What's the price of gas where you live?
Quote: EvenBobThis is something else I don't understand. Oil is in the ground. We take it out, make a bottle out of it, and put the bottle back in the ground, where it came from. Where exactly is the harm? I have presented this very argument to at least three rabid Greenies over the years and they never have an answer, they just stare at me like I have dog crap on my shoe and wander away.
Well, lots of food is in your refrigerator. What if we take it out, run it all through a food processor, and then put the blended concoction back into your fridge, where it came from. Where exactly is the harm?
Quote: EvenBobThis is something else I don't understand. Oil is in the ground. We take it out, make a bottle out of it, and put the bottle back in the ground, where it came from. Where exactly is the harm? I have presented this very argument to at least three rabid Greenies over the years and they never have an answer, they just stare at me like I have dog crap on my shoe and wander away.
It's a waste of an energy dense, highly transportable product. That there is a limit to. Plus you've spent energy making the bottle, transporting the bottle and throwing the bottle for 500ml of a product that you can get out of a tap, or a filter anywhere. Landfill takes up space. Decomposing bottles are at ground level not 100's of foot down in rock and shale, and in a different form with very different chemicals after the process of making the bottle.
What a waste of human ingenuity and energy for 500ml of water.
Quote: AZDuffmanBesides the Obama Administration discouraging and even prohibiting development of shale oil I often wonder when it will come to pass. Back in the late 1980s they said oil needed to be at about $80/bbl for shale to work out. Inflation might raise that but tech breakthrus should lower it.
Is the goal of shale oil development to increase supply, thereby lowering the price of oil?
Oil is traded on a global market, so increasing U.S. production will have a negligible impact on price-- the demand for energy in China & India is insatiable. The only way new drilling could have a noticeable impact on the price of this global commodity is if the U.S. increased production on a MASSIVE scale. There would certainly be advantages to devastating the Colorado wilderness to help out 1.3 billion Chinese drivers: it would reduce America's trade deficit, and change the power dynamics of our relationship with Beijing. But personally, I'd prefer that the Chinese buy their oil from the Saudis, and we save the energy resources in Colorado for future generations of Americans who haven't been born yet.
Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming probably have over a trillion barrels in oil shale. The problem is that separating the oil from the rock requires enormous quantities of water (at least 3 barrels of water for each barrel of oil). I'm not suggesting it will be impossible to achieve daily production of, say, 4 million barrels of oil in a dry arid place like Utah. But it won't be easy, and it won't be cheap.
Even if we could ride the planet of sanctimonious tree-huggers and hypocritical politician liars like Obama, I'm not convinced there's enough water in Utah for production of 4 million barrels of oil a day (12 million barrels of water per day.) Perhaps we could spend some money and re-route some rivers and squeeze out 200,000 or 300,000 oil barrels per day. But how could that possibly impact the price in a market with daily consumption of 85 million barrels?
Quote: renoOil is traded on a global market, so increasing U.S. production will have a negligible impact on price--
Any increase in supply has an effect on price. America's oil production does not happen in a vaccum.
Quote:I'm not suggesting it will be impossible to achieve daily production of, say, 4 million barrels of oil in a dry arid place like Utah. But it won't be easy, and it won't be cheap.
So ship the shale rock where the water is. It shouldn't be hard, and there are plenty of railroads in Utah.
Quote: SwitchGAS - the one thing that I'm really surprised about is that there seems to be very few diesel cars in the US.
Believe it or not, they are ILLEGAL to buy (new) in some states. Go figure ...
Quote: renoIs the goal of shale oil development to increase supply, thereby lowering the price of oil?
Oil is traded on a global market, so increasing U.S. production will have a negligible impact on price-- the demand for energy in China & India is insatiable. The only way new drilling could have a noticeable impact on the price of this global commodity is if the U.S. increased production on a MASSIVE scale. There would certainly be advantages to devastating the Colorado wilderness to help out 1.3 billion Chinese drivers: it would reduce America's trade deficit, and change the power dynamics of our relationship with Beijing. But personally, I'd prefer that the Chinese buy their oil from the Saudis, and we save the energy resources in Colorado for future generations of Americans who haven't been born yet.
Your line of reasoning misses the point. Do I think if we develop shale oil we will in 3 years be paying $.659 for gasoline again? Heck no. But the point is supply of oil comes from thousands of small sources. Do you think in 1859 someone said, "Col Drake, you are wasting time drilling that well. You will never meet national yet alone world demand with it!" If they did, do you think Drake listened?
We have major production in AK, TX, Gulf of Mexico, CA, and now new oil coming online in ND and MT. None of these alone will "get us off imported oil." But every drop helps. If we get 3MM bbl from shale oil that is a big help in supply. And as time goes on we *WILL* find ways of extracting it with less water. Same as we improved extraction in who knows how many little and large ways over 150 years so far.
DRILL, BABY, DRILL--CONSERVATION NEVER FOUND A DROP OF OIL!
I hear reg gas is $5.16 near Disney in Florida. I just filled up for $3.80/gal, but I see $4+ other places in town.
that it wasn't him who nixed the Canada pipeline. Was
it Bush, did he do it from out of office? Bigtime inflation
is coming if gas keeps going up.
It's 3.82 / gallon just over the river.
Based in the UK (remember we drive on a different side to mainland Europe) I drive to Europe once or twice a year. Various countries have different rules so amongst the things you need are Log Book (V5 - document to prove the vehicle is yours), Insurance, Triangle, Spare Bulbs, Jacket. I think sometimes you need a fire extinguisher. I know I had problems using an insurance replacement car and then driving to Europe, though amazingly it was only a 1.0l engine so I saved quite a bit in petrol and as northern Europe is fairly flat the lack of power wasn't much of a problem.Quote: pacomartinQuote: French regulation
All vehicles driving on French roads must now carry a yellow fluorescent jacket, that can be put on if the driver has to get out in an emergency. The jacket must be carried in the car, not in the boot (not in the trunk), and be readily accessible. Drivers not carrying the obligatory jacket may receive an instant fine of up to 130 Euros, if stopped by police.
fwiw I drive a Diesel car and at the moment down south it's 141.7p. Also if you're in Belgium, for some reason Diesel is cheaper than petrol, so I always fill up there.
Quote: EvenBobThey say it could hit $6 by July. Obama is now whining
that it wasn't him who nixed the Canada pipeline. Was
it Bush, did he do it from out of office? Bigtime inflation
is coming if gas keeps going up.
I thought it was the Dakotas that nixed the Keystone project (as currently there's a lot of work shipping and refining the oil in those states). The Western Canada pipeline is also under threat from BC to build it. In the latter case, from my lay man's view, it seems strange for Canada to ship the raw material at quite high cost than to refine it in situ and sell the refined products instead. There's probably a good reason why not.
Canada has been a raw materials economy for the longest time.
Quote: boymimboHere in Niagara Falls, Ontario, gas is $1.25/L = $4.73 a gallon. It's been around here now for about 3 - 4 months.
It's 3.82 / gallon just over the river.
I paid exactly that filling up this afternoon in British Columbia. Despite being on an island, fuel here is cheaper than it is in Vancouver.
to drive the oil trucks to the refineries. They are short on
drivers every day because nobody wants to live in ND,
even for $60K+ a year. Plus the license isn't easy to get.
Quote: EvenBobN Dakota is crying for truck drivers with a hazmat license
to drive the oil trucks to the refineries. They are short on
drivers every day because nobody wants to live in ND,
even for $60K+ a year. Plus the license isn't easy to get.
That only explains why the private sector would like to bypass North Dakota.
It doesn't explain why the state itself would like the pipeline to go straight through with no stopping (of course it wouldn't like that... all the jobs/tax revenue would disappear).
My friend/former roommate moved to ND. Not in the oil business; he works for a public hospital. One of the few places where they are hiring for good-paying jobs.Quote: EvenBobThey are short on
drivers every day because nobody wants to live in ND,
Good question. Downstream refineries are usually located closer to population centers and transportation hubs; e.g., here in the Midwest, there are a lot along the shores of the Great Lakes in Gary, Toledo, Detroit, etc. Saves on the shipping costs, and probably more efficient economically. The oil pipeline must make sense from an economic point of view otherwise they wouldn't be clamoring to build it. I don't understand what the holdup is.Quote: thecesspitIn the latter case, from my lay man's view, it seems strange for Canada to ship the raw material at quite high cost than to refine it in situ and sell the refined products instead. There's probably a good reason why not.
Quote: thecesspitI thought it was the Dakotas that nixed the Keystone project (as currently there's a lot of work shipping and refining the oil in those states). The Western Canada pipeline is also under threat from BC to build it. In the latter case, from my lay man's view, it seems strange for Canada to ship the raw material at quite high cost than to refine it in situ and sell the refined products instead. There's probably a good reason why not.
Canada has been a raw materials economy for the longest time.
Not sure if this is the reason or not that they ship un-refined product vs. say gasoline.....but which has a more likelyhood of exploding under pressure or catching fire if leaked? gas over unrefined oil....you hear of oil spills now if it was gasoline the chance of it burning off is greater...all it takes is a small spark
Add to that in a place like Fort McMurray they have a hard time finding workers just to run the businesses getting the oil of of the ground.....let alone trying to fill jobs in the refining end of it
As my name used states COILMAN....I work in the oilfields doing coil tubing....to help bring oil and gas to the surface for your heating and commuting pleasures. So thanks for buying all that fuel for the cars and trucks....natural gas for the house heating.... its keeping a lot of people working.
Now for a little tidbit..... a lot of refineries got closed down last year because the companys either had to invest multi-millions to bring them up to new standards for polution emissions levels. Companys it seems figured why do that ...if we close down a few of them we create a supply issue and can profit off that.( In the USofA)
central Alberta gas is going for $1.09 a Litre 3.8L to a US gallon $4.14 a US gallon
You can thank our almost highest in the nation gas tax (WA).
Quote: ItsCalledSoccerWhere I live, it's $3.75.
I thought it would be interesting to look at prices with all this stuff going on over in the Middle East.
I heard a gas station owner say in an interview, no, they're not paying a higher price for gas YET, but they anticipate a higher price and need to have the cash-on-hand right away to pay for it, so they raise the prices right away. I don't know if I buy that or not, but I have heard of other businesses doing that, especially financial services (in anticipation of inflation, etc.).
I thought that was called price gouging and quite illegal.
It was Nebraska. The Keystone project is already built, shipping oil from Alberta down to Cushing, Okla., and on to the Gulf of Mexico. The Keystone XL project would more than double the capacity of that pipeline. The issue is with the heavy crude from Alberta that you have to heat up and add chemicals to to make it flow. (Unlike West Texas Light Crude). Nebraskans are worried about their farm crops and also there is a large underground aquifer that might be affected if there is a leak.Quote:I thought it was the Dakotas that nixed the Keystone project (as currently there's a lot of work shipping and refining the oil in those states). The Western Canada pipeline is also under threat from BC to build it. In the latter case, from my lay man's view, it seems strange for Canada to ship the raw material at quite high cost than to refine it in situ and sell the refined products instead. There's probably a good reason why not.
Canada has been a raw materials economy for the longest time.
Of course there is no guarantee this will affect oil prices in the U.S.; TransCanada just wants to make sure they can get their product to market faster.
A refinery near me just shut down. We used to have some of the lowest gas prices around here because of refinery capacity.
And this is New Jersey - where it's illegal to self-serve!
I'm not from NJ, but my understanding is that the difference is in how the taxes are applied. NJ taxes the refineries high and the retail outlets low. Consumers over the entire country (or at least the market area of the NJ refineries) pay taxes that go to NJ rather than just the NJ drivers paying taxes on retail sales. Is that correct?Quote: DJTeddyBearPeople in my area are moaning that it recently shot up past $3.50!
And this is New Jersey - where it's illegal to self-serve!
Quote: teddysIt was Nebraska. The Keystone project is already built, shipping oil from Alberta down to Cushing, Okla., and on to the Gulf of Mexico. The Keystone XL project would more than double the capacity of that pipeline. The issue is with the heavy crude from Alberta that you have to heat up and add chemicals to to make it flow. (Unlike West Texas Light Crude). Nebraskans are worried about their farm crops and also there is a large underground aquifer that might be affected if there is a leak.
Thanks for the info. That's the same process thats coming under fire for the Northern Gateway pipeline proposal, tat's aiming to ship the heavy crude to Kitimat on the West Coast of BC, and from there in tankers along part of the Inside Passage and out to China. Same concerns of leaking pipes, shipping the chemicals across virgin North BC and Alberta terrain, plus concerns with tanker spills in the Kitimat Sound.
I've never heard that before, but I have no reason to doubt it. We certainly do have a lot of refineries, so it makes sense.Quote: DocI'm not from NJ, but my understanding is that the difference is in how the taxes are applied. NJ taxes the refineries high and the retail outlets low. Consumers over the entire country (or at least the market area of the NJ refineries) pay taxes that go to NJ rather than just the NJ drivers paying taxes on retail sales. Is that correct?
and $3.84 on the way home. Up .20 in one day.
Quote: teddysGood question. Downstream refineries are usually located closer to population centers and transportation hubs; e.g., here in the Midwest, there are a lot along the shores of the Great Lakes in Gary, Toledo, Detroit, etc. Saves on the shipping costs, and probably more efficient economically. The oil pipeline must make sense from an economic point of view otherwise they wouldn't be clamoring to build it. I don't understand what the holdup is.
Yes, you refine closer to market not closer to production. You ship one product the long distance then the dozens of refined products the short distance.
Obama is blaming the GOP for "forcing a quick decison" on him. Now, in WWII they built a pipeline form the TX/LA area to the northeast in less time than he wants to "study" this one. The USA is afraid to do anything anymore, so risk adverse.
As to gas, it is touching $3.759 here in SW PA. I expect $4+ about April 1st or whenever they have to switch the blend, with the price either bumping or holding right at the end of March depending on if they need to empty the tanks of winter-blend or if they run short at the last minute. I predict the peak nationally to be about $4.809 in July with high-cots markets at $6.
Quote: EvenBobIt was $3.64 when I went to the store today
and $3.84 on the way home. Up .20 in one day.
Here I've seen it change 20c a LITRE in the course of an hour before. It's nuts.
Manhattan 3.99 (4.29 in prime locations)
Queens 3.79
Diesel $4.30. Diesel CARS get about 50% better fuel mileage on the highway than gas. (54 vs. 36). Around town its about 20% (37 vs. 30). My Diesel VW gets these numbers, and I compared it to the better of the new crop of 4 cyl gassers. But those gasoline 4-cylinder card fade on hills... the diesel will torque right on up the hill (8% grade 3/4 mi.)
Diesel PickemUps much, much worse... oversized engines 5.7L Turbo Diesel??? You haulin a boat to work every day?
Last week in South Buffalo I saw it at $3.93. I'm sure it's gone up since then.
Quote: 98ClubsDiesel PickemUps much, much worse... oversized engines 5.7L Turbo Diesel??? You haulin a boat to work every day?
Since you brought it up... Is there a way to come out better by buying a diesel truck? I always hear the diesel arguement about gas mileage and torque, and if I was just ripping around, I'd buy a Jetta TDi in a heartbeat. But I have toys and live in ski country, so I NEED a truck. I'm in the market, so is there any similarities between the truck and car?
I currently drive a 2005 Silverado 1500 automatic with a gas 305. I spend $400 a month (!) on fuel and that's JUST to get to work and back, forget running errands or extra curriculars. I'd switch to diesel in a heartbeat if it was the same arguement as the car, but like 98clubs says, it seems diesel trucks are 8ltr V-10's, or Ford F5000 quintuple cab's or some other giant monstrosity I don't need. Can you get a 1500 sized diesel and get 30%+ better mileage still?
Gas hasn't been under $.70 a gallon since the 70's...
Quote: WongBoWhere is that?
Gas hasn't been under $.70 a gallon since the 70's...
Cattaraugus Indian Reservation, summer of 1998. I remember being OUTRAGED at $1.12 gas off the rez lol.
Mostly because they are geared for heavy loads. I love the VW diesels, But for what you describe I would go for an Audi A3, you can get the TDI which has lots of torque and can still get 40MPG.
Plus Audi's can be purchased with Quattro, the AWD in the audi's are awesome. I never put on chains or studs.(I am biased though, having an Audi repair shop)
Anyway, the question to ask, is why do you need a truck everyday?
A3- 5people, wagon holds almost like pickup, AWD, up to 40MPG...I'm just saying. Also good resale value if you buy one 2-3 years old.
Bay Area CA, today I put in 93 @4.41/gal.
Reg is about $4.19
BTW, I tell people who ask about better mileage, The best thing you have control over is your right foot. Give people more room, don't smash down the hwy, keep tires at spec, yada yada yada.
Quote: Face
Since you brought it up... Is there a way to come out better by buying a diesel truck? I always here the diesel arguement about gas mileage and torque, and if I was just ripping around, I'd buy a Jetta TDi in a heartbeat. But I have toys and live in ski country, so I NEED a truck. I'm in the market, so is there any similarities between the truck and car?
I can say one thing about diesel trucks and that is that you will do better at resale time if you don't run your vehicle until it dies like I do. When I did auto loand, diesel engines in full-size trucks were the *only* option we gave consideration to when we valued the vehicle for loan purposes.
I'd ask what "truck things" do you need? If you just need the bed and to tow light stuff like snowmobiles or jet-skis then you would probably be better getting a six-cylinder model. If youy tow heavy stuff, like a ski-boat or camper-trailer then break out the calculator.
Quote: shupe03a4Anyway, the question to ask, is why do you need a truck everyday?
I live in the sticks. Total dirt road, nearest neighbor out of eyesight, gets plowed once a day whether it needs it or not type of place. I also live in the snow belt and ski country, which means 1'+ of snow on the roads and several major hills. I live in a flood plain, where I've had water come over the hood of my old lifted Ram. I have a boat. I have an ATV. I haul wood. I drive offroad 50+ times a year to camp sites, ATV trails and fishing holes. Believe me, I've tried thinking of ways I could adjust and get back into a car... I just can't do it.
Quote: shupe03a4BTW, I tell people who ask about better mileage, The best thing you have control over is your right foot. Give people more room, don't smash down the hwy, keep tires at spec, yada yada yada.
Yeah, I'm all over that. The gentle acceleration, taking routes that have the least slowing or stopping, keeping the tires hard, the air filter clean, the engine up to spec... still burning $400 a month ><. I kind of figured a diesel truck was about towing houses up a mountain side, but didn't hurt to ask. =/
Quote: AZDuffmanI'd ask what "truck things" do you need? If you just need the bed and to tow light stuff like snowmobiles or jet-skis then you would probably be better getting a six-cylinder model.
Yeah, I run them until they die, have been on life support a year, ignore the DNR, send them through a few resurections, and hold until they simply disintegrate =)
I almost got a 6, was just about to sign for a 5speed 6cyl Tacoma, but let the guy talk me out of it. I just wonder what the true savings would be, you know? Due to all the hills and the time spent towing or hauling (nothing super huge, just often) would having to use more pedal due to the lesser power negate the 6cyl savings. If we're talking saving $100 a year, I'd rather have the comfy-ness of the big cab 8. If we're talking several hundreds, well, that's worth cramped legs.
Quote: Face
I almost got a 6, was just about to sign for a 5speed 6cyl Tacoma, but let the guy talk me out of it. I just wonder what the true savings would be, you know? Due to all the hills and the time spent towing or hauling (nothing super huge, just often) would having to use more pedal due to the lesser power negate the 6cyl savings. If we're talking saving $100 a year, I'd rather have the comfy-ness of the big cab 8. If we're talking several hundreds, well, that's worth cramped legs.
When you get to that size there is maybe a 3-5 mpg difference based on expedrience of several family members owning simialr 6/8 vehicles over my life. My dad has a L-6 Envoy and he doesn't miss the V-8 which he usually owned in big Detroit-Iron all his life. He never tows, however. My brother had a V-6 Explorer and upgraded to a V-8 when he replaced it since he tows a heave straight-inboard V-8 ski boat and the six all but begged for mercy on hills. Going back years the V-6 shifted the transmissions to death on the Regal/Monte Carlo/Cutlas Supreme/Grans Prix's in the family (crappy trannys in those days) while the small V-8 was more "natural" in them.
Consider converting MPG to the international "gallons per 100 miles" rating (though everyone else uses the silly metric system.) This actually makes it easier to compare in your head and makes it more "real."
The combined MPG for Diesel trucks looks to be in the 16 to 18 MPG range: gassers 14 - 17.
The one thing missing is a 6-cyl Diesel. Perhaps I overlooked it.
A 4.0L TD 6cyl should be enuff and get north of 20 mpg
We are paying the equivilent of $10.07 a gallon.
Quote: WizardofEnglandUpdate from accross the pond.
We are paying the equivilent of $10.07 a gallon.
Do they regulate the price there like the USA did in the 1970s or are stations free to charge what they like?
Quote: shupe03a4Face- The diesel trucks get pretty poor mileage even unloaded. The BEST are not even getting 25hwy.
You can get 25-30 combined out of Land Cruiser 80 diesel manual.
But it has to be diesel manual 80 series, 24 valve, driven reasonably.
It's also a proper offroader, the last among LC, and one of the last among mainstream cars.
Most people going from gas to diesel overrev their engine, ruining their gas mileage. Some underrev and end up doing the same.
Quote: AZDuffmanDo they regulate the price there like the USA did in the 1970s or are stations free to charge what they like?
Pretty sure they can name their price, motorways are often 5-10% more, supermarkets usually 5-10% less than average
