but plenty of people ready to sell them more pellets.   Probably more people upset by the destruction and having plants and associated truck traffic next to their homes.  I don’t have any concept of the increased quantity they might require or really how much is even shipped out on a regular basis.  

Evan


----------



## SpaceBus

EbS-P said:


> A sad reality but one I am ok with given the situation.  I guess. NCDEQ approved dredging to make the turning basin larger at the port of Wilmington so we can accommodate bigger boats.  Not sure what the bulk transport ships need but plenty of people ready to sell them more pellets.   Probably more people upset by the destruction and having plants and associated truck traffic next to their homes.  I don’t have any concept of the increased quantity they might require or really how much is even shipped out on a regular basis.
> 
> Evan




The way the Eastern NC long leaf pine forests are being ruthlessly harvested and the following exploitation of impoverished locals is nothing short of atrocious. Perhaps now will be the time for making some changes to the way things are done since there is a captive market that will be more or less forced to pay the higher cost of doing business in a way that does not exploit the environment or local populations. On the other hand I do live in reality and know this will just be more exploitation of Eastern NC, but like you I guess(?) this is better than funding the Russian war machine.


----------



## SpaceBus

peakbagger said:


> Lots of large players are not going out in the field in the US doing new drilling as they are betting this is short term and they will get nailed with a lot of expensive oil when the supply swings back to oversupply. Make them some guarantees that they will be covered and they will head back into the fields.


This is a good point, there are plenty of open leases that are not being filled.


----------



## johneh

SpaceBus said:


> since there is a captive market that will be more or less forced to pay the higher cost of doing business


the rich get richer the poor get poorer.


----------



## ABMax24

peakbagger said:


> Lots of large players are not going out in the field in the US doing new drilling as they are betting this is short term and they will get nailed with a lot of expensive oil when the supply swings back to oversupply. Make them some guarantees that they will be covered and they will head back into the fields.



And let the friendly neighbors to the north build a pipe to supply some more?


----------



## SpaceBus

ABMax24 said:


> And let the friendly neighbors to the north build a pipe to supply some more?


I don't think it would even be used at this point. NA is not hurting for easily accessible and affordable fossil fuels.


----------



## ABMax24

SpaceBus said:


> I don't think it would even be used at this point. NA is not hurting for easily accessible and affordable fossil fuels.



Depending on if sanctions against Russia also include the importation of oil or gas. 2021 stats show the US importing 750,000 bpd of oil and oil products from Russia. That's a significant hole to fill in that scenario.


----------



## johneh

Gas prices here at my local station hit 661.9 cents per US Gallion 
or 795.1 per Canadian gallon.      174.9 cents a liter.
Think I'll get the buggy out and use one of my hay burners


----------



## ABMax24

$1.559/liter here in Edmonton this morning, but its also a 20 minute drive to western Canada's 3 largest refineries.


----------



## johneh

ABMax24 said:


> $1.559/liter here in Edmonton this morning, but its also a 20 minute drive to western Canada's 3 largest refineries.




That's what we were paying yesterday 
what a difference a day makes


----------



## vinny11950

I say make a deal with Iran, lift sanctions and let them pump more oil into the market.  Do the same with Venezuela.

And I was reading the shale producers want to increase output too, to take advantage of these prices.


----------



## stoveliker

That'd be rather inconsistent foreign policy: we don't like what you do/stand for, so sanctions.
10 years later: ah, another one where we don't like what they do or stand for - so let's lift sanctions on the first so we don't get hurt if we apply our principles on the second...?


----------



## ABMax24

Regardless of political policy, I don't believe opening the taps back up in Iran will solve the problem. China has been buying up Iranian oil regardless of sanctions, and by current estimates there is only another 1.3 million bpd to bring online in Iran. Russia currently produces just over 10 million bpd, which would put the world in turmoil if this production was suddenly lost, which I believe is possible in the given situation.

The most secure means is to get drilling rigs in the field in North America, but that still means oil prices will remain high for the next 1-2 years while that production  comes online.


----------



## SpaceBus

I see a lot of investment into batteries and renewables happening soon.


----------



## begreen

SpaceBus said:


> I see a lot of investment into batteries and renewables happening soon.


It's happening now but it takes time to build serious infrastructure so we won't see the results for 2-3 yrs. Also, major battery recycling plants are breaking ground and getting built.


----------



## SpaceBus

begreen said:


> It's happening now but it takes time to build serious infrastructure so we won't see the results for 2-3 yrs. Also, major battery recycling plants are breaking ground and getting built.


I don't see trade with Russia going back to "normal" in the next 2-3 years.


----------



## begreen

SpaceBus said:


> I don't see trade with Russia going back to "normal" in the next 2-3 years.


Without a regime change I agree, but how does that relate to investment in battery infrastructure?


----------



## SpaceBus

begreen said:


> Without a regime change I agree, but how does that relate to investment in battery infrastructure?


There will be large voids in European and US markets for energy that was supplied by Russia. New oil leases are unlikely and the more logical investment would be for renewables and storage.


----------



## ABMax24

$115/barrel


----------



## Medic21

ABMax24 said:


> Depending on if sanctions against Russia also include the importation of oil or gas. 2021 stats show the US importing 750,000 bpd of oil and oil products from Russia. That's a significant hole to fill in that scenario.


That’s only .004% of daily use in the US.


----------



## EbS-P

begreen said:


> It's happening now but it takes time to build serious infrastructure so we won't see the results for 2-3 yrs. Also, major battery recycling plants are breaking ground and getting built.


Ford Model 3 would love to sell all the preorders they have for the F150 lightning and MachE. How long did it take Tesla to just get Berlin permitted?  Really it took Tesla 5 years to figure out mass production.  And it wasn’t easy.  

A prolonged period of high oil prices should be utilized in the longer term to provide incentive to reduce consumption.  OPEC needs higher prices as consumption declines.   I feeling longer term implications.  I don’t feel this is a blip.  The risk was to great to expand US capacity in the last 24 months.  I think smaller companies might see some potential here but larger ones I think will keep to their longer term plans of diversification away from fossil fuels.    Just want to point out that hurricane season is around the corner and one big gulf storm can really impact gasoline prices (Katerina 2005).  

I don’t see how we don’t ban Russian oil and gas.  Leverage against Putin and the current administration for poor policy decisions that have led to higher inflation.  It’s a win win for one side.  

The real question is what is the price ceiling.  Haven’t looked at futures markets.  I think 150$ mark is possible but unlikely.  I think OPEC will be motivated to increase production and really who wouldn’t at that price. This very well could be the last oil boom.  Who doesn’t want to miss out on that last chance.  

The line hasn’t been drawn as far has what economic steps will or won’t be taken. Militaristically sure.  This is a new page of history from many angles and  I see China taking amazingly detailed notes.   

Evan


----------



## stoveliker

Yes. I have the impression that China is quiet as they are studying for Taiwan...


----------



## ABMax24

Medic21 said:


> That’s only .004% of daily use in the US.



I think you mean 4%


----------



## begreen

Interesting to note that gasoline prices are now about the same as they were during 2008.


----------



## Falcon9h

Interesting to note the censorship here....


----------



## EbS-P

begreen said:


> Interesting to note that gasoline prices are now about the same as they were during 2008.


I had to read up as to why they were so high.  Not one big factor just several smaller things constricted supply add in a dose of speculation. But look how fast and hard it crashed.


----------



## stoveliker

Falcon9h said:


> Interesting to note the censorship here....



There are some rules here, just like there are some rules if you visit another person's home.

Read up on them; it'll make for a nicer community.


----------



## Medic21

ABMax24 said:


> I think you mean 4%


800,000 barrrels of crude a day from Russia.  Out of 6.6 BILLION barrels of crude used daily in the US.


----------



## stoveliker

I believe we use about 21 million barrels per day?


----------



## Mt Bob

Walmart, generally the cheapest fuel around, have been getting slammed by buyers. Just recently one in AZ and one in FL got pumped dry in a matter of hours. No fuel till the next day. I guess people are using gas-buddy a lot more.


----------



## Medic21

stoveliker said:


> I believe we use about 21 million barrels per day?


Of fuel, that doesn’t count or include everything.  A low portion of the crude is for fuel.


----------



## ABMax24

Medic21 said:


> Of fuel, that doesn’t count or include everything.  A low portion of the crude is for fuel.



That figure comes from here: 6.6 billion barrels is the annual figure for consumption, not daily.






						Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
					






					www.eia.gov


----------



## begreen

Falcon9h said:


> Interesting to note the censorship here....


Posts in violation of forum rules will be deleted. Political opinions and rants belong elsewhere.


----------



## ABMax24

$125/ barrel


----------



## johneh

Gas hit 183.9 here this morning 
Don't want to know what that is per Imp Gallon 
Should not have checked 8.36 per imp gallon
think I will go back to bed now Ouch


----------



## stoveliker

$4.40 per gallon here.


----------



## tlc1976

Was 3.89 Sunday then 4.29 this morning. Didn’t look going home. Must be so many people trying to find the best price that GasBuddy has been down for several hours at least.

Most I ever paid was about 4.50 during the 2010-2011 winter. Looks like that is going to be bypassed soon. Just glad I’m not having to do those 700 mile weekends for kid visitation anymore. She just turned 21 this weekend and is doing great on her own.


----------



## Rusty18

Gasoline is $4.09/ gallon around here.  Has went up 10 or 20 cents every day for the last week.


----------



## Ashful

Maybe you just need WD-40, as seen on hearth.com!  😂


----------



## fbelec

the massachusetts secretary of state just said on the news that this is price gouging. this gas today was purchased 6 months ago. anybody have proof? does what he said hold water.


----------



## EbS-P

fbelec said:


> the massachusetts secretary of state just said on the news that this is price gouging. this gas today was purchased 6 months ago. anybody have proof? does what he said hold water.


No it’s like gold or currency.  It sucks but it’s value changed overnight and you can sell it at its new value.   Or change it mid day usually not what they do but I’m sure they could switch pumps off for a few minutes and change the price.  Sounds like someone is already campaigning to me.


----------



## stoveliker

Or simply talking about something he doesn't know much about how it works...


----------



## SpaceBus

If people had to sell things for what they paid for them commerce would grind to a halt. That's not to say people aren't gouging, that's totally happening.


----------



## vinny11950

It will be interesting to see how demand in the U.S. adjusts to the higher oil prices.  Now we have a more diversified energy mix that can better withstand price shocks.  We also have more information technology to help us navigate better choices, like working from home, or better planning of trips to travel cheaper.

Which is why I think you will hear a lot of complaining about higher gasoline prices but the economy will just keep rolling along as companies continue to adjust their operations to the new post-covid world.


----------



## ABMax24

I think it's pretty hard to call it price gouging. At $125/barrel that works out to $3/gallon. Not including refining costs, trucking costs to the fuel station, fuel taxes, or the fact that you can't solely get gasoline or diesel from that barrel of oil, there are products both lighter and heavier that can't be sold as traditional motor fuels.


----------



## Ashful

vinny11950 said:


> It will be interesting to see how demand in the U.S. adjusts to the higher oil prices.  Now we have a more diversified energy mix that can better withstand price shocks.  We also have more information technology to help us navigate better choices, like working from home, or better planning of trips to travel cheaper.


Good points.  The number of people I know working from home must easily be 20x higher today, than it was 3 years ago.  Likewise, whereas most of our social circle used to fly somewhere each year for vacation, I see more today using local shore points or other similar "by car" vacation options, due to the uncertainty of booking flights and foreign resorts 6 months out, amidst the ebb and flow of a pandemic.

In some (perhaps naive) hope that volume will finally drive down pricing, I also hope that higher gas prices might translate to EV sales taking an even larger fraction of the market.  More likely, it will just depress auto sales across the board, but one can hope.

At the same time, I'm lamenting the death of the 6.2L Hemi Hellcat, a scant 20 months into our future.  While I enjoy the thought of quiet and torquey EV's replacing ICE's for the vast herds of commuters, despite the obvious performance advantages, I am still disappointed to see them replacing big noisy v8's in our muscle cars.


----------



## SpaceBus

Ashful said:


> Good points.  The number of people I know working from home must easily be 20x higher today, than it was 3 years ago.  Likewise, whereas most of our social circle used to fly somewhere each year for vacation, I see more today using local shore points or other similar "by car" vacation options, due to the uncertainty of booking flights and foreign resorts 6 months out, amidst the ebb and flow of a pandemic.
> 
> In some (perhaps naive) hope that volume will finally drive down pricing, I also hope that higher gas prices might convert EV sales taking an even larger fraction of the market.  More likely, it will just depress auto sales across the board, but one can hope.
> 
> At the same time, I'm lamenting the death of the 6.2L Hemi Hellcat, a scant 20 months into our future.  While I enjoy the thought of quiet and torquey EV's replacing ICE's for the vast herds of commuters, despite the obvious performance advantages, I am still disappointed to see them replacing big noisy v8's in our muscle cars.



I will also miss fire breathing performance ICE's. For a while I thought they might hang around in a couple of niche vehicles for the foreseeable future, but with more and more MFG's saying they are going all in on EV is making me doubt that. Porsche was committed to producing renewable liquid fuels, but they might be the only ones sticking to their guns.


----------



## EbS-P

Ashful said:


> Good points.  The number of people I know working from home must easily be 20x higher today, than it was 3 years ago.  Likewise, whereas most of our social circle used to fly somewhere each year for vacation, I see more today using local shore points or other similar "by car" vacation options, due to the uncertainty of booking flights and foreign resorts 6 months out, amidst the ebb and flow of a pandemic.
> 
> In some (perhaps naive) hope that volume will finally drive down pricing, I also hope that higher gas prices might translate to EV sales taking an even larger fraction of the market.  More likely, it will just depress auto sales across the board, but one can hope.
> 
> At the same time, I'm lamenting the death of the 6.2L Hemi Hellcat, a scant 20 months into our future.  While I enjoy the thought of quiet and torquey EV's replacing ICE's for the vast herds of commuters, despite the obvious performance advantages, I am still disappointed to see them replacing big noisy v8's in our muscle cars.


I’m to lazy to look up hellcat production numbers.  But it was not a volume product and probably not a very profitable one at its sales numbers.   It’s was a branding flagship icon.  But they will put the hellcat name on some stupid fast and torquy EV.   If Tesla can get a 5600 pound suv to 60 in 2.5 seconds, there is your measuring stick.  Will be interesting so see your the rubber burning burnout crowd feels about not ever shifting gears.  But being able to make  10 sec 1/4 pass with a factory vehicle is nothing short of amazing.   Especially when it can be an efficient daily driver.  Volume production will drive down cost.  

I’m hoping I can get a 15 passenger van before they go electric.


----------



## stoveliker

EbS-P said:


> I’m hoping I can get a 15 passenger van before they go electric.


Why? Imagine the fun of having 15 people in the back while accelerating to 60 in 3 seconds. The look on their faces :D


----------



## EbS-P

stoveliker said:


> Why? Imagine the fun of having 15 people in the back while accelerating to 60 in 3 seconds. The look on their faces :D


That would be great but the 50 miles range towing a camper would suck or the battery cost would be 6 figures.


----------



## EbS-P

We have not imported Russian oil is a few weeks.  



			Weekly Preliminary Crude Imports by Top 10 Countries of Origin (ranking based on 2021 Petroleum Supply Monthly data)
		


We now are along for the ride just like the rest of the world.


----------



## vinny11950

I heard an analyst say oil needs to get well over $150 to begin to get the demand destruction needed to slow consumption.


----------



## woodey

ABMax24 said:


> Depending on if sanctions against Russia also include the importation of oil or gas. 2021 stats show the US importing 750,000 bpd of oil and oil products from Russia. That's a significant hole to fill in that scenario.





ABMax24 said:


> I think you mean 4%


Yes it is 3-4%. But fear not, the current administration is negotiating with another communist country to fill that void.


----------



## EbS-P

vinny11950 said:


> I heard an analyst say oil needs to get well over $150 to begin to get the demand destruction needed to slow consumption.





woodey said:


> Yes it is 3-4%. But fear not, the current administration is negotiating with another communist country to fill that void.


Better idea let’s go to a 4 day work week. Many schools may have no other option. I could cut my energy consumption by 5% without little trouble.  In fact when the pipeline  got shut down I turn off the AC in the van and drove like my great grandmother and when from 16.0 mpg to 18.5.    

Anything less than 5 % is manageable domestic production can likely provide that.  A very low production well might be worth pumping again


----------



## woodey

Ashful said:


> I Good points.  The number of people I know working from home must easily be 20x higher today, than it was 3 years ago.  Likewise, whereas most of our social circle used to fly somewhere each year for vacation, I see more today using local shore points or other similar "by car" vacation options, due to the uncertainty of booking flights and foreign resorts 6 months out, amidst the ebb and flow of a pandemic.
> 
> In some (perhaps naive) hope that volume will finally drive down pricing, I also hope that higher gas prices might translate to EV sales taking an even larger fraction of the market.  More likely, it will just depress auto sales across the board, but one can hope.
> 
> At the same time, I'm lamenting the death of the 6.2L Hemi Hellcat, a scant 20 months into our future.  While I enjoy the thought of quiet and torquey EV's replacing ICE's for the vast herds of commuters, despite the obvious performance advantages, I am still disappointed to see them replacing big noisy v8's in our muscle ca muscle cars.


If you are willing to put down $150,000  you can still buy a Ram TRX  Mammoth , mods by Hennessey.   1012 HP.


----------



## SpaceBus

EbS-P said:


> Better idea let’s go to a 4 day work week. Many schools may have no other option. I could cut my energy consumption by 5% without little trouble.  In fact when the pipeline  got shut down I turn off the AC in the van and drove like my great grandmother and when from 16.0 mpg to 18.5.
> 
> Anything less than 5 % is manageable domestic production can likely provide that.  A very low production well might be worth pumping again


That's pretty good out of that van! If I drive like a grandma I can average 26+ MPG with my 22' diesel land boat.


----------



## tlc1976

fbelec said:


> the massachusetts secretary of state just said on the news that this is price gouging. this gas today was purchased 6 months ago. anybody have proof? does what he said hold water.


If that’s how it worked, then 6 months after prices go back down, they should still charge  based on what they paid during record highs. Because it’s what they paid. And people would still say it’s price gouging.

To maintain a business you have to keep up with current market prices. You have to earn enough to replenish your stock.

Wish I could work from home but my company is dead set against it. I think most places are, at least here. Honestly all winter I’ve been seeing more traffic on my commute than ever. Been in this house 6 years and it was a rare occurrence I’d have to stop for traffic at the end of my driveway in the morning. Now it’s almost every day.


----------



## begreen

Our Dodge Grand Caravan gets an easy 28-30mpg on the freeway and most trips. Worst case winter short trip driving is 20mpg. I got it after selling our F150 which loved gas. The Dodge has a huge capacity (4x8 sheets of plywood lay flat) and can quickly convert into a 7 passenger vehicle. It's become my new truck. I filled it last week @ 3.85/gal (Costco). That should last several months.
That said, we mostly drive the Volt on electrons now. That covers 90% of our driving in the past 2 yrs. Where we will get hit is for lawn and field mowing. I just got 10 gallons of gas yesterday @$4.58/gal. It went up today to $4.83 at the local pump.


----------



## begreen

A friend posted this reminder from 2008.


----------



## peakbagger

Standard Fuel Economy thoughts

Check your tire pressure, even tire pressure monitoring systems can be mis calibrated so they read wrong. 

Slow down. Aerodynamic drag really kicks in over 50 MPH. It is natural to want to run in the fast lane, resist the temptation and set the cruise control.  I know personally that it takes a bit to get used to driving slower.  

Take the roof racks, bike racks and cargo trunks off the cars especially smaller econoboxes. Buy some stickers for the car if you want to express your outdoors cred.

If winter is over swap over from winter snow tires to regular tires. Snow tires generally reduce gas mileage. 

Weight does make a difference especially on smaller vehicles, If you can empty out extra weight from the trunk or the bed it will make a difference.


----------



## SpaceBus

begreen said:


> A friend posted this reminder from 2008.
> 
> View attachment 293242


This is what it looked like when I first started driving and graduated high school.


----------



## johneh

I started my Mechanics apprenticeship in 1968 
at a Pontiac, Buick, GMC dealer, and gas was 22 cents a gallon 
could tour all weekend  in my Canadian built Pontiac Acadian SD with a 300 hp 327 
for 5 dollars. Mind you my take-home pay was only 62$ a week
Dam I miss those days.


----------



## stoveliker

I used to drive at an average between  40 and 41 mpg. Stick shift, no hybrid. (Now I don't know anymore; no work commute, so mostly very short trips. Ideal for an electric vehicle... I can still borrow my wife's larger car.)

How? I drove only to and from work, and the occasional Home Depot trip. I drive like an old fart.

In fact, for the (rare) longer distances, it's fantastically relaxing to drive 3 miles over the speed limit. Everyone else hussles, changes lanes, etc. My speed is very constant. I.e. no accelerations.
And that brings me to the most important part of "drive like an old fart". Yes, top speed matters. But acceleration matters more. Just take it easy when getting away from a traffic light.

Finally, I have a small car. I noted already that I mostly drove to work. So all the hundreds of pounds of metal only have to carry me. I.e. they don't have to amount to a big car. And I still got all the supplies for my woodshed (except for the 4x8 OSB for the roof) in my own car (lower the front seat to "lounge", put down the back seating, and you can carry a boatload that no one ever thought was possible.

I used to have a Ford Focus sedan before. I've gotten doors at (then) Lowes. Put the seats down, put it in, all done. Often folks in nice pick up trucks would stop and watch, smiling, how this crazy guy would go about taking all that home. And then 5 minutes later they would drive away, having seen it's not that big of a deal.

So yes, I look stupid at 6'4" in that car (but I still have 3" head room, actually more than in the Focus), yes I drive like an old fart. But then again, I get only 4 mpg or so less than a Prius hybrid. And I got this car "last year's model" with only 300 miles on the counter (driven up from Atlanta to a dealer in East TN) for 11k$ rather than 45k$ or so. New, all warranties.

So, confession, this is my car (model, not the poisonous color...):





Yes, sometimes I wish I had a pick up. Yes, this is not for everyone; some folks truly can't do without more lugging capacity. But many more folks could use a small car when they think that it would not work.

So, man card surrendered - I get it. But I'm not surrendering the dollars in the quantities that others do to get around. And I get extra points because I hand-split all my wood


----------



## ABMax24

This is in the Northwest Territories here in Canada, this is price per liter, for reference there are 3.78 liters in a US gallon.


----------



## Sodbuster

My wife and I are retired, I drive a 2010 Silverado and she drives a 2017 Toyota Camry. We've parked my truck and are only using the Camry. 13 mpg vs 30 mpg, a no brainer. I'm concerned because oil is used for much more than fuel, it's priced into almost everything you buy.


----------



## Jan Pijpelink

Hongkong has the highest gasoline price in the world. Next is the Netherlands. There, gasoline is 2.34 Euro/2.54 Dollars per liter which is $9.60 per gallon. The US still has a very low gasoline price compared to most western industrial countries.


----------



## Sodbuster

Hi Jan, my concern is that these high fuel prices will hurt the working poor the hardest.  When you are spending50% of what you make  to get to work it will create a very serious situation; prices going up, take home pay going down.


----------



## Jan Pijpelink

Sodbuster said:


> Hi Jan, my concern is that these high fuel prices will hurt the working poor the hardest.  When you are spending50% of what you make  to get to work it will create a very serious situation; prices going up, take home pay going down.


I agree. I might be in a fortunate situation as I work from home and don't drive that much. But still, with our US gas prices compared to the rest of the world, I think we do not have a reason to complain that much.


----------



## fbelec

and i hope it stays that way


Jan Pijpelink said:


> Hongkong has the highest gasoline price in the world. Next is the Netherlands. There, gasoline is 2.34 Euro/2.54 Dollars per liter which is $9.60 per gallon. The US still has a very low gasoline price compared to most western industrial countries.


----------



## Brian26

This is the current cheapest heating oil in each state per the popular cashheatingoil.com website.

TODAY'S ( 03/09/22 ) UPDATED HEATING OIL PRICES.​Lowest heating oil prices in CT - Connecticut $ 5.07 gal.
Lowest heating oil prices in MD - Maryland $ 4.99 gal.
Lowest heating oil prices in MA - Massachusetts $ 4.99 gal.
Lowest heating oil prices in NJ - New Jersey $ 4.97 gal.
Lowest heating oil prices in PA - Pennsylvania $ 4.88 gal.
Lowest heating oil prices in RI - Rhode Island $ 4.99 gal


----------



## EatenByLimestone

Last summer I was paying





Jan Pijpelink said:


> I agree. I might be in a fortunate situation as I work from home and don't drive that much. But still, with our US gas prices compared to the rest of the world, I think we do not have a reason to complain that much.




To give a little different perspective here, expect service companies to raise their prices significantly.   

So, my busy season is April through October.   Last year I ran 7 trucks during those months.  I spent around $4k in gas each month during those months.  We drive a lot of miles.   We saw these cost increases coming and decreased service area which should make a big difference in usage.   It's entirely possible that even with these changes I could be paying 7 or 8 thousand dollar gas bills this summer.  

Now let's talk about labor costs.    They've gone up.  A good number of our people increased their skills, took classes, increased licensing, etc.  They'll be making more.

Supplies, many have more than doubled in cost.  Expect companies to hold more inventory too since we can't rely on supply chains any more.

It's great that some people don't have to drive much, but you can't escape this.  Your groceries are costing significantly more.  Inflation is a Jimmy kick for everybody.


----------



## Ashful

I sure do appreciate all you guys claiming to drive like grandma, in little 1.3  liter displacement cars, and saving all the gas for me!  I will respectfully and courteously pass grandma, every time I come up behind her on a country road... sorry if the loud exhaust startled you.  I get no pleasure from burning oil as a needless act, but I do get pleasure from more spirited driving, even if it means using a bit more of that precious commodity.

But more on-topic, I feel like I'm living in the Twilight Zone, watching our national debate over banning the import of Russian oil.  Forgive me if I have my facts mixed up, but isn't the US presently purchasing less than 5% of Putin's oil?  Does Russian oil make up more than 8% of our imports?  How will the US of A placing a ban on Putin's oil hurt him or his supporters one bit, when their primary (European) customers are vastly increasing their usage through deployment of the NATO war machine?  I really don't get it... maybe someone here can lay it out a bit simpler for me?

... and don't go talking vaguely about global markets, unless you're tying it to a true NATO (not US-only) ban on Russian oil.  Simply put, until Europe or Asia bans the import of Russian oil, it would appear to this armchair economist that there is very little impact on global oil supply and demand.  



begreen said:


> Where we will get hit is for lawn and field mowing.


Like you, I am putting far more gas into mowers and tractors, than I ever use in my small fleet of road vehicles.  Moreover, with the exception of one new tractor, they all lack any sort of emissions control.  It feels terrible, but I've done the math on it, and thankfully we are not the norm.

If you assume it takes about 1 gallon of gas to mow 1 acre of lawn, as that's pretty close to what I average on my own lawn, it would take us roughly 40 million gallons of gas to mow the combined ~40 million acres of lawn in this country.  If we also assume an average 30 mowings per year, that's 1.2 billion gallons of gasoline, or approximately 1% of our national usage of that sweet juice.

I do wish there were more aggressive standards for emissions control on OPE, particularly our obnoxious and ubiquitous 60-inch zero turns running loud and thirsty 25 hp v-twins.  My tractor has Tier 4 compliant emissions equipment, and while everyone screamed about the sky falling when the requirements rolled out, it has turned out to be a great feature.  I no longer stink of diesel after running the tractor, the exhaust smells like unicorn farts and butterflies.  But, given the low numbers I presented above, even if not very accurate, I can understand why they've been a lower priority.


----------



## Ashful

Jan Pijpelink said:


> I agree. I might be in a fortunate situation as I work from home and don't drive that much. But still, with our US gas prices compared to the rest of the world, I think we do not have a reason to complain that much.


I used to travel a lot in Europe, and while it was several years ago and very Germany-centric, my memory is that their high gas prices were almost entirely self-inflicted.  It is not that their product had a much higher cost, but that they chose to willingly attach taxes to it, which were many multiples higher than our own.

The end result to the consumer is the same, I understand.  But given we're comparing one democratic entity to another, we shouldn't really feel much sorrow for the position in which they have chosen to place themselves, based on differing political ideologies.  Full retirement at age 60, very nicely and fully-paid by the government, does sometimes come with some additional cost at the pump.  There are likely many here, who would be happy to make the same trade.


----------



## woodey

Ashful said:


> I sure do appreciate all you guys claiming to drive like grandma, in little 1.3  liter displacement cars, and saving all the gas for me!  I will respectfully and courteously pass grandma, every time I come up behind her on a country road... sorry if the loud exhaust startled you.  I get no pleasure from burning oil as a needless act, but I do get pleasure from more spirited driving, even if it means using a bit more of that precious commodity


Well stated. I recently traded my old pickup for a new one so that I could get one with the engine I wanted while they are still in production.( 400HP Hemi).


----------



## stoveliker

Ashful said:


> I used to travel a lot in Europe, and while it was several years ago and very Germany-centric, my memory is that their high gas prices were almost entirely self-inflicted.  It is not that their product had a much higher cost, but that they chose to willingly attach taxes to it, which were many multiples higher than our own.
> 
> The end result to the consumer is the same, I understand.  But given we're comparing one democratic entity to another, we shouldn't really feel much sorrow for the position in which they have chosen to place themselves, based on differing political ideologies.  Full retirement at age 60, very nicely and fully-paid by the government, does sometimes come with some additional cost at the pump.  There are likely many here, who would be happy to make the same trade.


full retirement age in NL is 67. Not 60.


----------



## stoveliker

Ashful said:


> I sure do appreciate all you guys claiming to drive like grandma, in little 1.3  liter displacement cars, and saving all the gas for me!  I will respectfully and courteously pass grandma, every time I come up behind her on a country road... sorry if the loud exhaust startled you.  I get no pleasure from burning oil as a needless act, but I do get pleasure from more spirited driving, even if it means using a bit more of that precious commodity.


Well, my motorcycle (that I had, and I hope will have again) takes care of the needed loudness. The stickshift 1.3 L is a small engine indeed, but it needs to carry only little weight. When I bought it it was marketed with "zoom zoom". And it can do some spirited driving. It's just me that's the old fart.


----------



## Ashful

stoveliker said:


> full retirement age in NL is 67. Not 60.


Yes, you are correct.  My comment on that particular point came from having spent the last 3 years working for a French man, now age 59.  He reminded me routinely that full retirement age in France is 60.

So, yes, NL may be higher, but it's GDP makes only 4% of the Euro economy.  France is presently around 12.5% of Euro GDP, by comparison.


----------



## EbS-P

While we see gas prices every day,  transportation doesn’t use all the hydrocarbons.  Plastics fertilizer ect.  The price increases are going to be felt in many areas.  Food prices are going to keep going up. Anyone looked at the price of wheat and soybeans?   On the farm we burned 10,000 gallons of off road diesel in 3-4 weeks around summer harvest.    Tracotor 300+  gallons a day. Combines 250 each. Fertilizer if you can find it is really high.


----------



## ABMax24

EbS-P said:


> While we see gas prices every day,  transportation doesn’t use all the hydrocarbons.  Plastics fertilizer ect.  The price increases are going to be felt in many areas.  Food prices are going to keep going up. Anyone looked at the price of wheat and soybeans?   On the farm we burned 10,000 gallons of off road diesel in 3-4 weeks around summer harvest.    Tracotor 300+  gallons a day. Combines 250 each. Fertilizer if you can find it is really high.



That has a compounding effect, many farmers in the area are decreasing inputs for the coming season, fertilizer costs are simply too high to apply for maximum yields. Many are aiming for about 25% less yield than maximum because their cost/bushel is optimized at that yield this year. So not only are grain prices way up, this year's harvest is already going to be below average, before we've even introduced whatever weather events will happen this year.


----------



## woodey

EbS-P said:


> While we see gas prices every day,  transportation doesn’t use all the hydrocarbons.  Plastics fertilizer ect.  The price increases are going to be felt in many areas.  Food prices are going to keep going up. Anyone looked at the price of wheat and soybeans?   On the farm we burned 10,000 gallons of off road diesel in 3-4 weeks around summer harvest.    Tracotor 300+  gallons a day. Combines 250 each. Fertilizer if you can find it is really high.


I’ve been thinking about how hard this is going to hit the farmers as my    brother in-law  owns a large dairy farm just down the road from me.  Field work is to begin soon here. Last year they planted 1,300 acres of corn among other feed. With the soaring price of fuel, fertilizer and seed the milk check will be stretched thin.


----------



## begreen

The government has little to do with the cost of gasoline. Oil companies are privately owned. The cost of oil goes up and down according to supply and demand. There are a lot of dependencies and issues like the disruptions to crude oil supplies, refinery operations, or pipeline problems, and what the market (airlines) think the demand will be in the future. In 2020-2021 there was the  pandemic and economic recession which greatly reduced demand for oil so prices were very low. The producers reduced production, and they have not yet fully ramped it up again.

Meanwhile, during the past year,  the major oil companies made soaring profits, bought back a boatload of shares, and gave their CEOs billions in bonuses. But heaven forbid that they make less money to help the average American.


----------



## woodey

Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E.  are  ignoring calls from Biden about increased  purchases of  crude.


----------



## ABMax24

UAE wants to open the taps, oil prices have dropped 13% on that news.


----------



## EatenByLimestone

I





ABMax24 said:


> That has a compounding effect, many farmers in the area are decreasing inputs for the coming season, fertilizer costs are simply too high to apply for maximum yields. Many are aiming for about 25% less yield than maximum because their cost/bushel is optimized at that yield this year. So not only are grain prices way up, this year's harvest is already going to be below average, before we've even introduced whatever weather events will happen this year.




Have to figure The Breadbasket of Europe (Ukraine) will also have a reduced if not completely lost harvest.    Even if this ends tomorrow,  there's no way to replace lost equipment.   I have the feeling that ever resourceful farmers will be pulling equipment with military surplus for years though.  Just because the military value is destroyed, it can still pull wagons, manure spreaders, etc.


----------



## begreen

EatenByLimestone said:


> IHave to figure The Breadbasket of Europe (Ukraine) will also have a reduced if not completely lost harvest.    Even if this ends tomorrow,  there's no way to replace lost equipment.   I have the feeling that ever resourceful farmers will be pulling equipment with military surplus for years though.  Just because the military value is destroyed, it can still pull wagons, manure spreaders, etc.


And this will have major consequences. Egypt, for one, is very dependent on Russia and Ukraine for wheat and sunflower oil. Egypt has about 4 months of wheat reserves but will likely face severe problems later this year.


----------



## Sawset

begreen said:


> And this will have major consequences. Egypt, for one, is hugely dependent on Ukraine for wheat and sunflower oil.


So they'll be looking to the west for wheat and sunflower oil?


----------



## begreen

They depend on Russia and Ukraine. What happens to make up this deficit may largely depend on the state of the world as their reserves dwindle and the weather that crops face around the world.


----------



## EatenByLimestone

I imagine they'll be looking everywhere.   I'm sure that Russian crops will be fine, but can they grow enough to make up for Ukraine?  Probably not.  That shortage will certainly be borne in part by USA and Canadian growers.   I suppose an issue is Russia is the largest exporter of fertilizer.  It looks like they exported 7 billion dollars of it in 2020.


----------



## EatenByLimestone

A possible outcome is farmers here, if they have the equipment to allow a switch, may grow wheat instead of corn.  This will affect our whiskey supplies, oh and that ethanol crap too.


----------



## Sawset

EatenByLimestone said:


> A possible outcome is farmers here, if they have the equipment to allow a switch, may grow wheat instead of corn.  This will affect our whiskey supplies, oh and that ethanol crap too.


Wheat acres in the US have been dwindling for years in favor of corn and beans. One thing about wheat - it can tolerate dryer conditions and requires far less inputs than corn. There would need to be a motive (price) as always and a ready market. Hmm, wheat prices are up.


----------



## EbS-P

Over half (50-605%)  the wheat the us produces is winter wheat and planted around September.  Maybe more acreage gets spring wheat but not enough to move markets a great deal in the next 9 months.  Soybeans will be attractive may we even more so than wheat for certain regions.  Would not be surprised if the ethanol subsidies/requirements are reduced or phased out.  Might sound silly but food might win over fuel.    Haven’t heard much about Brazil or Argentina crops or acreage. It all will matter.


----------



## EatenByLimestone

Wouldn't Brazil and Argentina already be planted?   I'd think it'd be hard for them to change crops by now.


----------



## ABMax24

Even in Canada it will be hard to switch crops, we're 2.5 months out from planting season but the seed and inputs have already been bought, a few farmers might be able to, but not a significant portion.

Maybe Australia can help make up the difference when they plant later in the year.

I know it's a tough decision to make, especially given current oil prices, but it might make sense to shutdown some or all of the ethanol plants in the US. Reducing the size of the cattle herds would help too.


----------



## Jan Pijpelink

Crude oil pricing is based on (among other things):

Supply and demand.
Availability of tankers.
Politics in the country of origin.
Unrest in the country of origin. Civil war or civil unrest drives up the price.
Security. If the source of crude and personnel needs to be protected, like in Nigeria and Kazakhstan, the price goes up.
Weather. If a US refinery orders crude in July for delivery in October, the tanker crosses the Atlantic Ocean during the hurricane season. This means that the insurance company of the tanker increases the insurance premium.
Politics in the country of destination.
Crude quality.
Competition of OPEC suppliers vs non-OPEC suppliers.
And other factors.


----------



## EbS-P

ABMax24 said:


> Even in Canada it will be hard to switch crops, we're 2.5 months out from planting season but the seed and inputs have already been bought, a few farmers might be able to, but not a significant portion.
> 
> Maybe Australia can help make up the difference when they plant later in the year.
> 
> I know it's a tough decision to make, especially given current oil prices, but it might make sense to shutdown some or all of the ethanol plants in the US. Reducing the size of the cattle herds would help too.


The US Renewable Fuel Standard is due to be updated this year.  Jason from EE has a decent probably slanted take that agrees with my perception.  2 % carbon reduction “WHO CARES!!”   Increase mileage standards done.  I don’t see any big changes unless the EPA started taking a more progressive position and I still think we are in baby step territory.


----------



## peakbagger

The current oil market is also reflecting payback. The US became a player on the worldwide supply market after decades of being a buyer. The US refused to play ball with OPEC and OPEC Plus and depressed oil prices below what several economies needed to buy off their populations from revolting. Venezuela got where they are now because they could not afford to buy off the poor with revenue from the low price of oil. Several of the middle eastern countries had the same problem, their budgets were set up for a higher price of oil than the market would pay as the US was screwing up the price and driving it lower. Russia was just plain greedy as they just ignore their population.  Nevertheless, the US drove prices down for several years until OPEC Plus said two can play the game and started flooding the market with oil. That drove the US producers into a mode where as their contracts ran out they could not afford to keep drilling. Many firms went bankrupt and their equipment was sold off.  Once the US companies get signed contracts to sell oil at a profit they will head back into the field and 18 months to 2 years from now it will start flowing in quantity. The US strategic oil reserve is for short term glitches not long term events like this. It would have to be a hundred times larger to store enough volume to deal with a moderate term loss of worldwide supply.

So now when the US is asking for help, OPEC minus Russia is going to ask for a lot of behind the scenes deals and assurances that the US will play nice in the future. The only way the US gets off that backroom dealing is to cut fossil usage to the point where US production can cover the reduced demand at a reasonable cost per barrel. The problem is Opec Plus can generally in the short term flood the market with cheap oil at cost far lower than a US producer can drill for.


----------



## EatenByLimestone

I'd like to see us supplying all of our own oil.   I like cheap gas, but will gladly pay more for the security of supply.     

Higher prices does curtail demand, that's a given.   To a certain extent, it is what it is, and we will all have to suck it up or adjust our behavior.   

We will survive.


----------



## EbS-P

I think we will be seeing a large increase in vehicle cost. Back to the whole supply chain issues shortages labor cost increases. the whole idea of dealer mark up may be a thing of the past soon.   The biggest unknown is if/when/how China will enter the US automobile market.  Ramping up EV sales in the sext 12 months could make a considerable impact on fuel demand but it’s like less than 5-10%.   US buyers want big and flashy and by the looks of the marketing it’s EV trucks.  I don’t get that one bit.  If you have a 1/2 ton truck to take your kids to daycare/school and soccer why not just keep it in the road and get a smaller EV sedan.  Best of all worlds.  

Seems like oil price is stabling for the time being.


----------



## festerw

EbS-P said:


> I think we will be seeing a large increase in vehicle cost. Back to the whole supply chain issues shortages labor cost increases. the whole idea of dealer mark up may be a thing of the past soon.   The biggest unknown is if/when/how China will enter the US automobile market.  Ramping up EV sales in the sext 12 months could make a considerable impact on fuel demand but it’s like less than 5-10%.   US buyers want big and flashy and by the looks of the marketing it’s EV trucks.  I don’t get that one bit.  If you have a 1/2 ton truck to take your kids to daycare/school and soccer why not just keep it in the road and get a smaller EV sedan.  Best of all worlds.
> 
> Seems like oil price is stabling for the time being.



I've been looking for a little bit and it seems really hard to beat the Toyota hybrids for a cost/benefit.  Well equipped Corolla/Camry/Prius is under $30k and will net you around 50mpg.

Sure you've still got maintenance but it's still easy to take a road trip and not have to plan around charging. In my case to go electric I'd need to upgrade my panel and trench to the driveway to add an easily accessible outlet.


----------



## EbS-P

festerw said:


> I've been looking for a little bit and it seems really hard to beat the Toyota hybrids for a cost/benefit.  Well equipped Corolla/Camry/Prius is under $30k and will net you around 50mpg.
> 
> Sure you've still got maintenance but it's still easy to take a road trip and not have to plan around charging. In my case to go electric I'd need to upgrade my panel and trench to the driveway to add an easily accessible outlet.


20 amp 240V is enough for my around town needs. I was able swap in a tandem single pole to create an extra slot and then use an existing 20 amp run that removed the old well pump from..   3.8kw charging.   Got a 24’ cable on my charger.   12-2 outdoor wire was much cheaper than indoor romex.  Pvc Conduit is 10$ a stick.  

 I wil probably always have a gas car for the next 15 years or longer.  I think if you only have one vehicle hybrid makes sense. Plug in hybrid even more. 

When I did the math before gas went way up. My 16.6 mpg van around town cost 220$ per 1000 miles gas and oil.  I calculated EV cost at 60$ per 1000 miles.    Roll the dice on maintenance cost.  My Honda van has been really expensive to make all the repairs. 

My electric rates can and will go up but nothing like gas.  Might even look into a diy solar project.


----------



## festerw

EbS-P said:


> 20 amp 240V is enough for my around town needs. I was able swap in a tandem single pole to create an extra slot and then use an existing 20 amp run that removed the old well pump from..   3.8kw charging.   Got a 24’ cable on my charger.   12-2 outdoor wire was much cheaper than indoor romex.  Pvc Conduit is 10$ a stick.
> 
> I wil probably always have a gas car for the next 15 years or longer.  I think if you only have one vehicle hybrid makes sense. Plug in hybrid even more.
> 
> When I did the math before gas went way up. My 16.6 mpg van around town cost 220$ per 1000 miles gas and oil.  I calculated EV cost at 60$ per 1000 miles.    Roll the dice on maintenance cost.  My Honda van has been really expensive to make all the repairs.
> 
> My electric rates can and will go up but nothing like gas.  Might even look into a diy solar project.



I'm on a 100amp panel that's pretty much full up, we're planning a remodel in the next few years so it'll get changed at some point. So we'll have plenty of room later if things change.

Round trip for me to work is about 50 miles, I run 7.5-10k oil changes so oil itself is pretty much negligible and with ToyotaCare the first 2 years of service are free. 

With gas around $4/gal per 1000 miles I'm about $200 with the Durango, $80 with a hybrid, and $20 with electric.


----------



## peakbagger

I get around 40 to 45 miles of plug in range on my Rav 4 Prime (less in winter). I have a 100 amp panel in the garage so I just put in a new 240 volt outlet with a combined arc fault and GFI breaker feeding it.  NH does not have incentives for off peak charging so I went with a dumb EVSE cord. If they change, I have an ancient X-10 system in the house and  I can add a module to switch it on and off instead of putting in an expensive version.  I run a surplus with solar so charging is effectively "free".


----------



## SpaceBus

peakbagger said:


> I get around 40 to 45 miles of plug in range on my Rav 4 Prime (less in winter). I have a 100 amp panel in the garage so I just put in a new 240 volt outlet with a combined arc fault and GFI breaker feeding it.  NH does not have incentives for off peak charging so I went with a dumb EVSE cord. If they change, I have an ancient X-10 system in the house and  I can add a module to switch it on and off instead of putting in an expensive version.  I run a surplus with solar so charging is effectively "free".


We could probably do 90% of our driving on the electric range of a PHEV, but nowhere to charge right now.


----------



## Rusty18

Does the electric only mode still kick off above 25 mph?


----------



## peakbagger

On the Toyota Rav4 Prime, it can run battery only mode up to highway speeds but obviously cuts the range as aerodynamics kick in.  There are "range geeks" on the forums that play games to maximize electric miles. Some of them have doubled the published electric range to over 90 miles. No doubt someone driving around a rural town with minimal traffic congestion and the range goes up.


----------



## Rusty18

Well now I want one.   Y’all are worse than unlicensed pharmaceutical sales rep that work on the street corners...

If gas hits $5 a gallon maybe I can talk someone into getting one.


----------



## begreen

WTI crude fell below $100 today. Think you are going to see a dramatic drop at the pump or home anytime soon?


----------



## Ashful

begreen said:


> WTI crude fell below $100 today. Think you are going to see a dramatic drop at the pump or home anytime soon?


Should've sold my Exxon a week ago.


----------



## begreen

Ashful said:


> Should've sold my Exxon a week ago.


No worries, the oil and gas industry is making record profits now and has for the past year. Nice if you are a shareholder or CEO, not so nice if you are a consumer.


----------



## woodey

begreen said:


> . Think you are going to see a dramatic drop at the pump or home anytime soon?


----------



## vinny11950

begreen said:


> WTI crude fell below $100 today. Think you are going to see a dramatic drop at the pump or home anytime soon?


What's the expression?  Goes up like a rocket, falls like a feather.  Something like that.


----------



## ABMax24

Russia/Ukraine aside the fundamentals still haven't changed, production has been stagnant and demand is increasing. I think $90-$110 oil is where we are going to sit for the next 18 months. If things really kick off in Ukraine, or if oil shipments to the west are slowed/stopped I think $150 is easily within reach, and who knows where from there, maybe $200.


----------



## vinny11950

ABMax24 said:


> Russia/Ukraine aside the fundamentals still haven't changed, production has been stagnant and demand is increasing. I think $90-$110 oil is where we are going to sit for the next 18 months. If things really kick off in Ukraine, or if oil shipments to the west are slowed/stopped I think $150 is easily within reach, and who knows where from there, maybe $200.


I agree, but a lot of the movements now is speculation.  Economists are now cutting back on global GDP growth estimates, so traders are trying to price that in.  Then you have the likely interest rate hikes from the Fed coming up, which will probably increase the strength of the dollar which should impact oil prices.  And the wildcard is Ukraine.  Anything from a collapse of the Russian offensive to a nuclear strike are on the table, sadly.  You would have to have balls of steel to bet on oil prices now, either way.


----------



## peakbagger

I think shale can make a buck at $70 a barrel, rigs will go back in the field and the price will drift down.


----------



## EatenByLimestone

I'll take $70/barrel.


----------



## ABMax24

vinny11950 said:


> I agree, but a lot of the movements now is speculation.  Economists are now cutting back on global GDP growth estimates, so traders are trying to price that in.  Then you have the likely interest rate hikes from the Fed coming up, which will probably increase the strength of the dollar which should impact oil prices.  And the wildcard is Ukraine.  Anything from a collapse of the Russian offensive to a nuclear strike are on the table, sadly.  You would have to have balls of steel to bet on oil prices now, either way.



There's also the reluctance for many lenders to give money to oil and gas, the environmental movement of the last decade has been very successful in that regard. 

75% of my portfolio is in O&G right now in various sectors, I don't plan on moving it anytime soon.


----------



## Ashful

begreen said:


> No worries, the oil and gas industry is making record profits now and has for the past year. Nice if you are a shareholder or CEO, not so nice if you are a consumer.


Then become a shareholder!  $81.88 full shares, at closing today.  It was $55 just 6 months ago.


----------



## woodgeek

EbS-P said:


> While we see gas prices every day,  transportation doesn’t use all the hydrocarbons.  Plastics fertilizer ect.  The price increases are going to be felt in many areas.  Food prices are going to keep going up. Anyone looked at the price of wheat and soybeans?   On the farm we burned 10,000 gallons of off road diesel in 3-4 weeks around summer harvest.    Tracotor 300+  gallons a day. Combines 250 each. Fertilizer if you can find it is really high.


Correction:  Oil is NOT used to make fertilizer.  Natural gas and air are used to make fertilizer.  CH4 to make Hydrogen, plus N2 to make Ammonia.

Oil producing countries usually have more nat gas than they know what to do with... so they use the cheap gas to make fertilizer, which is easier to store and ship.

Fertilizer prices are going up bc the world is embargoing Russian fertilizer, not bc oil prices are going up.

As with Russian oil, some countries will be buying the Russian fertilizer at a steep discount.


----------



## woodgeek

festerw said:


> I've been looking for a little bit and it seems really hard to beat the Toyota hybrids for a cost/benefit.  Well equipped Corolla/Camry/Prius is under $30k and will net you around 50mpg.
> 
> Sure you've still got maintenance but it's still easy to take a road trip and not have to plan around charging. In my case to go electric I'd need to upgrade my panel and trench to the driveway to add an easily accessible outlet.


My used volt ($15k) has a 35+ mile electric range, and gets 40 mpg highway at 70 mph.   Since it covers my commute and shopping on electric, I am averaging over 70 mpg overall, and buy gas every couple months to fill the 8 gallon tank.


----------



## mcdougy

F150 wasn't quite empty (130litres)


----------



## Ashful

woodgeek said:


> Fertilizer prices are going up bc the world is embargoing Russian fertilizer, not bc oil prices are going up.


Fertilizer with prodiamine has gone up 30% (wholesale prices) in the last two weeks, if you can even manage to get your hands on the stuff.  I’ve been waiting 10 days for my wholesaler to spare me a pallet, and am in fact sitting at the loading yard waiting for a forklift to be loaded, as I type this.


----------



## vinny11950

Permian oil output forecast to hit record high in April -EIA
					

Oil output in the Permian in Texas and New Mexico, the biggest U.S. shale oil basin, is due to rise 70,000 barrels per day (bpd) to a record 5.208 million bpd in April, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) said in its productivity report on Monday.




					www.reuters.com


----------



## SpaceBus

vinny11950 said:


> Permian oil output forecast to hit record high in April -EIA
> 
> 
> Oil output in the Permian in Texas and New Mexico, the biggest U.S. shale oil basin, is due to rise 70,000 barrels per day (bpd) to a record 5.208 million bpd in April, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) said in its productivity report on Monday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.reuters.com


70,000 barrels is hardly noteworthy compared to the 5.2 million bpd they were already producing...


----------



## Ashful

Ashful said:


> Fertilizer with prodiamine has gone up 30% (wholesale prices) in the last two weeks, if you can even manage to get your hands on the stuff.  I’ve been waiting 10 days for my wholesaler to spare me a pallet, and am in fact sitting at the loading yard waiting for a forklift to be loaded, as I type this.


Quoting myself, because I gave some inaccurate information.  The fertilizer is indeed up 30% from the prices I paid last season.  But it is not as much due to Russia and the last month's excitement, as I had assumed.  I spoke with the account manager who informed me the prices have actually crept up gradually, over this entire year.  We saw it in seed last year, this year it's fertilizer.

The mess in the near-east won't help matters at all, but it can't be blamed for the fertilizer prices we are seeing today... yet.


----------



## woodey

Ashful said:


> Fertilizer with prodiamine has gone up 30% (wholesale prices) in the last two weeks, if you can even manage to get your hands on the stuff.  I’ve been waiting 10 days for my wholesaler to spare me a pallet, and am in fact sitting at the loading yard waiting for a forklift to be loaded, as I type this.


I assume that you’re not sitting there with your engine idling.😆


----------



## begreen

Oil suffers 'spectacular' collapse, enters bear market just 5 days after settling at nearly 14-year highs
					

U.S. and global benchmark crude oil entered a bear market on Tuesday, just five trading days after they settled at their highest prices since 2008.




					www.marketwatch.com


----------



## mcdougy

Here, according to a reputable farmer I do business with, inputs this year are up 130% compared to last year. He was happy that he locked his fertilizer price in November/December at 100% increase. It's risen another  30% since then.


----------



## vinny11950

Big parts of China are back under Covid lockdowns.  Their vaccines aren't as good as first thought.  I think this will tame oil demand some.  

At the same time, this will probably aggravate supply issues here in the US, causing more shortages and inflation pressure.  On the bright side, it will make US manufacturing more appealing, so more US jobs.  That's one way to bring jobs back to the US.

Also, both Iran and Venezuela have released western prisoners the past few weeks, a precursor, I would assume, to normalized relations with these countries so they can sell more oil in the world market.


----------



## stoveliker

I just emailed with  someone in Xi'an. In many regions there are no strict lock downs. "Big parts" seems not to be correct.

The effect on oil may be correct though as it's Shenzhen (big fraction of GDP achieved there). Shanghai is close to locking down, and other coastal areas are at risk. But the majority of the country seems to be not affected.


----------



## EbS-P

Price is back to over 100$.  Everyone in the know made some money off the spike.  Supply will improve some. We may see gas tax holidays but that’s not a solution. that lost revenue will need to be accounted for some how.    Current prices will boost EV sales but have you need one on car lot?   Preorders are stopped on all most Ford EVs.  Not sure about Kia/Hyundai right now.  Tesla last I heard is about 6 months to delivery (unless you want plaid or performance).  Oh and prices went up.
   I don’t see the fasten seatbelt sign turning off any time soon.


----------



## begreen

woodgeek said:


> My used volt ($15k) has a 35+ mile electric range, and gets 40 mpg highway at 70 mph.   Since it covers my commute and shopping on electric, I am averaging over 70 mpg overall, and buy gas every couple months to fill the 8 gallon tank.


We love our Gen 2 Volt. Due to market demand, it's worth more now than when we bought it 2+ yrs ago.  Winter electric range is 45mi and summer is 65 mi. That covers 90% of our driving. Overall mileage 132 mpg. During the pandemic, we had to run the car on gas once because the car was warning us the fuel was over 6 months old. Even in ICE mode, it gets 45-50 mpg. Wish they had leveraged this design to other vehicles.


----------



## EatenByLimestone

I think they are.  The Maverick base model is hybrid and gets 42mpg city.


----------



## SpaceBus

I paid $5.10/gal for diesel this morning to fill up for tomorrow. We have to pick up my MIL from the airport and the roads are too busted up to drive my wife's car. At least the dually averages 25+ MPG on these country back roads with no stops.


----------



## peakbagger

SpaceBus said:


> I paid $5.10/gal for diesel this morning to fill up for tomorrow. We have to pick up my MIL from the airport and the roads are too busted up to drive my wife's car. At least the dually averages 25+ MPG on these country back roads with no stops.


Mud season in Downeast Maine, few BEVs would survive long. "Bert and I" had some routines about mud season in Maine.

In order to get the range and fuel economy, the manufacturers usually go with low ground clearance and low profile tires. Both do not do well with soft roadbeds and enormous potholes. That is one of the reasons I waited for the Rav 4 Prime, its got reasonable ground clearance and slightly heavier suspension. It did have low profile tires with aluminum rims but when I went for my winter tires I went for smaller steel rims and slightly higher tire to get some pothole tolerance.  They will stay on long past the snow until the back roads dry up.  I find steel rims seem to survive pot holes better than aluminum. Hopefully the Ford Lightning will still have areal suspension but my guess is most the early production will never go on a dirt road. 

Luckily the Unimogs do not get driven far so 10 MPG is not as painful.


----------



## SpaceBus

peakbagger said:


> Mud season in Downeast Maine, few BEVs would survive long. "Bert and I" had some routines about mud season in Maine.
> 
> In order to get the range and fuel economy, the manufacturers usually go with low ground clearance and low profile tires. Both do not do well with soft roadbeds and enormous potholes. That is one of the reasons I waited for the Rav 4 Prime, its got reasonable ground clearance and slightly heavier suspension. It did have low profile tires with aluminum rims but when I went for my winter tires I went for smaller steel rims and slightly higher tire to get some pothole tolerance.  They will stay on long past the snow until the back roads dry up.  I find steel rims seem to survive pot holes better than aluminum. Hopefully the Ford Lightning will still have areal suspension but my guess is most the early production will never go on a dirt road.
> 
> Luckily the Unimogs do not get driven far so 10 MPG is not as painful.


The first thing I did when we moved here was remove the fancy forged 17" aluminum wheels from my wife's car in favor of 15" cast aluminum wheels that cost much less. Had to get a specific wheel to fit 15" barrels around the brakes and steering components on her Abarth, otherwise the would be steel for winter. I have a set for winter and summer, but the next winter tires will definite be studded. I just run MT's on the factory 17" for my truck year round, and I don't think smaller dually wheels will clear the brakes. When we finish our garage/shop I'm hoping there will be something like a Subaru Crosstrek or Outback with a BEV drivetrain. Ideally I would put a long travel rally suspension on what we get, but there aren't many cars with that kind of aftermarket.


----------



## EatenByLimestone

I was driving a Tacoma today and was sinking in the mud pretty bad.   Looked like I was a kid spinning in the mud and I never went past 5mph or lost traction.   The ground is just soft!


----------



## EatenByLimestone

SpaceBus said:


> I just run MT's on the factory 17" for my truck year round, and I don't think smaller dually wheels will clear the brakes..



Mickey Thompsons?    Sweeeeeet!   It must really hook up!


----------



## EbS-P

peakbagger said:


> Mud season in Downeast Maine, few BEVs would survive long. "Bert and I" had some routines about mud season in Maine.
> 
> In order to get the range and fuel economy, the manufacturers usually go with low ground clearance and low profile tires. Both do not do well with soft roadbeds and enormous potholes. That is one of the reasons I waited for the Rav 4 Prime, its got reasonable ground clearance and slightly heavier suspension. It did have low profile tires with aluminum rims but when I went for my winter tires I went for smaller steel rims and slightly higher tire to get some pothole tolerance.  They will stay on long past the snow until the back roads dry up.  I find steel rims seem to survive pot holes better than aluminum. Hopefully the Ford Lightning will still have areal suspension but my guess is most the early production will never go on a dirt road.
> 
> Luckily the Unimogs do not get driven far so 10 MPG is not as painful.


100 kWh battery pack is over 1000#. My guess is that it rides better than an empty regular F150. But I wonder what suspension changes will be.  Big battery will mean stronger suspension. 

One spring morning I walked out to our 5-7 year old Sentra.  It was sitting kinda funny. Got in and something’s was rubbing.  Broken front strut spring.  Broke while parked.  Ahh Maine roads.  Don’t miss them.  


SpaceBus said:


> The first thing I did when we moved here was remove the fancy forged 17" aluminum wheels from my wife's car in favor of 15" cast aluminum wheels that cost much less. Had to get a specific wheel to fit 15" barrels around the brakes and steering components on her Abarth, otherwise the would be steel for winter. I have a set for winter and summer, but the next winter tires will definite be studded. I just run MT's on the factory 17" for my truck year round, and I don't think smaller dually wheels will clear the brakes. When we finish our garage/shop I'm hoping there will be something like a Subaru Crosstrek or Outback with a BEV drivetrain. Ideally I would put a long travel rally suspension on what we get, but there aren't many cars with that kind of aftermarket.


Maine eats cars….  Doubtful long travel parts will take off for BEV unless an electric rally league takes off.  That would be fun. But think of how much extra protection for the batteries they would need.


----------



## peakbagger

There was much publicized Tesla fire where a Tesla was out on the ice on Lake Champlain in winter and it burnt down to the ice. Luckily after it burned up they got the mess cleaned up before the ice melted. The owner reportedly had been beating on it elsewhere and knocked components lose to eventually cause the burn.  

On a completely different note I was on an interesting conversation the other day with a major battery supplier for grid support (,5 to 5 MWhrs), they and other companies are rushing to switch to Lithium phosphate batteries away from the NMC (Nickel Manganese Cobalt) chemistry as quick as they can as LiPo batteries do not go into cascade failure. I still think NMC still has the best power density but NMCs are becoming a major liability along with strategic chemical sourcing issues.


----------



## EbS-P

peakbagger said:


> There was much publicized Tesla fire where a Tesla was out on the ice on Lake Champlain in winter and it burnt down to the ice. Luckily after it burned up they got the mess cleaned up before the ice melted. The owner reportedly had been beating on it elsewhere and knocked components lose to eventually cause the burn.
> 
> On a completely different note I was on an interesting conversation the other day with a major battery supplier for grid support (,5 to 5 MWhrs), they and other companies are rushing to switch to Lithium phosphate batteries away from the NMC (Nickel Manganese Cobalt) chemistry as quick as they can as LiPo batteries do not go into cascade failure. I still think NMC still has the best power density but NMCs are becoming a major liability along with strategic chemical sourcing issues.


I read it was fraud, trying to cover his tracks.  Either way fire is real but I hope survival time is longer in a BEV fire than a an ICEV.   Musk made some statements sometime somewhere about fire risk I found believable. 









						The mystery of a Tesla found destroyed on a frozen lake is solved, and it's a wild story
					

The mystery of how a Tesla Model X was found burnt to almost nothing on a frozen lake in Vermont is now solved. It’s a wild story that involves over half a million dollars of fraud exploiting Tesla’s purchasing process. In February 2019, we reported on the remains of a burnt Tesla Model X being […]



					electrek.co


----------



## begreen

EatenByLimestone said:


> I think they are.  The Maverick base model is hybrid and gets 42mpg city.


Well, that's a Ford, the Volt is a Chevy. The Maverick is only a traditional hybrid, the electric and gas engines are always working together. The gas engine is not supplementary. EV range is minimal, like the regular Prius.


----------



## woodgeek

peakbagger said:


> There was much publicized Tesla fire where a Tesla was out on the ice on Lake Champlain in winter and it burnt down to the ice. Luckily after it burned up they got the mess cleaned up before the ice melted. The owner reportedly had been beating on it elsewhere and knocked components lose to eventually cause the burn.
> 
> On a completely different note I was on an interesting conversation the other day with a major battery supplier for grid support (,5 to 5 MWhrs), they and other companies are rushing to switch to Lithium phosphate batteries away from the NMC (Nickel Manganese Cobalt) chemistry as quick as they can as LiPo batteries do not go into cascade failure. I still think NMC still has the best power density but NMCs are becoming a major liability along with strategic chemical sourcing issues.


I think most of the Chinese EVs on the market use LiPo or another non-NMC chemistry.  This keeps them a little cheaper and safer, but does reduce their range.  For rich urban dwellers in China, not an issue.

While lithium, a uniquely small ion able to intercalate into other compounds is a real secret sauce to getting high charge density (coulombs per volume) and fast charge discharge (bc small ions diffuse faster), the range of electrode compounds you can run it with is vast.  Saying 'lithium batteries' is kinda like saying 'electronic semiconductors', there are zillions of semiconductors that use electrons and holes as carriers, all unique.  It is hardly surprising that optimizing for strategic minerals, mass density, cost per kWh or cycle life, etc will end up using different 'lithium' chemistries.  And in each the mass fraction of lithium will come in at a few percent of the total.


----------



## SpaceBus

EatenByLimestone said:


> Mickey Thompsons?    Sweeeeeet!   It must really hook up!


Sorry, I meant "Mud Tires/Maximum Traction" tires, not Mickey Thompson brand. They are actually Yokohamas, but the ground is so soft right now and my rear end so light I have to use 4x4 unless I am on our hard packed gravel. Even just letting the clutch out without using any accelerator pedal results in my truck not moving and the rear tires just slowly spinning in the mud until I engage 4x4. They are great in the mud and deep snow, but the MT's offer little grip on ice. Eventually I would like to get commercial 19.5" aluminum wheels so I can use the really long life tires, at the expense of ride comfort. I also have crazy short gearing, so I wouldn't mind the reduction in gearing from taller tires.


----------



## Ashful

EatenByLimestone said:


> Mickey Thompsons?    Sweeeeeet!   It must really hook up!


I was thinking the same thing, until I got to the next sentence.  😄. Anyone who’s ever raced immediately reads MT as Mickey Thompson.  



begreen said:


> We love our Gen 2 Volt. Due to market demand, it's worth more now than when we bought it 2+ yrs ago.


I don’t think this is an “EV thing”, but just a market condition created by recent demand and price increases.  I was checking prices on used SRT’s for a buddy in January, and found my 6 year old 12 mpg gas guzzler is also now listed at about the same price used, as I paid new back in 2016.  It appears that the car market is nearly flipped right now, so it’s not hard to imagine many used car models following this trend, or at least nearly so.


----------



## ABMax24

Oil back up to $110 this morning, talks of the EU banning Russian oil have resumed, along with attacks on Saudi oil infrastructure are being blamed for the increase.


----------



## begreen




----------



## vinny11950

Remarkable chart.


----------



## EatenByLimestone

Isn’t that a good thing?


----------



## SpaceBus

It is something, not sure if it is exactly good.


----------



## EbS-P

They lost theirs shirts have been naked for a long time and now can afford a pair of pants.  The infrastructure was not abandoned.  Chart was based on 88$ /barrel average crude price.  Not sure how that affect the numbers but is seems if we are talking cash flow using and average isn’t the best way.  

The drilling and fracking has already happened.  i imagine they learned their lesson and won’t be investing much in new production but it could happen. They still haven’t token even. The current supply/demand situation won’t last forever won’t last forever.  I want to the the oil and gas  breakdown.


----------



## johneh

I don't care what they say ! Gas here this morning is just under 9$
 an Imperial Gallon somebody is making a chit load of money


----------



## Rusty18

Unleaded $4.15 diesel $5.69 today...will see where it goes tomorrow.  It’s gonna hurt bad when that fuel surcharge finally hits groceries.


----------



## ABMax24

I was going to write a long winded post, but this article comes pretty close to my own opinion on why oil prices have risen the last couple weeks:









						Russia's Victory Day Could Be A Crucial Moment For Oil | OilPrice.com
					

While the Kremlin has publicly stated that it won’t be declaring war on Ukraine or announcing a military mobilization on Victory Day on May 9, the markets are jittery heading into the weekend




					oilprice.com


----------



## SpaceBus

I don't expect prices to come back down.


----------



## kennyp2339

This is a great video that explains a lot about the prices and the oil age in general.


----------



## EbS-P

kennyp2339 said:


> This is a great video that explains a lot about the prices and the oil age in general.



I will summarize my key takeaways.  
1. Price is driven by supply and demand. (We already knew that).
2.  Opec+ Was a reaction to the shale boom in a attempt to regain control of supply.  
3.  Producers are not reinvesting in new supply infrastructure  like they have in the past.  

The last point is the most telling.  They are going to pocket record profits betting that demand will keep prices high and by not investing in new production capacity almost ensures that even if demand levels off or drops it (the demand) will keep prices high because they have limited the future supply.  They have no reason to drop prices whe. The future is predicting a drop in consumption.   

I don’t see how this strategy would ever allow oil back down to the or below the 75-85$ a barrel price. I think odds are Better that the price stays above 100$ and and the economy picks back up producers choose not to increase supply and we could even settle in to the 120-135$ a barrel. Europe will reduce or nearly eliminate  consumption of Russian energy products. 

Good video.  

Just my thoughts


----------



## kennyp2339

EbS-P said:


> I don’t see how this strategy would ever allow oil back down to the or below the 75-85$ a barrel price. I think odds are Better that the price stays above 100$ and and the economy picks back up producers choose not to increase supply and we could even settle in to the 120-135$ a barrel. Europe will reduce or nearly eliminate consumption of Russian energy products.


I agree with you 100% I kind of believe Europe is going to be forced into energy independence from fossil production (at a high cost) meanwhile in the USA we will actually increase fossil production to subsidize the European movement w/ some form of muscle, whether it be with weapons, new tech or food, we will also let this be a test to see how they change there lives and how the global economy fairs out, then we'll go and copy them 10 yrs later after the biggest bugs of the system are worked out. In any event, our way of life has already changed, its a good idea to wrap all this up into the end of the oil age and know tough times may be ahead for all of us.


----------



## SpaceBus

I want to stop using FF, but it's hard when I have to manage my property, build infrastructure, etc. Long term I'd like to only use FF in my tractor and maybe my truck, and use solar generation for the majority of our energy needs. I can't see that happening for at least a decade at my pace.


----------



## woodgeek

EatenByLimestone said:


> Isn’t that a good thing?



The problem is that the people (investors) that lost the money in the past, and the people (investors) making it now are DIFFERENT.

The US shale industry lost $300B 10 years ago. A big wave of bankruptcies, assets auctioned off.  New companies bought the assets.  By and large, the shale sector is supported by investment banks and large holders.  So the money is being made by wealthy speculators that got in at the right time.

Ideally, we would like to see that money poured into worker's paychecks.  But the consensus is that development (requiring roughnecks) is not surging.  The money is going into rich folks pockets.

Ofc, the oil majors are also getting a cash infusion, and they are held by a bunch of retail investors (including me through my index funds) including the proverbial grandma living off XOM dividends.  I suppose that is a good thing.

But as the video above suggests, the entire industry is going through a terminal spasm of profiteering before getting devalued.  Not because the taps will get turned off and there is no more oil.  Just a few years of profiteering before all the oil assets (in the ground) get written down bc the projected total global future usage drops from exponential growth to (slow) exponential decline, and those assets will not get developed in any investor's lifetime.

If you currently own the shale assets and are setting these production/pricing inputs, you are a vampire capitalist.  You know your business is going to get written down in the future (like how US coal company market caps got wiped out more than a decade ago, never to recover), so you are going to make as much money as possible with minimal reinvestment, and try to sell out at the right future moment.

And those proverbial grandmas (and us index investors) and taxpayers will get left holding the (debt and toxic waste filled) bag.


----------



## ABMax24

woodgeek said:


> The problem is that the people (investors) that lost the money in the past, and the people (investors) making it now are DIFFERENT.
> 
> The US shale industry lost $300B 10 years ago. A big wave of bankruptcies, assets auctioned off.  New companies bought the assets.  By and large, the shale sector is supported by investment banks and large holders.  So the money is being made by wealthy speculators that got in at the right time.
> 
> Ideally, we would like to see that money poured into worker's paychecks.  But the consensus is that development (requiring roughnecks) is not surging.  The money is going into rich folks pockets.
> 
> Ofc, the oil majors are also getting a cash infusion, and they are held by a bunch of retail investors (including me through my index funds) including the proverbial grandma living off XOM dividends.  I suppose that is a good thing.
> 
> But as the video above suggests, the entire industry is going through a terminal spasm of profiteering before getting devalued.  Not because the taps will get turned off and there is no more oil.  Just a few years of profiteering before all the oil assets (in the ground) get written down bc the projected total global future usage drops from exponential growth to (slow) exponential decline, and those assets will not get developed in any investor's lifetime.
> 
> If you currently own the shale assets and are setting these production/pricing inputs, you are a vampire capitalist.  You know your business is going to get written down in the future (like how US coal company market caps got wiped out more than a decade ago, never to recover), so you are going to make as much money as possible with minimal reinvestment, and try to sell out at the right future moment.
> 
> And those proverbial grandmas (and us index investors) and taxpayers will get left holding the (debt and toxic waste filled) bag.



But the money is also going into workers pockets, come up here, I can point you to more than a few companies in town desperate for workers, starting wage is $30/hr assuming no experience in any relevant industry, just bring your work boots.

What energy source is going to replace all this oil and gas? There isn't enough manufacturing capacity on earth today to build the solar panels, wind turbines, or storage batteries to replace fossil fuels. If anything the phaseout of coal has given oil and gas companies more power and control. The same will happen again with natural gas, natural gas will be a dominant, and increasingly used, during the renewable transition, further driving up prices and centralizing control of energy to a select few.

We're also failing to recognize the largest culprit in both the shale oil price crash, and the current oil price run up. OPEC+ and especially Russia are behind both of these. Yeah it sucks the rich get richer taking advantage of the situation, but there's also a pile of retail investors like myself taking advantage of the situation by directly buying and selling oil and gas stocks. I don't feel bad making 80+% returns in a few months on an oil stock when the price of natural gas heating my house or the diesel fuel powering my truck has also doubled in price.


----------



## woodgeek

OIl and gas is not going away.  And I am fine with workers getting paid.  A lot of my students go work in the oil patch and for oil services industry.

What is going away is the future projections of exponentially growing oil and gas demand far into the future.  There ARE alternatives.  They are not at full scale in 2022, nor will they be in 2030, but that day is coming. The 'TINA' philosophy (There Is No Alternative) underpins the financialization of the entire industry, bc it gives (or gave) the oil majors a false sheen of being low/zero risk of loss as investments. 

The value of the oil majors is tied to assets in the ground.  Much of those assets WILL be developed (and will need to be developed) during the 21st century, BUT a lot of the assets currently seen as having a monetary value will NOT be.  Picking which will and won't be developed (and at what price point) is a moving target, but one that is mostly moving DOWN over the next decade.

The oil majors will continue to exist for a long time, but their historical market caps ($ amounts and fraction of GDP) are well into a process of secular decline from which they will never recover.  They are not good long-term investments in a post-TINA, post-Paris COP 21, climate constrained world.

So, are the current investors grannies making a solid dividend?  Will those retail investors make out (e.g. do better than the index) over the next 20-30 years?  I doubt it, they are bag holders.  Lot's of speculators will make money on the ups (and downs) during the whole decline.  And when the majors declare bankruptcy (reorganizing like the coal majors did a decade ago without going away) a lot of super-fund sites are going to magically appear that will need to be cleaned up at taxpayer expense, as yet another 'unfunded externality' of the oil business.

I'm just saying the current windfalls are not evidence of financial health, low risk, or a net positive for the North American economy.


----------



## woodgeek

ABMax24 said:


> If anything the phaseout of coal has given oil and gas companies more power and control. The same will happen again with natural gas, natural gas will be a dominant, and increasingly used, during the renewable transition, further driving up prices and centralizing control of energy to a select few.
> 
> We're also failing to recognize the largest culprit in both the shale oil price crash, and the current oil price run up. OPEC+ and especially Russia are behind both of these. Yeah it sucks the rich get richer taking advantage of the situation, but there's also a pile of retail investors like myself taking advantage of the situation by directly buying and selling oil and gas stocks. I don't feel bad making 80+% returns in a few months on an oil stock when the price of natural gas heating my house or the diesel fuel powering my truck has also doubled in price.



Totally agree with the above.  And if you want to speculate in a well-informed way on FF investing, be my guest.

over the next couple decades... Oil DOWN, Gas UP.

But I hear a lot of 'buy and hold' retail investors who seem to think that oil-heavy investments have to be UP UP UP, bc, TINA.  I worry about them, and the taxpayer bill that will come due at the end.


----------



## EbS-P

Looks like we are nearing a peak. But we are one minor catastrophe away from oil going up even more.  
Refining capacity will limit any refined fuels quickly following the price of oil down I think.  

120$ per barrel.   And very limited extra pumping capacity.  High prices are here to stay throughout the summer I imagine. 









						Citi raises oil price forecasts on "heavily delayed" Iran deal
					

Citi Research on Monday raised its quarterly oil price forecasts for this year and its year-average outlook for 2023, because additional supply from Iran looked heavily delayed, adding to tighter market balances.




					www.reuters.com


----------



## begreen

ABMax24 said:


> What energy source is going to replace all this oil and gas? There isn't enough manufacturing capacity on earth today to build the solar panels, wind turbines, or storage batteries to replace fossil fuels. If anything the phaseout of coal has given oil and gas companies more power and control. The same will happen again with natural gas, natural gas will be a dominant, and increasingly used, during the renewable transition, further driving up prices and centralizing control of energy to a select few.


This denies a primary alternative, reduced consumption. Not every industrialized nation lives on a glut of oil. Reduced waste, better efficiencies, and reduced consumption are less expensive options for the short term.


----------



## ABMax24

begreen said:


> This denies a primary alternative, reduced consumption. Not every industrialized nation lives on a glut of oil. Reduced waste, better efficiencies, and reduced consumption are less expensive options for the short term.



While I completely agree with you, changing North American attitudes toward rampant over-consumption is no small feat either.


----------



## Ashful

begreen said:


> ...reduced consumption are less expensive options for the short term.





ABMax24 said:


> While I completely agree with you, changing North American attitudes toward rampant over-consumption is no small feat either.


I was with you guys until these last two posts.  If it were actually less expensive, it would already be the way it's done.  The purchase decision of 100 million primary consumers in this country alone wouldn't allow for anything else.

You can punch some idealistic holes in Capitalism, I'll admit it ain't perfect.  But it is the ultimate cost optimizer.


----------



## ABMax24

Ashful said:


> I was with you guys until these last two posts.  If it were actually less expensive, it would already be the way it's done.  The purchase decision of 100 million primary consumers in this country alone wouldn't allow for anything else.
> 
> You can punch some idealistic holes in Capitalism, I'll admit it ain't perfect.  But it is the ultimate cost optimizer.



The point being it's cheaper to reduce current use of fossil fuels than to replace the same amount of energy with renewables.

We don't all need large houses with substantial heating and cooling requirements, pickup trucks don't need to be used as commuter cars, etc.


----------



## SpaceBus

Ashful said:


> I was with you guys until these last two posts.  If it were actually less expensive, it would already be the way it's done.  The purchase decision of 100 million primary consumers in this country alone wouldn't allow for anything else.
> 
> You can punch some idealistic holes in Capitalism, I'll admit it ain't perfect.  But it is the ultimate cost optimizer.


Cost in money, not holistic cost. The environmental damage, among other things, just isn't factored into current capitalist practices.


----------



## EbS-P

SpaceBus said:


> Cost in money, not holistic cost. The environmental damage, among other things, just isn't factored into current capitalist practices.


We need to account for the environmental damage in the cost.  Call it a 1–5% national sales tax no exceptions. Your every person gets a refundable tax credit for 750-3000$.


----------



## Rusty18

ABMax24 said:


> pickup trucks don't need to be used as commuter cars, etc.


 the crew cab diesels are being replaced by 20 year old Malibu’s in the work parking lot.  The guys that paid 70k for a truck now can’t afford to put fuel in them.


----------



## ABMax24

Rusty18 said:


> the crew cab diesels are being replaced by 20 year old Malibu’s in the work parking lot.  The guys that paid 70k for a truck now can’t afford to put fuel in them.



Definitely not the case here, you can buy almost any economy car right off the dealer lot, but guys are lining up to wait 8 months and pay $100k for a new diesel 1 ton. The used market is nuts too, 4 year old trucks with 100,000km are going for about the same as they were new.

I have no interest in getting rid of my truck either, by time I pay the insurance and registration on a commuter car it's negated the savings in fuel, but I'm only 15 minutes from work.


----------



## Rusty18

Yea, used trucks with 50k miles on them are selling $2k over new price because you can buy them now.  Or at least that’s been the case for the last year and a half.  I’m gonna say over the last 2 weeks new trucks have started to appear on dealer lots around town, no more bidding wars when the car hauler comes in.   

I have an 18 mile one way trip to work, there are only about 3 guys who live closer than me, some drive over an hour one way (these are good two or 4 lane roads not red light stop and go).   Driving the outback vs the 04 2500hd saves me enough in fuel to pay its own “legal fees” plus I’m putting miles on a lot cheaper vehicle and saving the truck for doing truck stuff.  Plus the Subaru is more comfortable/more leg room...  plus plus if I have a few vehicles laying around chances are at least one of them will start and get me to work in the morning. 

You all have me looking hard at the rav 4 phev’s though.  I could very likely make it to work and back on electric only!


----------



## SpaceBus

You know, in the Soviet union used cars were more expensive than new because you didn't have to wait...


----------



## Ashful

SpaceBus said:


> You know, in the Soviet union used cars were more expensive than new because you didn't have to wait...


I can't speak for the USSR, but that was definitely the case in East Germany.  I used to work there, and I remember they'd pay up to double for a 15 year old car, versus a new one, simply because you could actually get the used one before you retired.

I think the wait time for a new car was up to 17 years after receipt of order (ARO), in the final years of the union.  And what would you get for all that waiting?  A car with a body made of compressed cotton, and a 2-stroke engine that made less horsepower than your riding mower. You need to be ignorant of these details to be a fan of socialism.


----------



## johneh

I have a friend in Halifax that bought up Ladas and fixed them, a little paint
 then parked them on the docks with a for sale sign. The first Russian ship 
in port bought the car for whatever the asking price was.  He made a pretty
 good living doing that until The USSR fell apart


----------



## SpaceBus

Ashful said:


> I can't speak for the USSR, but that was definitely the case in East Germany.  I used to work there, and I remember they'd pay up to double for a 15 year old car, versus a new one, simply because you could actually get the used one before you retired.
> 
> I think the wait time for a new car was up to 17 years after receipt of order (ARO), in the final years of the union.  And what would you get for all that waiting?  A car with a body made of compressed cotton, and a 2-stroke engine that made less horsepower than your riding mower. You need to be ignorant of these details to be a fan of socialism.


HAHAHAHAHA! As if the Soviet Union and socialism are the same thing. Have you read nothing about Joseph Stalin? We'll never know if socialism could have worked in the USSR, because that died with Lenin, who may also have been just as bad as Stalin. My comparison was to show what happens when poor economic choices are made. 

This is weird to think about, but the infrastructure of the US and the USSR is very similar, with obviously the US having a much more successful version. Vast swathes of uninhabited landscape, entire regions dedicated to farming, the majority of tech, manufacturing, banking, etc. are all centralized, and on and on. Now, the US had a big advantage after WWII that the Soviets didn't have, number one being their territory wasn't ravaged by war and over 20 million casualties. The USSR could have actually worked out if the Nazis hadn't run roughshod over Eastern Europe and murdered everyone they came across. 

However, the US isn't doing _that_ much better. Look at all of the run down, uninhabited boom towns across rural America. Have you been to some of the old mill towns in the South East? You don't see bread lines, but instead lines of people at grocery stores paying with welfare assistance with no meaningful jobs in the region and no way out. You have even mentioned the "Great Resignation" in another thread, so surely you must see the few parallels with the USSR. 

I would also suggest that this country is pretty communist already, albeit with a lot of corporate stewardship. Instead of the people owning the means of production, we give our tax money to corporations so they can take more of our labor. If our taxes an subsidize oil companies, why can't we set how much profit they can make? Why do CEO's and other executives get to reap the benefits of corporate welfare while flying in private jets? The laws demand that a citizen be in abject poverty to qualify for assistance, which is taken away if they end up making "too much" to qualify for assistance. 

Socialism for the rich, communism for the poor.


----------



## Ashful

SpaceBus said:


> HAHAHAHAHA! As if the Soviet Union and socialism are the same thing. Have you read nothing about Joseph Stalin? We'll never know if socialism could have worked in the USSR, because that died with Lenin, who may also have been just as bad as Stalin. My comparison was to show what happens when poor economic choices are made.
> 
> This is weird to think about, but the infrastructure of the US and the USSR is very similar, with obviously the US having a much more successful version. Vast swathes of uninhabited landscape, entire regions dedicated to farming, the majority of tech, manufacturing, banking, etc. are all centralized, and on and on. Now, the US had a big advantage after WWII that the Soviets didn't have, number one being their territory wasn't ravaged by war and over 20 million casualties. The USSR could have actually worked out if the Nazis hadn't run roughshod over Eastern Europe and murdered everyone they came across.
> 
> However, the US isn't doing _that_ much better. Look at all of the run down, uninhabited boom towns across rural America. Have you been to some of the old mill towns in the South East? You don't see bread lines, but instead lines of people at grocery stores paying with welfare assistance with no meaningful jobs in the region and no way out. You have even mentioned the "Great Resignation" in another thread, so surely you must see the few parallels with the USSR.
> 
> I would also suggest that this country is pretty communist already, albeit with a lot of corporate stewardship. Instead of the people owning the means of production, we give our tax money to corporations so they can take more of our labor. If our taxes an subsidize oil companies, why can't we set how much profit they can make? Why do CEO's and other executives get to reap the benefits of corporate welfare while flying in private jets? The laws demand that a citizen be in abject poverty to qualify for assistance, which is taken away if they end up making "too much" to qualify for assistance.
> 
> Socialism for the rich, communism for the poor.


I'm not going to get into a political debate with you on the merits of socialism or communism.  Your attempt to draw any similarities between our economy and the prior USSR shows such a complete lack of understanding of reality and history that it's not even worth getting into it with you.


----------



## SpaceBus

Ashful said:


> I'm not going to get into a political debate with you on the merits of socialism or communism.  Your attempt to draw any similarities between our economy and the prior USSR shows such a complete lack of understanding of reality and history that it's not even worth getting into it with you.


I don't think I am the one with a complete lack of understanding. I studied/continue to study Russian/Soviet history, language, and politics for several years. People are literally paying more for used cars because new cars are unavailable. The reasons are even the same, lack of materials due to economic policies. Prices are up, money doesn't go as far, corporations are flush with cash, and we are looking at the effects of subsidizing corporate profits at the expense of infrastructure, real jobs, and protecting taxpayers. You can't possibly look at the situation you referred to as the "great resignation" and say that things are going well.


----------



## Ashful

SpaceBus said:


> You can't possibly look at the situation you referred to as the "great resignation" and say that things are going well.


I'm not sure why you've brought that up, twice now.  Are you really implying that tens of millions of Americans having sufficient stored wealth to choose to resign or retire early in a booming job market is a sign that things are not going well?  The "great resignation" is called such because 2021 and 2022 have set new records in the creation of new businesses, folks choosing on their own to leave their 9-5 grind and start new companies.  I believe the forecast for this year was somewhere around 17 million new FEIN filings.

At least around here, there's more paying work than employees available to do it, in nearly all sectors of the economy.  I can hardly think of a time the job market has been better. 

Unfortunately, indicators are that we could see a backlash recession within the next two years.  We’ve been on this ride before.  Make some coins now, 2024 might be rough.


----------



## ABMax24

SpaceBus said:


> I would also suggest that this country is pretty communist already, albeit with a lot of corporate stewardship. Instead of the people owning the means of production, we give our tax money to corporations so they can take more of our labor. If our taxes an subsidize oil companies, why can't we set how much profit they can make? Why do CEO's and other executives get to reap the benefits of corporate welfare while flying in private jets? The laws demand that a citizen be in abject poverty to qualify for assistance, which is taken away if they end up making "too much" to qualify for assistance.
> 
> Socialism for the rich, communism for the poor.



I'm not sure that corruption, graft, or cronyism are the right reasons to promote socialism.


----------



## woodey

Unlike the Soviet Union,  every 2-4 years the citizens of this country have a chance to oust clueless leaders who are forcing their political agenda upon them.  Two examples of this ( in my view without trying to be overly political ) is the push to socialism and also  green energy, before we are anywhere near the needed infrastructure for said power. Getting back onto the oil prices thread, this Administration is touting they are fighting prices at the pump by releasing oil from our strategic reserves. This  "tactic"  has not stopped the rise in the price of gas but may put us in a vulnerable spot this summer as we are heading into the hurricane season with 90% of our refineries along the gulf coast. As for green energy I'm all for it, but in due time . The powers that be are setting a unattainable goal of being free of fossil fuels by 2035. Considering the billions this country has spent over the last twenty years converting to green energy and less than 5% of our power is supplied by it, I think it's safe to say we have 0% chance of meeting this goal. I better sign off now before I give my views about China manufacturing  90% of the worlds solar panels with factories powered by coal.


----------



## vinny11950

woodey said:


> Considering the billions this country has spent over the last twenty years converting to green energy and less than 5% of our power is supplied by it, I think it's safe to say we have 0% chance of meeting this goal.



Wait till you find out about all the subsidies and tax credits given to oil and gas companies just to sell you their products.  I wish green energy was getting that.

The smart play now would be to spend more money on green energy, a stronger more versatile electric grid, maybe more nuclear.  The sooner we can get off middle east oil, the better.


----------



## EbS-P

US administrations past and present can do little to influence OPEC.  There is a reason it’s called a cartel.

Up 2$ today…
https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/@CL.1

Edit up another $ in the time it took to post.


----------



## SpaceBus

Lol, we "oust clueless leaders" just to install another one. It's the illusion of choice. 

Diesel is creeping back down here, but gas is coming up to meet it.


----------



## woodey

SpaceBus said:


> . It's the illusion of choice.


The point being unlike some Nations we do have a choice.


----------



## SpaceBus

woodey said:


> The point being unlike some Nations we do have a choice.


No, illusion of choice and having a choice are not the same thing.


----------



## begreen

Closing the thread. Once again it has gone awry with political opinions, contrary to forum rules. Meanwhile, locally regular just passed $6/gal. You don't even want to know diesel prices.


----------

