$5 Per Gallon!?!

[Nbadan]

$5 a gallon!
As oil soars toward $100 a barrel, it's likely, experts say
BY PAUL H.B. SHIN
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER


Tight petroleum supplies amid soaring demand could drive crude oil prices above $100 a barrel by this winter, energy experts warned yesterday.

That could translate into gas prices of more than $5 a gallon at the pump and spike home heating oil an additional 30%, analysts said.

Iran's deputy oil minister, Hadi Nejad Hosseinian, fueled the paranoia yesterday by predicting that crude could hit $100 a barrel by the end of the year - $26 above even yesterday's near-record price.

NY Daily News (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/414256p-350211c.html)

Here's a good overview (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/2/7/81828/51119) on what goes into the price of a gallon of gas. The DOE graph ("Components of Retail Gasoline Prices") tells the tale in a nutshell: in the price of a gallon of gas, crude accounts for 56% of the price, manufacturing/refining/distribution accounts for 28% and taxes, 16%.

Going by that, $100 crude would mean gasoline at just under $4.00 per gallon (as I've always predicted), not $5.00, although it could be higher in some regions.

My thoughts are we are more likely to see situations were we start running short, maybe even out of gas in some regions before we see gas prices settle at a consistant $5 per gallon nationally.

[xrayzebra]

Gee! dan had a thought, did it hurt dan? Just quit thinking, like you do most
of the time, and you will be okay. Well not okay, but it will quit hurting.

[boutons_]

Amercian gas guzzling drivers wil be pouring many 10 of $Bs into Iran, Russia, Venezuela, Bolivia, etc. sudsidizing all kinds of anti-American activities.

Of course, dubya/dickhead/Repug's paymasters at the US oilco's will also be pocketing even more $Bs than we have seen recently.

[Yonivore]

Time to start building those refineries, nuclear power plants, wind farms, and fuel cells; to start drilling in ANWR and the Gulf; and to figure out that shale oil conundrum.

All that said, however, we're still paying less for gasoline that any other oil-importing nation on the face of the planet.

[boutons_]

typical right wing bullshit.

The only sane response now, has been for years, is a crash program, with incentives, subdidies, and penalties (ie, taxes) to engineer oil out of the US economy, esp out transportation that is 70% of US oil consumption, as if it were gold or any other expensive commodity.

We won't get sanity from the Repugs. They will do everything possible to keep the profits exorbitant at the energy co's. Do what's best for the Repub party financiers rather than do what's best for the USA.

[xrayzebra]

Typical liberal BS. You don't got the supply when you got the demand, you going
to get high prices. Liberal response, spend taxpayers dollars.

And boutons, it has been the Republicans who have been trying to get the
dimm-o-craps to help pass a bill to let our oil companies drill for oil in our own
oil fields.

You can't conserve your way out of this problem.

[Nbadan]

A sign of things to come?


While Americans complain about $3-per-gallon gas, drivers in Britain and much of continental Europe wish they had it so good, according to a story in the Washington Post.

The average gasoline price in Britain has risen 19 percent since January 2005 to a national average of $6.48 a gallon. And many stations are charging well above that, with at least one in London's chic Chelsea neighborhood charging nearly $8 a gallon last weekend.

What's more, drivers in 11 European countries are now paying an average of more than $6 a gallon for gasoline, according to Britain's AA Motoring Trust. The disparity between European and American gasoline prices is accounted for by high taxes charged in Europe, where governments have long used gasoline taxes as an important source of revenue and as a policy tool to drive down oil consumption and reduce pollution.

Taxes account for about 66 percent of the pump price in Britain. Of the current average price per gallon of $6.48, about $4.27 goes to the government, while U.S. drivers pay an average of about 46 cents per gallon in combined state, federal and local taxes, according to the Tax Foundation, an independent organization in Washington.

Car and driver (http://www.caranddriver.com/dailyautoinsider/11068/gasoline-price-hits-7-a-gallon-in-england.html)

Too words - public transportation.

[JoeChalupa]

I've seen the prices going down around my area.

Great job President Bush!!! :tu

[foodie2]

You can't conserve your way out of this problem.

Yes yes, by all means, let us ruin all of our wilderness areas and fuck up our air so that everyone can still drive their SUVs and Bush and Cheney et al can continue to get richer along with their oil buddies. God forbid we conserve.

[JoeChalupa]

I'm trying to conserve as much as possible. 1 trip to HEB a week.

[scott]

The DOE graph ("Components of Retail Gasoline Prices") tells the tale in a nutshell: in the price of a gallon of gas, crude accounts for 56% of the price, manufacturing/refining/distribution accounts for 28% and taxes, 16%.

This is the same value mistake that Random Guy made in a previous post trying to associate cost accountants with economists (still waiting for that explanation, btw).

Those percentages are snapshots of the price of gasoline versus the price of crude, terminal fees, taxes, gas cracks (industry jargon for the difference between a barrel of gasoline and a barrel of crude oil). However, the gas crack is a driver of price variances as much or moreso than crude. Back in January, cracks were at one time NEGATIVE (meaning a barrel of unrefined crude was worth more than a barrel of gasoline). Just a few weeks ago, they were around $25/bbl. (Today they are in the teens).

My only point is that it is a mistake to assume those %s will remain constant. As the price of crude goes up, fixed cost component %s like taxes and pipeline and terminaling fees will go down. It is entirely possible for gas to be more expensive at $70 crude than at $100 crude (at a zero crack, you'd see gasoline at about $2.90 with $100 crude).

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

The only sane response now, has been for years, is a crash program, with incentives, subdidies, and penalties (ie, taxes) to engineer oil out of the US economy, esp out transportation that is 70% of US oil consumption, as if it were gold or any other expensive commodity.

Actually the crash course should be for all your leftist environmental fag friends to take it up the ass and take a hike while the US builds some more refineries, environmental laws be damned.


As the price of crude goes up, fixed cost component %s like taxes and pipeline and terminaling fees will go down.

Actually the percentages are on the cost of the finished product, so your fixed costs will stay exactly where they are, percentage wise.

[Yonivore]

This is the same value mistake that Random Guy made in a previous post trying to associate cost accountants with economists (still waiting for that explanation, btw).

Those percentages are snapshots of the price of gasoline versus the price of crude, terminal fees, taxes, gas cracks (industry jargon for the difference between a barrel of gasoline and a barrel of crude oil). However, the gas crack is a driver of price variances as much or moreso than crude. Back in January, cracks were at one time NEGATIVE (meaning a barrel of unrefined crude was worth more than a barrel of gasoline). Just a few weeks ago, they were around $25/bbl. (Today they are in the teens).

My only point is that it is a mistake to assume those %s will remain constant. As the price of crude goes up, fixed cost component %s like taxes and pipeline and terminaling fees will go down. It is entirely possible for gas to be more expensive at $70 crude than at $100 crude (at a zero crack, you'd see gasoline at about $2.90 with $100 crude).
I knew crack had something to do with it. :lol

[scott]

Actually the percentages are on the cost of the finished product, so your fixed costs will stay exactly where they are, percentage wise.

Actually, you are wrong - go back to elementary school and get back to me.

[Nbadan]

My only point is that it is a mistake to assume those %s will remain constant. As the price of crude goes up, fixed cost component %s like taxes and pipeline and terminaling fees will go down. It is entirely possible for gas to be more expensive at $70 crude than at $100 crude (at a zero crack, you'd see gasoline at about $2.90 with $100 crude).

Possible, but not probable. You think oil suppliers are gonna eat the variable costs? Neither do I.

[scott]

No Dan, not probable... but like I said, we had negative crack spreads just a few months ago. $100 crude only puts us at a starting point of $2.90/gallon (crude price + 40 cents taxes + 12 cents for standard retail markup).

If spreads go negative, there are a limited number of options in the downstream environment: stop producing, store as much as possible and wait for margins to rebound, or move your product at an economic loss (not the same as an accounting loss).

To tie a retail gasoline price to a wellhead crude price is to be making dangerous assumptions about key market factors.

[Nbadan]

Eh, retail gas is over $2.90 now at $72-74 ppb of crude. The gas crack may help keep the costs down, that's one reason why I think anything long-term over $4 is improbable, well, that and the economy would slip into reccession, but if we attack Iran, gas shock will drive the price of oil futures up, and we know it's not about the oil already in the pipe-line, but the oil still in the ground.

[Yonivore]

So, are you saying you're a crack head, scott? Should we mount an intervention?

[Yonivore]

...And, profit is not immoral.
by Mary Katharine Ham (http://hughhewitt.com/archives/2006/04/30-week/index.php#a002087)
May 3, 2006 02:56 PM PST


I just got off a conference call with Ken Cohen, VP of Public Affairs for ExxonMobil. The subject, of course, was gas prices issue and the MSM/political distortion thereof.

The call was long, lively, and productive. Cohen gave time for each blogger to ask two and three questions, so I won't write it all up right now, but I'll hit some high points.

On the current controversy:


"One thing it has driven home to me...is we need to do a better job about explaining to people just how we go about making out money and that we earned it."
Why the spike?


"What has been unanticipated...has been the unprecedented economic growth in the developing world."
On the refinery shortage:


"Bringing an oil refinery online...is a Herculean process...you’re looking at 5 to 6 years in the construction of a grassroots refinery... Assuming we could get the approvals, heroically, in 5 years... We've been expanding our existing capacity...we've been able to do the equivalent of building two new refineries in the U.S."
On prices as market signals:


"We have high prices but what we have today is the market sending signals that something needs to be done...These price signals are telling refinery operators, 'Take a look at expansion'...Consumers are getting a signal that efficiency is important, automakers are getting a signal."
On price-gouging:


"As to the specific allegation of price-gouging, we don't. ..We are the most regulated industry in the nation...If called, we'll appear and we'll testify and I can tell you what the answer will be-- there is no price gouging."
On Schumer saying there's not enough competition in the industry:


"Well, he’s wrong. I think he was speaking in terms of gasoline sales in the United States. The gasoline market is highly competitive...you have the majors owning less than they did 5 years ago...ExxonMobil has a smaller market share than the two companies did pre-merger."
On profit margins:


"Exxon's 2005 figure was 9.7 cents on the dollar. That puts the company at No. 116 on the Fortune 500 in that category.

This year in the first quarter, though earnings went up, the profit was 9.4 cents on the dollar.
On taxes (this one'll take your breath away):

In the first quarter of 2006, ExxonMobil made:


Total earnings: $8.4 billion
U.S. earnings: $2.3 billion
U.S. tax incurred: $3.7 billion
Seriously, I couldn't believe it when he said it, but he confirmed it several times. The company is sending numbers on it.

I asked what he considers the top 3 misconceptions about the oil industry:


1. People don't understand the enormity of the business. ExxonMobil produces just 3 percent of the world's oil.

2. We need to explain the commodity nature of the business.

3. Folks need to understand that things aren't done with the flip of a switch in the oil industry. It is not strange for a project to take a decade to get started and 30 years to complete. It's a long-term business. Oil executives are not capriciously messing with prices at the pump.
Interesting stuff. Well, scott? Has he been honest with us...without even using the word "crack," I might add.

[scott]

Eh, retail gas is over $2.90 now at $72-74 ppb of crude. The gas crack may help keep the costs down, that's one reason why I think anything long-term over $4 is improbable, well, that and the economy would slip into reccession, but if we attack Iran, gas shock will drive the price of oil futures up, and we know it's not about the oil already in the pipe-line, but the oil still in the ground.

Well Dan, you still have $16 cracks in the gulf coast, and on the west coast cracks are around $45 dollars (they price off a different benchmark crude, Alaskan North Slope (ANS), which is about $2 cheaper than WTI right now).

Again, the point is that you can't tie a retail gasoline price to a crude oil price.

One thing you just mentioned Dan, that is a very good point - is that it isn't really crude prices driving gasoline higher - high finished product prices (as a function of the relationship between product supply and demand) is pulling crude prices higher. If no one wanted any gasoline or diesel, crude would be pretty damn cheap.

[scott]

...And, profit is not immoral.
by Mary Katharine Ham (http://hughhewitt.com/archives/2006/04/30-week/index.php#a002087)
May 3, 2006 02:56 PM PST


Interesting stuff. Well, scott? Has he been honest with us...without even using the word "crack," I might add.

It's all the stuff I've been saying on this forum for years, Yoni. I'm glad you are amused by industry jargon, btw. "Crack spread" gets its name from the chemical process of making refined products... you are literally "cracking" molecules to turn crude oil into gasoline and distillates. What are the refinery units that do this cracking? You guess it... crackers! (hydrocrackers, catalytic crackers, etc.)

[Yonivore]

It's all the stuff I've been saying on this forum for years, Yoni. I'm glad you are amused by industry jargon, btw. "Crack spread" gets its name from the chemical process of making refined products... you are literally "cracking" molecules to turn crude oil into gasoline and distillates. What are the refinery units that do this cracking? You guess it... crackers! (hydrocrackers, catalytic crackers, etc.)
Okay, now you've gone from an addictive narcotic to a soup accompaniment. Nice.

I know you've been saying this...but, is anyone listening? Besides me, that is.

[Extra Stout]

So, uneducated bigoted rural Southern white people are what the oil companies use to refine oil?

[RandomGuy]

Time to start building those refineries, nuclear power plants, wind farms, and fuel cells; to start drilling in ANWR and the Gulf; and to figure out that shale oil conundrum.

All that said, however, we're still paying less for gasoline that any other oil-importing nation on the face of the planet.

More nuclear plant for terrorists to target? No thanks.

[Extra Stout]

More nuclear plant for terrorists to target? No thanks.
Given that you are against both additional refinery capacity and additional nuclear capacity, I gather your plan is to let energy prices continue to skyrocket in order to force conservation via economic recession.

[RandomGuy]

Given that you are against both additional refinery capacity and additional nuclear capacity, I gather your plan is to let energy prices continue to skyrocket in order to force conservation via economic recession.

I am not against refinery capacity per se.

I am against the pollution that these things put out.

Give me a refinery that meets some fairly strict environmental standards, and I would not mind.

I am more for renewables and efficiency, both of which offer very good cost to benefit relative to refineries and nukes.

[Guru of Nothing]

I am not against refinery capacity per se.

I am against the pollution that these things put out.

Give me a refinery that meets some fairly strict environmental standards, and I would not mind.

I am more for renewables and efficiency, both of which offer very good cost to benefit relative to refineries and nukes.

Mister RandomGuy, do you live inside Loop 410, or outside?

Followup question(s): Do you drive a car to work? Everyday? How far?

I ask only because I am curious.

[Yonivore]

It's all the stuff I've been saying on this forum for years, Yoni. I'm glad you are amused by industry jargon, btw. "Crack spread" gets its name from the chemical process of making refined products... you are literally "cracking" molecules to turn crude oil into gasoline and distillates. What are the refinery units that do this cracking? You guess it... crackers! (hydrocrackers, catalytic crackers, etc.)
Seriously, though; when will be able to start getting the 1.5 Trillion barrels of this crap out of the ground?
http://www.dailyreckoning.com/bin/r/t/oilshale1.JPG

[boutons_]

When the costs, both $$$ and environmental restoration, of surface or in-situ retorting makes sense.

US shale oil and Canadian tar sands are huge sources of oil, but it's very difficult and expensive to recover.

If the shale oil and tar sands were good business, they the oilco's would be all over them by, and they would buy enough politicians to rape the environment doing it.

[scott]

If the shale oil and tar sands were good business, they the oilco's would be all over them by, and they would buy enough politicians to rape the environment doing it.

Tar sands already are good business, and the production profile has a very steep curve to it looking into the future. Shale, on the other hand... is a lot tougher. Shell recently shelled out (no pun intended) like $6B for a northern Alberta shale field, and they say at current prices they are looking at a project payback at 10-15 years out.