PDA

View Full Version : OT - Fuel price hikes...



Davek0974
04-19-2008, 04:00 AM
Hi all, loking for answers.

Our diesel price has been steadily rising since christmas but no one is giving a reason or complaining, its going up an average of 2p per ltr per week.

Secondly and this one really baffles me, I recently read that world shipping is expected to change from high sulfur marine oil to regular diesel oil which will increase the worlds consumption and hence the price of diesel a lot, increases of 50% were mentioned.

Now as far as my minimal knowledge goes ALL petrochemical fuels come from crude oil. So if the shipping lines want to change, they will still be using the same source oil it will just need procesing a little bit more to remove the sulphur, so the net increase on crude usage will be zero so why should the price increase? They word it so it sounds like the ships currently run on air and will soon start sucking the world dry of oil!!

Why not install some sort of processing plant on the ship to remove its own sulphur, bit like a catalytic converter on a car cleans the exhaust??

I bought a diesel car specifically because it does 52mpg, due to the prices now, i need not have bothered, diesel was always cheaper than petrol as it needed less processing.

Do they want us all to switch back to petrol?

Dave

wierdscience
04-19-2008, 08:43 AM
Your not alone,diesel here for the first time costs more than gasoline,a lot more in fact.$4.15/gallon versus $3.12/gallon for gasoline,used to be it was the reverse.

We recently made the switch to low sulfur too,but I don't think that explains it since the price here was going up before the switch.

I am still waiting to see if the older diesels can run on the new diesel effectively without trashing the injector pumps which is why the sulfur was there in the first place IIRC.

andy_b
04-19-2008, 08:59 AM
Dave,

searching for reasons as to diesel and gasoline price increases will only give you ulcers. i love it when the reports come out that gasoline prices are up because the refiners are cutting back producing it because people are buying less because the prices are up. then the price of a barrel of oil goes up and is blamed on a lack of supply of gasoline.

if there is less gasoline being purchased, and less being produced, shouldn't that mean there is an EXCESS of crude, so the price of a barrel should DROP???? any time the word "shortage" is spoken in any way related to fuel, it is used as an excuse by the commodities traders to drive the price of oil up. the weak U.S. dollar isn't helping either.

i called my state senator yesterday (which is a waste, but i was bored at work) and complained about the cost of gasoline. PA has the second-highest gas taxes in the U.S. i am talking taxes and surcharges placed on gasoline and diesel BEFORE state sales tax is added. i told the lady she should sponsor a bill to temporarily repeal the tax for the summer driving season. she told me they couldn't do that because PennDOT is funded by those taxes. i told her that it would be partially offset by the $0.10 increase in revenue from the increased SALES tax we pay (6% on $1.70 vs 6% on $3.50). she said the state doesn't count that as revenue because it isn't in the budget. i told her if they don't count it as revenue, then they should refund it back to me. she didn't like that.

andy b.

andy_b
04-19-2008, 09:03 AM
I am still waiting to see if the older diesels can run on the new diesel effectively without trashing the injector pumps which is why the sulfur was there in the first place IIRC.


i think the low-sulfur diesel came out in the end of 2006, right? i have a 2005 VW Passat diesel, and my wife and i have probably put 40k miles on it since the switch to low-sulfur. yes, i know that 40k is nothing for a diesel, but so far i haven't found any problems. any guesses as to how long before a problem may show up, if it would?

andy b.

A.K. Boomer
04-19-2008, 09:05 AM
I bought a diesel car specifically because it does 52mpg, due to the prices now, i need not have bothered, diesel was always cheaper than petrol as it needed less processing.

Do they want us all to switch back to petrol?

Dave


You have to wonder if thats one of the reasons that its increased in price, everybody jumped on that train and now that nipple's getting sucked extra hard,
I told my bro yesterday that he's got the best of both worlds right now, A CRX HF (gas) thats rated 56 mpg...

wierdscience
04-19-2008, 09:17 AM
i think the low-sulfur diesel came out in the end of 2006, right? i have a 2005 VW Passat diesel, and my wife and i have probably put 40k miles on it since the switch to low-sulfur. yes, i know that 40k is nothing for a diesel, but so far i haven't found any problems. any guesses as to how long before a problem may show up, if it would?

andy b.

I'm not sure how long if ever.I don't think it would effect automotive diesels as much as the industrials or ag diesels which have a higher injection pressure.

aboard_epsilon
04-19-2008, 10:05 AM
Hi all, loking for answers.



Secondly and this one really baffles me, I recently read that world shipping is expected to change from high sulfur marine oil to regular diesel oil which will increase the worlds consumption and hence the price of diesel a lot, increases of 50% were mentioned.

Now as far as my minimal knowledge goes ALL petrochemical fuels come from crude oil. So if the shipping lines want to change, they will still be using the same source oil it will just need procesing a little bit more to remove the sulphur, so the net increase on crude usage will be zero so why should the price increase? They word it so it sounds like the ships currently run on air and will soon start sucking the world dry of oil!!



Dave

just found thios quote on the net

"and it could get much , much worse than that ; in case you don't know , world shipping runs on what is called bunkering fuel ....effectively the sludge at the bottom of the cracking process ; only problem is ......it is terribly polluting

there are international moves to cut this pollution by improving the fuel quality ; only practical way to do this ? dilute it with diesel "

all the best.......markj

HTRN
04-19-2008, 10:13 AM
Yeah, bunker oil is nasty stuff - isn't even liquid at normal temps - they run steam pipes through their fuel tanks, to get the stuff to liquify from it's normal goolike state.

And oh, the price of oil shot up dramatically a coupla days ago, to $116/barrel. That's $2.76/gallon on the spot market for crude..


HTRN

Duffy
04-19-2008, 11:16 AM
Bunker fuel could almost certainly be upgraded. As bad as it is, it can be no worse than the bitumen that is washed from the tar sands at Fort Macmurray Alberta. I believe that there is quite a cottage industury up there producing synthetic crude for shipment south. I think that you will find that refineries are generally designed and built to process a certain type of crude oil feedstock. For example, your British refineries probably handle light Brent from the North Sea, while our east coast refineries receive Venezuela crude. The residual is bunker and petroleum coke. To further process the bunker, they would have to instal an "upgrader" that treats the stuff by adding hydrogen, usually from natural gas. This is NOT a $39.98 add-on that they buy from the plumbing/heating supplier. Since they sell all the bunker they produce at present, why do anything? Did you ever wonder where the black ingredient in asphalt concrete comes from?

Davek0974
04-19-2008, 11:43 AM
Fascinating stuff, never even heard of bunker oil before! Just presumed they ran on similar stuff to diesel.

You learn something every day.

So if they currently run on a byproduct, switching to diesel will increase usage markedly. But what will they do with the byproduct?? I guess it will still be produced?

Probably fill barrels with it and bury it in someones backyard?

Dave

lazlo
04-19-2008, 11:56 AM
i called my state senator yesterday (which is a waste, but i was bored at work) and complained about the cost of gasoline. PA has the second-highest gas taxes in the U.S. i am talking taxes and surcharges placed on gasoline and diesel BEFORE state sales tax is added. i told the lady she should sponsor a bill to temporarily repeal the tax for the summer driving season. she told me they couldn't do that because PennDOT is funded by those taxes. i told her that it would be partially offset by the $0.10 increase in revenue from the increased SALES tax we pay (6% on $1.70 vs 6% on $3.50).

This is a question everyone should be asking their respective governments: since the local and federal gas taxes are a flat rate, the income from those taxes is growing explosively along with the price of gas.

So what is your local/federal government doing with all that extra income?

crancshafter
04-19-2008, 12:13 PM
Your not alone,diesel here for the first time costs more than gasoline,a lot more in fact.$4.15/gallon versus $3.12/gallon for gasoline,used to be it was the reverse.

We recently made the switch to low sulfur too,but I don't think that explains it since the price here was going up before the switch.

I am still waiting to see if the older diesels can run on the new diesel effectively without trashing the injector pumps which is why the sulfur was there in the first place IIRC.


Here in vestern europe we have used low sulfur diesel in our cars for years, no problem;)

doctor demo
04-19-2008, 12:37 PM
This is a question everyone should be asking their respective governments: since the local and federal gas taxes are a flat rate, the income from those taxes is growing explosively along with the price of gas.

So what is your local/federal government doing with all that extra income?
Keeping very quiet , and spending it as fast as they can befor it impacts the budget and they have to start doing the proper thing like reducing the red ink!
Steve

aostling
04-19-2008, 12:51 PM
i have a 2005 VW Passat diesel, and my wife and i have probably put 40k miles on it since the switch to low-sulfur. yes, i know that 40k is nothing for a diesel, but so far i haven't found any problems. any guesses as to how long before a problem may show up, if it would?
andy b.

You made a wise choice. The 2005 Passat turbo-diesel is very reliable, according to the CU database http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/models/used/volkswagen/passat/reliability.htm

Willy
04-19-2008, 03:34 PM
About a year before the price of diesel started to climb, I listened in to a conversation between two oil industry analysts.
At that time they reasoned that because of the higher energy density of diesel compared to gasoline, that diesel prices would go up to reflect the actual energy being sold.
It isn't a secret that the actual cost of production of diesel fuel is less than that of gasoline. But the oil producing countries and companies saw this as yet another excuse to stick their heads into the trough a little deeper.
The whole world is energy hungry, and dependent on oil and the high energy density inherent in fossil fuels.
I'm sure somebody got an extra turkey for Christmas for thinking of yet another "justifiable" reason for increased profits.

lazlo
04-19-2008, 05:20 PM
You made a wise choice. The 2005 Passat turbo-diesel is very reliable, according to the CU database

But diesel is over $4.20 a gallon, and getting worse. I'm not sure that's a wise choice...

Ries
04-19-2008, 05:34 PM
A few unpleasant facts-

The current USA diesel emissions standards are higher than the european ones. Especially in particulates. This means that for the last couple of years, since the law changed, NO new, stock Euro cars were street legal in the USA, especially in California. Since California is the single largest market for many models of cars, Euro and Japanese manufacturers are frantically scrambling to upgrade their diesel engines to meet US specs.
This is why there have been no diesel cars for sale for the last couple years- Mercedes has finally got one, maybe two models legalised, Volkswagen should have one this year, and Honda and Toyota are both talking about having a model for sale here within a year.
The requirements for trucks are looser, but still getting tighter all the time.
This means expensive new trucks as well.

The new low sulfur diesel that is legally required in the USA takes a different, and more expensive, refinery setup than most of our 30 to 75 year old refineries have in place. So the few refineries that can make it are running at 100% capacity, and can charge more. Until more refining capacity comes online, we will have a limited supply, but a large demand.

A large amount of US freight MUST travel by diesel truck. This is a fixed amount of demand. There are a lot of places train tracks just dont go. So trucks will buy diesel, at whatever price it costs, and pass it on to shippers as fuel surcharges. This means high prices- a captive market, without the ability to boycott or change fuels.

These two factors in particular- the fact that we have less refining capacity than demand, and the fact that freight companies are stuck using diesel, mean that US diesel prices will stay high, and are somewhat disconnected from world oil prices. Even if oil falls in price, we still need more diesel than we can refine, and the oil companies will price accordingly.

Most fuel taxes are a fixed amount per gallon, so government income doesnt go up with fuel taxes- if you pay 4.69 a gallon, or 2.00 a gallon, in my state of Washington, you still pay .36 a gallon state tax on it. But if you pay that extra 2 bucks a gallon, the oil companies keep most of it.

Obviously, what we need is more refining capacity in the USA, and more diesel made here. Then, prices maybe might come down.
But building new refineries is expensive. The Saudi's and Dutch are building a huge new refinery on the site of their existing one in Port Arthur Texas- they are calling it an "expansion" but its a ground up refinery that just uses the same docks, shipping lanes, and offices of the old one next door- and it will cost almost $8 Billion dollars. Obviously, they think they will make it back, or they wouldnt be doing it. One reason they are doing it is they need a new refinery to process the Saudi heavy sour, which they have lots of. Most older US refineries were built to refine West Texas Sweet, a lighter oil that is cheaper and easier to refine, and which is harder to find these days, as we used up all the easy to get at stuff.
I would imagine that there will soon be more infrastructure spending on diesel refining capacity. But it takes big bucks, and long lead times.

lazlo
04-19-2008, 07:26 PM
Most fuel taxes are a fixed amount per gallon, so government income doesnt go up with fuel taxes- if you pay 4.69 a gallon, or 2.00 a gallon, in my state of Washington, you still pay .36 a gallon state tax on it. But if you pay that extra 2 bucks a gallon, the oil companies keep most of it.

Most states charge sales tax on gas, and many states adjust the gas tax annually based on CPI. Washington, for example, raised the tax by 5 cents from 23 to 28 cents/gallon in 2003, and several times since then up to the current 36 cents/gallon.

In California, you pay 6% state sales tax and 1.25% county tax, plus additional local sales taxes and 1.2 cents per gallon state UST fee.

So the Federal and State governments are raking in a lot of additional revenue from the high gas prices.

sasquatch
04-19-2008, 08:22 PM
Diesel in my area of Ontario, Canada, jumped to $5.80 per Can. gallon this morning.

aostling
04-19-2008, 09:08 PM
But diesel is over $4.20 a gallon, and getting worse. I'm not sure that's a wise choice...

Yeah, it's hard to know what to do. On my afternoon walk I chatted with a man who had a Toyota Camry hybrid in his driveway. I wanted to know how the batteries stood up to the furnace heat of a Phoenix summer. He didn't know, since he had bought the car only a few months ago.

He was doubting the wisdom of his choice, because he now reads that it will take him ten years for the reduced fuel cost to be worth the extra money the hybrid cost. "That was then," I told him. The way things are going the payback period might be much shorter.

oldtiffie
04-19-2008, 09:57 PM
Question.

Why don't motorists in the US and UK use LPG in their cars?

There are a lot in OZ that do - mainly in the south and eastern states - don't know why it isn't used more widely.

I had my car converted to gas/LPG after I bought it (used) nearly 11 years ago and have not looked back.

LPG is about 40% the price of "gas" (aka "petrol" here) and I don't notice any real loss of power at all in my 3.9 litre 6-cylinder engine. Gas (petrol) is about $AU1.50 per litre whereas LPG ("gas") is about $AU0.60 per litre.

I get about 10 KM per litre from gas (petrol) = AU0.15 (15 cents) per litre whereas I get about 6 KM per liter on LPG = AU$0.10 (10 cents) per Km.

I also use petrol for starting the engine and then it switches to LPG. I also run the car on about 10 litres of petrol every month or so just to stop the petrol system getting "stale".

There is no tax on LPG but it is coming even though it will be a lot less than on petrol. The Government pays an $AU2,000 subsidy to all private fittings of LPG to cars to encourage people to use more LPG and less petrol.

Diesel here is dearer that petrol - as it seems it is elsewhere.

I really don't think that Governments will - or can - do anything to reduce the cost of petrol or diesel as they are "hooked" on the taxes and the oil companies and the host countries of the oil wells set their own prices without regard or resort or much consideration for other countries.

The Government is there to collect tax. The oil companies and foreign oil-well sourced Governments are there to make money.

The end consumer/user is only a source of revenue/tax and a classic "milking/cash cow".

All the talking, squealing, complaining and politicians promises will get you nowhere or a "token" "benefit??" at best.

Gas and diesel end-users will just have to do what they always have and alway will do: pay what is demanded or go without.

You don't have to like it, but you may as well get used to it and direct your energies elsewhere other than moaning, groaning and complaining. Its wholly counter-productive at best.

Gas/diesel/fuel is only one of the all-up costs of motoring. It often pales into insignificance alongside the capital losses and financing costs (if borrowed) or rapid replacements and increased insurances of quite serviceable cars with newer bigger ones for no real purpose other than having the latest and greatest. Those perhaps unjustified costs/losses can buy an awful lot of fuel.

I see a lot of people who really do complain about the costs of owning a car (new) and fuel "for going to work" they say who drive 100's of Km each week-end because they and/or their kids are "bored". The cafés where they moan to each other over a coffee and cake etc. are still full (and they don't walk to the café and do pay parking fees as well). I think that many of them are more interested in the complaining and having a coffee than the cost of fuel. And they pay by credit card and complain about the cost of their credit card bills!!. They pay for for their gas (petrol) on credit as well.

So the cost of gas it out of our hands - get used to it.

Pay up or go without.

jdunmyer
04-19-2008, 10:11 PM
RE: Ultra-Low-Sulphur-Diesel fuel:

When the refiners first had to make ULSD, they used a process to remove the sulphur that also removed much of the lubricity, thus causing problems with injection pumps and injectors. They have since changed the process somewhat and that is apparently no longer true, ULSD is no more harmful to a Diesel fuel system than the older fuel.

For the difference in fuel mileage, I'm still ahead of the game with my Diesel Dodge and VW than if I were driving gassers.

Norman Atkinson
04-20-2008, 02:48 AM
OT- as far as I am aware Aboard-Epsilon( Mark J) uses LPG and there is a a market for the stuff.
Unfortunately, LPG is NOT acceptable for safety reasons in places like the Channel Tunnel. Quite a lot of us travel into Europe and France each year.
I am a shareholder in the Tunnel- blah, blah.

Furthermore, I am fully aware of LPG as the HongKong taxis are all fueled by LPG. I know that they go under many tunnels but I don't make the rules!

At this point, I have a largish Merc 2.7litres diesel which does 50 odd mpg,I have a shopping trolley in the form of a petrol MiniCooper and a MercSLK 230 gas guzzling sports car which has a 'carbon footprint' bigger than the Antarctic. I keep a little petrol High and Dry 'Getz' in Spain because my wife plays jazz on a bari sax. ( That's her story, mate- and who am I to argue?)

Oui, mon capitan?

Norm

chief
04-20-2008, 03:27 AM
The price is controlled by speculation, a media reporting only what fits there agenda, Algore's garbage and a false believe that there is some magic bullet just around the corner that will free us from oil.
These factors drive the price up by encouraging environmental BS, the refinery NIMBY syndrome, and failure to drill where the oil is (unless of course you are Chinese).
Don't look for it to get any better with the current crop of political scammers viaing for the crown.
I read yesterday where people are having PTSS because they are worrying themselves sick about the environment and need therapy. These are the types of morons we must deal with the sheeple have bought into the global warming scam and government around the world are seeing this as a great way the increase taxes none of which will be spent on the global warming scam, just like cancer research far too lucrative to find a cure.

Davek0974
04-20-2008, 04:01 AM
It seems i touched a bit close to the 'worry myself sick' side of the argument, I know we just have to pay up or shut up, I was just wondering about the shipping fuel argument i read, that has been excellently answered and i have learnt something i did not know.

LPG is a possibility but with my crystal ball i can see far enough into the future to know that once we switch in large numbers, the govt. will suffer the drop in fuel tax income and then apply it all to LPG and we will be no better off. I still feel safer driving a diesel car with the knowledge that in an accident it wont explode quite so readily into a fireball, not so sure about petrol and LPG.

Its all part of lifes rich tapestry i suppose. There will always be those that sit in cafe's eating cake and moaning about something or other.

Dave

Norman Atkinson
04-20-2008, 05:26 AM
Dave,
My wife and I did 'The Italian Job' but in a diesel car.

6500 feet up, 50 feet vertical drop, 5 somersaults and into the river at -10C.

French Alps looking thru to Italy

No argument

Norm

Sparky_NY
04-20-2008, 07:45 AM
Reading through this interesting thread I thought I would point out something about diesel fuel. There is Low Sulpur and Ultra low sulphur, the latter being the new stuff. I have been reading on the subject lately because I own a work van with a GM 6.2 diesel and it appears the injection pump is getting weak. (the pump was replaced about 40K miles ago). As I read, the refining of Ultra Low Sulphur diesel is now done with a process that works too good actually, more like totally eliminating all the sulphur. I guess its easier to get rid of all of the sulphur rather than lower it to ULS fuel requirements.

Another thing, sometime in the last year I recall a story on the news that a oil company (I believe Exon Mobil but not positive), posted the largest profit in american history. IF... the rising prices of fuel are a result of supply, crude oil price, falling dollar value etc. then I would not expect the record profit. If profit is basically determined by the cost of raw materials and processing them and then the resale price, WHY the largest profit in american history????????

Somebody is laughing at us all the way to the bank.

aboard_epsilon
04-20-2008, 08:03 AM
It seems i touched a bit close to the 'worry myself sick' side of the argument, I know we just have to pay up or shut up, I was just wondering about the shipping fuel argument i read, that has been excellently answered and i have learnt something i did not know.

LPG is a possibility but with my crystal ball i can see far enough into the future to know that once we switch in large numbers, the govt. will suffer the drop in fuel tax income and then apply it all to LPG and we will be no better off. I still feel safer driving a diesel car with the knowledge that in an accident it wont explode quite so readily into a fireball, not so sure about petrol and LPG.

Its all part of lifes rich tapestry i suppose. There will always be those that sit in cafe's eating cake and moaning about something or other.

Dave

There is little chance of you ending up in a fireball with LPG .....my 80 litre tank weighs in at at over 100 kgs and has a wall thickness of over 4mm........would trust that thing in a rear end smash more than the petrol tank.

That's no problem ...


The LPG sequential ......performs almost the same as petrol ....but I get 25 percent or more less per gallon .........by the system trying to equal the petrol performance

When the price of LPG is .........3/4 of petrol .........I will not be saving anything ...

My old system an open loop ..I faired a lot better ..........that did not have anything like the performance ...as it had on petrol......but it equalled its mpg.


all the best.....markj

aostling
04-20-2008, 08:21 AM
My brother, who lives in Oslo, is thinking about having his Volvo converted to CNG (compressed natural gas). Anybody know the relative merits of CNG as compared to LPG?

John Stevenson
04-20-2008, 08:23 AM
There is little chance of you ending up in a fireball with LPG .....my 80 litre tank weighs in at at over 100 kgs and has a wall thickness of over 4mm........would trust that thing in a rear end smash more than the petrol tank.

That's no problem ...markj
It's not the tank Mark that would be the problem but the hoes and pipes.
Petrol and diesel would have to run out under gravity, LPG is pressured out.

So far the authorities haven't clocked on to the hazard however small but think on this.

A few months ago in a Yorkshire town a van blew up with two welding bottles in it. Killed the driver and caused a lot of damage.
Since then they have got paranoid about gas bottles, that so that when a van, carrying welding bottles, caught fire on the M6 at Preston about 2 months ago they closed the motorway in both directions for 6 hours until they deamed it was safe.

One of the three main motorways in the UK closed for 6 hours because of a gas bottle. The way their minds work it will only take two LPG cars to catch fire to get them all banned and don't scoff or laugh.

.

Rustybolt
04-20-2008, 08:28 AM
Bunker fuel could almost certainly be upgraded. As bad as it is, it can be no worse than the bitumen that is washed from the tar sands at Fort Macmurray Alberta. I believe that there is quite a cottage industury up there producing synthetic crude for shipment south. I think that you will find that refineries are generally designed and built to process a certain type of crude oil feedstock. For example, your British refineries probably handle light Brent from the North Sea, while our east coast refineries receive Venezuela crude. The residual is bunker and petroleum coke. To further process the bunker, they would have to instal an "upgrader" that treats the stuff by adding hydrogen, usually from natural gas. This is NOT a $39.98 add-on that they buy from the plumbing/heating supplier. Since they sell all the bunker they produce at present, why do anything? Did you ever wonder where the black ingredient in asphalt concrete comes from?


Usually Bunker C is a fraction that cannot be upgraded to fuel oil or kero, or gas. Canadian tar sands are a little different in that sand is acting as a binder for the crude which can be distilled into lighter fractions. I don't know what the quality of the crude is but refineries generally like to make at least 50% gasoline because it is the most profitable.

wierdscience
04-20-2008, 08:38 AM
LPG used to be popular here in farm communites since many pieces of farm equipment could be had to run off it and it was cheap,much cheaper than gas.I can remember $0.65/gallon or propane when gasoline was $1.65.gallon.

It is less dense than gasoline or diesel energy wise,but added to that it requires more plumbing and a fairly heavy pressure tank.Another draw back is there wasn't an easy consumer filling method availible.

Now the price per gallon is now nearly what gasoline is so it's a wash in terms of cost.The only place lpg remains popular is in forklift service,but the smaller machines are going electric.

There were some experiemnts being done to run large fleet vehicles of LNG,city busses and garbage trucks mostly,but I am not sure how many do.

oldtiffie
04-20-2008, 08:57 AM
A good discussion so far - lately.

Fuel - whether it be gas/petrol, diesel or LPG/CNG is all only part of the all-in cost of motoring.

There are things you have not and will not have any say or control over - cost of fuel is one, taxes and insurance are others.

But these pale into almost insignificance compared the the capital loss and increased insurance and interest costs associated with a new car. Depreciation losses are enormous. 10>20% if sold in the first year? How much if sold in years 3, 4, and 5? Did that new car if necessary really have to be that big with all that "good stuff" in or on it?

What of the additional cars that really could be done without?

Perhaps fuel is not such a big deal after all.

There are some of us here who recall the "oil-crisis" in the 70's. Or was it the 80's? Fuel was rationed and you could only buy so much per fill and could only fuel on "odds" and "evens" days depending on the last number or letter on your number-plate?

We better just expect "more of the same" and get used to it.

If I were dependent upon oil for heating in the colder climates I'd be even more concerned - a "double whammy".

Fortunately we have a mild climate and natural gas for space-heating, cooking and hot water.

John Stevenson's concerns regarding the potential for explosion in and LPG fueled car are reasonable. I can only say that many family cars and just about every cab/taxi run on LPG here. There are no reports that I've heard of problems in road collisions/accidents.

It is illegal to carry Oxy/acet or any fuel or flammable gas inside a vehicle ("BBQ" bottles - up to 20# - 9Kg - are or seem to be excepted). They must be chained securely in the open air.

jdunmyer
04-20-2008, 10:12 AM
RE: Natural Gas:

Using it as a motor fuel is done, but not much. There's 2 problems; storage density, those high-pressure tanks don't hold many miles' worth of fuel, and rising cost. The rising cost is largely due to the use of NG to generate electric power. Every week, I pass 2 of those NG power plants, and get enraged every time I see them. They're buring a premium fuel that is a natural (no pun intended) for home heating: I can't build a small nuke in my garage, and it isn't very practical to heat my house with coal. But, the damn enviro-whackos have put up so many roadblocks in the way of new nuclear and coal-fired power plants, that the only way the companies can provide the needed electricity is to burn MY natural gas.

Orrin
04-20-2008, 10:28 AM
Dad told me stories of he, his siblings and nearby neighbor kids collecting 20, 50 burlap sacks full of Milkweed seed pods for there silk. I believe he said it was for parachutes. Can you imagine people doing that sort of thing today? Times sure change.

The contents of the milkweed seed pods were used as a kapok substitute in life-jackets (now called personal flotation devices).

When ripe, the pods burst open and the fluffy fibers expand and create a miniature parachute to carry the seed away on the wind.

During WWII my brothers and I collected many sacks-full of milkweed pods. Seeing them hanging on fences to dry was a common sight back then.

No, I cannot imagine people doing that sort of thing, today.

Orrin

loose nut
04-20-2008, 10:50 AM
Usually Bunker C is a fraction that cannot be upgraded to fuel oil or kero, or gas. Canadian tar sands are a little different in that sand is acting as a binder for the crude which can be distilled into lighter fractions. I don't know what the quality of the crude is but refineries generally like to make at least 50% gasoline because it is the most profitable.


Bunker and Frac Bottoms used to be burned as fuel for steam generation but are falling out of favor because of the difficulty in pollution control, they are just to dirty. These fractions are now being reprocessed in units like Cat Crackers and Cokers and broken down into products the can be used. Tar sand oil can be made into gasoline but it takes the right type of units to process it.

Norman Atkinson
04-20-2008, 11:38 AM
Speaking about 'kapok' substitutes etc I tore up newspaper into 1/4 square inch pieces, They were mixed with Paris plaster and animal glue to make- relief maps for the Home Guard, We kids then went into the workshop at school and made the houses etc for the maps. Then we made models of ships and aircraft for things like Savings schemes.
A bit older, I put my skinny,emaciated frame into a Royal Observer Corps uniform. Well, if I didn't know one aircraft from another, who did.
Later, I was to change the 'seagulls' on the shoulders and pick up my Dad's or somebodies old World War 1 Lee Enfield- and go to real action.

I never got a stink'in medal but I presume that the Americans got them instead.
OOOPS, what have I said?

Norm

Smokedaddy
04-20-2008, 01:10 PM
So the Federal and State governments are raking in a lot of additional revenue from the high gas prices.

... so they can pay for all the services the illegals are allowed to access ...

-SD:

aboard_epsilon
04-20-2008, 02:42 PM
Hi uk guys ..
what do you reckon would happen if all forecourts were made to display prices ...
PER FIVE LITRES
and price rises could only happen per five litres .
like when they put it up then ...it would go up a wapping 10 pence per five litres ...overnight
do you think they would dare to do that ..
also same applies to the gov ...
in his budget when he announces 2p on a litre ......if he was made to announces 10 pence on a 5 litres ...he would be met with uproar
i reckon its out of control because of this litres pricing thing ...
the litres thing is making inflation happen ..
we should start a campaign to go back to gallons ...
we are being made mugs of .
what do you think guys.

i wrote and sugested this to the uk gouv H.M treasury in the uk in november ..adding that it help inflation etc

a new metric gallon ....The pentolitre
...usually they answer every question i sling at them ..but not this one .
all the best.mark

dp
04-20-2008, 03:00 PM
A good discussion so far - lately.

Fuel - whether it be gas/petrol, diesel or LPG/CNG is all only part of the all-in cost of motoring.

There are things you have not and will not have any say or control over - cost of fuel is one, taxes and insurance are others.

Quite true. On my Harley I spend more each year on tires than I do on gasoline. The cost per mile for the various consumables on a vehicle can be surprising.

fasto
04-20-2008, 06:09 PM
Bunker and Frac Bottoms used to be burned as fuel for steam generation but are falling out of favor because of the difficulty in pollution control, they are just to dirty. These fractions are now being reprocessed in units like Cat Crackers and Cokers and broken down into products the can be used.
Oh No! What am I going to do if Bunker C becomes unavailable? I've been using on my lathe's ways for years! Of course, I have to light the lathe on fire to move the carriage, but it has excellent stick-slip properties once it warms up! :):):)

Rustybolt
04-20-2008, 09:49 PM
Bunker c is the last fraction before tar. It is the end result of already having been processed through the system. The cat cracker is used to reformulate lighter fractions such as fuel oil and kero into even lighter fractions. It strips hydrogen molecules and recombines them.
At 112 dollars a barrel for crude, processing coal into oil is looking more and more economical.

Davek0974
04-21-2008, 04:12 AM
we are being made mugs of .
what do you think guys.

Damn straight.

There would be uproar if they announced that all wages will be reduced by 50p per week every week. Its not quite that simple but the end result is the same, its just more cash out of our pockets that they can waste on senseless things that no hardworking person benefits from.

I once wondered how long it would take the govt. to wake up if the whole country stopped using fuel at once, apart from essential services. The amount of tax revenue lost would be collossal.

Dave

oldtiffie
04-21-2008, 05:40 AM
Damn straight.
...................................
..................................

I once wondered how long it would take the govt. to wake up if the whole country stopped using fuel at once, apart from essential services. The amount of tax revenue lost would be colossal.

Dave

Thanks Dave.

You wish!!

I read over the week-end that a vision without resources is somewhere between a pipe dream, a mirage and a delusion.

That's probably right.

If things change, it won't likely be for the better, and if it did, it likely won't be anytime soon.

All you will get is empty rhetoric, spin, tokenism and government advertising (more platitudes and spin).

Governments are hooked on revenue and being seen to be "caring" and "celebrities" - always after media exposure.

Classic cases of style over substance.

All of our rhetoric or complaining either to Government or each other will be of no substantial use at all.

If you want fuel - pay the "going rate" - or go without.

It's the "knock-on effect" that will be the most noticeable.

As said recently on this forum, steel, and probably other shop materials and consumables are going up steeply again shortly, so the family/shop/business budgets look like being squeezed some more.

We just have to ride it out.

oil mac
04-21-2008, 09:29 AM
It really beggars belief, The whole of the Grangemouth oil refinery is being run down at the moment in view of a forthcoming workers strike, due to the oil company bringing in a system, where the new workers being hired will be bereft of normal company pension rights, There is a rumour that managers in this concern would rather do untold damage to this country for the next month due to lack of fuel & even more bizzare, would be the loss of revenue to this vast concern being considered, rather than the pension contributions from this concern, which are inately small compared to the loss of revenue to the company for say a weeks down time
Funny thing is we never hear of bleating and oil shortages when these vast refineries are i believe, shut down for safety audit checks
One thing for sure we will never see our most efficient, honest, caring & talented politicians, passing any rules or regulations, which will impinge on their fat pensions, which seem to mature in a fraction of the time of any ordinary worker-- Where is the level playing field?
Talking of such the vast cost of a huge pair of games stadiums being built in London and Glasgow would take ones breath away, Wasnt it the old Romans who gave the peasants circuses to take trheir mind of the shambles, Not a lot has changed in 2000 years!

Deja Vu
04-21-2008, 09:40 AM
Thanks Dave.



We just have to ride it out.


Yeh, right...
Ride it out to where? I guess if one is in the middle (class), wherever that range falls, the ride will be uneventfull provided that class has no emotional ties to the lowers or uppers.... compassion for the lows and incense to the uppers.

Carld
04-21-2008, 10:48 AM
Willy, actually gasoline comes off at a lower temp than the kerosene, diesel, heating oil, etc. It takes less energy to refine gasoline than diesel, etc. Do a google on the refining process and the temperature each breaks down at.

Evan
04-21-2008, 11:06 AM
There is a lot of scam reporting going on re the price of oil. The price you see on the news is the futures price, not the real selling price per barrel. Contract prices are much lower than the reported futures prices. Nobody is actually taking delivery of oil and paying the reported futures prices right now.

Current extraction cost of oil in Saudi Arabia is $9 per barrel and up to as high as $45 for some shale deposits. Average extraction price worldwide is $21 per barrel. Transport to the US is about $2 per barrel average and refining adds a few more dollars. The rest is profit taken somewhere along the line. The tables you see showing marginal profit levels are not telling the real story since for reporting purposes the profit is calculated on the contract price, not the extraction cost.

An oil company with it's own oil fields isn't paying delivery contract price to anybody never mind fictional futures contract prices so the real cost base is the extraction cost. There is currently an over supply of real deliverable oil in the market and there has been for the last 18 months. Oil basket prices for oil delivered now are around $100 dollars for the average crude grade mix and range down to as low as $80 or so for the common sour crudes such as Saudi sour and Brent sour crude. The reported futures contract prices are based on a fictional barrel of Texas Light Sweet Crude which is the highest quality oil available and barely exists in the real marketplace.

Bottom line is that the oil companies will be reporting new record profits soon.

Don't ask for links on all this, I pay for some of the information.

Dawai
04-21-2008, 11:14 AM
Now Norm:
(I never got a stink'in medal but I presume that the Americans got them instead. OOOPS, what have I said?)

Sieg heil.. Herr Dumbkoff Norm, Sprecken die Deutch nien?

Looks like you got your medal, and freedom for the foreign lives spent at your expense. That is unless your life since has been worthless, have you accomplished anything with it? helped others?

No respect.. none.. And then the untold lives lost, My grampa died from direct result of welding up the liberty ships, many untold deaths not directly done with Nazi bullets. AND where did them liberty ships go? My other grampa was a merchant marine. I Had a old Victory at Sea tele show with him running from Aircraft fire into the ship. The VHS tape is bad now.. I swear it was his lil skinny butt tho.
His lineage was german, imagine the hypocrisy of helping others. So was my Uncle, George Wolfenbarger, he was in Germany shooting his cousins for YOU.

Do you feel properly spanked yet?




I feel fine about gas prices everytime I see a big SUV tailgating my motorcycle with only one lil Poofy haired woman driving it, one occupant.. has all the creature comforts, everything inside to take her mind off her driving and my life in stake, in my small sub compact car or motorcycle. They drive that SUV to a HUGE house they won't be able to afford heat, payments, and insurance on. SO? What will come of the misdirected, greatly challenged Americans now? Can you see them sharecropping cotton? or kneeing in the garden.. OMG, that would mean sweating. And they'd need the proper style of shoes.

THIS settlement of gas prices is just a equalization of money and world production and invention, America climbed up on the rest of the world and dominated, now they are climbing up level.. so expect some shortages, downfalls, loss of mortgage payment potential.. We are no longer world leaders. Our homes are being devalued as this post is aired.

WE DO HAVE GUNS THO, (History lesson)"we can have bread, or cannons, which do you prefer, with cannon you can take bread." (one of Hitlers speeches)

I guess the world is ready for future Chinese domination.. and you do know they won't be as nice as the American occupation. Different rules. They subscribe to military domination also.
WE DO HAVE GUNS THO, without weapons to defend yourself, your neighborhood, your country, learn to Ka-tou. (touch your head to the ground in front of your masters)

Have faith in God, I have none in our government. I have studied the enemy, he is "US". Soft, fat, weak and old. DOOM AND GLOOM is forecast till we find a few modern heros. We have none as candidates. Your situation is worse. I've lived a full and fun life, have faith I will go onto a glorified body and leave this wrecked one behind.

Tinkerer
04-21-2008, 11:37 AM
There is a lot of scam reporting going on re the price of oil. The price you see on the news is the futures price, not the real selling price per barrel. Contract prices are much lower than the reported futures prices. Nobody is actually taking delivery of oil and paying the reported futures prices right now.
Our homes are being devalued as this post is aired.
Yep it all boils down to the Wall Street Traitor's... who'd shank their Mumm's for a Nickels Profit. Then when there play for the profits blows up instead of facing the back of the bread line... they get bailed out from the working stiffs pockets via their favorite Uncle. As far as the home values go... only your equity value is shrinking... not your TAX evaluation. It WILL go UP. So it Worth Less but you'll PAY MORE.:rolleyes:

Alistair Hosie
04-21-2008, 02:28 PM
when it comes to paying tax on fuel we pay around 85% or more in fuel duty.Then the mayor of london wants to charge , or is charging people for going into London by car.I don't think we should avoid our share of paying taxes for poluting the atmosphere but why should we pay more than our share when China and india etc etc etc are polluting the atmosphere at a much , much, greater rate than us and hardly doing anything about it it's stupid rip of Britain.I learned from a BBC programme a few months ago that foriegners coming into this country unemployed are able to claim all benefits going including unemployment benfits for wife no 2, 3, 4 ,5, 6, etc etc etc.We are the laughing stock of the world with our liberal stupid policies sometimes I wonder where this is all going to end.does this happen in canada usa etc please tell me?????Alistair

Davek0974
04-21-2008, 03:21 PM
when it comes to paying tax on fuel we pay around 85% or more in fuel duty.Then the mayor of london wants to charge , or is charging people for going into London by car.I don't think we should avoid our share of paying taxes for poluting the atmosphere but why should we pay more than our share when China and india etc etc etc are polluting the atmosphere at a much , much, greater rate than us and hardly doing anything about it it's stupid rip of Britain.I learned from a BBC programme a few months ago that foriegners coming into this country unemployed are able to claim all benefits going including unemployment benfits for wife no 2, 3, 4 ,5, 6, etc etc etc.We are the laughing stock of the world with our liberal stupid policies sometimes I wonder where this is all going to end.does this happen in canada usa etc please tell me?????Alistair

You're a man after my own heart Alistair. Dont get me going on immigration, benefits etc. The way this country is run makes me sick.

Dave

rgbai
04-21-2008, 04:27 PM
A lot of folks can't understand how we came
>
> To have an oil shortage here in our country (Canada)
>
> ~~~
>
> Well, there's a very simple answer.
>
> ~~~
>
>>
> The reason for that is purely geographical.
>
> ~~~
>
> Our OIL is located in
>
> ~~~
>
> ALBERTA~
>
> BRITISH COLUMBIA~
>
> MANITOBA~~~
>
> COASTAL NEW BRUNSWICK~~~
>
> COASTAL LABRADOUR~~~
>
> Our
>
> DIPSTICKS
>
> Are located in
>
> OTTAWA ONT.!!!
>
>
>

Weston Bye
04-21-2008, 04:42 PM
Just got my oil well check today.:D $88 a barrel, from a northeastern Montana well. Pumped a lot of barrels, but my share was only $58. Almost paid for my gas to NAMES.

David: Good post #49.

Rustybolt
04-21-2008, 06:02 PM
There is a lot of scam reporting going on re the price of oil. The price you see on the news is the futures price, not the real selling price per barrel. Contract prices are much lower than the reported futures prices. Nobody is actually taking delivery of oil and paying the reported futures prices right now.

Current extraction cost of oil in Saudi Arabia is $9 per barrel and up to as high as $45 for some shale deposits. Average extraction price worldwide is $21 per barrel. Transport to the US is about $2 per barrel average and refining adds a few more dollars. The rest is profit taken somewhere along the line. The tables you see showing marginal profit levels are not telling the real story since for reporting purposes the profit is calculated on the contract price, not the extraction cost.

An oil company with it's own oil fields isn't paying delivery contract price to anybody never mind fictional futures contract prices so the real cost base is the extraction cost. There is currently an over supply of real deliverable oil in the market and there has been for the last 18 months. Oil basket prices for oil delivered now are around $100 dollars for the average crude grade mix and range down to as low as $80 or so for the common sour crudes such as Saudi sour and Brent sour crude. The reported futures contract prices are based on a fictional barrel of Texas Light Sweet Crude which is the highest quality oil available and barely exists in the real marketplace.

Bottom line is that the oil companies will be reporting new record profits soon.

Don't ask for links on all this, I pay for some of the information.


It was and always will be supply and demand. the real problem right now is throughput. The demand is high ,but there are no new refineries being built so the supply will remain choked. Yes indeed oil companies are raking in profits, but they aren't stuffing all that money under a matress somewhere. Payrolls are being met. bonuses given, and jobs are being created. Shareholders are happy. Exploration will occur for more oil. Profits are good.It isn't a zero sum game.

Evan
04-21-2008, 06:54 PM
Supply and demand doesn't always dictate the price of a commodity product. In this case the discrepancy is enormous. We have the futures price hanging up there like a magic levitation act with no visible underlying fundamentals to support it. Refining capacity isn't a part of the current scenario nor are supplies at any level. There is slightly more gasoline in the system right now than there was in the system a year ago going into summer and the real demand is projected to be less.

Some of the factors that are keeping the price up right now are concerns over possible geopolitical events, and yes, that includes Iraq and Iran. Another is the increasing concern over the ability of the US to pay it's debts. As the dollar continues to fall in value there is a premium added to the price by many of the producing countries. It isn't direct but by controlling apparent supplies they are able to manipulate the market easily. The investing world hangs on every pronouncement of the Saudi oil minister and the activities of OPEC in general.

The general feeling is that there is a "get while the getting is good" mentality present in the OPEC Cartel. Don't forget that the OPEC Cartel represents a type of monopoly structure that if it were under US jurisdiction would be entirely illegal.

Another important factor is general ignorance on the part of the everyday investor as to how the market actually works. In particular there is little realization of the relative importance of various suppliers. Canada is not usually factored into the equation correctly even though it is the largest single supplier of both crude and refined petroleum products to the USA. Even more important is the lack of vulnerability of that supply to geopolitical events. The Canadian supply is virtually 100 percent secure and presents a very dependable supply base.

The current market is far more driven by physchological factors than by conventional economics. This is most apparent in the huge volatility present in the commodities markets in recent months.

lazlo
04-21-2008, 07:39 PM
Current extraction cost of oil in Saudi Arabia is $9 per barrel and up to as high as $45 for some shale deposits. Average extraction price worldwide is $21 per barrel. Transport to the US is about $2 per barrel average and refining adds a few more dollars. The rest is profit taken somewhere along the line.

OPEC only controls 40% of the world's oil supply. Canada and Mexico, for example, are not OPEC countries, and they charge the same amount for crude as Saudi Arabia does. They are the number 1 and number 3 oil suppliers to the US (Saudi Arabia is number 2).


Bottom line is that the oil companies will be reporting new record profits soon.

The oil companies have been reporting record profits for the last 5 years in a row. Their annual profits increasing at a 75% compound annual growth over the last 5 years.
Exxon Mobil made $40 Billion in profit last year -- a historical high for the company 5 years running... Their 4th quarter 2007 report (from February 1) was $11.7 Billion in profits. That was the highest quarterly and annual profits ever for a U.S. company.

mark61
04-21-2008, 08:06 PM
I agree with Evan.

It is all just disgusting greed. How long can it go on until enough of us "average people" are pushed to some sort of revalution or retribution? In history's past it happened regularly but since we are "civilized" now some people-greedy Wall Street/oil/business type- must think it won't happen again. Boy are they in for a rude awakening!

It is all just human nature!

mark61

Evan
04-21-2008, 09:54 PM
OPEC only controls 40% of the world's oil supply. Canada and Mexico, for example, are not OPEC countries, and they charge the same amount for crude as Saudi Arabia does. They are the number 1 and number 3 oil suppliers to the US (Saudi Arabia is number 2).

It isn't as simple as that. All the majors have a presence in Canada both in natural gas and oil. How much Canada "charges" depends on the mineral rights royalties that they pay. That varies from time to time and company to company. As I pointed out, the price per barrel reported for the purpose of public consumption in profit calculations isn't the true cost to the oil company. Their cost is the sum of all the exploration and extraction costs, plus the royalties levied by the government. Those normally come nowhere near the futures prices or even the daily contract settlement prices.

Also, as I said, nobody is paying the benchmark Texas light crude price. It simply a price that is adjusted with a discount that reflects a number of variables including oil quality, cost of transportation and other factors .

oldtiffie
04-21-2008, 10:26 PM
Running a house-hold is running a small business.

Its no good squawking about the cost of gas and the profits of the oil companies etc. as whether you like it or not, just about everybody is talking and nobody is listening.

A lot like the celebrated "chattering classes" isn't it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chattering_classes

Anyone (or their pension fund - if they have one) who has shares in those oil (and similarly profitable) companies won't be complaining.

No matter what you say or who you say it to, it is "pay now or go without" with gas at the service station and just about everything else.- "Credit/debit" as it is is only delaying the inevitable "settling-up" of costs transferred to debts.

All that the oil companies are doing is selling you gas the same way that other businesses sold you plasma screens and home theaters recently. The profits on them were enormous - and there are lots of similar examples. The difference seems to be that they were not "big oil" and so were not complained about - I wonder why?

All of them are on a "pay now" (or put it on you credit account) basis. We pay cash at point of sale.

Whether you pay cash or EFT "up front" or by credit and "pay later" is your business is of no consequence or concern to the oil or any other company nor should it be.

It is classic "user pays" sooner or later - but better sooner than later.

We pay everything under $500 by cash. Anything else is paid by EFT - straight from our account to the traders account - there and then - so that the cost is debited from our account and credited to the traders account over-night. We only use cheques where the amount is above our EFT limit. I can withdraw cash up to the balance in our account if I go into the Bank and withdraw it over the counter. I can give a "cash" cheque if needs be and the payee can "cash" it at our bank on his way home or just deposit into his account as he chooses.

All of our regular accounts: heating/cooling, electricity, natural gas, water/sewerage, insurances (car and property etc), Medicare etc. etc. are paid by "Auto-deduct(ion)" from our account every month.

If we buy something on our VISA card (we only have one card) and if that is on "Credit", and if the VISA debit balance is less than $500 it is paid by auto-deduct each month. If the account is over $500 it is reduced to zero immediately by EFT-ing/transferring funds from our cheque account as a credit to the VISA account.

We pay every account that is received either electronically or by post/mail within 48 hours of receipt either by EFT, or VISA, or credit if unavoidable and by cheque as a last resort. "Terms of Trade" are of no use to us.

If we have someone working here we only employ/hire people that we know or know of. We pay them 50% at acceptance of quote or start of work and by cash or EFT as soon as the work is complete and before they leave on the last day.

We don't "short change" anyone or make them wait for payment. We pay a fair "going rate" and are open to unforeseen "extras". We have no problem getting people to work for us and we never have any problem with the works done. If there is a need for a "call-back/out" we get it - right away - and there are no ill-feelings - either way.

We work on the basis that as soon as a service has been delivered the money that we have for it no longer belongs to us and goes as soon as possible to the rightful owner - the person who provided the service.

We are always in credit ie in the "black" and never "in the red".

All that we are doing is bringing forward all of those payments or obligations that are going to have to be paid eventually.

If we don't have the cash we either go without or save up for it. There isn't much that can't be anticipated or allowed for or that really can't wait.

We keep a "buffer" of 6 to 12 months anticipated expenditure in readily available cash so that any "bumps" or "blips" can be catered for and still be in the "black". In the event that we "eat into" that "buffer" we then have to go without and save up to restore that buffer - it is our first priority - every time.

It has taken us a lot of work and time and going without - and a lot of luck too - to get where we are. We are comfortable "in our own skins" and not "well off" or "rich" by any means in the way that many might measure wealth as "having things". We've had our "ups and downs" over time but it has more or less worked out as we hoped it would.

We never started to upgrade my work-shop and my wife's hobby room and the gardens here until I was 67 and only "hurried it up" due to perceived "lack of time" due to "medical reasons", else we'd still be "slowly getting there".

Both my wife and I are from totally unskilled families that never got into debt because in the 30's, 40's and 50's no one would lend our parents money as they had no collateral to borrow against. Living from week-to-week and sometimes "hand-to-mouth" was a fact of life then. Going without and going hungry was not unknown to us. We didn't think it unusual as just about everybody where we lived was the same and we rarely ventured outside our own district (which was in the slums). We maybe went to the "City" or "Town" for a special occasion once or twice a year.

It should surprise nobody that our "pet hate" (if you like) is "owing money".

We expect that gas is going to keep increasing as are/will food, and utilities etc, so we are planning to "pull our horns and belts in" - again. It has happened several times since the end of WW2 and since we were married in 1959.

So, for us, paying for gas for the car is not seen to be any more a problem than anything else in running and budgeting in a small house-hold.

We are "old" by any measure. My days of "jumping up and down" and getting upset are pretty well gone as we have too few years left and we intend to make the most of what is left to us.

All of this "concern" about the price of gas and what-ever else is just somewhere between a shrug and a yawn to us as we can do nothing about it.

Others may see and react to it as they will.

lazlo
04-21-2008, 10:46 PM
All that the oil companies are doing is selling you gas the same way that other businesses sold you plasma screens and home theaters recently. The profits on them were enormous - and there are lots of similar examples. The difference seems to be that they were not "big oil" and so were not complained about - I wonder why?

All of this "concern" about the price of gas and what-ever else is just somewhere between a shrug and a yawn to us as we can do nothing about it.

The big difference is that the world's oil supply has peaked, but India and China are demanding oil at explosive rates, as their economies come on-line. So the current oil and gas prices are going to continue to sky-rocket, and it's going to affect our lives a whole lot more than the price of plasma screens.

Right now, the U.S. consumes 1/4 of the world-wide oil supply, but we have 5% of the world's population. India and China have around half the world's population. Do the math.

One direct impact is that worldwide food prices are soaring -- up 35% in the last year, and it's going to get much, much worse:

Food Prices Soaring Worldwide (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hY6QytGQclZ5k8yFlaDr0VZin6IwD8VJULF00)

wierdscience
04-21-2008, 10:46 PM
I do know that Exxon,BP and Shell are spending some serious coin here in the gulf states.

The independance project is one,Exxon just doubled it's Pascagoula,Ms refining capacity from 300,000 to 600,000 BPD and there is still and will be for several more years tons of repairs in the gulf.

They aren't just sitting on the money,they are spending tens of billions in repairs,upgrades and new production capacity.For the first time in years just about anybody here in the oilfeild supply and equipment mfg business is booming.There are five ads in the local p---ant paper looking for welders,machinists,fitters and instrument techs.

I am beginning to think that the current boom in construction offshore and on is at least partly fueling the rising cost of metals.I've been seeing more heavy section steel being bought in and all sorts of cupra-nickel pipes fittings and valves than we have seen in years.

lazlo
04-21-2008, 10:51 PM
They aren't just sitting on the money,they are spending tens of billions in repairs,upgrades and new production capacity.

That $11.7 Billion in 4Q profits that Exxon/Mobil reported last February is net profit. That's after they've written off all their overhead (payroll, maintenance, repairs, upgrades, research, lobbyists...).


Exxon Mobil made $40 Billion in profit last year -- a historical high for the company 5 years running... Their 4th quarter 2007 report (from February 1) was $11.7 Billion in profits. That was the highest quarterly and annual profits ever for a U.S. company.

Evan
04-21-2008, 10:57 PM
They are spending all right but remember that the reported profits are after expenses including thoses expenses.

[Robert types faster than I do...}

lazlo
04-21-2008, 11:01 PM
Sorry Evan -- he was closer to Texas than Canada :)

wierdscience
04-21-2008, 11:19 PM
That $11.7 Billion in 4Q profits that Exxon/Mobil reported last February is net profit. That's after they've written off all their overhead (payroll, maintenance, repairs, upgrades, research, lobbyists...).

It's not illegal you know.Besides I like the answer given to congress last year at the dog and pony show hearings.

When asked about the profits there were making one execs reply was "we are running a business,we have to make a profit to stay in business,we cannot run our business like the congress runs the nation,we can't run a deficit every year for 50+ years and stay in business.

If your looking for greed look to the futures traders,they are fat as ticks with it.

wierdscience
04-21-2008, 11:23 PM
Do I need to remind both of you that not every dollar of a large project is paid out in any one year?

Right now there are nearly $120billion in projects let but not completed,those have yet to be paid for and won't be paid for in total in any one quarter or year.

Besides that Walt Disney is still pacing them at a higher percentage,I don't see congress investigating them every year.

Evan
04-22-2008, 01:14 AM
One of the problems Darin is the strong appearance of price fixing. Why does the price of gasoline go up everywhere just before a holiday? Why is it going up at the pumps right now? Canada is the only prompt supplier to the US with Venezuela next at 10 days delivery time. The middle east takes 6 to 8 weeks for oil pumped today to arrive. The gasoline at the pumps right now was bought at prices two months ago. But when the futures contracts go up so does the price at the pumps, even if the price was falling when the oil was bought. Even more telling is that the price goes up fast and down slow.

The fact that the oil companies are making such huge profits points to a lack of competition. They freely trade product between corporations to save shipping costs. The products they sell with supposedly special ingredients are really just the same additive package that they all must use. There are a number of commodity markets that don't follow normal economic principles. Oil is one, gold and diamonds are two others.

Doc Nickel
04-22-2008, 01:31 AM
One of the problems Darin is the strong appearance of price fixing. Why does the price of gasoline go up everywhere just before a holiday?

-Because holidays are high travel periods, where more people than average make longer-than-average trips? That's been the norm since the late fifties or early sixties. Why is that any kind of a mystery?

No one seems to make claims of 'price fixing' when the airlines jack up rates for Thanksgiving and Christmas, and they do it for the exact same reason; fixed supply plus increased demand equals increased price. That's Economics 101.


Why is it going up at the pumps right now?

-Because despite increased prices, demand it still at record levels. Demand in the US has dropped slightly (0.3%, as I recall) but worldwide it's still climbing steadily.

Oil, being a commodity, is sold on commodity pricing, not regional.


The gasoline at the pumps right now was bought at prices two months ago.

-Yes, but the money recieved for that gasoline today has to pay for it's replacement. Every store in the world- okay, every large and organized store in the world, operates the exact same way.

A store buys a load of milk in gallons for $2 each. While they're selling that load, the price goes up to $3. The store has to raise the price on the existing inventory, else they won't have the money to buy more at the higher price.

Again, first semester Economics 101. Everyone does it, but nobody seems to complain when it's McDonalds or K-Mart.

Doc.

Evan
04-22-2008, 03:48 AM
No one seems to make claims of 'price fixing' when the airlines jack up rates for Thanksgiving and Christmas, and they do it for the exact same reason; fixed supply plus increased demand equals increased price. That's Economics 101.

The airlines remove discounts from regular prices during high demand periods. That is far from being the same thing. Also, the supply of flights like the supply of gasoline isn't fixed. More flights can be added on very short notice and they are. More gasoline can be delivered to the pumps when needed and it is. The measure of the amount of fuel available in the US is the total days of supply available. It is around two months worth so minor blips like a long weekend should have zero impact on the supply side, and they do.

Economics 101 says that prices rise in response to increased demand because the amount of product available diminishes. It DOES NOT say that the price rises in advance of anticipated demand and by all retailers simultaneously and by the same amount even though there is no shortage of product. That's Price Fixing 101.


Oil, being a commodity, is sold on commodity pricing, not regional.

Nonsense. We have a perfect example of regional pricing right here in Williams Lake. We pay approximately the same pump price per litre of gasoline as they do in Vancouver. Vancouver however has a local area transit tax hidden in their price of around 12 cents per litre, we do not. The possible extra cost to ship gasoline here is only around 0.5 cents per litre. We are being taken to the cleaners and every one of the oil companies is doing the exact same thing here. The price varies by no more than a few tenths of a cent across the range of stations and companies in this town.


-Yes, but the money recieved for that gasoline today has to pay for it's replacement. Every store in the world- okay, every large and organized store in the world, operates the exact same way.

No, they don't and they are not all selling base commodities. Also, the replacement cost is not known. It may be less and frequently is as the price goes down as well as up. Further, if a business must depend on the money received today to buy new stock then it is in trouble. You pay your product cost back, not forward. A product when sold pays it's own cost plus profit, not the cost of future product. That's Economics 101.

Doc Nickel
04-22-2008, 05:11 AM
The airlines remove discounts from regular prices during high demand periods.

-Yessir. They also charge more for first-class upgrades, raise general-seating prices, and more recently, have started adding additional fees for luggage.

But again, while people gripe about those costs, I've rarely heard claims of price fixing.


Also, the supply of flights like the supply of gasoline isn't fixed. More flights can be added on very short notice and they are.

-To an *extremely* limited extent. The majority of airworthy planes are currently in rotation, and the majority of airports are already approaching their limits for arrival/departures and passenger handling. Airlines could, if necessary, add a few fractions of a percent more flights, and even then only temporarily, as maintenence schedules allow.

Now, that's as it was last spring, and I'm not sure how recent events like the Delta merger and futher-increased fuel costs have affected things, but if nothing else, airline capacity was pretty much already at it's sustainable maximums.

Much like gasoline supplies. We have sufficient stocks of oil, but every refinery in the United States is running balls-to-the-wall to produce enough to keep up with demand. That's what caused the gas-price spike after Katrina; it wasn't the loss of oil, it was the loss of refining capacity, and our system has already been running on the thin edge of "just in time" production anyway.

That's what you get when the newest refinery in the United States was built over thirty years ago- and that one was on the island of Hawaii. Our demand has almost tripled since then, but we've added no new refineries, and only marginally incrased the capacities of exisiting ones.

We can NOT simply start cranking out more gasoline. In order to do so, we'd have to cut back on the production of other stocks, like diesel, or push the plant from a sustainable 94% capacity to a risky 96% and hope the catalyst towers hold out.


More gasoline can be delivered to the pumps when needed and it is.

-Certainly. But in extremely limited quantities over and above current usage, and in no case for free.


The measure of the amount of fuel available in the US is the total days of supply available. It is around two months worth so minor blips like a long weekend should have zero impact on the supply side, and they do.

-When's the last time we had two months' of refined product on hand? The local plant has that much in feed stocks, in-process reformates, and finished products, but the finished supplies of gasoline and diesel amount to less than two weeks' worth.

In any case, if the plant is producing, say, 10,000 gallons a day (just to throw a random number out) at 94% capacity, and local demand of that plant is 10,000 gallons a day, the actual reserve of that plant is effectively nil.

It may have 100,000 gallons on hand, and thus able to provide fuel for the area for ten days at normal consumption rates, but after that reserve is exhausted, then it's a major problem getting those stocks built back up again- and while they do, there's insufficient supply for local demand.

So saying we have X days/months of reserve on hand is misleading at best. That's the main problem here- the price of oil is an issue, definitely, but the thing that's biting us Americans in the ass right now is the lack of refining capacity, not any real or percieved shortage of oil.


Economics 101 says that prices rise in response to increased demand because the amount of product available diminishes.

-Um, yes. That's correct. When supplies are stable but demand increases, the price goes up. When the demand remains stable but the supply goes down, the price goes up. It's not an either/or situation, and demand was still increasing here in the US, up until just the last quarter.


It DOES NOT say that the price rises in advance of anticipated demand and by all retailers simultaneously and by the same amount even though there is no shortage of product. That's Price Fixing 101.

-Um, no, sorry. Holiday demand loads are known, predictable and reliable events. People travel to relatives and on vacations at certain times of the year. But, just because the demand is known ahead of time doesn't invalidate the tenets of economics. Gas stations stock up prior to long weekends or holiday seasons, and everyone knows that all the stations are doing so, which increases demand, which in turn increases price.

Most stations will have to restock during the long holiday or over the holiday season, and again; the product has to be sold now, at a price that can replace itself. If the increase in demand/price is known, the stations raise the prices accordingly.

If we had excess refining capacity, the change in prices would be reduced or possibly even nonexistent. A surplus of supply is less affected by blips in demand. But right now, our refining capacity is within a bare few fractions of a percent of demand, which magnifies those "blips" and leads to major issues like the problems after Katrina.


Nonsense. We have a perfect example of regional pricing right here in Williams Lake.

-And the at-the-station price per gallon here, less than 15 miles from the refinery, which is less than ten miles from eight of the platforms that supply it with crude, is a solid 20-plus cents per gallon more than up in Anchorage, which is supplied via a heavy 90-mile pipeline.

The explanation I was given? Gas stations have to make a certain percentage profit per installation. That makes sense, right? Electricity, property taxes, heat, phone, employees, etc. are all relatively fixed costs. However, our small-town stations don't see the throughput- sales in gallons- as those in a larger city (less traffic) and so the per-gallon price is slightly higher.

It makes a queer sort of sense, but I know it "feels" better to simply say them bad ol' Oil Barons are price-fixing.


Also, the replacement cost is not known. It may be less and frequently is as the price goes down as well as up.

-Yessir. Spot prices do indeed fluctuate, often fairly considerably. But the stations can still look at trends- just like the rest of us do- and base what they'll need to by next week on what the price is today. Which in turn lets them set today's prices.

Sometimes the station reaps a minor windfall when the supply price drops, other times they take a loss when the supply price rises faster or further than expected. Again, every store takes this sort of thing into account, and tries to base their prices around an average gain. (of course.)


Further, if a business must depend on the money received today to buy new stock then it is in trouble.

-Don't be pedantic. Every business out there- with the possible exception of a few dot coms- operates on the assumption that this months' income will pay for next months' production, and anything left over is profit.

Again, every gas station out there will take the occasional loss as the price went higher than expected, and then the occasional surplus when the price dropped lower than expected- or didn't rise as much as expected. But, with reasonable management, those highs and lows average out over the year.

It's quite normal for nearly every business out there, and especially so for those that deal in commodities- oil, steel, corn, etc.


You pay your product cost back, not forward. A product when sold pays it's own cost plus profit, not the cost of future product. That's Economics 101.

-Um, yes. But when the commodity in question is sold at razor-thin margins (most gas stations, at least here in the US, make less than ten cents a gallon profit) and subject to constant- nearly daily- fluctuations in price, the retailer must factor in replacement costs, not just what the existing product cost.

Example; local boat shop I deal with, took delivery of enough sheet aluminum to build six boats (skiffs, probably about 18 to 20-footers) less than a month before the price on aluminum went up over 30%. Since then, the price has risen an additional 30%.

This shop is in the business of building skiffs- lots of commercial and sport fishing in the area. When he's built those six boats, should he price them on what he paid for the material, or what it'll cost for him to replace the material?

Remember, material costs are now better than half again higher than before. If he doesn't raise his material costs, the cost of the replacement material will have to come out of his labor costs, meaning he's be taking a big hit on earned income.

You retired sorts might be willing to work for free, but those of us that build for a living have to watch that sort of thing. I know I don't want most of this months profits eaten away by what I have to buy to make next months parts.

Doc.

oldtiffie
04-22-2008, 06:33 AM
Its no good complaining to me or anyone else. The oil companies do it because they can. If its legal, they can do it.

That's just how it is.

Yours, mine or anyone else's not liking it is not going to change it. And any of our not liking it doesn't make it wrong. "Not nice" etc. etc.- maybe so, but still not wrong.

The US has a long way to go before "all-in" motoring costs even approach those in other countries where net disposable income per person on a "like-for-like" comparison is much lower than the USA and so they are doubly disadvantaged compared to the USA.

Someone (again, I can't remember) said: "You/we(?) never had it so good". That well may be true even now and will or may be looked back on in the future and the "good old days" (again).

As someone (I forget who) said: "The business of Business is Business". 100% correct. The Social Service provision in in the realm of Government - not business.

The oil companies returns on investment overall is not too bad considering their huge risk and investment time.

I'd guess that their "mark up" and profit per dollar is no more than some traders in things like electronic consumer goods and cosmetics. Some of the mark ups on tools and machines which have higher "shelf-life" are very high as well. There are plenty of others.

Refinery construction , maintenance, infrastructure etc. have long lead times and costs involve huge amounts of what almost seems to be between venture and high risk capital with no "out" in the interim. There is no return on capital in these circumstances but borrowing cost continue to accumulate at an accelerating rate.

I suspect that oil companies may pay more tax than banks.

I expect that "Big Oil" provides a lot of jobs in areas and skills that banks and financiers do not - as said by others in previous posts.

I am no apologist for "big oil" - at all - but I can see some of the reality in it all.

Banks and financiers can make fortunes over-night. I have no argument with that either, but I do wonder why Central Banks (and Government) are so quick to step in and rescue them when they make imprudent investments and thus appear to have Government (ie tax-payer) backing and under-writing.

I am not convinced at all that we have seen all of the losses, consequences or "wash-up" of the "Sub Prime" debacle.

Banks and oil companies - among others - are providing a service as a way of making money. Banks profits until recently have been huge by any measure without the long-term commitment and risk of oil companies.

Banks and a lot of consumers got badly burned recently as they thought the music would never stop playing and that the times were "normal" when they clearly were not. It was combination of rampant greed and a sense of omnipotence and immortality that brought them all undone.

There are going to be some very worried people when interest rates are re-set and some of those "no deposit, no payments for 12, 24, 30, 36 etc.months" become due on stuff that was bought then and is of almost no value now and much of which has reached the end of its useful life.

People may have a seriously lot less equity in "stuff" than they thought or hoped.

Those that have to sell will be doing it into a falling/buyers market -at the buyer's price - if and when the buyer chooses to buy. After all is said and done, anything is only worth what someone (else) is prepared to pay on the day. "Distressed" sales have the worst record as regards returns. Its a lot like eBay in a way. The agents and commission-takers will not lose as they will get their "cut" both "coming and going".

There were too many novice gamblers who took too much risk with escalating property and shares as well as over-gearing with "margin lending" - all in addition to huge levels of personal debt.

I suspect that loans will be very much harder to come by and if obtained will have seriously increased conditions and rates of interest.

I'd guess too that lenders (Banks and others) will be a lot harsher as regards delinquent loans and will not hesitate to foreclose and take what ever recovery and/or realisation remedies as are available to them as soon as they can.

It will be so much harder to get a loan or "finance" if you are on a debtors ledger for not meeting payment conditions.

I think that the price of gas may well be least the "cost" items that will effect house-holds the most in the not too distant future.

It will be - as it is now - pay up or go without.

Norman Atkinson
04-22-2008, 06:48 AM
'Auntie BEEB' or the BBC to the rest, has just announced a further 25% rise in fuel bills.

Last night, I was discussing costs with a neighbour who owns a food factory.
The rises for wheat etc have gone through the roof whilst he affirms that there is more to come. He's part Chinese(hence my 'do' last evening) and China is now importing rice because the agricultural workers are moving to better factory pay and conditions. Again, British farmers are sick of being pi55ed off and are growing rapeseed for the oil for Diesel transport.

We were discussing 'wartime' hence my other posting.

And now Royal Bank of Scotland is 'Skint, dicky mint, flat broke' and is having a gigantic 'Rights Issue' to raise capital from shareholders.

I did have fine night( Clutch, don't let the apparel, proclaim the man)

Tentatively

Cheers- well, a few

Norm

Evan
04-22-2008, 06:53 AM
Doc,

Much of that logic is flawed although some of it does describe the current situation which has come about in part because of the use of such flawed logic.


-Don't be pedantic. Every business out there- with the possible exception of a few dot coms- operates on the assumption that this months' income will pay for next months' production, and anything left over is profit.

That might apply to very small businesses but it doesn't apply to large corporations that are publicly held, unless they are in serious trouble. They pay for their products via investor capital and if approved as necessary retained profits. They most certainly don't rely on the assumption that the income from the product sold today will be used to buy more product. I'm not being pedantic because I'm not talking about the mom and pop corner store, I am talking about the oil companies.


That's what you get when the newest refinery in the United States was built over thirty years ago- and that one was on the island of Hawaii. Our demand has almost tripled since then, but we've added no new refineries, and only marginally incrased the capacities of exisiting ones

Yep. I know that. Canada doesn't have that problem, we even export refined products. Yet we still have the same (or worse) predatory pricing tactics here. That reasoning doesn't hold as an explanation for the pricing.



-Um, no, sorry. Holiday demand loads are known, predictable and reliable events. People travel to relatives and on vacations at certain times of the year. But, just because the demand is known ahead of time doesn't invalidate the tenets of economics. Gas stations stock up prior to long weekends or holiday seasons, and everyone knows that all the stations are doing so, which increases demand, which in turn increases price.

That is circular logic and not valid economics. The supply and demand "equation" does not include economic projections as part of the demand factor driving prices. It says that current demand is what drives prices and increases in prices follow reduced inventories. Preemptive pricing strategies are not part of the conventional supply and demand theory.

Again, we see the same pattern here and we have no problems with inventory levels.


The explanation I was given? Gas stations have to make a certain percentage profit per installation. That makes sense, right? Electricity, property taxes, heat, phone, employees, etc. are all relatively fixed costs. However, our small-town stations don't see the throughput- sales in gallons- as those in a larger city (less traffic) and so the per-gallon price is slightly higher.

It makes a queer sort of sense, but I know it "feels" better to simply say them bad ol' Oil Barons are price-fixing.

It sounds like it makes sense which is why you were told that. The cost of operating a gas station in Williams Lake is far lower than a station in the Vancouver area. Land costs alone are staggeringly high in the Vancouver area. Taxes are far higher, wages are higher, all of the costs of doing business are higher. Volumes however are probably not that much higher than stations in Williams Lake. This is a main refueling stop on the way to Alaska and points north and south. It's also a resource extraction center where the number of large diesel trucks on the road almost outnumbers automobiles. Those trucks haul logs and other products 24/7 in some cases.

Also, you are specifically ignoring the special circumstance I mentioned in that the tax structure is different here to Vancouver to the tune of around 50 cents a gallon yet we pay the same or even higher pump price. I have talked to some of the station owners and they sure aren't seeing that extra money. That leaves the Oil Barons you mentioned. And, it doesn't make anybody feel better either.

Peter S
04-22-2008, 07:20 AM
My brother, who lives in Oslo, is thinking about having his Volvo converted to CNG (compressed natural gas). Anybody know the relative merits of CNG as compared to LPG?

Aostling,

Here in NZ both CNG and LPG were heavily promoted starting back in the 1980's (not sure of the exact date) because we have more gas than oil reserves.

CNG was the cheapest fuel, but was always hampered by a poor range, less power and only available where the pipe lines went. The power and range situation may have improved with factory-fitted conversions and computer management, but I suspect still some disadvantage compared to LPG and Petrol.

LPG cost a little more, gave better range and power and was pretty widely available. This was back in the days of carburettors and most of our conversion kits were Italian or sometimes Impco (USA). Starting could be a problem, so it wasn't unusual to switch to petrol for starting. I suspect this was because the kits were after market and not factory fitted, and there was also a learning curve in the industry here.

Basically CNG got a bad name and has faded away, now I don't know even if you can get it. I think when the price of fuel dropped, and when the government stopped subsidising conversions, the gloss went off both LPG and CNG here. I suspect there might be some renewed interest soon, but I also think people just keep paying more and more now for petrol with not so much concern as they did a few years back.

The guys who have safety concerns are worried about nothing, strange what people worry about. Reminds me of the doom-sayers in NZ when unleaded fuel was introduced. I wish they would all stand up and explain themselves now, but they are probably onto a new theme by now.

-------

I heard today some of the current oil price rises are because of Shell's problems in Nigeria, they are defaulting on their suppliies there because of attacks on their pipelines etc.

aostling
04-22-2008, 07:41 AM
Aostling,

Here in NZ both CNG and LPG were heavily promoted starting back in the 1980's (not sure of the exact date) because we have more gas than oil reserves.



Thanks Peter, I will relay this to my brother. It is his house remodeler, who is from Poland, who put the bug in his ear about doing a CNG conversion. Apparently the work can be done for cheap, in Poland. But I doubt if it would be worth it in the long run.

I left NZ in 1978, before the CNG and LPG fuels were available. I think petrol cost $0.26/liter then, and I was able to get 26 km/liter on my Honda XL250. I'd take a ten-day holiday tour on it, with my Mountain Mule pack behind me on the seat.

Norman Atkinson
04-22-2008, 08:15 AM
This CNG, LPG, gas gasoline and whatever comparison is 'plain hike'
Whatever the argument propounded, the fact remains that we- you and me are going to get ripped off. Moreover, it will get worse not better.
Fannying off on a Polish polka will not solve the problem! Going from one conversion to another sounds like someone who has got 'religion' but doesn't quite know which God offers ultimate salvation.

One possible answer is to cut one's coat according to one's cloth and get rid once and for all, uneeded gas guzzlers.If you want a gas guzzler, well, damned well, get your hand into your pocket and pull some more notes out than someoneone who has less delusions of grandeur but has a relatively economical car.

Today, 50mpg is not impossible. 50mpg is what a fairly big German car will offer. Howeverr, if you are are tite arsed git, you can buy a small Diesel which will house 4 average people with luggage in comfort and give 75mpg.

I have a car which will do the 50+mpg in the UK and it cost the earth whilst my Spanish car cost peanuts and does the 75mpg.

Yer pays yer money and yer makes your choice---- but don't moan about what a lousy chooser you are.

A few years ago, Moma, Poppa and the two kids and the family pooch crowded onto an Italian scooter with a 125cc engine and a pair of tires from a P-51D. I had one- but couldn't convince the dawg to be such an idiot.

Norm

Davek0974
04-22-2008, 08:31 AM
Amazing thread:D

Just done some basic Google research, using published figures from 2004 for world oil reserves and 2001 world oil consumption, the maths indicate that there are around 50 years of viable crude left in one form or another.

I know about oil-sands and other horrible to recover deposits but using our crystal balls, what vision do you all have for the latter part of the next 50 years?

Dave

Rustybolt
04-22-2008, 08:51 AM
Amazing thread:D

Just done some basic Google research, using published figures from 2004 for world oil reserves and 2001 world oil consumption, the maths indicate that there are around 50 years of viable crude left in one form or another.

I know about oil-sands and other horrible to recover deposits but using our crystal balls, what vision do you all have for the latter part of the next 50 years?

Dave


discounting of course the the new oilfield found in N. dakota and the massive field found in Brazil and the new oil discoveries off the Faulkland Islands.
There is no shortage of crude. There is a shortage of crude processing.

Commodities trading itself is a zero sum game. For every loser the is a winner. At the end of the day the books must balance. That is not to say that futures prices absolutely dictate the market price. Commodities traders are making a bet. Some are betting that the demand six months from now will be greater. Others bet that the demand will slacken. It is ultimately the buyer at the wellhead or the feedlot that will determine price of a commodity. The marketplace always determines the price of goods bought and sold. If prices seem unduly high then look for choke points in the supply chain or unusual demand in some other area or an artificial influence such as a government regulation.
As always" The price of a thing is what that thing will bring"

aboard_epsilon
04-22-2008, 08:52 AM
Amazing thread:D

Just done some basic Google research, using published figures from 2004 for world oil reserves and 2001 world oil consumption, the maths indicate that there are around 50 years of viable crude left in one form or another.

I know about oil-sands and other horrible to recover deposits but using our crystal balls, what vision do you all have for the latter part of the next 50 years?

Dave

WELL DAVE AS WELL AS FUEL PRICE HIKES YOU NOW GOT TAX HIKES TO WORRY ABOUT

The new tax rates for cars in lovely britain .

For cars registered after March 1st 2001

From the 2008 budget report

2008-2009 Co2 (g/km) Price for 12 months (effective from 13th march)

A - Up to 100 - £0
B - 101-120 - £35
C - 121-150 - £120
D - 151-165 - £145
E - 166 - 185 £170
F - Over 186 (1) £210
G - Over 226 (2) £400

(1) registered before 23rd march 06
(2) registered after 23rd march 06

2009-10 / 2010-2011 + (first year rate)

A - Up to 100 £0 / £0 + £0 (fyr)
B - 101-110 £20 / £20 + £0 (fyr)
C - 111-120 £30 / £35 + £0 (fyr)
D - 121-130 £90 / £95 + £0 (fyr)
E - 131-140 £110 / £115 + £115 (fyr)
F - 141-150 £120 / £125 + £125 (fyr)
G - 151-160 £150 / £155 + £155 (fyr)
H - 161-170 £175 / £180 + £250 (fyr)
I - 171-180 £205 / £210 + £300 (fyr)
J - 181-200 £260 / £270 + £425 (fyr)
K - 201-225 £300 / £310 + £550 (fyr)
L - 226-255 £415 / £430 + £750 (fyr)
M - Over 255 £440 / £455 + £950 (fyr)

The (first year rate - fyr) means that, for example, for an M band car you would pay 950 for the first year and then 455 each year, thereafter.


bet gas guzzler buying ...is going to be a thing of the past here .
all the best.mark

oldtiffie
04-22-2008, 08:57 AM
Thanks Dave.

I suspect that those "published" figures may not be all that was know of then or now. I suspect too that it might be Governments that are either controlling access to it and/or keeping those "strategic" reserves "under wraps".

I expect that while there is a demand and buyers at what-ever the price that it may all become viable for some oil company to develop the technology to extract and refine at commercially worthwhile rates.

Davek0974
04-22-2008, 09:22 AM
yes, i doubt very much that the figures include all oil, dont see how they could. Extraction technology is improving all the time as well.

It must happen one day though, an announcement on the radio etc that fuel rationing is being started on a global scale, plastic production reduced so on. Sounds like a plot for a sci-fi film:)

It took millions of years to produce the oil and i guess its still going on somewhere underground, but surely we will catch up with nature one day not too far away?

We will all endup back with horse drawn carriages and steam trains(cant all be bad then!)

My opinion regarding vehicle tax hikes varies but i do think that there is little place in the world for any vehicle that is not efficiently using fuel now. Why take the kids to school in a 6ltr 4x4 at 25mpg when you could use a 1.6ltr saloon at 50mpg? Or even better, teach the kids to WALK? might also help the weight problem? Maybe i'm the only one who thinks that? Pricing them off the streets is one way, but i doubt it's strong enough.

I stopped using guzzlers years ago, I was a big landrover enthusiast but got fedup with getting 12mpg, now i couldnt even afford that sort of usage.

How does everyone see the world and its consumption of oil in the next 50 odd years?

Dave

Evan
04-22-2008, 09:57 AM
I know about oil-sands and other horrible to recover deposits...
The Alberta tar sands are no longer considered "horrible to recover". The extraction cost per barrel is now down into the low teens by using in-situ recovery done by injecting superheated steam in horizontal drill bores. The main cost other than the drilling is the cost of making steam. Right now that is a major user of natural gas supplies which is in part responsible for higher natural gas prices in North America. Natural gas isn't a world wide priced commodity since it isn't very economic to ship in large quantities.

The use of natural gas is (correctly IMO) seen as a waste of natural resources. The industry is pressing for permission to use simple nuclear reactors as steam generators instead of gas. This is currently under consideration and could be implemented relatively cheaply since we aren't talking about a full blown power generating facility. They can even be made portable by expanding on existing Canadian portable reactor technology.

Canada has a reactor design called the "Slowpoke" which is a research reactor. However, it is a highly scalable and inherently safe reactor design that shuts down because of physics in a loss of coolant situation. The standard model produces only 20kw of power but a 1.5 megawatt design exists and larger units are easily possible. It's rated for unattended operation for periods of time and only needs refueling after 20 years.

The Canadian tar sands contains as much as 1.5 TRILLION barrels of oil making the Canadian reserves the largest in the world. That is enough oil to supply North American demand for two centuries at current rates of consumption.

lazlo
04-22-2008, 10:08 AM
discounting of course the the new oilfield found in N. dakota and the massive field found in Brazil and the new oil discoveries off the Faulkland Islands.

I saw that post on PracticalMachinist where the guy posted those same links, and it's a joke.

The oilfield in North Dakota is not new -- it's been around since the '80's. What happened was that Senator Byron Dorgan, of ahem -- North Dakota, funded the USGS to re-investigate the potential of the oil field in his back yard. A a result of Senator Dorgan's study the USGS upgraded their estimate of the oil field from their 1995 estimate of 151 million barrels of oil to a "technically feasible" estimate of 3 billion barrels. Technically feasible is an oil industry term that means, essentially any modern technical means necessary to extract the oil, that includes hot steam injection, and all sorts of economically infeasible methods. Shale oil is in the same category.

Do you remember the $5 Billion Shale Oil debacle during the Carter administration? So now Senator Dorgan is going before Congress asking for millions of dollars to develop new processes to extract the previously unclaimable oil from his constituents.

lazlo
04-22-2008, 10:22 AM
There is no shortage of crude. There is a shortage of crude processing.

The world-wide production of crude oil peaked in 2005 at 85.24 million barrels per day, and has been flat ever since. US oil consumption has been increasing at 3%/year. But India and China's consumption of crude has increased 35%/year since 2005. Note that 2005 is when gas prices started to rise explosively.

This chart is from the US Department of Energy:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8f/World-oil-support-1997-to-2007.svg/800px-World-oil-support-1997-to-2007.svg.png

Rustybolt
04-22-2008, 10:31 AM
Isn't that what I said? There is no shortage of crude oil. There is a shortage of crude oil processing.
"Peak oil" is a strawman since no one knows how much crude is still in the earth.


It may very well be, as one theory holds, that oil is constantly being made in the earth. That it isn't actually dead dinos, but organic matter being processed deep within the earths crust. Interesting theory anyway.

lazlo
04-22-2008, 10:32 AM
There is no shortage of crude oil. There is a shortage of crude oil processing.

That number is crude production Rusty. Crude extraction has peaked world-wide at 85 million/barrels/day. That's what's causing all the oil prices to skyrocket.

Evan
04-22-2008, 10:36 AM
Not so fast Robert. While it is certain that demand from China is playing a part it isn't the entire reason or even the major reason for high prices at this time. Many other factors play a part as I explained earlier. The various speculative premiums on the price of oil are estimated to be in the range of HALF the current price. In other words if all sources of uncertainty were removed and geo-politcal events were calm the price would be around $50 per barrel in current dollars.

The price right now isn't a notable record in inflation adjusted dollars. We are just catching up to 1981 when the price had exactly zero to do with China or India demand.

http://vts.bc.ca/pics3/gas.jpg

Note also that the numbers for crude production do not include oil sands production.

Davek0974
04-22-2008, 10:38 AM
Canada has a reactor design called the "Slowpoke" which is a research reactor. However, it is a highly scalable and inherently safe reactor design that shuts down because of physics in a loss of coolant situation. The standard model produces only 20kw of power but a 1.5 megawatt design exists and larger units are easily possible. It's rated for unattended operation for periods of time and only needs refueling after 20 years.

This is the type of thing that grinds my beans, they have the technology to create the required steam from a small reactor, tried and tested, yet they choose to burn a limited resource instead.:mad: 20 years seems a good usage of fuel to me, extract a lot of barrels of oil in 20 years. I cant see us heating or cooking with a nuclear reactor within that time so why waste gas which is more suitable for heating/cooking etc? I guess its easier to use gas, but not very responsible.


The Canadian tar sands contains as much as 1.5 TRILLION barrels of oil making the Canadian reserves the largest in the world. That is enough oil to supply North American demand for two centuries at current rates of consumption.

Thats very reassuring and interesting, i did'nt know they were that large.

Evan
04-22-2008, 10:47 AM
The industry would like to go nuclear on extraction. The problem is the usual one called NIMBY. Except these days NIMBY has turned into BANANA2 which is "Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything or Anyone".

lazlo
04-22-2008, 11:29 AM
The Canadian tar sands contains as much as 1.5 TRILLION barrels of oil making the Canadian reserves the largest in the world. That is enough oil to supply North American demand for two centuries at current rates of consumption.

Thats very reassuring and interesting, i did'nt know they were that large.

Tar sands are not counted as oil reserves by any country, because you can't economically extract the oil.

Or more accurately, it takes more energy (and greenhouse gases) to heat and filter the tar sands than the actual oil you get from it. Tar sands are also typically saturated with highly toxic heavy metals. Tar sands are officially classified in the oil industry under the same category as shale oil: "Unconventional sources", and are counted as "oil resources" (as opposed to "oil reserves").

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

Unconventional sources

Unconventional sources, such as heavy crude oil, tar sands, and oil shale are not counted as part of oil reserves. However, oil companies can book them as proven reserves after opening a strip mine or thermal facility for extraction. Oil industry sources such as Rigzone have stated that these unconventional sources are not as efficient to produce, however, requiring extra energy to refine, resulting in higher production costs and up to three times more greenhouse gas emissions per barrel (or barrel equivalent). While the energy used, resources needed, and environmental effects of extracting unconventional sources has traditionally been prohibitively high, the three major unconventional oil sources being considered for large scale production are the extra heavy oil in the Orinoco river of Venezuela, the tar sands in the Western Canada Basin, and the oil shale in the Green River Formation in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming in the United States. Chuck Masters of the USGS estimates that, "Taken together, these resource occurrences, in the Western Hemisphere, are approximately equal to the Identified Reserves of conventional crude oil accredited to the Middle East."

Despite the large quantities of oil available in non-conventional sources, Matthew Simmons argues that limitations on production prevent them from becoming an effective substitute for conventional crude oil. Simmons states that "these are high energy intensity projects that can never reach high volumes" to offset significant losses from other sources. Moreover, oil extracted from these sources typically contains contaminants such as sulfur, heavy metals and carbon that are energy-intensive to extract and leave highly toxic tailings.

Mad Scientist
04-22-2008, 11:45 AM
Some months back I was listening to a talk radio program; the guest being interview was a minister who was ministering to the guys that were building the Alaska Pipe Line. He was not paid by the oil company but because the groups that he worked with had better productivity they had no problem with him being there. Along the way he also became friends with many of the company’s managers.

Thus one day a management friend said that they were bring in a new offshore well in a new area and would he like to come along and watch. Of course he went. The well that came in proved that they indeed had found a huge new reservoir. Everyone was excited about the find.

The next morning he is reading the local paper and finds it strange that there is not a word about it. Stopping by the oil company’s office the guard takes him immediately to one of the company’s officials who in no uncertain terms told him “That he saw nothing, he knows nothing, and he most definitely will not say anything if he knows what is good for him.” His friend, a 20 year employee of the company, was fired for even allowing him to watch the event.

It turn out that the price oil was not high enough back then and releasing these oil would have only lower the price. Clearly we can’t have that.

Well obviously he telling about it, and even has written a book with the help of his friend, who has since been rehired and given his pension back, as a means of silencing him.

So how many other stories are there like this are waiting to be told???? Are we really running out of oil or is there a hidden agenda?

lazlo
04-22-2008, 12:06 PM
Not so fast Robert. While it is certain that demand from China is playing a part it isn't the entire reason or even the major reason for high prices at this time.

If you look at your chart, gas prices started to rise precipitously in 2005, which just happens to be when the world supply of crude oil peaked at $85 million barrel/day. It's not a coincidence.

Malc-Y
04-22-2008, 12:23 PM
I have just filled the tank on my car, a Land Rover Discovery 3.9 litre V8 and it cost me £93 .. about $186! and it wasn't even empty, the low fuel light had not yet come on. This tank full will take me about 250 miles. I wish I could bring it to the US to fill up!!! Petrol (gasolene) is £1.10 ($2.20) a litre here now and diesel is even more expensive!

Malc. :mad:

Evan
04-22-2008, 12:45 PM
You know that correlation doesn't prove causation. Maybe there is a connection but there are so many other factors at work right now that any connection is heavily obscured. We probably have a very large field of crude oil off the west coast here in BC but there hasn't been any exploitation as yet. Canada's total oil production is rising rapidly with the major constraint being the availability of skilled labor and places for them to live near the job sites. It is estimated that production will double within the next few years.



Despite the large quantities of oil available in non-conventional sources, Matthew Simmons argues that limitations on production prevent them from becoming an effective substitute for conventional crude oil. Simmons states that "these are high energy intensity projects that can never reach high volumes" to offset significant losses from other sources. Moreover, oil extracted from these sources typically contains contaminants such as sulfur, heavy metals and carbon that are energy-intensive to extract and leave highly toxic tailings.

That information is obsolete as current statistics show. In situ extraction has obviated most of the environmental concerns and applying nuclear technology to the steam generator problem is under serious consideration.

http://vts.bc.ca/pics3/oilprod.jpg

Norman Atkinson
04-22-2008, 12:51 PM
And Malcolm, we came up from the Channel Tunnel and found prices far higher on the A1 than that. You want to have a go at the Cairngorms.
You know that Aberdeen is the oil capital of the UK and this is just over the hill- and the Black Isle is almost insight over from Inverness.
( could I catch the Loch Ness Monster and grind it down to make Diesel oil_

Cheers- Exits to 'the Ball of Kirriemuir'

Norm

lazlo
04-22-2008, 01:09 PM
You know that correlation doesn't prove causation. Maybe there is a connection but there are so many other factors at work right now that any connection is heavily obscured.

The world-wide oil supply peaked in 2005, and prices have risen precipitously since then. I think the causality is pretty obvious :)


That information is obsolete as current statistics show. In situ extraction has obviated most of the environmental concerns and applying nuclear technology to the steam generator problem is under serious consideration.

That data is current Evan -- all the oil producing countries, including Canada, don't count tar sands as oil reserves because the only way to extract it is by strip mining. "In situ extraction", as you say, is a polite way of saying "Strip Mining": they use steam to force the buried bitumen up to the surface, and then open-pit mine it. Tar sands are a coarse mixture of bitumen and sand, and the only economical way to extract it is by strip mining:

http://ostseis.anl.gov/images/photos/TarSands-600.jpg

As I posted above, the other major tar sand deposits are in the US (Colorado/Utah) and Venezuela, which has an even larger deposit than Canada. In fact, many other countries have large deposits of tar sands, including Russia, and various countries in the Middle East, but won't touch them because of the devastating environmental impacts, the high extraction costs, including high energy requirements and greenhouse gases generated.

So it all depends on how badly your country wants the oil...

Here's the Alberta tar sands depository:

http://ostseis.anl.gov/images/photos/TS-Open_pit_Suncor-600.jpghttp://ostseis.anl.gov/images/photos/TS-mining-600.jpg

dockrat
04-22-2008, 01:40 PM
Here's the Alberta tar sands depository:

http://ostseis.anl.gov/images/photos/TS-Open_pit_Suncor-600.jpg

Lazlo...Those pics bring back memories..ran one of those shovels for 25 years until I retired 1 1/2 years ago. I think your pic has been transposed. The operators coop should be on the right side. here is a pic of my Tonka toy

http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/hh67/Dockrat1/IMGP0519Medium2.jpg

Willy
04-22-2008, 02:28 PM
Ernie, was that at Highland Valley Cooper?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6TVCzJd2W8

If so, you are probably in this one.

dockrat
04-22-2008, 02:36 PM
Ernie, was that at Highland Valley Cooper?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6TVCzJd2W8

If so, you are probably in this one.

yeah Willy....thats the place

Evan
04-22-2008, 03:35 PM
That data is current Evan -- all the oil producing countries, including Canada, don't count tar sands as oil reserves because the only way to extract it is by strip mining. "In situ extraction", as you say, is a polite way of saying "Strip Mining":
Sorry, but that is incorrect. In situ doesn't involve digging up anything. Those pictures are of the old original process which is open strip mining.

In situ mean "in place" in Latin and that is exactly what it is. The oil is liquefied in place and pumped out of the ground leaving the surface intact.

You need to do some more research Robert. I know this field because I make money knowing it.

This is what in-situ tar sands production looks like.

http://www.neb.gc.ca/clf-nsi/rpblctn/spchsndprsnttn/2005/cndnl/mg/mg13-eng.jpg

The direct environmental impact is virtually nil. It's what I invest in and for that reason.

lazlo
04-22-2008, 03:52 PM
Sorry, but that is incorrect. In situ doesn't involve digging up anything. Those pictures are of the old original process which is open strip mining.

Sorry Evan, but those are current pictures from Suncor, the subsidiary of Sunco which is strip mining Alberta to extract the bitumen from the tar sands.

The vast majority of Alberta's tar sand is mined by strip mining. In Situ mining is an active research project. The same technology is proposed, but nowhere near economically feasible, for extracting shale oil.

The Alberta Oil Sand page:

http://www.oilsandsdiscovery.com/oil_sands_story/story.html

Since the 1920's, open pit mining has been central to oil sands development. Mine equipment from the early years was scaled up significantly when large commercial operations started to come on line. The first large scale commercial operation, Great Canadian Oil Sands (now Suncor Energy), introduced German manufacturer O&K bucketwheels from the coal mining industry when they opened in 1967.

In situ technology is expensive and requires certain conditions like a nearby water source. Production from in situ already rivals open pit mining and in the future may well replace mining as the main source of bitumen production from the oil sands.

Challenges facing in situ process are efficient recoveries, management of water used to make steam, and co-generation of all (otherwise waste) heat sources to minimize energy costs. Other methods of in situ recovery look promising, and are in research stages of development.

Evan
04-22-2008, 04:15 PM
I thought something looked fishy about that photo. I'm not positive but I am pretty sure that isn't even a tar sands mine photo. Based on what I can see of the plant stacks in the background it looks like the coal mine that feeds the power plant at Lake Wabamun. I've been past there many times. The Suncor tar sands processing facility which that photo is purported to be has only one tall stack and one shorter stack. The Wabamun power plant has two tall ones and some various shorter ones. The configuration of the buildings is wrong too. That's an old coal mine. I notice that it a popular photo on various environmental activist web sites. I suspect they aren't all that careful about checking their sources.

Evan
04-22-2008, 04:21 PM
You should pay more attention to what the links you post say. In situ doesn't and can't involve digging up anything. It far too deep to dig up. In situ is used on deposits 500 feet down or deeper.

Your quote "Production from in situ already rivals open pit mining"

The rest of the quote:



The Oil Sands Story: In situ


About 80% of the oil sands in Alberta are buried too deep below the surface for open pit mining. This oil must be recovered by in situ techniques. Using drilling technology, steam is injected into the deposit to heat the oil sand lowering the viscosity of the bitumen. The hot bitumen migrates towards producing wells, bringing it to the surface, while the sand is left in place ("in situ" is Latin for "in place"). Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) is a type of in situ technology that uses innovation in horizontal drilling to produce bitumen. In situ technology is expensive and requires certain conditions like a nearby water source. Production from in situ already rivals open pit mining and in the future may well replace mining as the main source of bitumen production from the oil sands.

Challenges facing in situ process are efficient recoveries, management of water used to make steam, and co-generation of all (otherwise waste) heat sources to minimize energy costs. Other methods of in situ recovery look promising, and are in research stages of development.




So, 80 percent of the tar sands can't be dug up and the oil will be recovered with minimal environmental impact.


The vast majority of Alberta's tar sand is mined by strip mining.
Not any more it isn't. The largest operator in Alberta is Imperial Oil and they have three times as much land under production from in-situ than from mining. In-situ is also more efficient with recovery rates up to 80 percent.

http://www.imperialoil.ca/Canada-English/Images/News/EL_060608_slide03.jpg

http://www.imperialoil.ca/Canada-English/News/Speeches/N_S_Speech060608.asp

lazlo
04-22-2008, 04:50 PM
I thought something looked fishy about that photo. I'm not positive but I am pretty sure that isn't even a tar sands mine photo.

Except for the fact that it's posted on the Agronne National Labs, Tar Sands Industry Partnership page, with the caption "Tar Sands Open Pit Mining, Alberta, Canada."

http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/tarsands/index.cfm

But still, if you're unwilling to believe a photograph, at least you can concede the comment on the Albert Oil Sands page which explains that In Situ injection of steam is an experimental extraction method:

"Production from in situ may well replace mining as the main source of bitumen production from the oil sands."

That's pretty clear that the current main source of bitumen production is strip mining.

lazlo
04-22-2008, 04:58 PM
So, 80 percent of the tar sands can't be dug up and the oil will be recovered with minimal environmental impact.

That's not what it says Evan:

"Since the 1920's, open pit mining has been central to oil sands development.
...
80% of the oil sands in Alberta are buried too deep below the surface for open pit mining. "

So they're mining the tar sand that easy to get to with open pit strip mining, and when they run out, they're forced to explore experimental processes like In Situ.


Not any more it isn't. The largest operator in Alberta is Imperial Oil and they have three times as much land under production from in-situ than from mining.

That says that Esso has 3 times as many acres of land holding allocated for In Situ mining. It say nothing about what percentage of the current oil production is from strip mining or In Situ.

lazlo
04-22-2008, 05:07 PM
You should pay more attention to what the links you post say.

The largest operator in Alberta is Imperial Oil and they have three times as much land under production from in-situ than from mining. In-situ is also more efficient with recovery rates up to 80 percent.


If you read the full set of PowerPoint foils you linked, it's an investment opportunity presentation by Eddie Lui, the Vice President of Oil Sands Research and Development. It's a proposal to it's parent corporation, Esso, to develop In Situ technology for a 300K acre plot they purchased where the tar sands are too deep for strip mining.

http://www.imperialoil.ca/Canada-English/Images/News/EL_060608_slide01.jpg

"Good morning. I'd like to thank the Edmonton Society of Financial Analysts for the opportunity to speak to you today and to share with you Imperial Oil's current development and future opportunities for thermal in-situ oil sands production. "


Eddie proposed that, if funded, his In Situ research project would reach a peak target production is 300,000 barrels a day, in a joint project with Exxon/Mobil. That's literally a drop in the bucket compared with the strip mining of tar sands, which currently generates 40% of Canada's crude oil production.