Oh, man......gas to be at $3.75/gal by March.

mhardy6647

treitz3 wrote: »

Guys, fellas........this thread is to find out if anybody knows whether or not gas prices are going to go up to $3.75 a gallon for regular by March. Let's try to stay on track and off why it came to this or the politics of it. Is that cool?

Would it help if I say please?

oops, I never weighed in on that either! Sorry.
I would say $4.00 for regular unleaded somewhere between Memorial Day and July Da Fourth. That's in MA; probably a little cheaper many other places - good time to troll the New Jersey Tpk when your vehicle is close to "E".

Fongolio

Right now where I live in British Columbia the cost is $1.15 a liter for regular which is the equivilent to $4.35 a us gallon!! And that's down from it's all time high of just under $1.50 a liter about 2 1/2 years ago. On a vacation in summer of '08 in northern British Columbia I had to pay $1.59 a liter for diesel!! That's $6.01 a us gallon right in an area that produces the majority of Canada's oil and gas. You guys have had it good compared to your northern cousins.

AudioGenics

projections.... are that the national average price of gasoline in 2011 could be $3.17 per gallon, with a peak monthly average of $3.27 in July

A possibility that U.S. retail prices could spike this summer

25 percent probability that prices could exceed $3.50 per gallon June-September 2011

8-10 percent chance that we could exceed $4 per gallon August-September

tonyb

Fongolio wrote: »

Right now where I live in British Columbia the cost is $1.15 a liter for regular which is the equivilent to $4.35 a us gallon!! And that's down from it's all time high of just under $1.50 a liter about 2 1/2 years ago. On a vacation in summer of '08 in northern British Columbia I had to pay $1.59 a liter for diesel!! That's $6.01 a us gallon right in an area that produces the majority of Canada's oil and gas. You guys have had it good compared to your northern cousins.

Maybe it would help up there if you opened a few refineries. You guys ship it here, we refine then ship it back to you. Makes sense.

mrbigbluelight

From what I understand, we import the majority of our oil from Canada (40% ?).


..... so if we were to invade Canada, then .......

mhardy6647

mrbigbluelight wrote: »

..... so if we were to invade Canada, then .......

Ever see the so-bad-its-good movie Canadian Bacon, eh?

ViperZ

mrbigbluelight wrote: »

From what I understand, we import the majority of our oil from Canada (40% ?).


..... so if we were to invade Canada, then .......

Then your gas will be as expensive as ours! Right now gas is $1.14 per liter, which translated to the British Imperial system (or American gallons) will give you $4.31 a gallon. Don't you feel lucky that you live in USA???

Tour2ma

nooshinjohn wrote: »

No trouble Tom. The point is if they want 4 bucks a gallon, it will be. If they don't, then it will do something else. Only those with the power know for sure. It is hard not to discuss whether or not prices will go up without looking at the cause.

C’mon man… It can't be that hard for you to make up sh…stuff?

Tom,
Not getting political here… just calling bull …

nooshinjohn wrote: »

And in that time (since 1974) we have not opened a single new oilfield, in fact we have done the opposite... why?

First, as to “the opposite”… oil fields play out or become uneconomical... at least temporarily as they often reopen as prices rise.

As to no new fields… yeah... except for the 443 permits to drill in named fields in the Gulf of Mexico alone in waters deeper than 1000 feet, why have we not opened any? Even if half are gas-only, that's still over 200...

Here are the 26 “A’s”… for the rest follow the link…
Deepwater Fields in the Gulf of Mexico as of 01-03-2011 08:39:23 AM

................................................................................. Field.................. Field First. Lease First
.......................................Water .................................. Name.. Discovery. .Production Production
...Name....... Lease Area Blk. Depth Operator...................... Code... Date......... Date....... Date
1. Aconcagua G19935 MC 305 7,050 Atp Oil & Gas Corporation MC305 02/21/1999 10/2002 09/2002
2. Allegheny G07049 GC 254 3,246 Eni Us Operating Co Inc GC254 01/01/1985 10/1999 09/1999
3. Allegheny G07049 GC 254 3,246 Newfield Exploration Gulf GC254 01/01/1985 10/1999 09/1999
4. Allegheny G08010 GC 298 3,246 Eni Us Operating Co Inc GC254 01/01/1985 10/1999 04/2000
5. Allegheny G08010 GC 298 3,246 Newfield Exploration Gulf GC254 01/01/1985 10/1999 04/2000
6. Amberjack G05825 MC 109 1,046 Stone Energy Corporation MC109 11/13/1983 10/1991 10/1991
7. Amberjack G05826 MC 110 1,046 Bp Exploration Inc. MC109 11/13/1983 10/1991 N/A
8. Amberjack G09777 MC 108 1,046 Bp Exploration & Producti MC109 11/13/1983 10/1991 11/1993
9. Amberjack G09777 MC 108 1,046 Stone Energy Corporation MC109 11/13/1983 10/1991 11/1993
10. Amberjack G18192 MC 110 1,046 Apache Corporation MC109 11/13/1983 10/1991 05/2000
11. Angus ….. G15545 GC 112 1,828 Marubeni Oil & Gas Usa In GC112 06/08/1997 09/1999 10/1999
12. Angus ….. G15546 GC 113 1,828 Marubeni Oil & Gas Usa In GC112 06/08/1997 09/1999 09/1999
13. Angus ….. G15546 GC 113 1,828 Shell Offshore Inc GC112 06/08/1997 09/1999 09/1999
14. Ariel …… G07944 MC 429 6,134 Bp Exploration & Producti MC429 11/20/1995 04/2004 04/2004
15. Arnold ….. G13084 EW 963 1,682 Marathon Oil Company EW963 06/12/1996 05/1998 05/1998
16. Aspen …... G20051 GC 243 3,039 Bp Exploration & Producti GC243 01/27/2001 12/2002 12/2002
17. Aspen …... G20051 GC 243 3,039 Nexen Petroleum Usa Inc GC243 01/27/2001 12/2002 12/2002
18. Atlantis … G15604 GC 699 6,413 Bp Exploration & Producti GC743 05/12/1998 10/2007 N/A
19. Atlantis … G15606 GC 742 6,413 Bp Exploration & Producti GC743 05/12/1998 10/2007 04/2009
20. Atlantis … G15607 GC 743 6,413 Bp Exploration & Producti GC743 05/12/1998 10/2007 10/2007
21. Atlas ……. G23458 LL 50 8,944 Anadarko Petroleum Corpor LL050 05/29/2003 07/2007 07/2007
22. Atlas Nw .. G23450 LL 5 8,807 Anadarko Petroleum Corpor LL005 01/13/2004 07/2007 07/2007
23. Auger …… G07493 GB 427 2,860 Shell Offshore Inc GB426 05/01/1987 04/1994 05/2007
24. Auger …… G07498 GB 471 2,860 Shell Offshore Inc GB426 05/01/1987 04/1994 N/A
25. Auger …… G08241 GB 426 2,860 Shell Offshore Inc GB426 05/01/1987 04/1994 05/1994
26. Auger …… G08248 GB 470 2,860 Shell Offshore Inc GB426 05/01/1987 04/1994 04/1994

nooshinjohn wrote: »

Not a single new refinery...why?

Simple economics… Show me an oil company that’s investing in a new, grass roots refinery and I’ll show you a stock I want to short. Crude production is where the real profit is, not refining. No business in its right mind would build a multi-billion dollar facility to lose money in a dying business.

investorplace.com 10 Apr 2010 wrote:

Major oil stocks Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) and ConocoPhillips Corp. (COP) reported earnings this morning, with independent oil stock Occidental Petroleum Corp. (OXY) also reporting earnings alongside these heavyweights. All reported higher profits in their earnings reports due to higher crude oil prices.

The tale of the tape for the supermajors is the effect of refining on revenues. Exxon noted that downstream earnings were off $1.1 billion compared with last year, and US refining and marketing actually lost $60 million. Conoco’s refining and marketing group lost $4 million in the quarter, compared with a $205 million profit in the first quarter a year ago.

Both Conoco and Oxy reported significant gains in realized prices for liquids production. Conoco’s prices rose from $40.37/b in the first quarter last year to $71.86/b, and Oxy’s rose from $39.29/b to $71.88/b this year. As profits rise on higher prices for crude, refining takes the pain.

It's far more economical to expand existing refineries. The problem with the expansion approach is that many existing refineries are in air quality, non-attainment areas, e.g., Houston, making permitting problematic.

Besides, if we are so in need of refining capacity, why have U.S. exports of gas and other refined petroleum products increased each of the last five years? http://www.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_exp_dc_NUS-Z00_mbblpd_a.htm

nooshinjohn wrote: »

Not a single new Nuclear power plant, and very little in regards to other power developement despite a vastly increased need...why?

Actually 69 Nuke’s came on-line after 1974 with the most recent Nuke beginning generation in May, 1996 (Rhea County, TN’s Watts Bar-1). Construction even began on 17 in 1975 or later, but this was likely due to the fact that it was more economical to follow through with the project than it was to cancel it.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/operation/statoperation.html Dates are found in the Table 3 tab…

Again…since then, as with your refinery question, the answer to your “why” is economics… Have you ever heard of [URL=" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Texas_Nuclear_Generating_Station"]STP[/URL]?

As in the early 70’s, recently rising oil prices, i.e., 2009’s $130/ barrel price spike, have made nuclear appear to be economically viable again, but additional hidden, end-of-life costs have also come to light that make viability uncertain. Today nuclear generation accounts for around 20% of electricity in the U.S.

As for alternate sources, they were a barely a dream in ’74. Now they’re a reality… still not fully economical, but they are getting there. In 2010 non-hydroelectric renewal sources accounted for about 4% of our total with wind generation now accounting for about half the renewable U.S. total.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table1_1.html

As for the “they” in the original quote… well, that could definitely get political in a hurry… so I’ll pass as well.

nooshinjohn

If you want to discuss this privately Tour, I am ok with that. The simple answer is that all of the areas you cite in your post had known reserves and operations that were ongoing. I am speaking of the operations that were shut down on the California Coast, the discoveries in the Dakota Badlands, and in ANWAR, The Bering sea(Russia is now exploiting them) and a few others that are simply off limits. 35 years worth of complete energy independence that will never be touched thanks to the EPA and the National Parks Service.

Your point about Nuclear power, though factually correct, is misleading. According to the US Dept of Energy, the last reactor built was the "River Bend" plant in Louisiana. Its construction began in March of 1977. The last plant to begin commercial operation is the "Watts Bar" plant in Tennessee, which came online in 1996. This reactor went through hell and back with all the redesigns, legal battles and everything else they could throw at it to keep it from becoming operational. So while the facts may be on your side with my assertions about the lack of Nuclear developement, reality clearly shows that my statement is correct. In addition, no nuclear facility has been comissioned in the U.S. since 1978. The Watts facility was comissioned for operations prior to that.

danger boy

treitz3 wrote: »

they are predicting that gas will be $3.75 a gallon by March with prices possibly rising throughout the summer months.

OUCH! :eek: :eek: :eek:

so it'll just be going up a little for us then.. we're currently paying $3.15 to $3.28

VR3

Nooshin you are one intense ****.

Im ok with that - but life is short and being an internet war hero may only go so far. I hope you can harness that aggression into real life events

treitz3

danger boy wrote: »

so it'll just be going up a little for us then.. we're currently paying $3.15 to $3.28

We are not too far off. Thing is, I pay for super and really have no choice. Super used to be 10 cents more. Now, it's upwards of 30 cents more. This is on top of regular prices which means a gallon of gas for me [and countless] others will be paying over 4 smackers a gallon for gas.

We are not used to that. At all. Dang. :eek:

nooshinjohn

Vr3MxStyler2k3 wrote: »

Nooshin you are one intense ****.

Im ok with that - but life is short and being an internet war hero may only go so far. I hope you can harness that aggression into real life events

Lol... nothing wrong with a good debate. Jstas taught me to be ready to make my case with truth. Thanks John!:cool:

Face

treitz3 wrote: »

We are not too far off. Thing is, I pay for super and really have no choice. Super used to be 10 cents more. Now, it's upwards of 30 cents more. This is on top of regular prices which means a gallon of gas for me [and countless] others will be paying over 4 smackers a gallon for gas.

We are not used to that. At all. Dang. :eek:

I've seen it 50 cents more around here.

Unless you need that hillybilly cruiser for work, time to trade it in for something more economical.

treitz3

Face wrote: »

Unless you need that hillybilly cruiser for work, time to trade it in for something more economical.

Believe you me, I'm thinking about it.

It's my back up plan [the truck I drive] in case I get laid off.....in other words, I'll be able to start up the business I once had up again. But Dang. How long can one hold off?

I'm already earning a 1/4 of what I'm used too, but the paychecks of working for the "man" are steady. They keep the household up, bills paid, etc....

Better than being paid whenever the client decides to pay.....but I'm being paid, none the less. The truck I'm driving is backup, if you know what I mean.............

What would you do?

Face

treitz3 wrote: »

the paychecks of working for the "man" are steady. They keep the household up, bills paid, etc....

What would you do?

Time to go shopping.

treitz3

I apologize profusely for those that are already paying more than I.

I am lucky enough to live in a state to where taxes on gas are only 16 cents per gallon, which makes it relatively cheap compared to many out there.

I guess what I'm saying is, take what you normally pay for fuel and add a dollar or more to the cost per gallon. Now, do you see where I'm coming from? From what they say, this increase isn't going to be for a week or two either...that's what prompted this thread.

zarrdoss

Time to dig out the bicycle and ride, don't drive unless I absolutely have to. I rode to work all summer and fall a few years ago.

mhardy6647

treitz3 wrote: »

I apologize profusely for those that are already paying more than I.

I am lucky enough to live in a state to where taxes on gas are only 16 cents per gallon, which makes it relatively cheap compared to many out there.

I guess what I'm saying is, take what you normally pay for fuel and add a dollar or more to the cost per gallon. Now, do you see where I'm coming from? From what they say, this increase isn't going to be for a week or two either...that's what prompted this thread.

FWIW, when I was Shelby two weeks ago, gas prices in the CLT/Shelby corridor were about the same as they were in MA.

treitz3

I rode my bike for many years to and from work....work to college and back. I have paid my dues, and then some 10 fold. I'm to old to ride 33 miles and then work what it is what I do.

Tour2ma

Good on you, t3, and you've got the health bennies to boot...
Now if you'll excuse me...

noosh,
We agree on at least three things: SDA’s, Sunfire power and “nothing wrong with a good debate”… four, if you consider that I also do not think Please Please Me was The Beatles best LP...

nooshinjohn wrote: »

If you want to discuss this privately Tour, I am ok with that.

Nope, public... if not this thread, you pick the thread. Start a new one if you like…

This is not about you changing my mind, or me changing yours. It’s about you backing up your ludicrous public assertions with facts… something you have yet to do… so let’s stay in the light. But unless you start citing your sources, I will not waste any more of my time with you; I’ll just call BS and move on.

nooshinjohn wrote:

The simple answer is that all of the areas you cite in your post had known reserves and operations that were ongoing.
I am speaking of the operations that were shut down on the California Coast, the discoveries in the Dakota Badlands, and in ANWAR, The Bering sea(Russia is now exploiting them) and a few others that are simply off limits. 35 years worth of complete energy independence that will never be touched thanks to the EPA and the National Parks Service.

Personally, I am willing to sacrifice “simple” in the name of accuracy… No new discoveries in the Gulf since 1974…. Really? None of the 443 listed were new… References? I have one reference citing three discoveries:

According to "Deepwater Gulf of Mexico 2004: America's Expanding Frontier", a report issued by the Minerals Management Service (MMS) Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, of the ten deepwater discoveries in water depths greater than 7,000 ft (2,134 m), three were in the Mississippi Canyon area: Aconcagua project, area/block MC305, 7,379 ft deep; and Camden Hills project, MC348, 7530 ft deep, both discovered in 1999; and Blind Faith project, MC696, 7,116 ft deep, discovered in 2001.

See what you are doing is confusing a tract having known reserves with having knowledge of all the reserves within a tract. They are not the same thing.

35 years of independence? Please show your calc’s. U.S. oil consumption has averaged over 20 million barrels per day the past few years. That’s 7.3 billion barrels per year. The highest estimate for Anwar I can find is just under 30 billion… so where’s the other 31 years of supply? Please don’t tell me it’s in that “400-billion bbl Badlands Oil” e-mail that went around a few years ago. Cali Coast? Give me a ref please. Best I can find puts known off-shore at <1 billion bbls. Bering Sea? Sweet Jesus, have you seen Deadliest Catch? On the other hand you did forget to mention our Florida reserves that the Chinese are stealing by drilling off Cuba’s coast … and the whole upper east coast…

I do believe Anwar will be tapped someday (horizontal drilling). Until then I like to think of it as a strategic reserve. IMO there are a great number of more critical needs than burning it to go to the store.

nooshinjohn wrote:

Your point about Nuclear power, though factually correct, is misleading. According to the US Dept of Energy, the last reactor built was the "River Bend" plant in Louisiana. Its construction began in March of 1977. The last plant to begin commercial operation is the "Watts Bar" plant in Tennessee, which came online in 1996. This reactor went through hell and back with all the redesigns, legal battles and everything else they could throw at it to keep it from becoming operational. So while the facts may be on your side with my assertions about the lack of Nuclear developement, reality clearly shows that my statement is correct. In addition, no nuclear facility has been comissioned in the U.S. since 1978. The Watts facility was comissioned for operations prior to that.

Pretty good trick since per the NRC WBN-1 was still under construction “until 1985, when WBN Unit 1 was thought to be essentially complete and nearly ready to receive an operating license.” Every project on which I ever worked, we actually finished building the plant before we commissioned it… but hey, maybe that’s just a silly chemical industry practice. Here’s my NRC link: http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/wb/watts-bar/history.html

As for River Bend, it started later, but finished earlier than WBN-1.

As for admitting that I was factually correct, I thank you for conceding that. I wish I could return the favor… whereas all your “nothing since '74” statements were complete BS, and that’s what I showed. At least you’ve graduated to citing “reality”… I guess that’s something…

What about my economic argument about the Nukes? Nothing? I've attached a chart to help you. The price rose in the early 70’s shortly followed by the Nuke construction boom (nope, the line is not there you have to imagine it). Even though the price nearly doubled again in the early 80's, there was no 2nd wave of Nukes because by then the Nuke builders had learned that they could not deliver a safe, working plant at anywhere near the estimated price. Then prices fell and with it the remaining desire for Nukes.

It's easy to see why there’s renewed interest lately. Interest so keen that it took government guarantees for the Shaw Group to initiate its new project for The Southern Co. in GA.

No comeback at all on refining?

On alternative energy?


Oh, and gas here is $2.91 for regular unleaded…In constant dollar terms it’s cheaper now than it was in 1980…
http://www.randomuseless.info/gasprice/gasprice.html

kawizx9r

Think it's time I purchase a motorcycle again.

3.49 here, and I can't use it...so I'm stuck paying an average of 3.65 to 3.79 a gallon (for premium).

BlueFox

I have mixed feelings on gas prices. Like most people, I do not want to spend money on gas. On the other hand, except for 3 years in the late 70s when I had a 75 Dodge van (good times in that van), I have always driven a small car, with a manual transmission. Started with a Ford Falcon, and am currently driving a Mazda 3S. Also, I am 6' 3", and have no problem at all with vehicle size.

However, I absolutely hate being behind a pickup truck, SUV, van, etc. that blocks my view of the road ahead. The problem is these vehicles are mostly being driven by people who really have no need for such a big vehicle. It is just they are affordable, so people buy them. Fine, it's a free country, but, since it is a free country, I can also hate them.

Anyway, while higher gas prices are a pain for me, I say, "Make gas at least $5 a gallon, if not more". Anything that gets vans, SUVs, pickup trucks off the road is a good thing. It is unfortunate that we all have to suffer simply because people who have no need for a truck, SUV, etc. have bought one. However, once the big vehicles on the road are driven by people who actually need a big vehicle, instead of the yuppie, redneck, preppie, middle class, liberal, conservative soccer moms, the price of gas will go down.

kawizx9r

^ LOL....

I say the same about all these women driving around in Ford Excursions (lifted even), Cadillac Escalades or Chevy Suburban XL's. Not a single passenger, unless you count a toy poodle/chihuahua/shitzu or such dog as one?

Off topic there, but it's so true in the city I live in. Drive a good 10 minutes here, and you're sure to see at least 6 of them.

Earthy

I just paid $2.98 for the cheap stuff. I won't be surprised if it continues to creep up. $3.75 by summer? Ouch.

I feel it's inevitable that gas prices will rise. In the end, it will likely be good for our economy and our national security. As we move to alternative fuel vehicles, we will be less dependent on foreign oil.

MillerLiteScott

I struggle to get 11.5-12 MPG in my pickup and that is even driving like a grandma.

I had a pump shut off at $75 the other day on me. The cheap stuff is @ $3.15
hear right now.

wayne3burk

My Toyota Corolla (2005) gets between 36 - 38 mpg per tank full...

It normally takes between 10 and 11 gallons to fill er up.

p.s. It's a 5-speed manual. I'll never buy an automatic. cant stand braking that much.

cheers,
-- wayne --

bobman1235

wayne3burk wrote: »

I'll never buy an automatic. cant stand braking that much.

That's the funniest reason for driving standard I've ever heard.

amulford

You need to take earnings reports with a grain of salt. Yes, it is absolutely true that the real money is in upstream production. The profits are higher because of minimal process requirements.

To say they are losing money, well let's just say there are some very creative accounting departments. Say you have a facility owned by one of the integrated corporations. The refinery is in the hole before it sees a barrel of oil. You have a payroll? That will be $20 million a year for payroll services. Oh, you also need to give us $50 M/yr for engineering services. Don't forget administration costs for $70 M. Oh, you need a computer system? That'll be $35 for IT support... After you pay me, then we'll talk about performance. Operating cost's and maintenance come out of your plant. Oh, BTW, 70% of your facilties' profit has to come to corporate to help out some of our struggling (read poor judgement) ventures, pay and reward our executive staff, and fund PAC's. Now how much did you make this year???

As far as increasing refining capacity, it's counterproductive. You won't have the leverage to justify the increases if the supply of finished product is there. It is actually cheaper to import it. Another shining example of allowing our domestic manufacturing being undermined.

Nuclear energy won't have very much impact on product prices. There aren't very many generation plants burning crude and causing any appreciable demand on supply. Most fossil based plants are dirt burners or natural gas. Some do use coke, which is a by product of sour crude production. The impact on gas prices would be minimal.

jephdood

wayne3burk wrote: »

p.s. It's a 5-speed manual. I'll never buy an automatic. cant stand braking that much.-

I gotta have an AT. With all the stop and go rush hour freeway traffic 'round here, if I had to shift a manual every 2 seconds I'd look like Hellboy in a month's time.