It seems to me just as Americans are beginning to change their habits and vehicle purchases to counter high sustained gas prices, we are still continuing to set record high prices. There are no supply disruptions, crude prices are not at all time highs. But conveniently a significant amount of US refinement capacity has been taken offline for "routine maintenance", "upgrades" and "minor repairs" at the start of the summer driving season. Estimates yield that we have 800,000 barrels per day of refining capacity offline at a time when the normal amount offline is 100,000 barrels per day.

So we couldn't have done this all during the winter, when demand was low and prices were low? Are oil companies purposely creating a supply side shortage to keep prices high (and boost profits) even though the cost of crude is relatively stable?

5/19/2007 8:27:26 PM

George Will has a great column on the "high" prices of gas:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/16/AR2007051602429.html

Salient points include:

Quote :

"In real (inflation-adjusted) rather than nominal dollars, $3.07 is less than gasoline cost in 1981."

(an obvious point that bears repeating on every major news network)

Quote :

"While oil companies make about 13 cents on a gallon of gasoline, the federal government makes 18.4 cents (the federal tax)"

He also makes some very good points about the price of gas in Pelosi's own district. Being pretty close to SF, I can attest. At this point, buying gas in or around the city is insane -- I've seen it as high as $3.70 there -- a difference of at least 30 cents from the (equally overcrowded and less mass-transit-friendly) Silicon Valley.

Who's artificially keeping prices "high," huh?

Maybe refineries have decided, in unison, to create artificial shortages. Frankly, I think there's plenty of economic game theory working against that scenario, but that's kwsmith's realm. For me, I'll stick with simpler explanations of gas prices like -- it's the market, stupid, and gas prices are a political wedge issue tied to ideological notions of centralized resource management.

5/19/2007 8:45:30 PM

as much as i hate to say this

i think the market CAN handle the price of gas going way up

people WILL bitch, but they still will buy gasoline

[Edited on May 19, 2007 at 8:52 PM. Reason : .]

5/19/2007 8:50:01 PM

Quote :

"people WILL bitch, but they still will buy gasoline"

Of course, it's an inelastic demand.

5/19/2007 8:54:33 PM

i support very high gas prices, because they will incentivize a permanent shift away from fossil fuels

5/19/2007 8:55:42 PM

It seems in theory that would be true, but it would hurt a lot of lower and middle class people in the process.

5/19/2007 9:20:12 PM

Or you get the asshats who want to rape and pillage the environment in the name of the "energy crisis".

5/19/2007 9:21:09 PM

haha dont look at me, I dont want them to drill ANWR

5/19/2007 9:23:40 PM

Sorry, you slipped your post in right before I did. It was supposed to go along with Ex's. I know that the majority of rational people don't want to destroy a national wildlife refuge only to meet a short term and utimately futile need.

5/19/2007 9:26:22 PM

I thought prices were going up mainly because we've already reached peak oil. For those not in the know, "peak oil" basically means that the both the rate at which existing oil fields can be pumped and the rate at which new fields will be found has reached its maximum. The rate of oil delivery to the world will no longer increase, and will actually decrease instead, meaning that less and less oil will be delivered as time progresses. While we're not necessarily out of oil yet, there's essentially nothing but scraps left, and prices are only going to get worse as oil becomes scarcer (or rather, it becomes increasingly uneconomical to extract whatever oil remains).

5/19/2007 9:44:50 PM

Sucks when you build your energy infrastructure on a finite and polluting resource.

5/19/2007 10:01:11 PM

also highly portable and energy dense...

we didn't "build" our society around this resource

the use of fossil fuels is more than likely a natural step in the evolution of a civilization

5/19/2007 10:14:23 PM

If you say so.

5/19/2007 10:17:36 PM

I guess on the plus side of keeping refinery production at a low level by limiting new refinery construction, we're all being forced to find more economical/alternative ways of getting around.

[Edited on May 19, 2007 at 10:34 PM. Reason : On the negative side, I'm forced to choose to spend $$$ to drive or $$$$$ to get another car.]

5/19/2007 10:33:49 PM

Quote :

"Sucks when you build your energy infrastructure on a finite and polluting resource."

I don't see how. It seems to be quite nice; oil is cheap, even today, and it is rediculously convenient and powerful. Or am I making the mistake of assuming "Sucks" implies life would have been better without doing what followed?

Quote :

"we are still continuing to set record high prices. There are no supply disruptions, crude prices are not at all time highs. But conveniently a significant amount of US refinement capacity has been taken offline for "routine maintenance", "upgrades" and "minor repairs" at the start of the summer driving season."

Yes, this year was very odd. Usually there is a drop in gasoline consumption in the months before summer. Regretfully, as oil prices moderated consumption grew above bar and many refiners put off refinery maintenance till later so they could produce today. They erroneously assumed the summer driving season came early; to their shock a few months later the real summer driving season errupted. Well, they could not put it off any longer without inflicting damage (some refineries have been run to the point of shutdown).

So, why the high prices? Simple, local refining is unable to increase production enough to feed the market, so we must attract imports from overseas, and that requires high prices. If not for the high prices then Europe and South America would not be shipping us record amounts of gasoline imports, leaving the rest of us with shortages and gas lines.

Now, is this a conspiracy? Depends how much Exxon loves BP. If Exxon shuts down a refinery then it's losses are huge: instead of earning millions in profits it must instead lose millions paying people to sit around and not make gasoline. There is no way the company's other refineries would profit enough to cover the losses incured by the shutdown refinery. So, unless Exxon or BP just hate making money then I find any suggestion of a conspiracy unlikely.

5/19/2007 11:04:14 PM

Yet you didn't address the fact that it is finite and polluting which is what I said.

5/19/2007 11:08:25 PM

^^ Where do you get your information?

5/19/2007 11:33:51 PM

I think most countries that use energy in most shapes/forms tend to have finite energy sources that pollute in one way or the other.

There's no real addressing the pollution problem either, unless you want to completely strangle our economy and force people to drive vehicles that, while considered economically friendly, are more scarce, more expensive, and don't yet meet their needs.

In time, this will change. Barring economic collapse of a developing economic country and growing oil consumer, we're probably going to continue to put up with stupid gas prices and start buying more economical methods of transportation.

5/20/2007 12:10:34 AM

In 25 years we'll all be driving electric, pneumatic or flywheel driven cars and our energy will be generated mostly by nuclear power plants supplemented with localized "green" energy sources like solar.

The technology is there now, it's just a matter of economics. Once oil prices become prohibitively high, shit will take care of itself.

5/20/2007 2:22:25 AM

Motorists are angry, but as cost flirts — or passes — $4 they’re still driving

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18682561/

Holiday drivers shrug at record gas prices
National average tops $3.11 a gallon to reach yet another all-time high, but AAA says rising prices won't slow driving for the Memorial Day weekend.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/05/17/news/economy/record_gas_prices/index.htm?eref=rss_topstories

People say a lot of things. What they say usually doesn't matter; what they do usually does. Clearly, drivers are willing and able to pay more for gas.

5/20/2007 6:34:50 AM

Quote :

"There's no real addressing the pollution problem either, unless you want to completely strangle our economy"

That's a pretty complacent attitude and our environment and our health are paying the price for laziness and greed.

5/20/2007 8:42:18 AM

^People, and indeed pretty much all organisms, are lazy and greedy by nature. After all, why do more work than you have to?

You can make people not be lazy for a little bit, but it usually requires a significant attitude change. The trick is not getting people to care, because even when people do sympathize they might still do nothing (either because of laziness or because they feel like their individual contribution won't matter anyway). So the only other thing to do is to instead appeal to people's greed and laziness. Give people some kind of incentive to do what you want, but tell them that they only have to do but so much. Then once they've done that, tell them to do a little more. Ratchet it up bit by bit as you go so that a giant, daunting task doesn't seem like a whole lot.

5/20/2007 9:03:27 AM

Quote :

"Where do you get your information?"

From WTRG; they rock. If it is news, and it has to do with fossil fuels, they've got a link.
http://www.wtrg.com/

Quote :

"Yet you didn't address the fact that it is finite and polluting which is what I said."

Well, it is polluting. Oddly enough, our air is the cleanest its been for over 100 years (our meaning Industrialized World). Oil is far cleaner than the fuels it replaced, such as coal, wood, dung, etc. Far more of our ancestors would have died from resparatory problems if not for the use of oil.

As for it being finite: so what? Everything in the universe is finite. Should we stop using Iron since there is only so much Iron Ore in the ground? Should we give up on Solar and Wind energy just because the materials required to collect them are finite and running out? Of course not, that is why we have an intricate system of resource allocation we call the free market. If you think oil is more valuable to humanity than the price being paid for it then you buy it and store it; you will be proved right when you get rich selling it back to us at inflated prices.

5/20/2007 9:07:14 AM

Quote :

"Oddly enough, our air is the cleanest its been for over 100 years"

So what? Why stop there? That is a nice first step but that can't be an excuse for the continuation of polluting.

Quote :

"As for it being finite: so what?"

See: Renewable energy sources. Plus, you of all people should know what happens when a supply that is in growing demand starts to decline rapidly. Intsead of sticking a baidaid on the amputation by poking more holes in the planet how about we live up to our self described notion of superior intelligence and come up with an energy solution that isn't precluded by greed and self interest?

Quote :

"Should we stop using Iron since there is only so much Iron Ore in the ground?"

Is all of the iron that is being mined going to be consumed and tranformed into another form that is no longer iron? No. So that comparison doesn't really hold water.

Quote :

"If you think oil is more valuable to humanity than the price being paid for it then you buy it and store it; you will be proved right when you get rich selling it back to us at inflated prices."

I don't think that burning dead dinosaurs is the correct path for advancing civilization if we are to sustain growing economies. To me, the environmental consequenses far outweigh the short term gains of "human progress".

5/20/2007 9:29:48 AM

I don't think we can "sustain growing economies" by abandoning 5000 years of learning to have the government, once again, try to run the economy.

Quote :

"So what? Why stop there? That is a nice first step but that can't be an excuse for the continuation of polluting. "

Why not? Today, NO ONE DIES of air-pollution induced respiratory illnesses in North Carolina. Why should we go further? To make ourselves feel better about ourselves? Why should North Carolinians expend massive amounts of resources to fix a problem that has already been fixed? Gasoline engines, if tuned properly, produce nothing but CO2 and H2O. That is why North Carolina has begun emission inspection, to make sure the motor fleet is tuned properly. Any more will not save a single life.

Now, what is killing North Carolinians is poverty. Some have trouble affording fuel to heat their homes; some have trouble affording medical care; the life expectancy of the poor is several years below that of the rest of us; and by banning the use of dead dinosaurs you will impoverish society, particularly its least adaptable members, and accomplish none of your goals. As the effects of your actions filter down, smuggling will ensue as people try to circumvent the ban. Conflicts will break out between your regulators and common citizens just trying to live their lives. You think the use of oil is polluting today? Just wait until the refineries are hidden in the mountains and operating illegally with no regulations.

Now, if instead you just want to reduce fossil fuel use, that would be fine. Government must tax the citizenry, it doesn't really matter how. Just slap a usage tax on coal and oil extraction and a similar duty on imports of coal, oil, and oil based products such as plastics and motor fuels.

The price of electricity will go up, but still be cheap; the price of gasoline will go up, but still be cheap; and one day the use of renewables may go up, but I doubt anytime soon. What will improve is American living standards, as the new tax dollars raised would allow the government to eliminate payroll taxes, a major benefit to the working poor.

5/20/2007 10:02:52 AM

^^ Christ dude, you're the text book definition of a Utopian liberal, full of grandiose and wonderful...wait, full of the capability to point out problems, without providing a solution.

5/20/2007 10:17:19 AM

^^ That works well for NC but this isn't just an NC problem. It is a global problem.

^Actually the solutions have already been presented. I don't think I need to hold your hand by rehashing covered material. What I would like to see is the kind of involvement and fervor for clean technology that there is for poking holes in wildlife refuges as if human interests are the only concern on this planet.

5/20/2007 10:45:00 AM

I don't know about you, but human interests are my only concern on this planet.

5/20/2007 10:59:15 AM

5/20/2007 11:08:56 AM

What are your concerns, then?

5/20/2007 11:10:23 AM

i know i've heard a few times that new-age coal power plants are actually cleaner than oil equivalents??

5/20/2007 11:12:58 AM

Quote :

"Actually the solutions have already been presented. I don't think I need to hold your hand by rehashing covered material. "

You're showing you don't know what a solution really is. You can't just say - solar power, WE HAVE OUR SOLUTION, LET'S GET TO WORK, for various reasons Lonesnark pointed out that you didn't really care to address.

Durr, it's bigger than an NC problem, talk about the other aspects of trying to switch a steaming booming world economy off of oil as rapidly as you think we should and see what happens.

"Hey, it's cool that the world is getting marginally cleaner since we raised the taxes to astronomical amounts on gas, but, now everyone is poor and dieing of disease since they can't get the proper health care"

5/20/2007 11:17:26 AM

The implication seemed pretty obvious but I will illustrate it again since you asked. I am concerned with maintaining healthy and sustainable harmony with the world in which we are dependent upon. That includes but is not limited to all forms of plants and animals as well as natural resouces that we, as humans, use to power our wants and needs. We may not have a direct use for something like a spotted owl nor may we not understand its role within an ecosystem but they are there nonetheless so it is not up to us to decide that our homes are more important then their habitat.

^ So we just "stay the course" with oil? And once you run out of dead dinosaurs to burn then what?

[Edited on May 20, 2007 at 11:24 AM. Reason : .]

5/20/2007 11:21:22 AM

...and that's where you and other 'evironmentalists' have failed and will continue to fail to convince others of the importance of environmental maintenance and preservation.

My interest in preserving nature starts and ends with the preservation of human life at the current or greater standard of living. Neither I nor pretty much anyone else has any interest in saving spotted owls or manatees just because "they are there". Statements like "it is not up to us to decide that our homes are more important then their habitat" have absolutely no meaning. If not us, who is it up to then? God? Gaea? Some other vague and ambiguous entity?

Environmental preservation (or call it what it really is: resource management) is important because there are plenty examples of civilizations who have destroyed/modified their environment to the point where their society no longer had they resources necessary to maintain themselves. They then collapsed, sometimes to the point that everyone died. I have no desire to see that happen to modern civilization, and that is the root of my concern for the environment. Until the you change your arguement from "But aren't spotted owls pretty?" to "What can the environment do for me?" you will continue to meet apathy and non-concern.

5/20/2007 11:41:21 AM

Quote :

"you will continue to meet apathy and non-concern."

Which is very tragic. Sadly, the majority of humans are too scared to think of themselves as anything else other than greater than the whole of the design. And trying to label it as "resourse management" over "environmental protection" is pretty arrogant of us to do. But I suppose it's better than just calling it "Fuck the planet. Humans rock!!1".

5/20/2007 11:49:44 AM

There's no other valid reason to protect the environment other than to protect the ability for the environment to provide for human life.

5/20/2007 12:04:05 PM

Quote :

" "

5/20/2007 12:09:17 PM

Quote :

"the majority of humans are too scared to think of themselves as anything else other than greater than the whole of the design."

What design? Is there a set of blueprints somewhere? Can I get a copy from Mother Earth so that I may live in "sustainable harmony with the world"?

Quote :

"And trying to label it as "resourse management" over "environmental protection" is pretty arrogant of us to do."

In case you haven't noticed, the environment is full of resources: oil, wood, coal, iron, gold, diamonds, silicon, water, etc. Our continued existance depends upon our ability to manage the use of those resources so that we may continue to use them into the future. This also includes recognition that some resources such as oil and coal are produced so slowly that they are effectively finite and that alternatives will be required in the future.

Incidently humans do rock. It has nothing to do with arrogance, but is a simple recognition of the fact that of all the flora and fauna on the planet, we are the only animal with the ability to adapt and innovate at the rate and with the ingenuity that we do.

5/20/2007 12:09:34 PM

Design being that we are but one species among hundreds of thousands if not millions on this planet. All being equally important to their niche within the construct.

Quote :

"we are the only animal with the ability to adapt and innovate at the rate and with the ingenuity that we do."

If anything that is more reason for us to protect and preserve the rest of the natural world given that we are able to differentiate our consciousness from that of other beings. The arrogance lies within the notion that we are somehow mandated dominion over the fates of all other plants and animals as they suit our needs.

And why put 'environmentalists' in quotations as though it were a euphemism for what you truly wanted to say?

[Edited on May 20, 2007 at 12:26 PM. Reason : .]

5/20/2007 12:25:42 PM

Quote :

"And why put 'environmentalists' in quotations as though it were a euphemism for what you truly wanted to say?"

Fine. Delusional and, in some cases, dangerous idiots.

Quote :

"The arrogance lies within the notion that we are somehow mandated dominion over the fates of all other plants and animals as they suit our needs."

Who has this notion? I don't and I have not seen any posts in this thread that would indicate that others do. It could be argued that you have a notion that humans have a mandate to preserve 'nature' as it is. You certainly ascribe to nature some sort of metaphysical/transcendental sacred order in need of our stewardship and preservation.

5/20/2007 12:38:30 PM

Quote :

"Fine. Delusional and, in some cases, dangerous idiots."

I am sorry that those who seek to maintain harmony within the world we live in are idiots to you. I am just glad to know that you are here to enlighten us with your obviously superior intellect on how the world should really work.

Quote :

"You certainly ascribe to nature some sort of metaphysical/transcendental sacred order in need of our stewardship and preservation."

You are correct.

5/20/2007 12:49:28 PM

^ If not for the purposes of bennefiting and preserving the human race, what is your purpose for saving the planet?

5/20/2007 12:57:47 PM

Quote :

"If not for the purposes of bennefiting and preserving the human race, what is your purpose for saving the planet?"

That statement is working off of the assumption that the purpose of the planet is to benefit and preserve the human race. And that is a premise that I do not adhear to.

Actually. That is not entirely true. But for the context of your question I will let it stand.

[Edited on May 20, 2007 at 1:16 PM. Reason : .]

5/20/2007 1:11:56 PM

I don't think he was saying that the purpose of the planet is to benefit and preserve humans, only that it is a use to which Earth can be put.

Regardless, what is the 'purpose' of Earth?

[Edited on May 20, 2007 at 1:16 PM. Reason : ]

5/20/2007 1:16:18 PM

Quote :

"Regardless, what is the 'purpose' of Earth?"

I am going to abstain from answering this on the grounds that this thread has been devoid of theological validation and my answer would not be germane to the topic at hand. If you are truly curious as to my insight to your question then please feel free to PM me or begin a additional topic and I will be glad to provide my knowledge of kami.

5/20/2007 1:35:32 PM

Kami is sufficient as an answer. I'm not going to make another 'Does God exist?' thread.

[Edited on May 20, 2007 at 1:52 PM. Reason : ]

5/20/2007 1:52:00 PM

Quote :

"What I would like to see is the kind of involvement and fervor for clean technology that there is for poking holes in wildlife refuges as if human interests are the only concern on this planet."

Quote :

"We may not have a direct use for something like a spotted owl nor may we not understand its role within an ecosystem but they are there nonetheless so it is not up to us to decide that our homes are more important then their habitat."

You may have decided that my home is not more important than the habitat of a spotted owl, but I certainly did not come to the same conclusion. Why do you believe in a free country my ends of home ownership should be sacrificed to your ends of preserving spotted owl habitat?

We as a free society already have a mechanism by which you can pursue what you feel is important, it is called free exchange. You obviously have a home; why not sell me your home and use the money to buy up the habitat so you can not build a home on it? Oh, that's right, you would rather sacrifice me and my home to the spotted owl God than your own.

Quote :

"So we just "stay the course" with oil? And once you run out of dead dinosaurs to burn then what?"

If I wish to stay the course that is my decision. You can do whatever you want to do with whatever resources you have. I am not a believer in the religion that is Peak Oil; I firmly believe that with reasonable work and effort other humans will be able to secure the fuel I want. If I am wrong then that is my problem and I will suffer; if you are right then you should take advantage of the situation by investing everything you own into new technology. When the oil does run out you will be able to charge me dearly for whatever you come up with.

This is how freedom works. I take what I know and make decisions about how to live my life, and you do the same. Some decisions pay off and some do not. But it is fundamental to human nature that we be allowed to make wrong decisions and suffer the consequences wherever possible.

5/20/2007 2:47:59 PM

i made some money off of TSO

still own some VLO

5/20/2007 7:16:34 PM

Quote :

"i support very high gas prices, because they will incentivize a permanent shift away from fossil fuels"

That's why Europe, where gas is 3-4 times the US price, has switched to alternative fuels.

5/21/2007 10:21:49 AM

Quote :

"Gas prices: Worse than '81 oil shock Gas now at highest level, even adjusted for inflation; AAA's reading of nearly $3.20 a gallon marks ninth straight record high in current dollars."

http://money.cnn.com/2007/05/21/news/economy/record_gas_monday/index.htm?cnn=yes

5/21/2007 10:52:35 AM