YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted April 25, 2006 Author Share Posted April 25, 2006 Politically, it looks like Bush folks agree with me! http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BUS...-04-24-21-02-48 NA, NA, Naa, NA, NA...couldn't resist the AD response, nothing personal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in Chicago Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 Okay then we are not arguing on that point, misunderstood, and I probably should have know better. With all the consolidation in the refinery business, you are saying that capacity has not decreased. I have heard that using suspect maintenance schedules, companies are taking many of them off line and that we are not refining at anywhere near capacity. If I am wrong and I have only heard this through rumors, blogs and Salon.com I stand corrected, but if true that would constitute manipulation of supply and therefore prices. 669256[/snapback] I have worked long enough in the 'oil business' to speak with some knowledge about this. Actually, refining capacity tanked in the late 80s and early 90s when the first of reformulated gasolines were mandated. Smaller refiners just did not have enough money to make the investment and still remain profitable. Those inefficient refineries shut down and stayed shut down. The consolidation did happen but that is only in the number of refinery owners - not refining capacity. The magic that us chemical engineers did (and I feel the community deserves a pat on the back) did was that capacity in the remaining refineries kept creeping UP over the years and we are back to where we were before in terms of capacity. I don't have the exact numbers. Now on to what is being done with the capacity. Average capacity utilization is running around 93% which is an awfully high number for reasons a bit too complex for this discussion (not all units can run at 100% simulataneously). Previously, it was thought that such pedal to the metal operation will cause big problems. But maintenance schdeduling and planning has become an art form and the frequency of maintenance has gone DOWN in the 90s and continues to be so. What this means is that the unit is processing more on a continuous basis than ever before. So any and all rumours about poor maintenance is just baloney. Let those bloggers show me data and I will prove them wrong any day. So, refiners are truly doing their best to get as much gasoline to the market as they safely can (too much stretching of process units can cause safety problems which no insured refiner in their right minds will risk). Hope this convinces you that there is no supply side manipulation. I can gladly provide information that proves my points but it will be long and boring reading for you (no sarcasm here so don't read this wrongly). As an aside, the one place where capacity utilization is down right pathetic is Russia. They typically run at 30-40% of full capacity. I have done a project there and it is sad , as an engineer to see the wonderful pieces of equipment in such severe state of disrepair. That is living proof of how capitalism drives business to higher and higher levels of efficiency thus making the consumer better off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 First let me clarify CTW and AD and any other supply siders or so called free marketers...there is no such thing as true free markets when they are consolidated so far that there is no practicle way for an outsider to enter the market. Me laughing at you had nothing to do with your economic policy thoughts (though they are pretty laughable). I was more referring to the idea that a few "thousand" gallons would have any effect on a country that used nearly a BILLION gallons of oil per day. You're a smart enough guy to spend ten seconds doing research from credible sources instead of using garbage like Salon and web blogs. Clinton did it in the mid 90s and Gas prices remained stable. Demand is greater because of the Chinese, but refinery capacity is much lower and the number of refiners have decreased. No he didn't. It was September of 2000 and it had negligible market effect in the US. Most of the 30+ million barrels released (24+ light sweet, 6 million + sour) ended up overseas because US refineries didn't have the capacity to refine it. Europe probably thanked him because most of it ended up there and they didn't have to touch their SPR. FaninChicago knows what he is talking about. I worked the last 6 years in an oil company building. I don't pretend to know everything that goes on with it, but I get a really good cross section from some really smart people who deal with this stuff every day. Politicians have done more to screw this up over the past 20 years than the oil companies (not that they are at all blameless). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in Chicago Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 Here is a link to the capacity, demand, utilization and capacity increase information . Look from slide 26 onwards as the rest is probably too technical for this current discussion. If so inclined, read the notes for each slide. http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petrole...2006/index.html And yellow, Bush seems to have heard you. Not sure what this will amount to, my suspicion is not much. But hey, it sounds good for the headlines. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060425/pl_nm/bush_energy_dc_4 Yet another point I failed to make earlier. In anticipation of the upcoming summer driving season and in preparation for the switch to ethanol, several refiners planned maintenance shutdowns this spring. (Recently maintained equipment can crank out more gasoline). This, combined with other factors has caused the recent spike. Most turnarounds are completed, and one of the nations biggest refineries in the Gulf Coast finally came back onstream this month after the severe Katrina damage. I expect prices will not continue their upward trajectory for too long unless demand drastically exceeds the 1.4% or so expected this year or if the political unrests worsen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 I expect prices will not continue their upward trajectory for too long unless demand drastically exceeds the 1.4% or so expected this year or if the political unrests worsen. 669814[/snapback] So, are you saying that gas prices may have a direct correlation to the type of driving activity that Americans do, and the cars they buy and buy? I think we need a Congressional investigation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 So, are you saying that gas prices may have a direct correlation to the type of driving activity that Americans do, and the cars they buy and buy? I think we need a Congressional investigation. 669862[/snapback] i don't know why anyone needs a vehicle that large. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in Chicago Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 i don't know why anyone needs a vehicle that large. 669882[/snapback] Not driven by needs but wants - either psychological or social. I have a doctor friend who owns two SUVs - one a Cayenne for his commute through Chicago traffic & the other a Lexus 470 for his dimunitive framed wife to go to the health club ! But hey, he can own it so he does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 Yep, in the good old days they killed people off in the hundreds of thousands, instead of this 5 a day stuff. Wimps. 669194[/snapback] Little bit here and there... Not good, not good... Just more stupid ways of getting killed now... Like getting zapped taking a shower because someone cut the ground wire (even if one existed... So much work needs to be done bringing the country up to speed) to the water heater... Or insurgents getting jobs (because we want to hire Iraqis first and foremost) then pacing off distances to relay off for motar fire... You know... Sneaky, stupid little ways... Deaths that don't make the news yet, add up through the years. Either way you look at it... It is a mess... Mass death or through attrition... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 25, 2006 Share Posted April 25, 2006 i don't know why anyone needs a vehicle that large. 669882[/snapback] You aren't gonna like this approach, but we do have liberties... My happiness isn't your happiness... You sound like a tree-hugger. If somebody wants to guzzle gas let them... You aren't advocating controlling them?... Just let them pay the price... Everybody has their own threshold. I have said before... I won't start sweating it till gas tops 6 bucks a gallon... Then I will change my habits... I at least have so much lattitude to give and cut budget wise IF I CHOOSE to ENJOY these types of things... If you can't afford to do it all, then make choices on where you spend it... In the tank or some other activity you like... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted April 26, 2006 Author Share Posted April 26, 2006 Me laughing at you had nothing to do with your economic policy thoughts (though they are pretty laughable). I was more referring to the idea that a few "thousand" gallons would have any effect on a country that used nearly a BILLION gallons of oil per day. You're a smart enough guy to spend ten seconds doing research from credible sources instead of using garbage like Salon and web blogs.No he didn't. It was September of 2000 and it had negligible market effect in the US. Most of the 30+ million barrels released (24+ light sweet, 6 million + sour) ended up overseas because US refineries didn't have the capacity to refine it. Europe probably thanked him because most of it ended up there and they didn't have to touch their SPR. FaninChicago knows what he is talking about. I worked the last 6 years in an oil company building. I don't pretend to know everything that goes on with it, but I get a really good cross section from some really smart people who deal with this stuff every day. Politicians have done more to screw this up over the past 20 years than the oil companies (not that they are at all blameless). 669670[/snapback] I am not going to disagree with you on the actual economic ramifications of the Clinton policy, except that he threatened release a couple of times, sorry about the actual date of the release...Gas prices each time dropped. And I agree, market forces have changed since then, including the effect of the Iraq War and other instabilities going on in oil producing areas. It doesn't matter where the oil actually ended up (under Clinton), only what the market actually thought about or how it reacted. Hence, Bush's real effect is not what rationally should happen, but what does happen as a result of him using his bully pullpit. Now the question remains will the markets actually believe him. Under Clinton the markets did...under Bush, despite the credibility problem and his oil buddy backers, they might believe him in this instance if only to help him and the GOP out in November. Nice if we all had perfect info about all company decision making but that is a pie in the sky statement so free markets like pure communism is a figament of one's imagination. Economics theory has to be combined with political effects and that is where free marketers like yourself miss the point. I understand your equation, you just leave out the profound effect of politics, both corporate, policy, and electioning can have on prices, real or imagined. Anecdotally, the old Ashland plant near the Grand Island bridge is no longer, was there 3 years ago under new management when I moved my folks West and running. Smells nicer, but no refinery is working, stacks appear to be gone too, granted anectdotal, but perception in markets is often the rule. Rumors like price manipulations can have a great effect, OPEC press releases are a case in point. And that is why Keyensian interventions can be so effective in the short run, when markets become unstable. Taking the edges of wild prices swings is good for the economy, good politically and in the long run good business. Meanwhile over a longer time frame these markets will reach a higher equalibrium that people can adjust too. I don't know if I have made my economic stances clear enough in the past, but this should summarize it more clearly. Laughable, whatever, even Bush folks understand that he has to try something that is perceived to work...i.e., effect the price of at the market. Short of doing that politically, he and the GOP will be in trouble this fall, laugh all you want at them apples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 Short of doing that politically, he and the GOP will be in trouble this fall, laugh all you want at them apples. 670563[/snapback] I fail to see where that's a bad thing. Well...except for the friggin' Democratic Party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted April 26, 2006 Author Share Posted April 26, 2006 I fail to see where that's a bad thing. Well...except for the friggin' Democratic Party. 670574[/snapback] Well even as a Dem, I am not sure it will change much, need to clear out too many compromised apples on all sides before I will learn to like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Lamb Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 You aren't gonna like this approach, but we do have liberties... My happiness isn't your happiness... You sound like a tree-hugger. If somebody wants to guzzle gas let them... You aren't advocating controlling them?... Just let them pay the price... Everybody has their own threshold. I have said before... I won't start sweating it till gas tops 6 bucks a gallon... Then I will change my habits... I at least have so much lattitude to give and cut budget wise IF I CHOOSE to ENJOY these types of things... If you can't afford to do it all, then make choices on where you spend it... In the tank or some other activity you like... 670182[/snapback] My wife has spent the last several months in Scotland - when she left the going price was $7 per gal (converted). No one gets excited - admittedly, it's not liking crossing Kansas - and the Brits have a semi-efficent rail network - so people adapt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 Short of doing that politically, he and the GOP will be in trouble this fall, laugh all you want at them apples. 670563[/snapback] They're in trouble no matter what, which is a good thing. As long as these two parties are in charge, the best thing for the country is dividing the Executive/Legislative. That virtually ensures nothing will get done, instead of the evil or stupid garbage that happens whenever one has both branches. The funny part about you dummycrats is you think getting what you wish for is actually a good thing. If your party was smart (they ain't), they'd be pushing through bill after bill offering significant tax breaks to anyone doing anything to conserve energy, from solar roof panels to buying higher mileage cars. As usual, they're doing nothing but spitting venom. But you're proud because soon they're going to control something again. As far as the free market goes, it's a much better to err on that side than to go the other direction. History shows that over and over again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 My wife has spent the last several months in Scotland - when she left the going price was $7 per gal (converted). No one gets excited - admittedly, it's not liking crossing Kansas - and the Brits have a semi-efficent rail network - so people adapt 670609[/snapback] Exactly... I sure don't like paying high gas prices... We do have a choice where to spend our money and where are priorities are. It forces people to conserve (of course we are free to reach our own threshold). If everybody lived within their means... This really wouldn't be an issue. It does put a crimp on conspic. consumption... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in Chicago Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 The funny part about you dummycrats is you think getting what you wish for is actually a good thing. If your party was smart (they ain't), they'd be pushing through bill after bill offering significant tax breaks to anyone doing anything to conserve energy, from solar roof panels to buying higher mileage cars. As usual, they're doing nothing but spitting venom. But you're proud because soon they're going to control something again. As far as the free market goes, it's a much better to err on that side than to go the other direction. History shows that over and over again. 670643[/snapback] I have not participated in a partisan discussion here, but want to rant a bit and add to AD's points. If the Democrat's are truly in favor of moving towards energy independence, can they get Edward Kennedy also to play ball ? The Cape Cod wind farm project aims to install windmills off Nantucket Sound - a project that will reduce energy generated from fossil fuels. The only reason this idiot is leading the opposition to this project is because that farm will be an eyesore as it will be visible from their family compound. I just cannot believe these hypocritical attitude of politicians such as Senator Kennedy. Sure, go for alternative energy but let it be an eyesore for anybody but themselves. Who cares about the aesthetic needs of the average American when it suits their purpose to endorse 'green' reforms ? Bloody idiots ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 Some thoughts about adding ethanol to gasoline. The conversion of corn, or other celluose biomass to ethanol has problems connecting to using more net energy to produce a liquid product than you end up realizing. It is a vital chemical feedstock, but there will have to be some new process discoveries to make it a viable source of transportation fuel on that basis. It has less BTU - energy content - than an equivalent weight/volume of a hydrocarbon fuel. It is used in auto racing - but with motors with single purpose in mind. Racing vehicles can pump any fuel at high rate and the evaporation of ethanol (and methanol) serves to increase the density of the air/fuel mix entering the combustion chamber. The problem is getting enough air for the combustion process - hence supercharging, turbocharging, huge intake ports, etc. In a common transportation vehicle, it presents several problems. It serves to dilute the compressibility of the incoming charge and will ignite at a lower temperature and reduces the effective "octane number", so it suffers what is known as pre-ignition - engine knocking, which wreaks havoc on piston crowns and connecting rod bearings. Mechanical failure is a concern. What happens is that the motor's feedback detects this, and retards ignition timing - the spark plug fires before peak compression, causing a less-than optimum burn. The result is that the addition of ethanol reduces fuel efficiency. Pick whatever study you like, but 10% reduction in over the road milage is a good rule of thumb. Fuels perform best at high cylinder temperatures when combustion takes place, i.e at higher compression of the charge. Toyota stabbed a lot of customers with their 1999 - 2002 motors. Their engineers reduced the size of coolant passages to raise combustion chamber temperatures to increase efficiency of burn - the term used is thermal efficiency, and it worked. Unfortunately, the inevitible oil that always remains in the nooks and crannies of the cylinder after shut-down got cooked, congealed, and then got circulated and blocked oil galleys. They tried to blame the owners for not changing oil at a proper frequency - only honoring complaints from original owners after a fight - but they indeed set up a perfect situation for automotive engine arteriosclerosis. An additional problem with ethanol is that it requires a change in distribution at a hefty capital cost. Primary alcohols absorb water. We purchase dry gas for that very reason. So you cannot add ethanol at the refinery and then push the blend from the national pipeline network. You need to re-blend fairly close to the point of retail distribution. Whew! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted April 26, 2006 Share Posted April 26, 2006 Some thoughts about adding ethanol to gasoline. The conversion of corn, or other celluose biomass to ethanol has problems connecting to using more net energy to produce a liquid product than you end up realizing. It is a vital chemical feedstock, but there will have to be some new process discoveries to make it a viable source of transportation fuel on that basis. Realistically, any conversion of anything to a liquid fuel - even oil to gasoline - is going to end up a net loss of energy. Second Law of Thermodynamics. You don't create an energy source by going from coal to electricity, or oil to gas, or corn to ethanol. You just make it more transportable (it's a lot easier to burn coal at a centralized location to generate electricity and transport the electricity to a home for heating purposes, than it is to transport coal itself to a home for heating, for example). Ergo, I think the argument that there's a net loss of energy converting corn to ethanol is a fallacious argument - there's a net loss of energy converting anything to anything. That does not mean, however, that the net loss of converting corn to ethanol is actually economical, which is probably what you meant. In a common transportation vehicle, it presents several problems. It serves to dilute the compressibility of the incoming charge will ignite at a lower temperature and reduces the effective "octane number", so it suffers what is known as pre-ignition - engine knocking, which wreaks havoc on piston crowns and connecting rod bearings. Mechanical failure is a concern. What happens is that the motor's feedback detects this, and retards ignition timing - the spark plug fires before peak compression, causing a less-than optimum burn. The result is that the addition of ethanol reduces fuel efficiency. Pick whatever study you like, but 10% reduction in over the road milage is a good rule of thumb. My strong temptation is to say to this: so what? Ethanol isn't being added to increase fuel efficiency, it's being added specifically to decrease smog. If we end up burning more gas in the process...well, who cares? Most people will think lower pollution is equivalent to burning less gas anyway, and thus the circle of ignorance is complete. The real irony would be if adding ethanol to gasoline reduced efficiency by 10% while reducing smog by 10%...which would basically make the action a net wash. An additional problem with ethanol is that it requires a change in distribution at a hefty capital cost. Primary alcohols absorb water. We purchase dry gas for that very reason. So you cannot add ethanol at the refinery and then push the blend from the national pipeline network. You need to re-blend fairly close to the point of retail distribution. 671361[/snapback] As I've heard repeated numerous times...but figured was too technical for this crowd. "Bush bad! Oil companies bad! Ethanol absorbs water!" doesn't have quite the same ring to it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted April 26, 2006 Author Share Posted April 26, 2006 They're in trouble no matter what, which is a good thing. As long as these two parties are in charge, the best thing for the country is dividing the Executive/Legislative. That virtually ensures nothing will get done, instead of the evil or stupid garbage that happens whenever one has both branches. The funny part about you dummycrats is you think getting what you wish for is actually a good thing. If your party was smart (they ain't), they'd be pushing through bill after bill offering significant tax breaks to anyone doing anything to conserve energy, from solar roof panels to buying higher mileage cars. As usual, they're doing nothing but spitting venom. But you're proud because soon they're going to control something again. As far as the free market goes, it's a much better to err on that side than to go the other direction. History shows that over and over again. 670643[/snapback] Yeah, that I can agree with you on and I have been telling them that for years, fell on deaf ears, don't lump me in the the DDBDs, Deaf, Dumb and Blind Dems, I also advocated coming up with a number of different middle class tax cuts as well, which never seemed to get much traction, but you would think direct to consumer energy tax credits or as a write off and a higher, say $50,000 exemption per household capital tax cut for alternative vehicles and alternative home, solar, hydro and wind for one's house or some form thereof would make some sense, but noo! Frustrating! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted April 26, 2006 Author Share Posted April 26, 2006 Realistically, any conversion of anything to a liquid fuel - even oil to gasoline - is going to end up a net loss of energy. Second Law of Thermodynamics. You don't create an energy source by going from coal to electricity, or oil to gas, or corn to ethanol. You just make it more transportable (it's a lot easier to burn coal at a centralized location to generate electricity and transport the electricity to a home for heating purposes, than it is to transport coal itself to a home for heating, for example). Ergo, I think the argument that there's a net loss of energy converting corn to ethanol is a fallacious argument - there's a net loss of energy converting anything to anything. That does not mean, however, that the net loss of converting corn to ethanol is actually economical, which is probably what you meant. My strong temptation is to say to this: so what? Ethanol isn't being added to increase fuel efficiency, it's being added specifically to decrease smog. If we end up burning more gas in the process...well, who cares? Most people will think lower pollution is equivalent to burning less gas anyway, and thus the circle of ignorance is complete. The real irony would be if adding ethanol to gasoline reduced efficiency by 10% while reducing smog by 10%...which would basically make the action a net wash. As I've heard repeated numerous times...but figured was too technical for this crowd. "Bush bad! Oil companies bad! Ethanol absorbs water!" doesn't have quite the same ring to it... 671380[/snapback] Not if each vehicle was burning E85, but you are right with the current formula. Question does that efficiency issue apply to MTBE? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts