Current price of oil

[heaterman]

FYI, I just had my tank partially filled yesterday. $3.849 per gallon. I took 150 gallons, so there's another $600 sent to Saudi Arabia.

I just did about the same amount of damage to my wallet and while it sucks for us now. I got a bit more dismayed at what T. Boone Pickens had to say about the oil market, of course until he mentioned alternative fuels.

"We're spending about $1.5 billion a day -- $500 to $600 billion a year -- on imported oil," he noted. "That's four times the cost of the Iraqi war. We can't continue to do that. In 10 years you will have transferred wealth from the United States to the producing countries of about $5 or $6 trillion. That won't work. I'm not sure what it's going to do to us to remove that much wealth out of this country. We have got to get on alternative fuels in the United States. That's all there is to it."

With those kinds of transfers unless we consume way less, spend less at the government level, or export a lot more we won't have much of currency left. And it's not so hot currently either.

I said that to my boys a couple months ago. Told them they were witnessing the greatest transfer of wealth that has ever occurred in the history of the world. Pickens is absolutely correct, it cannot continue this way. Our country is well on its way to insolvency. The only trump card is that we are still the breadbasket of the world. Oil for food anyone? The other side of the coin is that a local farmer told me that his fuel bill for spring field work will be over $50K this year.

Regular gas $3.46, diesel $4.28 this morning here in Falmouth, Michigan

 

[Burn-1]

I said that to my boys a couple months ago. Told them they were witnessing the greatest transfer of wealth that has ever occurred in the history of the world. Pickens is absolutely correct, it cannot continue this way. Our country is well on its way to insolvency. The only trump card is that we are still the breadbasket of the world. Oil for food anyone? The other side of the coin is that a local farmer told me that his fuel bill for spring field work will be over $50 this year.

Regular gas $3.46, diesel $4.28 this morning here in Falmouth, Michigan

We'll be the breadbasket for little while longer but climate change will take care of that

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42380000/gif/_42380678_america_wheat_416x350.gif

Alaska won't be a bad place to farm wheat by then. I'm sure most of the Russian steppe will be in play too.

 

[billb3]

FYI, I just had my tank partially filled yesterday. $3.849 per gallon. I took 150 gallons, so there's another $600 sent to Saudi Arabia.

$590 of that $600 went to Canada or Mexico.

(make that $589, $1 goes to Hugo Chavez)

 

[webbie]

Right, you also have to calculate how much went to all the American and British (and multi-national) corps that own the wells, the ports, the refineries and the pipe lines.

Even your local Cumberland Farms or 7/11 gets a piece of the pie.

Thanks for supporting the local economy!

 

[renewablejohn]

Just a reality check UK prices at the moment diesel £1.14 per litre petrol £1.04 per litre. Welcome to the real world

 

[webbie]

So that is about $8 a gallon at current trade rates.....I guess we Yanks are a bunch of whiners.....paying less than 1/2 the price and complaining!

 

[Mike Wilson]

Just a reality check UK prices at the moment diesel £1.14 per litre petrol £1.04 per litre. Welcome to the real world

Which is why I sold my place Ashurst Wood back in 1992...

(actually, my job moved, so I had to, but still...)

-- Mike

 

[webbie]

But Mike, you can buy hashish cheaper and semi-legal in Britian!

 

[fraxinus]

Just got the dealer's pre-buy announcement this morning: 3.65.9 per gallon if you purchase next winter's entire supply now. For the average household around here that's $3660 up front. Impossible for most people. And if this is really going to be the best deal for next winter...??? I still think there is a chance that global recession may drive down the price of crude to $80 or so a barrel, but who knows what the traders and hedgers have up their sleeves. BTW: the commodity speculators have succeeded in doubling the price of wheat and rice, among other foodstuffs. Last week's food riots in Haiti are just the beginning.

 

[begreen]

Not just Haiti.
(broken link removed to http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d135576c-02a9-11dd-9388-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1)

Imagine what will happen when these shortages hit fuel? Not such an unreal scenario in Mexico and parts of Asia. China is already experiencing major diesel shortfalls and is way under capacity for electrical generation. In the meantime the gulf states a running low.
(broken link removed)

 

[webbie]

If verified, it will prove that the price of oil has very little to do with the supply, and more to do with the cabal.

 

[webbie]

I guess airplanes will continue to fly for another generation or two!

 

[webbie]

Yeah, that's right - but since the extraction is over a long period of time, it is probably more like 10-20 years of 500,000 B/D

Which is a nice addition to what we import from Canada, Mexico and other sources. Takes some pressure off.

Let's see - a 737 uses about 40 BBL per hour - so that means 200 barrels for across the country. So 500,000 per day, would allow for a heck of a lot of flights!
Where's my Hearth.com Gulfstream?

 

[Burn-1]

Can't forget about (broken link removed)

Tinfoil goodness!

 

[heaterman]

All of these new sources of petrol are good no doubt but the fact remains that world wide demand is skyrocketing. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that while the price may dip here and there, we are probably at the new "floor" for oil prices. In addition, these new finds are increasingly more costly to extract which will add to the upward pressure on pricing.

Wood is where it's at my friends.

 

[kjklosek]

How will this new discovery factor in?

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.13s.html

Probably have to go on reservation land to get the stuff.

Whoopee, the white man gets to stick it to the indians once again!

Why is it so hard for people to cut back?

J.P.

 

[webbie]

Why is it so hard for people to cut back?

J.P.

No one asked them to?

Bush said "go shopping" as the response to 9/11.

Oil hit 113.00 today. A year or two ago, we would have said this was impossible. The way I see it, people will not cut back unless there is a reason - like:

1. Price - over $4 a gallon we might see some conservation...over $5 we will see a little more
2. A national effort - Bush or the next prez could have a fireside chat with us (next to an efficient wood stove) and set a goal of conservation, which would be updated every week as a challenge....sort of a national game or goal.

But the current situation is just too PROFITABLE to too many people to stop on it's own. We still think it is our birthright to consume 2 to 10 times as much energy as the rest of the world, and as long as the main thrust of our military efforts are to secure oil, we will lose the game (some would call it winning, but it is a costly win).

 

[Highbeam]

Prices will keep rising and as they do we'll see less demand. The trouble is that the reduced demand will come from folks at the bottom that can't afford to consume fuel. It might be that old lady on SS that can't fill her HHoil tank or the single mom cashier at walmart who is barely making it at today's prices. I am a little less worried about the gasoline (transportation) prices than I am about the fuel prices since propane, NG, and fuel oil heats homes and runs powerplants to make electricity. By the time that enough of the population is ready to make real changes, these bottom folks will be greatly damaged.

I just hope that we choose to go nuclear while we still can afford to build the plants. Electricity is how we are going to replace oil. We might use the electricity to make hydrogen or charge batteries but we need the electricity, the root energy.

 

[webbie]

Nuclear seems like another "buy now, pay later" routine because it cannot even exist without government guarantees and insurance. If the technology was sound, the industry would be able to indemnify itself (like airlines, doctors, auto makers and everything else). The fact that it cannot scares me. If we are going to talk about "sustainable", that cannot include something where the entire waste problem has not even started to be solved (despite promises).

It is time that we looked at stuff like this over the long run. If the problem of nuclear waste is not significant, then they (the industry) should prove it by solving it! Maybe it will triple the actual cost of nuclear power when a real solution to the waste is found...and, if so, wouldn't it do better to invest that same money in solar, tides, wind or something else where the entire life cycle is calculated in?

 

[heaterman]

Nuclear seems like another "buy now, pay later" routine because it cannot even exist without government guarantees and insurance. If the technology was sound, the industry would be able to indemnify itself (like airlines, doctors, auto makers and everything else). The fact that it cannot scares me. If we are going to talk about "sustainable", that cannot include something where the entire waste problem has not even started to be solved (despite promises).

It is time that we looked at stuff like this over the long run. If the problem of nuclear waste is not significant, then they (the industry) should prove it by solving it! Maybe it will triple the actual cost of nuclear power when a real solution to the waste is found...and, if so, wouldn't it do better to invest that same money in solar, tides, wind or something else where the entire life cycle is calculated in?

Could not agree more Craig. Gubmint' subsidy of any kind creates a false picture of what something really costs. We've done too much of that and are now beginning to see the results of that line of reasoning. It's going to bite us in a lot of different places ranging from energy costs to Social Security and Medicare. The bills from those to programs alone will bankrupt this country by 2025.

We simply have to buckle down as a nation and accept the fact that our whole economy is predicated on energy costs that are artificially low.

The piper has been playing and now it's time to pay him. Unfortunately it seems that no one at either state or federal level, seems to have the balls to come out and call a spade a spade. It's probably time for those three guys in the picture from 1776, the guys marching with the drum, fife and flag to be reincarnated and start another revolution.

 

[kjklosek]

Why is it so hard for people to cut back?

J.P.

No one asked them to?

It just seems a little crazy. How long can folks walk around thinking that the world can provide endless resources?

I am no doom and gloom prophet, or an eco fanatic, but common sense just says moderation.

I guess most folks do really need to be told what to do.

J.P.

PS. I don't think anyone could seriously sit by their radio, or i-Pod and listen to George W. Bush give a fireside chat. 8 years of this blubbering goon is enough.

 

[Telco]

It's hard for people to cut back because they don't know how. Case in point, my dad has a 2000 Silverado truck with the 5.3L engine. It got 19MPG when he got it. When I drove it home to borrow while working on my own truck I drove it 130 miles, got 19MPG driving it easy, right in line with what fueleconomy.gov claims at 14/19. How many people would be able to get better mileage in that truck? Not many. Just by reprogramming the computer (bought EFI Live to do it) I was able to get it up to 24MPG for the drive back. 5MPG difference just off programming, and it's a helluva lot faster now to boot. If my dad follows my suggestions on parts to change, then lets me get back in it for a couple more runs, I'll be able to get him to 29+MPG at 75MPH average speed with an investment of 1500 dollars in parts (electric fans, tonneau cover, long tube headers with true dual 2.25 inch exhaust). This will be about a 60 percent improvement in mileage, and what's really bad is GM could have made these changes themselves. Just with the programming I netted him a 26 percent improvement in MPG with no other changes and no effect on durability, reliability, and only a positive effect on power. The truck still runs on 87 octane, too. If GM were to have made the same program I've got in there now in all their trucks (and believe me, if I can get 24MPG with simple tools they can get 30MPG) then a million trucks on the road going 20K miles average would save 220 million gallons of gasoline per year. A co-worker with a 2003 or thereabouts supercharged Grand Prix claims to have tuned his to the point that he's pushing 40MPG and is faster than he was when he started. These cars get 16/25 according to fueleconomy.gov. He's currently rebuilding his engine to gain power and thinks that with the parts he selected 40MPG should be an easy target to hit.

1 million trucks * 20,000 miles / 19MPG = 1,052,631,579 gallons used
1 million trucks * 20,000 miles / 24MPG = 833,333,333 gallons used
1,052,631,579 gallons - 833,333,333 gallons = 219,298,246 gallons saved

1 million trucks * 20,000 miles / 19MPG = 1,052,631,579 gallons used
1 million trucks * 20,000 miles / 24MPG = 689,655,172 gallons used
1,052,631,579 gallons - 689,655,172 gallons = 362,976,407 gallons saved

Unfortunately most people don't even know how to change their spark plugs, much less reprogram their rigs, so they have to depend on those that do know how to sell them cars that get the better mileage from the get-go. Unfortunately, it would add about 300 bucks to add the right parts to most cars, and the manufacturers up to now have had no incentive to get better mileage when it's a lot cheaper to just announce loudly and often that they are already at the theoretical limits of what they can achieve.

What I'd like to see is true diesel electric cars, not hybrids, out on the roads. If a General Electric locomotive can move thousands of tuns while getting 3 gallons to the mile, then surely a small car or truck would be able to see 100+MPG while having no acceleration or tow issues at all.

 

[Telco]

Why won't people conserve? It affects how they live their lives. People are like a body in motion, they will stay in motion. And, like a body moving in space, they will not change speed or direction unless an outside force acts upon them.

On nuclear, the breeder reactor is the most sustainable solution as when the nuclear fuel is spent, it is reprocessed into new fuel for the same reactor. Theoretical limit for use with reprocessing is 500 years. Within 500 years, provided we start now, surely we can come up with a solution to waste disposal, even if the solution is a rocket into the sun where it would become about 1/99999999999999 of a second's worth of nuclear fuel for the sun.

 

[BrownianHeatingTech]

It's hard for people to cut back because they don't know how. Case in point, my dad has a 2000 Silverado truck with the 5.3L engine. It got 19MPG when he got it. When I drove it home to borrow while working on my own truck I drove it 130 miles, got 19MPG driving it easy, right in line with what fueleconomy.gov claims at 14/19. How many people would be able to get better mileage in that truck? Not many. Just by reprogramming the computer (bought EFI Live to do it) I was able to get it up to 24MPG for the drive back. 5MPG difference just off programming, and it's a helluva lot faster now to boot. If my dad follows my suggestions on parts to change, then lets me get back in it for a couple more runs, I'll be able to get him to 29+MPG at 75MPH average speed with an investment of 1500 dollars in parts (electric fans, tonneau cover, long tube headers with true dual 2.25 inch exhaust). This will be about a 60 percent improvement in mileage, and what's really bad is GM could have made these changes themselves. Just with the programming I netted him a 26 percent improvement in MPG with no other changes and no effect on durability, reliability, and only a positive effect on power. The truck still runs on 87 octane, too. If GM were to have made the same program I've got in there now in all their trucks (and believe me, if I can get 24MPG with simple tools they can get 30MPG) then a million trucks on the road going 20K miles average would save 220 million gallons of gasoline per year.

If they didn't have to design to meet the arbitrary EPA testing program, they could easily do it.

But they are stuck with that, so they have to design the vehicles to do the best on the EPA's dyno, even if they know that it will not perform well in the real world.

Joe

 

[Telco]

If they didn't have to design to meet the arbitrary EPA testing program, they could easily do it.

But they are stuck with that, so they have to design the vehicles to do the best on the EPA's dyno, even if they know that it will not perform well in the real world.

Joe

Oh yeah, forgot that for a moment. It's better to have a reading of 15 percent pollution per gallon of gas at 15MPG than 20 percent pollution per gallon of gas at 30MPG. :roll: