FYI and Gas prices. Are we really that lucky?

A place for intelligent and well-thought-out discussion involving politics and associated topics. No nonsense will be tolerated at all.
User avatar
rn79870
Posts: 4807
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 8:54 am
Car: 2008 G35 & 2005 Vette C6 vert.

Post

A little FYI thread concerning gas prices. I guess we should be glad the government isn't taxing us harder in the price of oil.
CNNMoney.com wrote: -- Despite daily headlines bemoaning record gas prices, the U.S. is actually one of the cheaper places to fill up in the world.

Out of 155 countries surveyed, U.S. gas prices were the 45th cheapest, according to a recent study from AIRINC, a research firm that tracks cost of living data.

The difference is staggering. As of late March, U.S. gas prices averaged $3.45 a gallon. That compares to over $8 a gallon across much of Europe, $12.03 in Aruba and $18.42 in Sierra Leone.

The U.S. has always fought to keep gas prices low, and the current debate among presidential candidates on how to keep them that way has been fierce.

But those cheap gas prices - which Americans have gotten used to - mean they feel price spikes like the ones we're experiencing now more acutely than citizens from other nations which have had historically more expensive fuel.

Cheap gas prices have also lulled Americans into a cycle of buying bigger cars and bigger houses further away from their work - leaving them more exposed to rising prices, some experts say.

Price comparisons are not all created equal. Comparing gas prices across nations is always difficult. For starters, the AIRINC numbers don't take into account different salaries in different countries, or the different exchange rates. The dollar has lost considerable ground to the euro recently. Because oil is priced in dollars, rising oil prices aren't as hard on people paying with currencies which are stronger than the dollar, as they can essentially buy more oil with their money as the dollar falls in value.

And then there's the varying distances people drive, the public transportation options available, and the different services people get in exchange for high gas prices. For example, Europe's stronger social safety net, including cheaper health care and higher education, is paid for partly through gas taxes.

Gas price: It's all about government policy. Gasoline costs roughly the same to make no matter where in the world it's produced, according to John Felmy, chief economist for the American Petroleum Institute. The difference in retail costs, he said, is that some governments subsidize gas while others tax it heavily.

In many oil producing nations gas is absurdly cheap. In Venezuela it's 12 cents a gallon. In Saudi Arabia it's 45.

The governments there forego the money from selling that oil on the open market - instead using the money to make their people happy and encourage their nations' development.

Subsidies, many analysts say, are encouraging rampant demand in these countries, pushing up the price of oil worldwide.

In the U.S., the federal tax on gas is about 18 cents a gallon, pretty low by international standards.

But those relatively low gas taxes make it hard now for Americans to deal with gas prices that have risen from around $1 to over $3 a gallon in the last seven years.

"Everybody pays more, but the U.S. pays more in absolute terms," said Lee Shipper, a visiting scholar at the University of California Berkeley's Transportation Center. If you're already paying $4 in taxes, said Schipper, then an extra $2 a gallon isn't that big of a deal.
Price per gallonMost expensive.1. Sierra Leone $18.42 2. Aruba $12.03 3. Bosnia-Herzegovina $10.86 4. Eritrea $9.58 5. Norway $8.73 6. United Kingdom $8.38 7. Netherlands $8.37 8. Monaco $8.31 9. Iceland $8.28 10. Belgium $8.22 111. United States $3.45

Least expensive.1. Venezuela 12 cents 2. Iran 40 cents 3. Saudi Arabia 45 cents

http://money.cnn.com/2008/05/0...50109



Leuthesius
Posts: 249
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 12:52 pm
Car: 1996 Infiniti J30 - Totaled by Hail RIP
1995 Smurfima - Blown Head Gasket 230k miles RIP

Post

The reason they are that high in those countries is because they are taxed beyond comprehension for the sake of using public transport instead.

But yes, we are that lucky. I do not mind $4/gal considering that in Greece I saw prices of 4Euros/Liter.

More refineries, less EPA, more drilling here at home, and we can beat this. Hippies need to get the f*ck outta the way.

User avatar
telcoman
Posts: 5762
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2006 11:30 am
Car: Tesla 2022 Model Y, 2016 Q70 Bye 2012 G37S 6 MT w Nav 94444 mi bye 2006 Infiniti G35 Sedan 6 MT @171796 mi.
Location: Central NJ

Post

rn79870 wrote:A little FYI thread concerning gas prices. I guess we should be glad the government isn't taxing us harder in the price of oil.

Price per gallonMost expensive.1. Sierra Leone $18.42 2. Aruba $12.03 3. Bosnia-Herzegovina $10.86 4. Eritrea $9.58 5. Norway $8.73 6. United Kingdom $8.38 7. Netherlands $8.37 8. Monaco $8.31 9. Iceland $8.28 10. Belgium $8.22 111. United States $3.45

Least expensive.1. Venezuela 12 cents 2. Iran 40 cents 3. Saudi Arabia 45 cents

http://money.cnn.com/2008/05/0...50109
Excellent post rn

If our gas prices were to step up every 6 month to the following list1. Sierra Leone $18.42 2. Aruba $12.03 3. Bosnia-Herzegovina $10.86 4. Eritrea $9.58 5. Norway $8.73 6. United Kingdom $8.38 7. Netherlands $8.37 8. Monaco $8.31 9. Iceland $8.28 10. Belgium $8.22 111. United States $3.45

starting with the price in Belgium, by the time we reached $18.42 a gallon the US would be well on its way to reducing our dependance on foreign oil.Having half $ssed oil men in the white house is the cause of our problem, not the solution! do they know?Telcoman

User avatar
audtatious
Moderator
Posts: 25014
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2002 5:31 pm
Car: 2017 Q60 Red Sport. Gone: 2014 Q50s, 2008 G37s coupe, 2007 G35s Sedan, 2002 Maxima SE, 2000 Villager Estate (Quest), 1998 Quest, 1996 Sentra GXE
Location: Stalking You
Contact:

Post

nation-wide public transportation does not make sense in the US due to our size. "Most" cities do have public transportation to some extent but due to suburban lifestyles they do not cover a great enough area and may not be cost effective. Realize that public transportation initiatives should be handled by the local or state Gov't and not from the federal levels unless there is policy requiring the state gov't to work towards a solution.

One avenue that could help our infrastructure would be to reinstitute a strong rail system instead of constantly utilizing trucks. Unfortunately, that infrastructure over the last 50 years has been whittled down and neglected. The majority of rail beds around here have been removed.

User avatar
Eikon
Posts: 6928
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 3:20 am
Car: 71 240z, 93 Supra TT
Location: Lake Orion, MI
Contact:

Post

A strong high speed rail system would absolutely rock!!!

It would be a huge improvement for not only commuter and travel use, but also for commercial uses.

I can imagine hopping a train downtown Green Bay and being downtown in Chicago in less than 2 hours. That's normally a 4 hour drive or worse depending on traffic.

These new maglev trains are not only very fast, but from what I understand, very energy efficient as well. They burn no oil. Perhaps some oil use could be derived back to the generation of electricity used to power them, but I imagine it would be minimal. The trains are primarily driven by magnetics.


User avatar
audtatious
Moderator
Posts: 25014
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2002 5:31 pm
Car: 2017 Q60 Red Sport. Gone: 2014 Q50s, 2008 G37s coupe, 2007 G35s Sedan, 2002 Maxima SE, 2000 Villager Estate (Quest), 1998 Quest, 1996 Sentra GXE
Location: Stalking You
Contact:

Post

From a rail infrastructure perspective I meant more from an initial commercial perspective. Truckers would be used for more localize transportation of goods instead of cross-nation transportation.

Commuter use would come later altho the cities that do not have a good rail infrastructure would have issues implementing one due to land use.

Leuthesius
Posts: 249
Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 12:52 pm
Car: 1996 Infiniti J30 - Totaled by Hail RIP
1995 Smurfima - Blown Head Gasket 230k miles RIP

Post

You do realize how much it would cost to build the rail infrastructure to that capacity? It's about $15,000/mile to lay down railroad track/bed. If you are building high speed trains (bullets, etc) the cost goes up even more. Running a single track across the country would cost $45million. And that's for normal diesel trains. Add in infrastructure for what the SMART thing to do would be (electric/bullet type trains) and the extra cost for what those railbeds cost, and you are looking at the possibility of trillions of dollars.

JerodKing
Posts: 190
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 7:47 pm
Car: 95 Nissan Sentra, 91 240SX hatch

Post

Leuthesius wrote:More refineries, less EPA, more drilling here at home, and we can beat this. Hippies need to get the f*ck outta the way.
Can someone please explain the reasoning behind more refineries? That's not gonna do us any damn good, seeing as how the current ones are running at 83-85% because the price of oil is so high that it's barely worth them to refine oil. It is the biggest joke that people honestly think that will bring the prices down. Now I do agree that we should be drilling more at home, but the EPA is still needed too. The real way to beat this is nuclear plants and electric cars, at least in the next 5-10 years.

User avatar
smockers83
Posts: 3889
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 12:07 pm
Car: 2006 G35 Coupe

Post

The thought is that with simple supply and demand, more refineries equals more supply, therefore a drop in price.

User avatar
smockers83
Posts: 3889
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 12:07 pm
Car: 2006 G35 Coupe

Post

The talk of using trains has definitely risen. Here in Ann Arbor, just outside of Detroit (well 40 minutes), our freeways no longer have the capacity to hold the amount of traffic. So the talk is to utilize a rail system that isn't used too often for freight and add passenger trains to it for rush hour use for people traveling along the US-23 corridor going north of Ann Arbor. Also, Detroit and Ann Arbor are talking about funding a new rail system for the I-94 corridor (A^2 to Detroit).

The thing about public transportation, more specifically buses, is that too many people see it as below their class. But why? Because poorer people use it? Sure, but guess what, that's how cheap it is once its implemented. There doesn't have to be constant bus services for every city throughout the whole city, but maybe just during the rush hour. That way congestion can be reduced and the buses would run from different areas of the city to various nodes outside to which people park their cars, basically like an express line or something.

User avatar
audtatious
Moderator
Posts: 25014
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2002 5:31 pm
Car: 2017 Q60 Red Sport. Gone: 2014 Q50s, 2008 G37s coupe, 2007 G35s Sedan, 2002 Maxima SE, 2000 Villager Estate (Quest), 1998 Quest, 1996 Sentra GXE
Location: Stalking You
Contact:

Post

Leuthesius wrote:You do realize how much it would cost to build the rail infrastructure to that capacity? It's about $15,000/mile to lay down railroad track/bed. If you are building high speed trains (bullets, etc) the cost goes up even more. Running a single track across the country would cost $45million. And that's for normal diesel trains. Add in infrastructure for what the SMART thing to do would be (electric/bullet type trains) and the extra cost for what those railbeds cost, and you are looking at the possibility of trillions of dollars.
Hindsight 20/20. We should have kept our rail infrastructure instead of closing it down. It would still be nice to see an impact analysis vs our continual use of trucking goods across the whole country.

User avatar
audtatious
Moderator
Posts: 25014
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2002 5:31 pm
Car: 2017 Q60 Red Sport. Gone: 2014 Q50s, 2008 G37s coupe, 2007 G35s Sedan, 2002 Maxima SE, 2000 Villager Estate (Quest), 1998 Quest, 1996 Sentra GXE
Location: Stalking You
Contact:

Post

JerodKing wrote:
Can someone please explain the reasoning behind more refineries? That's not gonna do us any damn good, seeing as how the current ones are running at 83-85% because the price of oil is so high that it's barely worth them to refine oil. It is the biggest joke that people honestly think that will bring the prices down. Now I do agree that we should be drilling more at home, but the EPA is still needed too. The real way to beat this is nuclear plants and electric cars, at least in the next 5-10 years.
Unless there are some reports I have not seen, current refineries are running at close to 100%. At one point they may have only been at 83-85% but since katrina and that BP refinerie explosion the others have had to pick up the load. Regardless, we have not run into gas shortages thus the amount they are processing is currently enough for our population, but may not be for long.

The problem with building new refineries is not that companies don't want to do so (even tho it would cost upwards of $4 billion) it is due to the 800+ different permits, impact studies and all the lawsuits they have to deal with before they can break ground.

JerodKing
Posts: 190
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 7:47 pm
Car: 95 Nissan Sentra, 91 240SX hatch

Post

smockers83 wrote:The thought is that with simple supply and demand, more refineries equals more supply, therefore a drop in price.
Wrong, the refineries aren't the problem, the crude supply is.

"U.S. distillate stockpiles, which includes heating oil and diesel, declined 107,000 barrels to 105.7 million, the Energy Department reported on May 7. Refineries in the U.S. operated at 85 percent last week, down from 89 percent the year before, the data showed. U.S. crude supplies rose 5.65 million barrels to 325.6 million barrels last week, amid increased imports. "

Quoted from last paragraph from http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/...=home

Refineries aren't running at 100% capacity because it isn't in their best interest to do so, with crude prices being so high.

JerodKing
Posts: 190
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 7:47 pm
Car: 95 Nissan Sentra, 91 240SX hatch

Post

What really needs to happen is one of two things:1- Oil taken off the futures market, so speculation can't exist, bring prices down about $50 per barrel that speculation seems to be accounting for.

2-No longer hide the identies of the people putting money into oil. I would honestly not be surprised if it were people linked to oil (OPEC, Exxon, etc...) that were pumping large amounts of money into them, rising prices, and thus their profits.

I know booming economies of China and India are going to raise prices, but without speculation I would imagine fair prices right now would be in the 2.25-2.50 price range.

User avatar
smockers83
Posts: 3889
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2006 12:07 pm
Car: 2006 G35 Coupe

Post

Your paragraph goes against what you said, that the crude supply is the problem. It says right in the paragraph that crude supplies are up due to increases in imports. So where you're going with that I'm not sure. Refineries operate at a little less than full capacity during spring time in order to perform maintenance and to reformulate for the summer driving season. Stockpiles are not crude supply. Stockpiles can be used to ease prices and increased demand when needed (as it is an increase in supply), which is what's probably going on right now.

The reason another refinery would improve the price is because it adds more capacity to the system, allowing more oil to come in, thus more supply to the market. Instead of building another refinery and going through the processes involved, companies have added onto their refineries instead.

But I do agree, take the speculation out of the market and the price would fall dramatically. Also adding to this year's increases is the fall in the dollar. However, be prepared for $5/gallon gas within the next year or two...it will happen.

JerodKing
Posts: 190
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 7:47 pm
Car: 95 Nissan Sentra, 91 240SX hatch

Post

smockers83 wrote:Your paragraph goes against what you said, that the crude supply is the problem. It says right in the paragraph that crude supplies are up due to increases in imports. So where you're going with that I'm not sure. Refineries operate at a little less than full capacity during spring time in order to perform maintenance and to reformulate for the summer driving season. Stockpiles are not crude supply. Stockpiles can be used to ease prices and increased demand when needed (as it is an increase in supply), which is what's probably going on right now.

The reason another refinery would improve the price is because it adds more capacity to the system, allowing more oil to come in, thus more supply to the market. Instead of building another refinery and going through the processes involved, companies have added onto their refineries instead.

But I do agree, take the speculation out of the market and the price would fall dramatically. Also adding to this year's increases is the fall in the dollar. However, be prepared for $5/gallon gas within the next year or two...it will happen.
No it doesn't contradict what I said, I meant the price of crude oil being the problem, not the ammount. My mistake, should have made the clearer. Right now we have plenty of oil coming into the country. Besides, for refineries to operated at a 4% decrease from a year ago is a big deal, and it's not because that's all the oil they have, its that their profit margins are small so they are not running anywhere near full capacity because it's not advantagous for them, so adding a whole new refinery would make everything run at an even lower capacity. Besides, while right now we get more than our share of oil, when China and India start using alot more, we'll be begging for oil, and our refineries will be running at 50% due to lack of crude (My speculation of things to come in 20 years, not so much fact.)

User avatar
themadscientist
Posts: 26254
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 3:30 pm
Car: R32 GTR, DR30 RS Turbo, BRZ, Lunchbox, NSR50 Sportster 883 Iron
Location: Staring down at you with disdain from the spooky mountaintop castle.

Post

Japan is about $6.00 a gallon, quit your bitching America.

User avatar
audtatious
Moderator
Posts: 25014
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2002 5:31 pm
Car: 2017 Q60 Red Sport. Gone: 2014 Q50s, 2008 G37s coupe, 2007 G35s Sedan, 2002 Maxima SE, 2000 Villager Estate (Quest), 1998 Quest, 1996 Sentra GXE
Location: Stalking You
Contact:

Post

JerodKing wrote:
No it doesn't contradict what I said, I meant the price of crude oil being the problem, not the ammount. My mistake, should have made the clearer. Right now we have plenty of oil coming into the country. Besides, for refineries to operated at a 4% decrease from a year ago is a big deal, and it's not because that's all the oil they have, its that their profit margins are small so they are not running anywhere near full capacity because it's not advantagous for them, so adding a whole new refinery would make everything run at an even lower capacity. Besides, while right now we get more than our share of oil, when China and India start using alot more, we'll be begging for oil, and our refineries will be running at 50% due to lack of crude (My speculation of things to come in 20 years, not so much fact.)
Realize that these refiners are also switching over from winter grade fuel to the summer grades that states and regions have imposed on them which requires them to get rid of their winter blends first. The price of oil has outpaced the price of gas and there is falling demand due to the price of gas at the pump. The value of the US dollar has been falling which has had an impact in the price of oil the refineries buy as well. Finally, spring is also the time when most refineries have historically cut back for maintenance purposes as well. Put it all together and some refiners are actually starting to have negative profit margins and are cutting back production (81% as of last week).

If things continue it will get worse. You can't expect refineries to stay in business with low or negative profit margins. The Gov't is only going to make things worse as they are beginning a witch hunt in order to play the blame game and keep the public focusing on the bad 'ole oil companies instead of their crappy policy which got us in this mess in the first place. Maybe they will take over the oil businesses and save us?


Return to “Politics Etc.”