Quote :

"Further proof (not that it's needed) that Obama wants the US to have (and keep) high gasoline prices."

i hope it continues to go up

whether it's obama who "wants" us to have high gas prices or not, i'll happily use this as another reason he's awesome

5/3/2011 6:45:38 PM

The flipside is that, as we've already seen, it brings the "Drill, Baby, Drill!"/"Drill Here, Drill Now, Drill in the Skulls of Baby Seals!" howlers from out of the woodwork demanding some quick fix as opposed to making legitimate proposals to transition off of dead dinosaurs/algae all together or at least lesson it to a point to where higher fuel prices won't cause disruptions to our economy.

5/3/2011 6:53:52 PM

Quote :

"whether it's obama who "wants" us to have high gas prices or not, i'll happily use this as another reason he's awesome"

I, too, like a lowered standard of living and weakened US economy

^Hockey, I agree that it only makes sense to invest and develop technologies that will replace oil. However it can be done without disrupting what we have going with oil at the moment. It'll be a fine day when you drive down the interstate seeing cars powered by batteries, fuel cells, hydrogen and gasoline, all at the same time. Not allowing us to utilize our available natural resources (through unnecessary regulations and again, fearmongering) only hurts this country. Nobody ever outlawed horses to make the automobile a success. In due time (if) the ZEV vehicle is superior to the gasoline powered vehicle then it will naturally take it's place.

I'm also curious to see what is going to happen this year with the gasoline ethanol blends. This is a horrible crop year for corn and the prices for corn are going to spike without a doubt.

5/4/2011 9:22:45 AM

Quote :

"I don't and never have expected you to understand much that didn't involve worshiping at the alter of the almighty dollar but this notion that environmental conservation is a luxury is nothing more than a cheap guise to hide behind your own greed and apathy. Using tools and cultivating from nature is by no means mutually exclusive to using our advanced brains to realize the prudence of sustaining a balance with the world in which we live. No one is rationally saying that we should live as "cavemen" again and your assertion of the point is, as usual, downright laughable and insulting."

Emotional arguments like this should have no place in a discourse about the hard problems society faces.

Worship the dollar? Really? Really? What do you think such dogma accomplishes? Do you have any idea just how thin these accusations you're throwing are? Conservation is needed and no one opposed it to begin with, so who are you talking to? What point are you actually making? Do you even contest the idea that in 10, 20 or 100 years we will need more energy, rare elements, and natural resources generally than what we do now? In order to conserve our way out of that reality you need to be talking about at least 75% reduction in consumption due to basic demographics to maintain the baseline, now, what are the accomplishments of the environmental movement on this front? How has the vague idea of "sustaining a balance" with the world helped us accomplish what we need to do?

Quote :

"Not allowing us to utilize our available natural resources (through unnecessary regulations and again, fearmongering) only hurts this country. Nobody ever outlawed horses to make the automobile a success."

Limited agreement with this. For a true environmentalist, the problem isn't that we don't have enough fossil fuels, it's that we have too much. We certainly have more than enough to screw the planet over, and what we've used so far is only the tip of the iceberg.

A conscious choice to use less would, obviously, be the preferable option. A direct wealth redistribution by taxing gas and writing everyone a check is probably the best option afoot for the United States. I do worry that European style taxation may go the way of the dodo, because as long as nations have autonomy, some will refuse to implement such measures, and maybe we'll have a race to the bottom of the barrel. The more you restrain yourself, the harder restraint becomes since the commodity becomes more affordable as a direct result.

I often wonder if a fundamental characteristic of human nature dictates that we extract all economic hydrocarbon resources. In that case, policies are completely irrelevant. All high quality Carbon deep below the surface goes to the atmosphere - end of story.

To the point about horses, we need something drastically better than oil in order to leave it in place. Unfortunately, this is exactly what I've concluded we will not have. Yes, Mr. Fusion could be invented next year...
http://focusfusion.org/

But don't count on it. I would be negligent to ignore the other option of conservation, but I think that people get this wrong. People are too focused on the "push" of "don't spend you money here!", but what is really needed is, instead, a vacuum. As bad of a rep that this gets, a service economy may be the key to the solution. I hate to put it this way, but every dollar spent on stupid service things like strippers collapses the material/energy consumption economy that much more. To the extent that we find something that vastly entertains us better than conveniences that typify our consumption economy, then hedonistic excess becomes the friend of the green movement. There are, however, a lot of problems with this too.

5/4/2011 11:34:12 AM

Quote :

"Do you even contest the idea that in 10, 20 or 100 years we will need more energy, rare elements, and natural resources generally than what we do now?"

I would contest that, assuming by "we" you mean the United States, for which we have statistics. So far, since the 1980s while our population has grown in both number and affluence the consumption of raw materials has fallen nearly every year. It is not beyond reason to assume this several decade trend will continue.

As for energy itself, we used less energy in 2009 (94.6 quads) than we did in 1999 (97 quads).
https://flowcharts.llnl.gov/

[Edited on May 4, 2011 at 12:42 PM. Reason : .,.]

5/4/2011 12:35:32 PM

Quote :

"As for energy itself, we used less energy in 2009 (94.6 quads) than we did in 1999 (97 quads). "

Yeah, and we did pretty good in 1983 too.
http://tonto.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pdf/sec1.pdf

I mean, I shouldn't have to get into all of the flaws of just quoting 2 points on a graph. To answer your point directly, the 2010 total energy consumption looks to be as high or higher than 1999 was.

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383%282011%29.pdf

Oh yeah, and the projections for past 2010 are monotonically increasing. Just like it always has.

Quote :

"So far, since the 1980s while our population has grown in both number and affluence the consumption of raw materials has fallen nearly every year. It is not beyond reason to assume this several decade trend will continue. "

Consumption of raw materials has not been falling. In terms of minerals, virtually the only ones falling in use are the ones we found cause cancer.

http://mazamascience.com/Minerals/USGS/

Consumption of pretty much every single energy resource has been increasing in the U.S. in pretty much any time frame that you zoom in on unless you selectively use the recent recession - NOT UPDATED FOR 2010

http://tonto.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=10

So what the heck is left? Lumber? Oh heck no. Maybe you want to look at production. Does the fact that we have falling production made up for by imports help you feel better?

http://www.extension.org/pages/33756/timber-production

Cement? Same story.

http://content.edgar-online.com/edgar_conv_img/2003/10/24/0001193125-03-066999_G83343G01B98.JPG

Steel? ...more complicated but still no

http://content.edgar-online.com/edgar_conv_img/2003/10/24/0001193125-03-066999_G83343G45F47.JPG

I mean, we can get into water use, land development... farmland. The more we consider, the more clear the picture will become. The United States has been consistently consuming more, and what we can't match with production we import. Aside from the economic cycle, this is true for ANY time frame (since colonization basically). It is a perpetual treadmill that we are still on and you are kidding yourself if you thought we had made any progress getting off it. Yes, population is growing and per capita consumption of some things has held constant or declined.

The above discussion isn't EVEN factoring in the increase in imports of finished products, which is accounted for in the unprecedentedly massive increase in resource consumption in China and other places.

[Edited on May 4, 2011 at 1:43 PM. Reason : ]

5/4/2011 1:42:50 PM

Quote :

"All high quality Carbon deep below the surface goes to the atmosphere - end of story. "

It's not quite the simple. And nevermind that adding it to the atmosphere isn't cause for concern. If anything it will encourage more green (vegetation) growth, something that's been evident the last few decades.

5/4/2011 3:18:48 PM

Oh not this thing again. I'll go ahead and assume you've seen the studies that conclude more CO2 enriched plants are actually less nutritious. But I'll concede the point on carbon insofar as we don't apply the same nonchalant attitude when it comes to something like methane.

And for what it's worth, mrfrog, I wasn't talking to you, for you or about you. Sorry to diminish your self importance.

5/4/2011 3:46:47 PM

^^^ The figures for 2010 were not out yet, even if they were we don't yet know if the recent reductions will be temporary or permanent. It should depend on your theory of future fuel prices. If China manages to keep fuel prices high, then as in the early 80s and late 00s energy use will trend down and stay down. If fuel prices collapse again, then energy use should climb back up. Clearly the people of the EIA expect fuel prices to collapse again. Do you?

As such, as I believe fuel prices will remain high, I don't forsee U.S. energy consumption recovering any time soon.

As for the rest of it, you can consume more steel every year without consuming more resources, as steel, concrete, asphalt, and most other resources that don't grow on trees tend to be recycled, which consumes far less energy than original production. As such, while steel production is up nearly every year, iron ore consumption peaked in 1995.

5/4/2011 5:31:27 PM

Onions have no futures market, yet their recent price volatility makes the swings in oil and corn look tame.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/27/news/economy/The_onion_conundrum_Birger.fortune/?postversion=2008062713
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/05/what-can-onions-teach-us-about-oil.html

5/4/2011 5:38:38 PM

Quote :

"The figures for 2010 were not out yet"

But the Annual Energy Outlook 2011 is out. They haven't put the numbers into the databases yet, but they clearly plot 2010 in the graphs of that report at least, and it clearly shows the uptick, and that they have quantified it, and the revisions from here on out will be marginal if anything.

Quote :

"even if they were we don't yet know if the recent reductions will be temporary or permanent."

2010 put us back to about half way between 2009 and 2008 consumption. Unemployment and most other things still look terrible. It's safe to say that so far, at least, we've had a jobless recovery. If we never get those jobs back then I'd say we'll stay in the neighborhood of 2010, although we could decline slightly because I also have concerns about the U.S.'s ability to maintain current levels of imports.

If we get the jobs back, and if China continues on the current path, then who knows. Maybe we'll be gouging out each others eyes for gas at that point.

Quote :

"If China manages to keep fuel prices high, then as in the early 80s and late 00s energy use will trend down and stay down."

Believe it or not, I actually think the 55 mph speed limit is not reproducible and is actually a very significant political factor. It caused a major uptick in the energy efficiency of transportation in this nation, and (although I could be wrong) I think accounts for a majority of the temporary changes observed for those few years.

Quote :

"Clearly the people of the EIA expect fuel prices to collapse again. Do you? "

The EIA states in very certain terms what they expect the fuel price will be. A quick glance shows me:
baseline in 2035: about $135 / barrel
"high" case in 2035: about $200 / barrel

In the high case they see oil demand remaining about constant. Will they be wrong? They already are since the upswing in the first few months this year are not even factored in. I expect them to be even more wrong in the future. Systematically low? That's hard to say, but I my guess is "yes". However, one thing they do have going for them is a decent consistency with the futures market itself.

Quote :

"And for what it's worth, mrfrog, I wasn't talking to you, for you or about you."

don't care

[Edited on May 4, 2011 at 7:21 PM. Reason : ]

5/4/2011 7:19:13 PM

Quote :

"don't care"

5/4/2011 7:36:35 PM

lol @ OP

5/4/2011 8:49:21 PM

Quote :

"Believe it or not, I actually think the 55 mph speed limit is not reproducible and is actually a very significant political factor. It caused a major uptick in the energy efficiency of transportation in this nation, and (although I could be wrong) I think accounts for a majority of the temporary changes observed for those few years."

You can't compare a 55mph speed limit imposed in an era of carburetors to a hypothetical 55mph speed limit in the modern era of fuel efficient engines. The reason is that engine technology and aerodynamics have changed drastically and engines are far more efficient in steady highway driving (even in high speeds). For example, GM is increasingly adopting technology that shuts off half the cylinders in an 8 cylinder engine when a vehicle is cruising on the highway.

A 55mph speed limit is just a big inconvenience for everybody, including cops who can't really enforce it, and it won't reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Just wait until monetary policy tightens up and you will see commodities prices drop hard. I work in investment management. I don't think you guys realize how many people are unwitting "evil speculators" in oil. Many, many, many funds have exposure to commodities (through derivatives and other complex stuff) that the average person has no knowledge of.

5/4/2011 11:40:50 PM

The biggest factors in oil prices are

1) fundamentals of supply and demand, which is what most of this thread is about

2) geopolitical concerns--mideast tension

3) monetary policy. The only way to make money these days is in stocks and commodities because interest rates are so low. Most people think that only "evil speculators" invest in commodities, but you would be surprised how many pensions, endowments, 401(k) plans, IRA accounts, etc own some fund that has at least a small exposure to commodities and energy.

5/4/2011 11:45:20 PM

^It would probably also be helpful if we were able to utlitize more of the 160+ billion recoverable barrels of oil we have located in the US.

Quote :

"Believe it or not, I actually think the 55 mph speed limit is not reproducible and is actually a very significant political factor. It caused a major uptick in the energy efficiency of transportation in this nation, and (although I could be wrong) I think accounts for a majority of the temporary changes observed for those few years."

Of course, the beauty of it is if someone wants to drive 55 mph on the interstate and get elevated fuel mileage then they're more than welcome to do so.

Quote :

"I'll go ahead and assume you've seen the studies that conclude more CO2 enriched plants are actually less nutritious. But I'll concede the point on carbon insofar as we don't apply the same nonchalant attitude when it comes to something like methane."

I haven't seen any studies, just an occasional mention on the boards. However if that is the case then why do greenhouse facilities intentionally operate with an elevated CO2 concentration? 550ppm C02 has shown to increase yields by 30%.

And don't worry about any disagreement on methane, you won't get an argument from me on that

[Edited on May 5, 2011 at 8:27 AM. Reason : k]

5/5/2011 8:23:55 AM

Quote :

"You can't compare a 55mph speed limit imposed in an era of carburetors to a hypothetical 55mph speed limit in the modern era of fuel efficient engines. The reason is that engine technology and aerodynamics have changed drastically and engines are far more efficient in steady highway driving (even in high speeds)."

Well you just expanded my point. I was saying that similar measures are not possible today. Yes, you are correct, physically we can't even do the same thing because the equation for gas mileage itself has changed and been optimized for 60+ mph speeds.

Quote :

"As for the rest of it, you can consume more steel every year without consuming more resources, as steel, concrete, asphalt, and most other resources that don't grow on trees tend to be recycled, which consumes far less energy than original production."

Iron ore:



Obviously, since this is raw material production, recycling could have significantly contributed to the downward trend recently. This kind of thing is observed for several commodities. But how much does it matter?

Simple multiplication tells me that the maximum market for Iron ore was $10 billion at the absolute top (inflation adjusted). That compares to total raw material and energy inputs to our economy of $1, 2 trillion and probably more. Crude oil is meaningful to talk about because when oil prices hit $100+ / barrel, it becomes about a trillion $$ component of the U.S. economy - and that's unthinkably massive.

I just don't see much room for optimism. Any given commodity has to get expensive and stay expensive for a long time before use of it actually declines. We will start using less overall as a society (although this has not happened yet), but it will not be a happy thing. It will only happen as our nation is more and more outbid for commodities. It's a depression, not conservation. And if we come back out of depression, then we'll use more again. Like other people here, I think it would be great if people would just consciously decide to change their ways - but this is idle speculation divorced of earnest consideration of people's life circumstances. It won't happen. The only real options we have for saving the environment are better technology selection and better governance. Not holding my breath for that latter one.

[Edited on May 5, 2011 at 10:10 AM. Reason : ]

5/5/2011 10:08:18 AM

Quote :

"I just don't see much room for optimism. Any given commodity has to get expensive and stay expensive for a long time before use of it actually declines. We will start using less overall as a society (although this has not happened yet), but it will not be a happy thing. It will only happen as our nation is more and more outbid for commodities. It's a depression, not conservation."

You already know the historical example. In the early 80s oil consumption fell precipitously, it did not begin to recover until the late 80s after oil prices collapsed. However, this was not a time of depression; the recession ended in 1982, four years before prices collapsed and oil consumption began growing again.

Quote :

"Believe it or not, I actually think the 55 mph speed limit is not reproducible and is actually a very significant political factor."

Quoth Wikipedia, "the United States Department of Transportation calculated actual savings at 1%. Independent studies suggest savings as low as a half percent." Highway driving represented a puny share of oil consumption back then, especially when you recognize that many states ignored the rule and purposefully avoided enforcement ("From April through June 1982, speed was monitored on New York's Interstate highways, and an 83% noncompliance rate was found").

Also, keep in mind that the 55mph speed limit was imposed in 1973, while oil consumption fell around 20% in the 1978 to 1981 time-frame, just when speed limit enforcement was falling apart.

http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/USpetroleumconsumption.gif


[Edited on May 5, 2011 at 11:20 AM. Reason : .,.]

5/5/2011 11:18:53 AM

Quote :

"Yes, you are correct, physically we can't even do the same thing because the equation for gas mileage itself has changed and been optimized for 60+ mph speeds."

That's not really the case. You still get your best gas mileage when you maintain a steady speed at a low engine RPM. So if you're cruising on the freeway going 65 mph with your engine at 2500 rpm you're going to burn more fuel than if you were cruising on the freeway going 55 mph with your engine at 2200 rpm.

Just b/c cars get good gas mileage at elevated highway speeds doesn't mean they wouldn't get even better mileage if they slowed down a little.

5/5/2011 1:26:48 PM

the question is not whether any individual car would do better, but whether we overall would do better enough to impact national statistics, and back in 1973 when this was tried the impact was estimated at less than 1%. Well, today, the individual savings from slowing down are less than they were then, so the national savings should also be even less than they were.

5/5/2011 1:39:34 PM

Overall I think we all agree that petroleum demand from the U.S. now has much much less short term elasticity than at any point in recent history.

As LoanShark was pointing out, much of the quick reductions in the 70s were due to reduction of use of oil in other industries, and we've almost eliminated it for power generation.

5/5/2011 1:53:38 PM

[Edited on May 5, 2011 at 7:45 PM. Reason : plz to drop gas prices?]

5/5/2011 7:45:09 PM

No.

5/6/2011 12:17:34 AM

Quote :

"House GOP Blocks Vote On Oil Subsidies Republicans on Thursday unanimously voted down a motion from Democrats to consider legislation to end subsidies to oil companies. Democrats sought to attach the measure, which failed in a 241-171 vote that saw seven Democrats defect, to a bill that would allow oil companies to more easily secure drilling permits off the Gulf Coast. That bill passed. Speaker Boehner suggested in an interview with ABC last month that he was open to ending oil subsidies, prompting calls from the White House on down to quickly pass legislation doing so. "

5/6/2011 12:35:42 AM

Tell me again what subsidies you are talking about. Are these subsidies in the same sense democrats call non-tax hikes on the rich to be a subsidy of the rich?

5/6/2011 10:01:45 AM

^^Did you miss the whole part in this thread about how they don't really get "subsidies"?

^agreed

[Edited on May 6, 2011 at 10:03 AM. Reason : arguing with him is like arguing with a brick wall]

5/6/2011 10:02:56 AM

Haven't both of you argued that ethanol "subsidies" should be ended because they are market distorting and generally an all around bad idea. That without those subsidies ethanol blended gas would be almost nonexistant?

The primary "subsidy" to ethanol is a tax credit (the volumetric ethanol excise tax credit, almost $0.45 a gallon)

how are tax credits to oil companies not subsidies in the same sense?

5/6/2011 10:15:36 AM

Quote :

"Tell me again what subsidies you are talking about. Are these subsidies in the same sense democrats call non-tax hikes on the rich to be a subsidy of the rich? "

I answered your question when you posed it in the "Exxon's profit soars 69 percent, tops Street " thread.

5/6/2011 11:18:24 AM

My prediction is looking really good so far (made on 3/8 before the tsunami)... Breaking everything down:

Quote :

" I will state that I do not see $5 gas this summer unless something happens to Saudi Arabia. Right now price run-ups are a result of the Euro/Dollar relationship and fear of more potential supply disruptions beyond Libya. "

So far, no reason to believe this isnt true.

Quote :

"I posted this on another forum on 3/8 (pre Earthquake). I think it still stands, althought I would likely rise my floor on unleaded gasonline, because the erosion of the dollar to the euro has been very significant, especially with the Euro central bank threatening to raise rates. I would put the floor now closer to $3 through the summer, with an upside to around $4.15-$4.20. "

Looking real good. My revised numbers arent really much different than my original. Gas was about $3.50 a gallon on 3/8, and peaked at $3.87. So I'm very close to my 50-75 cents upper end predicition.

Quote :

" I suspect oil could go as high as $120 under current conditions. I think it has a floor around $82-$85. "

So far, I pretty much nailed this as well. WTI got to about $114 before the dip. Now its solidly on its way to sub $90 within 2 months. I am not sure it will hold, because the strength of the catalyst for the recent sell-off was unexpected.

Quote :

"Very possible to see sub $90 a barrel in the next 2 months if we dont get any more major news out of the gulf. "

As stated, well on the way towards this possibly happening.

Quote :

"I suspect gas will settle, unless the above events happen, around $2.75-$2.90 a gallon."

Undetermined. This was the floor I predicted by the end of the summer/early fall.

I am posting this to get things back on target to the original thread purpose.

5/6/2011 3:52:08 PM

Quote :

"I answered your question when you posed it in the "Exxon's profit soars 69 percent, tops Street " thread."

In Chit Chat. You should really post it here, as it seems your idea of cutting oil subsidies is to go hard anarchist, closing down the army core of engineers, privatizing everything from waterways to roads to the Coast Guard and the Military. Bravo, but the anti-capitalism progressives on this board will probably find these ideas too radical to entertain.

As such, for most of your list, I agree with you completely: most of the government should be shutdown immediately and sold off. Only then can you be free of the guilt of subsidizing the oil industry!

5/6/2011 4:27:28 PM

^here ya go : http://bit.ly/kuRFlO

5/7/2011 1:45:49 AM

So, do you still agree with privatizing most of the government?

5/9/2011 9:15:00 PM

Hopefully the recent articles predicting it to go back down are accurate. Looks like summer could actually provide cheaper prices.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1336599

5/11/2011 8:53:24 AM

Quote :

"According to the US government’s Energy Information Administration, domestic production of crude oil and related liquids rose 3 per cent last year to an average of 7.51m barrels a day – its highest level since 2002. The rise enabled a 2 per cent drop in US oil imports to 9.45m b/d, in spite of rising demand as the economy recovered. US oil imports have fallen steadily since 2006. "

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8698ae80-4503-11e0-80e7-00144feab49a.html?ftcamp=crm/email/201132/nbe/BreakingNews1/product#axzz1FUKzOxsV

5/11/2011 11:37:08 AM

$3.94 for regular near me

i was looking at my scooter mileage log and i paid $2.59 when i first got it

5/11/2011 1:37:44 PM

I hate these arrogant fucking bureaucrats that have no fucking idea what they are talking about, have no idea about how economics works, and are just grandstanding to placate whatever base they are pandering too

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LY420_U4U0I&feature=player_embedded

5/14/2011 9:02:59 AM

^^The 3 stations near my office (in Morrisville) are all $3.99 (Two Exxons and one Marathon). Suffice to say I fill up elsewhere.

5/16/2011 12:43:14 PM

We should get there this summer.

8/8/2011 1:57:10 PM

Oooooh sick burn. So the economic collapse beat the hyperinflation by just a hare. I didn't think bernanke would delay qe3 at all but he did. But don't worry here it comes baby!!!

8/8/2011 2:48:03 PM

^^by this summer do you mean 2012? B/c it ain't happening in 2011.

I sure do wish Obama would stop driving oil companies away and making approval of the new Canada to Texas pipeline a done deal.

8/9/2011 10:14:17 AM

I have been hearing mumblings about the keystone XL pipeline for a while. I don't know what the deal with it is.

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

Quote :

"Criticisms Environmental groups, concerned citizens, and politicians have raised a number of concerns about the Keystone XL extension. One concern is that the pipeline could pollute air and water supplies and harm migratory birds and other wildlife.[17] It will cross the Sandhills in Nebraska, the large wetland ecosystem, and the Ogallala Aquifer, one of the largest reserves of fresh water in the world.[33] The Ogallala Aquifer spans eight states, provides drinking water for two million people, and supports $20 billion in agriculture.[34] Critics worry that a major leak could ruin drinking water and devastate the mid-western U.S. economy.[35] Portions of the pipeline will also cross an active seismic zone that had a 4.3 magnitude earthquake as recently as 2002.[34] Opponents claim that TransCanada applied to the U.S. government to use thinner steel and pump at higher pressures than normal.[35] Analysts believe that including the Alberta Clipper pipeline owned by TransCanada's competitor Enbridge, there is an extensive overcapacity of oil pipelines from Canada and after completion of the Keystone XL line oil pipelines to the U.S. will run nearly half-empty.[31] However, in its March 2010 report, the Natural Resources Defense Council stated that "the Keystone XL Pipeline undermines the U.S. commitment to a clean energy economy", instead delivering dirty fuel from oil sands and high costs.[12] Opponents say that the pipeline will undermine America's clean energy future and increase its dependence of oil sands fuels.[15] TransCanada has answered these concerns saying that development of oil sands will expand regardless of where the crude oil is exported to the United States or alternatively to Asian markets through the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines or the Kinder Morgan's Trans-Mountain line.[36] In December, 2010, No Tar Sands Oil campaign was launched. Sponsored by a number of action groups, including Corporate Ethics International, NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council), Sierra Club, National Wildlife Federation, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, and Rainforest Action Network and featuring TV ads on CNN, MSNBC, and Comedy Central, the $500,000 US campaign[37] asked that people urge President Obama to stop the Keystone XL pipeline from being built by visiting The National Wildlife Federation website. According to the National Wildlife Federation Action Fund, the President and US Department have the power to require an additional Environmental Impact Assessment. Members of Congress and the EPA requested this measure be taken.[38] Concerns of bad sections of pipe are causing areas of Keystone to be excavated and checked. PHMSA had earlier sent out warnings about some pipe swelling under pressure.[39][40] In Kansas, local officials along the pipeline's path think that the state sold them out unnecessarily to get the pipeline. Due to an exemption the state gave Alberta-based TransCanada, the local officials won't see any revenue from property taxes from the project for a decade, a loss they estimate at $50 million in public revenue.[19]"

So far Wikipedia isn't convincing me that this is a bad idea. The criticism seems like a lot of hooey.

8/9/2011 10:41:22 AM

The pipeline is still under environmental review. A new environmental impact statement is supposed to be submitted soon, then there will a month or two of review by stakeholders.

my guess is it will get the support it needs from the administration, but I doubt it will do anything meaningful to gas prices.

8/9/2011 11:05:12 AM

http://earlywarn.blogspot.com/2011/08/oilgas-prices.html#more

Quote :

"As I write, WTI oil prices are down to $75/barrel. The above graph shows the historical relationship between US average retail gasoline prices and WTI spot prices. The vertical orange line is the $75 level the market touched today. As you can see, historically this corresponded to gas prices of $2.50-$3/gallon. It might take a while to get there, but if oil prices stay in this range I would expect gas prices to fall down to those levels. That would provide some significant relief for low and moderate income consumers in the US. (Wealthy consumers are presumably about to significantly limit their spending after watching what happened to their portfolios the last couple of weeks). "

Holding my breath?

8/9/2011 12:47:06 PM

god please yes

8/9/2011 12:59:16 PM

^^nothing would make me happier, but I don't see it happening.

8/10/2011 10:52:10 AM

Its not going to happen for us at this crude price. We are tied to the Brent much more so on the east coast. The brent is trading at an extreme premium to WTI (around $100). With that aside, if the spot prices matches the futures prices that are currently trading with the $75-$80 level of WTI, it amounts to gas around $3.25 a gallon in this state. We have a ways to go to get gas prices down.

Also, it used to be the case that you could tie crude prices directly to gas prices. That correlation, while not completely useless, it not very accurate any more.

[Edited on August 10, 2011 at 11:39 AM. Reason : .]

8/10/2011 11:38:37 AM

^good points, you can actually see in that graph that the variability in gas prices versus WTI has grown atleast compared to the 1993-2003 time period.

-If the current stuff going on the market ends up being an overall slowdown in the US economy
and
-because we are coming out of the summer driving season
and
-the EU economy slows down due to all their financial stuff

then I think we could see a significant price drop. I'd agree that about $3.25 would be about the lowest prices we could see but that would still be a pretty big relief for me .

The wildcards being the libya situation and if developing economies slowdown at all

[Edited on August 10, 2011 at 12:13 PM. Reason : $3.25 being the absolute lowest price we could realistically hope for IMO]

8/10/2011 12:12:07 PM

$5 gasoline is an attempt at a self-fulfilling prophecy by oil speculators and traders.

8/10/2011 1:23:04 PM

^^ Just so there is no confusion, I am saying if prices were frozen today, and the spots caught up to the futures, $3.25 is what we'd see. I still see downside to go a lot lower than $3.25. That's not my official prediction, however. The market is too crazy at the moment to make a good prediction that is anything other than guesses.


[Edited on August 10, 2011 at 1:49 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on August 10, 2011 at 1:59 PM. Reason : crap]

8/10/2011 1:46:16 PM

i only got 90mpg on this last tank

8/10/2011 2:11:53 PM