Gas Prices Rising Fast

[dnmun]

prove it.

how do speculators cause the price to climb without cause?

who are these speculators? i realize you don't have a clue, but if you ever started studying the reality, you would find that the people who pay good money up front for oil in the future are the refineries who need to guarantee a fixed price for the crude they need for their refinery. who are the guys who sell their oil production forward? could they be the same people who drill the oil wells and need to borrow billions for their drilling programs so the banks force them to lock in the price they will recieve, before the bank will loan them money?

what is a speculator? just a word you heard on the news or from some other self promoter who knows they can play you for the fool?

what good is having a brain if you don't use it except to parrot other peoples fantasies.

[neptronix]

It constantly bothers me that I have to live in a polluted environment because others don't care.

Ugh, same here. No smog testing in Colorado Springs, CO and 1 out of 10 cars is blowing visible white smoke. Half the cars are in varied states of disrepair, so they all smell different too. Add the fact that at 6,500 ft. there is not much oxygen, so as you pedal, you are always gasping for air. So you get good lungfuls of the stuff.

If this was a work environment, i'd be able to sue my employer for exposing me to various toxic substances constantly.

I have not yet met someone who uses gas powered transit that's concerned about their emissions. It's just not something that's thought about.

Gas price hikes are the best revenge. And provide more incentive to switch over to something less stinky and more environmentally friendly for transport, than any federal subsidy / tax credit ever could. bring it on!!

[Joseph C.]

Wow you really think we need to have the gov step in and ban them? The gov regulations are what got us into this mess. We need less government and less rules.

That's complete nutty thinking that bars absolutely no correlation with reality. You think the worldwide global financial crisis (I assume that is what you mean by 'this mess') was caused by government regulations? You couldn't be more wrong even if you tried.

It was the lack of government regulation that caused the crisis. Full stop.

Some regulations are stifling and could be done without but this deregulated free market capitalism is a crock of shit. It hasn't worked successfully anywhere and it never will for exactly the same reason that communism cannot work. All people are not equal and some are just bad.

[neptronix]

That's complete nutty thinking that bars absolutely no correlation with reality. You think the worldwide global financial crisis (I assume that is what you mean by 'this mess') was caused by government regulations? You couldn't be more wrong even if you tried.

I'm going to try to be even more "wrong"

This is what set the housing crisis in motion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

Very lengthy read, but gist of it is that in the later years of the CRA, our government basically provided fertile grounds for what would become the subprime mortgages that would fail like a set of 20 million dominoes all lined up.. by forcing banks to lend to people who couldn't afford homes!



Then, our government did not listen to any of the folks who warned about how bad this could all turn out. Bush had 8 years to sort it out, but did nothing... then basically rushed massive bailouts to the banks.


The blame trail goes all the way back to Clinton, maybe earlier.

So in this instance, regulation created the problem. They did not fix the original regulation, but they tried patching more regulation on top of it which made things even worse.

I totally agree that the less things that government touches, the better.

[Joseph C.]

That's complete nutty thinking that bars absolutely no correlation with reality. You think the worldwide global financial crisis (I assume that is what you mean by 'this mess') was caused by government regulations? You couldn't be more wrong even if you tried.

I'm going to try to be even more "wrong"

No, contrary to what you may think you have strengthened my argument not weakened it. The original law you highlighted sounds fair and equitable but then it morphed into a deregulated mess that completely justifies the argument for regulation.


The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 seeks to address discrimination in loans made to individuals and businesses from low and moderate-income neighborhoods.[7] The Act mandates that all banking institutions that receive Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insurance be evaluated by Federal banking agencies to determine if the bank offers credit (in a manner consistent with safe and sound operation as per Section 802(b) and Section 804(1)) in all communities in which they are chartered to do business.[3] The law does not list specific criteria for evaluating the performance of financial institutions. Rather, it directs that the evaluation process should accommodate the situation and context of each individual institution. Federal regulations dictate agency conduct in evaluating a bank's compliance in five performance areas, comprising twelve assessment factors. This examination culminates in a rating and a written report that becomes part of the supervisory record for that bank.[8]

The law, however, emphasizes that an institution's CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner, and does not require institutions to make high-risk loans that may bring losses to the institution.[3][4] An institution's CRA compliance record is taken into account by the banking regulatory agencies when the institution seeks to expand through merger, acquisition or branching. The law does not mandate any other penalties for non-compliance with the CRA.

All reasonable rational points. Which could not have contributed to a financial crisis.

You then had the savings and loans crash which was caused by more deregulation - which was eventually tightened up by much needed regulation in '89.

So far so good but from here on in deregulation rears its ugly head. In '95 Clinton introduced legislation to deregulate the banking industry to 'cut back a lot of the paperwork and the cost on small business loans'.

In 1999 Clinton also introduced the Financial Services Moderization Act. This allowed the banks to offer all types of services with no regulation - more deregulation.

In 2005 more deregulation this time through Bush was introduced.

More deregulation in 2007.

In short, you are confusing legislation with regulation. Government legislation can as easily deregulate as it can regulate, similarly governments can be good or bad.

I suggest a good starting point would be to watch Inside Job.

[captain387]

To continue the on the smoke train of thought....
This past summer I was at a farm where they had an outside wood boilers smoking away in the middle of the summer(20c outside temp)
I asked why they had a fire lit, and they explained that their system was also tied in with the hot water tank. They stated that the wood was free.
I could imagine that they would close their windows turning the ac on because of the smoke and also using a dryer for the same reason. Good free setup.

Every outside wood boiler I witnessed as I drove around in the winter was just billowing smoke leaving a haze in the valley.
One wood boiler I spotted had a 20 ft tree being pushed into the wood boiler by a tractor using the front bucket.

They will be banned soon enough... hopefully.

Wow you really think we need to have the gov step in and ban them? The gov regulations are what got us into this mess. We need less government and less rules.
Sure I understand wood can be smoky if not set up right. We use a wood boiler where I work it burns clean when we keep it running right. There is no reason to ban them. When we need it most its raining or snowing outside and the sunlight is low. So solar is not an option. Wind is not strong enough there, there is no running water anywhere near the property. And no natural gas for a few hundred feet. So heat for the shop will have to be Electric.... That's really not cheep! Baning something like this would mean ONE BIG step to my boss having to close his doors. Your kind of thinking is whats destroying the world we need to help people do better on their own and not demand the government to force them.

At my parents house we used wood solely to heat the house. Cut, split, dried for almost two years and stayed two years ahead.
An efficient wood stove with secondary burn. This was installed directly in the center, radiating heat in the open concept house. No smoke.
Outdoor Wood furnaces are not efficient: heat loss around the body, the missed heat from the ash and creosote build up on the heat exchange, line loss as the antifreeze travels underground to the building.

Humans are inherently lazy. Wet round logs, rotten wood, garbage, some throw tires in because the fire boxes are big enough.
Unfortunately you are the good apple in the bunch because everyone I had talked to pointed to the forest and said I don't care that I'm not getting all of the heat out of the wood because
it has to boil out the water first: its "cheap" heat.

I enjoy driving past a year later and seeing that the wood boiler which was conspicuously hidden behind an out crop of trees is now sitting in the middle of the field.

Don't worry about loosing your job from the regulations the current installations will be grandfathered in. Outsourcing may be a bigger concern.

People live and work which consume resources. Efficiency in everyone's life is required to stay ahead of the game.

Regulations are here to stay - Some bad some good, one has to choose their battle.

"Yeah we use a lot more wood at least I don't have to split wood or deal with bark and bugs in the house"

[veloman]

If we didn't have the EPA (govt regulations) imagine how polluted the US would be, for example.


How many businesses would take it upon themselves to reduce their pollution if they were not required to?

I wonder how awful vehicle emissions would be if there were no regulations. A large percentage of us may not even be here today due to such a polluted environment.


Look up that Ford case in NJ where they dumped paint waste on a community. It was legal, no regulation against it. Do you want that pollution in your back yard?

Of course we need regulation. It just needs to be smart and well thought out.

[Kinni420]

I grew up in Lake Tahoe. It was propane or wood. Wood was practicly free if you dont mind chopping it, or pay through the nose for propane. Wood in a well built wood burning stove can get so hot to heat your entire house to 80 degrees and burn all night with nice dry wood. total cost? about a buck in labor and gas spent getting it. lot cheaper than propane which was about 150 a month. Wood only produces smoke because of moisture. dry it enough it barely smokes. Just watch some Indian/cowboy movies.

get back on the gas topic.

+60 cents a gallon here in three weeks. at $3.59 at the cheaper pumps around town.

bought one gallon of gas this year so far (for my snow-blower).

[mat h physics]

@dnmun Read The Asylum L. Goodman, it goes into great detail how the futures market started for farmers and how the oil market started at NYMEX.
Many are saying it's too much paper chasing too few resources. For every barrel of oil on the open market, something like 6400 barrels change hands. It may have been thousands, but that really begins to loose credibility
Insider trading in the mortgage market to get them traded as stocks can be seen in Liars PokerM. Lewis. Many states made trading home mortgages on the stock market illegal, but Solomon brothers (infamous wtc building 7)had federal laws changed to trump states and make it legal. This took place through the 80's, then Clinton repealed Glass-Stegal in the late 90's w/ the help of a republican CONgress. Newt's hands were in there somewhere, I am sure.

[MattyCiii]

Well I'm no economist, but when I see the following, I know gasoline is too inexpensive

• People idling their cars when it's 50 def F outside
• People accelerating hard to pass my bicycle, when the light is red, the intersection is blocked, and they're 100 feet from the stop.
• People driving their kids to school. Schools around here are all close enough that kids are all within walking distance, or there's a bus. People can save a lot of gas money today, and money spent for insulin tomorrow, by giving their kids the opportunity to walk to schol or the bus stop.

I have no sympathy for people whining about rising fuel prices. None. Those of us just barely scraping by should not focus on gas prices - something drivin by global supply and demand, not some vast right wing conspiracy - and instead lament that their sales tax, income tax and property taxes are being used to pave new roads so that the rich can driver their luxury cars to the McMansion suburbs while public transit funding is being gutted.

I've biked, driven, walked and taken the public bus everywhere. Most people who fear rising gas prices think there's no alternative. It takes me only 15 extra minutes to pedal (no e-assist - just pedal) to the train station 7 miles away versus driving. Biking I get a 40 minute work out each way, save $20 a day in driving & parking cost, and have a little fun too. On a bad day the bus is just $2 and takes the same amount of time as biking. People are afraid, but for most that fear is irrational.

[o00scorpion00o]

Why do people Americans,Canadians , Australians etc, complain about expensive fuel prices ? Ye know nothing about it

Is,it because ye drive Big gas guzzlers or what ? And if yes, then why ?

Ive often heard tourists ranting about driving euro trash boxes I've heard some people call them, ok rental cars are shit because they buy the cheapest crap usually 1.0 litre 60 hp crap.

But seriously why don't people drive more fuel efficient cars if they "think" fuel is expensive.

We got efficient enough cars here but the tax is a bitch making driving almost unaffordable for anyone that has to commute to work such as I, and the government keep rising taxes to pay for the bankers frock ups!

Electric cars are too expensive and the range won't let me do my 80-90 mile commute in a day, well I could if I stop on a fast charger. But every day on a fast charger for 10 mins might not be good for the battery.

Autogas is 65 euro cent per litre and petrol is 1.65 in a lot of places now. I've heard it can damage valves because it burns hotter ?

Conversion is 1000 euros and would take me 6 months to pay back, only thing is it losses mpg and I hear it's 15 % less efficient than petrol, that and less power. I was thinking converting the Prius, but I like having no tank in the boot.

Ok I'm going to create another thread on that now because I might get useful info from all you bright gas guzzling drivers!

[MattyCiii]

But seriously why don't people drive more fuel efficient cars if they "think" fuel is expensive.

Based on this http://green.autoblog.com/2012/02/24/irony-alert-congressman-allen-west-complains-about-cost-to-gas/ and that idiotic chant "drill baby drill", it's because we're stupid.

[o00scorpion00o]

But seriously why don't people drive more fuel efficient cars if they "think" fuel is expensive.

Based on this http://green.autoblog.com/2012/02/24/irony-alert-congressman-allen-west-complains-about-cost-to-gas/ and that idiotic chant "drill baby drill", it's because we're stupid.

Ha yeah that is funny reading. 70 usd to fill up his hummer while it costs an average man 100 Euro's to fill his Audi A4 diesel in tax mad Europe, only thing is the Audi will do 700+ miles on that diesel!

Sooner or later the U.S Government will have to raise Fuel tax like here. It's the only way to reduce usage, but seriously from what I gather tax in the U.S is rather low on everything, so how the hell do you people fund things ? like schools, roads etc!

I remember having a similar discussion with Neptronicx a while back!

The closest thing to a Euro style eco box you got there in the U.S is the Volt. It's American made gets less mpg than a Eurobox in generator mode, but still far more efficient than gas guzzlers, costs a fraction of the cost in Europe. But mega cheap in e.v mode, and can drive in e.v mode for most journeys. But you still complain about the cost, Christ is there nothing you don't complain about ?

why the hell don't people buy it ? it will support American jobs, and help keep money in the U.S by importing less oil, sure you need coal, but you got plenty of that, just think of us here in Ireland, we have to import 90% of our energy!

They reckon there is over a trillion Euro's worth of oil in the Irish sea, they found oil off the south coast a few weeks ago and they reckon the west coast in the place. If only the Atlantic wasn't so violent!

[dogman]

Actually we are a bunch of crybaby whiners. We cry about high taxes when we pay less than europe by a long shot. This is particularly true with gasoline taxes.

But the flip side is, at least in the west usa, we are really unlikely to live within ten miles of work. Closer in, the house prices bust your balls. So you buy the house 40 miles from work ( or more) that actually is big enough for the family, and calculate that at $2.50 a gallon gas is cheaper than mortgage. The kids will go to a nicer school, you are closer to the lake on the weekend, etc. Then you decide you feel unsafe in your old toyota corolla, and upgrade with your new job to a ford expedition to keep the kids safe in a crash. The big SUV makes your dick at least two inches longer. Life is good!

Two years later, gas goes up two bucks. Oh, frock. Whine whine whine. A series of stupid decisions, but they made good sense at the time. In fact, they were bad decisions in the long run. But for a few years there, it seemed like two buck gas in the USA would last our lifetimes.

[neptronix]

Actually we are a bunch of crybaby whiners. We cry about high taxes when we pay less than europe by a long shot. This is particularly true with gasoline taxes.

So true! We really do have good buying power here.

There are never enough people really interested in super gas sipper type cars to convince auto makers to sell them. We'd rather complain than do something about being squeezed at the pump.

That means it's not bad enough yet.

[gogo]

A 25% increase in price would make anybody complain no matter what the initial price was. And as far as absolute cost goes, the USA taxes in ways other than fuel tax, so now we have those other taxes and higher fuel costs.

Sooner or later the U.S Government will have to raise Fuel tax like here. It's the only way to reduce usage,…

That's an interesting frame of mind. Why is someone else's choice about usage anyone else's concern?

[dogman]

If you really want to reduce usage, the effective tool is rationing. Worked great in WW II. Not that you want to live with that mind you, but it's the effective tool for sure. I can't say it would be progress to see people putting trash and wood burning gas generators on thier cars like was done in WW II. But a volt would get real attractive if electricity was less rationed than gasoline and deisel.

[o00scorpion00o]

A 25% increase in price would make anybody complain no matter what the initial price was. And as far as absolute cost goes, the USA taxes in ways other than fuel tax, so now we have those other taxes and higher fuel costs.

Sooner or later the U.S Government will have to raise Fuel tax like here. It's the only way to reduce usage,…

That's an interesting frame of mind. Why is someone else's choice about usage anyone else's concern?

Because it's the only way to get people to change their usage, If fuel were cheap here, then we wouldn't drive the economical cars we do. I didn't say it was right or wrong, Just saying no one will change their ways unless it costs them more than they are willing to pay!

Now don't get me wrong, the Irish Government is not concerned about reducing usage, or the environment, only generating revenue!

High taxes on fuel makes the cost of goods go up, people will not take weekend trips because getting to work costs so much already and so the economy is effected over all. But the Government do not understand this!

[DAND214]

gogo wrote:
A 25% increase in price would make anybody complain no matter what the initial price was. And as far as absolute cost goes, the USA taxes in ways other than fuel tax, so now we have those other taxes and higher fuel costs.

So, are you saying you think another 25% will make a differance?
It's been going up 10 to 20 cents a gallon a day/week for the last few months here.

$4.39 to $4.69 is starting to be a norm here around Chicago. That is already a 25% increase. Won't be long we will be at $5.00 a gallon and then more.

I keep asking myself. Who makes the moeny for that barrel of oil? What does the guy pumping the oil out of the grond really get for that barrel of oil?

I don't really care what a gallon of gas cost to put in my car since I don't drive a car. My concern is all the related prices increase that are related to the cost of oil. The gas we could pay for, it's all the other things that keep doing up due to the price of oil.

Do you want a place to live and put food on the table for you and family? Every thing has gone up except the paycheck in proportion. Some paychecks have gone down while everthing is rising. Wish the was an answer.

My real estate taxes go up faster than income, what is that? As long as they keep raising costs for everthing it won't be too long we will be back in the depresion years. No jobs, only the rich will ba able to live in thier house as we won't ba able to pay for anything, maybe not even food. this sucks!.

Dan

[dnmun]

the most recent data out today show a 7% drop in gasoline consumption yr/yr.

this what drives up the price of crude, demand:


China Pads Oil Reserves Even as Price Rises

By Bloomberg News
March 14 (Bloomberg) -- China has been adding oil to its
emergency or commercial reserves even as prices remain near the
highest level in nine months, if the rising supply of
unprocessed crude is any guide.
The CHART OF THE DAY shows China had 2.7 million metric
tons of surplus crude last month, the most in 17 months, after
deducting refining volumes from domestic output and net imports,
according to Bloomberg calculations from government data.
“China is shying away from its usual price-sensitive
buying habits as supply-security fears begin to gain the upper
hand,” Vienna-based JBC Energy GmbH said in a March 12 research
report. “This data will provide comfort for global crude-market
bulls worried about the pace of Chinese growth.”
China, which relies on imports for more than half its crude
demand, has started filling tanks at Lanzhou in the northwest to
boost emergency reserves, Yu Baocai, a vice president at China
National Petroleum Corp., which built and operates the base,
told reporters in Beijing last week. The facility is among eight
sites designed to store 169 million barrels of oil in the second
of a three-phase stockpiling plan. China is the second-biggest
oil consumer after the U.S.
China imported a record 23.64 million tons of crude last
month at an average $112.39 a barrel, or 3.6 percent more than
January’s mean price, Bloomberg calculations from customs data
show. Futures in New York rose 8.3 percent in the first two
months as the U.S. and Europe agreed on sanctions against Iran,
which has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, the transit
point for about 20 percent of globally traded oil.
“Many refiners worldwide are stashing away,” said Brynjar
Eirik Bustnes, a Hong Kong-based analyst at JPMorgan Chase & Co.
“There’s risk of less supply in the event Iran goes off line,
or when European sanctions become effective July 1.”

[dnmun]

and supply is being reduced by sanctions on iran:


'Sanctions begin to hit Iran oil shipments (because of lack of oil tanker insurance)'

Iran is feeling the squeeze on its oil exports ahead of the full implementation of EU sanctions as shipping companies are unable to insure tankers lifting crude out of the Islamic republic. Exports to the EU have already been reduced to a trickle and overall exports have fallen as the state-owned Iranian shipping company struggles to replace the foreign tanker fleet.

When EU sanctions become fully binding on July 1, the National Iranian Tanker Company (NITC) will be the only remaining shipper to deliver crude out of Iran, limiting exports to its remaining buyers. "Where we used to see between five to 10 cargoes coming from [Iran's main export terminal at] Kharg Island into the Med market, since the EU sanctions this has been reduced to almost nothing," said Ellie Weir, the head of regional tanker coverage at Platts, based in London.

"In the last few weeks we have only seen one cargo fixed from Iran into Italy." European sanctions came into force on January 23 and prohibit European insurers giving protection and indemnity (P&I) insurance on shipments of Iranian crude. Existing long-term contracts are exempt until July 1, when all European imports from Iran must cease.

The sanctions have implications beyond the EU market as about 95 per cent of tanker insurance falls under European jurisdiction. Apart from a heavy concentration of P&I clubs in financial capitals such as London, big reinsurers such as Munich Re are also headquartered in the EU.

Soon after the sanctions became effective, the owners of at least 100 supertankers announced they would cease loading Iranian crude. The withdrawal of international shippers has forced the NITC to step into the breach. Ship tracking data from Bloomberg shows that about 73 per cent of all exports so far this month were lifted by the Iranian company, up from 56 per cent last month.

Exports of Iranian crude declined by 300,000 to 400,000 barrels per day (bpd) from last year's average of 2.2 million bpd, according to calculations by Barclays Capital (BarCap). As Europe is winding down its 450,000 bpd imports, the sanctions are making it difficult for Iran to redirect its exports to Asia.

"The fact that they don't have insurance of their own is why countries like India and China are struggling to get their hands on Iranian crude," said Amrita Sen, an analyst at BarCap. Only countries willing to defy the US and find a payment mechanism not based on dollars can continue buying Iranian crude. Traders expect China and India to do just that.

The NITC's 39 vessels have a haulage capacity of 70 million barrels, according to the company's website. This is sufficient to store the 65 million barrels exported every month before the sanctions, but the journey durations can exceed one month, curbing monthly export capacity. "They could do about 1 million bpd maximum," said Ms Sen. "It would more than half Iranian exports."

The International Energy Agency, the organisation representing net importers of oil, estimated in its last monthly report that up to 1 million bpd of Iranian crude would be taken off the market from July because of the sanctions.

http://www.albawaba.com/sanctions-begin ... nts-416930

[dogman]

Politics adding to to it as usual. Don't get me wrong demand is up, China is buying cars and building freeways. But certain producers do love it when they can spin the price up if possible.

Tell me the Saudi's didn't laugh all the way to the bank when we invaded Iraq. Sure, they produced more to stabilize the price at our request, but they still made a killing by being asked to produce more that year. Not to mention all the services we buy from them while in the nieghborhood.

I'm not talking multinational conspiracy cabal here, just guys who know when to go with the wind politically when it makes them, oh, hundreds of billions. Nah, nobody would ever think of giving the Iran pot another stir this year.

[dnmun]

i think you would be totally gobsmacked if you really understood how much money the saudis have to receive for the oil they sell in order to balance their budget, and how little spare capacity they have to produce more oil to cover the loss of iran, yemen, libya, south sudan, syria, nigeria.

if the articles about chinese demand and sanctions against iran don't make a dent in your ideas of why brent commands such a high price, i don't know what to offer. i only deal in the facts because i am one of those speculators you read about so i cannot believe in the speculation of those who don't know the oil business.

saudi needs about $105/bbl to cover the costs of all the guvment programs they have committed to following the shiite uprising in the spring. fact.

[dogman]

Well yeah. So thier govt overspent. Motivation to get a better price. They supposed to just sit there and take it like a dog with 35 buck a barrel oil for the rest of thier lives? I belive you are correct about saudi capacity though. They can't double it or anything. Not sure how close to capacity they were in 2003. Just another reason the only solution for them is a higher price now.

In any case, whatever any producer pays to extract and deliver the crude, they all like a higher price. So don't expect thier politcians to do anything aimed at lowering it. They know damn well how much money they can make with a rumor of WMD's in some nieghbors yard. Or maybe a covert support of a revolution in Libya, whatever is current this year.

Nobody gets to have all the blame, there's a lot of hands in the till. And none of em want a lower oil price, except the consumer or the buisness that uses lots of fuel.

Don't let the politicians lie to you, they love a high price. Tax revenue goes up.

[veloman]

Look at the divergence between the US gas prices and oil price:
UGA and USO. Oil drops a bit and gas prices hold steady or climb. UGA seems to always be the better investment than just oil.

UGA would a hedge against rising gas prices, if you have money to invest.