# Making Gasoline/Diesel More Afforedable



## OnePercenter (May 26, 2013)

Cap regular unleaded and diesel prices to 40 cents above taxes at the pump nationwide.


----------



## Wyatt earp (May 26, 2013)

OnePercenter said:


> Cap regular unleaded and diesel prices to 40 cents above taxes at the pump nationwide.



The 70's and price controls? heck no...


----------



## itfitzme (May 26, 2013)

OnePercenter said:


> Cap regular unleaded and diesel prices to 40 cents above taxes at the pump nationwide.



Where you get 40 cents from?

 Here is an interesting table of margins for gasoline production all the way up the supply chain.  Unfortunately, data on production cost alone is not available. 

Estimated 2013 Gasoline Price Breakdown & Margins Details

Crude Oil ..... *$2.55
Refinery ...... *$0.60
Distrinution . *$0.24
Taxes *......... *$0.65
-------------------
Total pump . *$4.05

$0.40 above taxes seems a bit low. *

Prices also have to be able to fluctuate with ecoonomic conditions. *An absolute peg would be a bad idea.


----------



## OnePercenter (May 27, 2013)

bear513 said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Cap regular unleaded and diesel prices to 40 cents above taxes at the pump nationwide.
> ...



Big oil is a monopoly. There's only one way to effectively control a monopoly. Regulate the shit out of them.


----------



## dilloduck (May 27, 2013)

OnePercenter said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



That's hasn't worked out well.


----------



## OnePercenter (May 27, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Cap regular unleaded and diesel prices to 40 cents above taxes at the pump nationwide.
> ...



In 2008, Exxon/Mobil profits were record numbers even though gasoline prices dropped from $4.12 in June to $1.59 in November. How is that possible?


----------



## itfitzme (May 27, 2013)

OnePercenter said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



Spot on question. *The prices for fuel go back half a century at least. *When they are plotted in real dollars, the price of gasoline was absolutely flat until about 2000. *That was a) when we hit full employment of the US population and b) China began to ramp up as a major economy.

Demamd for oil refinery products began to climb, along with prices, tonit's peak just before the recession. *When the global economy collapsed, demand for refined oil products collapsed as well and prices fell all the way back to their 1998-2000 level. *(Also, the US trade imbalance fell back to near zero as US imports fell off.) Since then, as the global economy has begun to stabilize and show growth (however anemic), the demand for oil and refinery products has returned and gasoline prices have risen back to their 2007 level.

That said, the global oil production and refining market is dominated by ologopolies that enjoy dominant market leverage. *That is to say, that market has more leverage and power than any other market in tbe free market economy. *The oil production and refining market has huge economies of scale and entry costs. *The product itself is as close to a neccessity as can be expected, shot of air, water and food. *It provides huge returns to efficiency in use. *It is in short supply by comparison to other high demand products.

That said, price is held, without the need for collusion, at the maximum price that the market will bear. Exxon, BP, and the likes, price and demand at each station every day with thay data going to corporate headquarters. *They employ economists that run finely tuned models which can allows them to price gasoline with near perfection, controlling demand and maximizing profits.*

That is what is up.

Still, no one but the oil producers and refining companies have the information that allows them to know what the profit margins are. *Individual distributers and storage companies are not in the position or have the inter-market leverage to command major profit.

This creates a problem when it comesnto attempting market controls. Control requires having information. Lacking the information, there is no control.  Attempting to control prices would be pissing in the wind.

So the oil companies have us over a barrel and there lacks the political will, leverage, or general public understanding to do anything about it.


----------



## OnePercenter (May 28, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



That's the long answer. The short answer; It's fixed. 

Nobody but the oil companies know the true numbers of cost. 

Crude Oil ..... *$2.55
Refinery ...... *$0.60
Distrinution . *$0.24

What's listed above are the numbers that the oil companies tell us, but have not proven them to be correct.


----------



## Mr. H. (May 28, 2013)

OnePercenter said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



You're an idiot.


----------



## westwall (May 28, 2013)

OnePercenter said:


> Cap regular unleaded and diesel prices to 40 cents above taxes at the pump nationwide.








Oh lookey here.  Yet another socialist claiming to be one thing but is actually the exact opposite.  One percenter my ass.  Just another troll living in moms basement railing at society because they're too damned lazy to do any work.


----------



## OnePercenter (May 28, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



You have three companies that control 95% of the gasoline sold in the US and they sell it at or about the same price. It's called a monopoly of perfect competition.

So how do you control a monopoly?


----------



## OnePercenter (May 28, 2013)

westwall said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Cap regular unleaded and diesel prices to 40 cents above taxes at the pump nationwide.
> ...



Socialist ideals help the middle class prosper.


----------



## itfitzme (May 28, 2013)

OnePercenter said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



With a Supreme Court decision based on anti-trust laws. So how do you propose to file an ant-trust law against three seperate companies that are not explicitly conspiring?

(BTW, I am pretty sure it isn't called "a monopoly of perfect-competition". I know what you mean and it is a perfectly good synthesis of words.  But you know how lawyers, politicians, economists, and many others are.  If you don't use the right words, they just don't understand...)


----------



## tipofthespear (May 28, 2013)

......if the Oil Companies are or are not conspiring to keep prices at certain levels, but the price of Crude is set based on the "Speculators."  The reason most prices rise in the Energy Industry is because of the "Futures Market," and the price speculation that goes on there, or, at least that is what I am told.

Now, Big Oil may well be part of the problem, and probably are, but the real 800 pound gorilla in the room is the Futures Market as I understand it........could be wrong though.

The thing is, most people hate Big Oil and want to replace it with another renewable energy source such as Bio-Diesel, Wind, Solar, Coal, Natural Gas...........whatever.......and they don't consider that IF this happened, then there would just be......

Big Bio-Diesel Corporations such as Big Corn and such......
Big Wind Corporations.........(uh, no, wait, Tacco Bell's got that covered)
Big Coal..............

Getting rid of Big Oil will only create another "Big..........." will it not?

Seems to me the best approach is "all of the above," but that isn't going to happen because of the Special Interest Groups on both sides of the Political landscape.......


----------



## martybegan (May 28, 2013)

OnePercenter said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



Please tell me how oil companies will be able to produce refined products below cost.


----------



## westwall (May 28, 2013)

OnePercenter said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...








Socialist ideals in the end destroy the middle class idiot.  They are good for a while but then the reality of the human condition always catches up to them.  Do read a few history books before you spew this crap.


----------



## PaulS1950 (May 28, 2013)

There was no middle class in socialist Russia (USSR) - you were poor or in power.


----------



## whitehall (May 28, 2013)

The list also includes heating oil which is a big budget item for the middle class. Ethanol is an expensive additive to gas and it's nothing but a feel-good promotion. Ethanol lowers octane and it costs more to grow than it saves in energy.


----------



## tjvh (May 28, 2013)

OnePercenter said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



And sleep soundly knowing they would never pass those additional costs on to consumers... What fictional economy do you live in?


----------



## tjvh (May 28, 2013)

whitehall said:


> The list also includes heating oil which is a big budget item for the middle class. Ethanol is an expensive additive to gas and it's nothing but a feel-good promotion. Ethanol lowers octane and it costs more to grow than it saves in energy.



Not to mention what it has done to the price of food, and the countless people who starve overseas because of it.


----------



## Wyatt earp (May 28, 2013)

whitehall said:


> The list also includes heating oil which is a big budget item for the middle class. Ethanol is an expensive additive to gas and it's nothing but a feel-good promotion. Ethanol lowers octane and it costs more to grow than it saves in energy.



what I read it keeps gas a buck lower.
Ethanol Keeps Gasoline Prices $1.09 Cheaper | RFA: Renewable Fuels Association


----------



## PaulS1950 (May 28, 2013)

Ethanol does not lower the octane - it lowers the btu per pound but the octane rating is actually increased. Ethanol, the feed and fertilizer that are by products are cost effective when the appropriate crop is used to make it. The alcohol itself costs more than it is worth but add to the equation the high protein food and the high quality fertilizer that comes from what is left after fermentation and distillation and the cost of production versus the value of the sellable products makes it cheaper than gasoline.


----------



## KissMy (May 28, 2013)

Standard Oil, NCL, GM, Mack Truck, Firestone, Phillips Petroleum and a group of their key executives were indicted by a federal grand jury for conspiracy to monopolize.

Standard Oil's owner J.D. Rockefeller bought congress & the media. Nearly all news media reports come from Rockefeller center in New York. Ethanol was a dominate fuel until Standard Oil's J.D. Rockefeller paid congress to pass prohibition ending it's production.

 Oil companies have recently funded bogus studies showing ethanol to be a net energy loser. The news media in Rockefeller center blasted the airwaves with these studies & brainwashed the US population. Now everyone mistakenly believes lies like ethanol is a net energy loser, raised gas prices, food prices & taxes. When you track their info back it all comes from the same oil company funded sources.

Now Big Oil is destroying electric cars. All the brainwashed puppets spout their propaganda. They claim electric cars take more energy than gas cars.  Now Colorado banned Tesla sales & North Carolina Republicans are trying to ban Tesla sales.

The fact is sending natural gas to a power plant will generate 3 times the power than if you just burn it in your car engine driving around.

Enron manipulated energy prices. Bankers leases oil tankers to hold massive amounts of oil offshore & out of inventory. This not only created a fake shortage & ran prices up, but it tied up most of the oil tankers creating bottlenecks in oil transportation causing wild price spikes & shortages in importing countries.

European Commission is investigating BP, Shell, Statoil in the U.S. for antitrust manipulation of oil price benchmarks.


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 28, 2013)

OnePercenter said:


> Cap regular unleaded and diesel prices to 40 cents above taxes at the pump nationwide.



Since taxes are by far the largest factor in gasoline and diesel prices next to the actual cost of crude oil why don't we cut them instead.


----------



## Wyatt earp (May 28, 2013)

KissMy said:


> Standard Oil, NCL, GM, Mack Truck, Firestone, Phillips Petroleum and a group of their key executives were indicted by a federal grand jury for conspiracy to monopolize.
> 
> Standard Oil's owner J.D. Rockefeller bought congress & the media. Nearly all news media reports come from Rockefeller center in New York. Ethanol was a dominate fuel until Standard Oil's J.D. Rockefeller paid congress to pass prohibition ending it's production.
> 
> ...



Your post has so many truhs in it, I read the model "t" I think it was, was designed to run on ethanol or gas. It goes back farther then that though, to the civil war when they started taxiing ethanol more....... at work dont really have time to explain more.


----------



## KissMy (May 28, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> Since taxes are by far the largest factor in gasoline and diesel prices next to the actual cost of crude oil why don't we cut them instead.



- President Ronald Reagan increased the tax 125% in January 1983 when he signed the 1982 Surface Transportation Assistance Act.

- President George H. W. Bush increased gas tax 56% by signing the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990.

- President Clinton increased the gas tax 31% by signing the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993.

- In 2005 The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation discussed raising the federal gas tax to 40 cents per gallon over five years, rising 5-8 cents annually for five years and then also indexed to inflation. During 2008 the highway fund required support of $8 billion from general revenue to cover a shortage in the fund. Further transfers of $7 billion and $19.5 billion were made in 2009 and 2010 respectively.

- According to the National Defense Council Foundation, the cost of defending America's oil dependence around the globe total $297.2 to $304.9 billion annually. If reflected at the gasoline pump, these &#8220;hidden costs&#8221; comes to $1 a gallon that consumers are not paying. Tax payers are subsidizing gasoline at $1 per gallon. Gas users should pay the $1 war cost & alternative fuel & electric drivers should get a war rebate.


----------



## Mr. H. (May 28, 2013)

OnePercenter said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



Is this a new phenomenon, or is that 95% figure relatively historic?

Was that the market breakdown in the late 90's when crude was $10/barrel and gasoline $1.00/gallon? 

Like I said, you're an idiot.


----------



## KissMy (May 28, 2013)

OnePercenter said:


> Cap regular unleaded and diesel prices to 40 cents above taxes at the pump nationwide.



That price control will lead to gas shortages. What method should we use for rationing gasoline? Do you want to limit people to 10 gallons a week so they have to use alternative fuel or electric if they want to driver more than that? That will wreck the economy for a long time.


----------



## Wyatt earp (May 28, 2013)

KissMy said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Cap regular unleaded and diesel prices to 40 cents above taxes at the pump nationwide.
> ...



Thanks folks today dont remember the 70's gas lines or not old enough to even bother reading a book about it.


----------



## tjvh (May 28, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Cap regular unleaded and diesel prices to 40 cents above taxes at the pump nationwide.
> ...



Because as crude prices rise, States are enjoying a windfall of endless Tax dollars.


----------



## tjvh (May 28, 2013)

Gas prices would not be so high if it didn't take an Act of God to build a new Oil refinery in America. We are all paying the price for allowing decades of environmentalist loons to effectively take control our energy independence, and convert it into energy *dependence*.


----------



## KissMy (May 28, 2013)

tjvh said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



Bullshit! - The Federal Government & most states don't index their gas tax with the price of gas. When gas price goes up, demand & tax revenue falls. In 2008 the highway fund required support of $8 billion from general revenue due to lower gas consumption as a result of higher gas prices. Further transfers of $7 billion and $19.5 billion were made in 2009 and 2010 respectively.


----------



## Dugdale_Jukes (May 28, 2013)

tjvh said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > The list also includes heating oil which is a big budget item for the middle class. Ethanol is an expensive additive to gas and it's nothing but a feel-good promotion. Ethanol lowers octane and it costs more to grow than it saves in energy.
> ...



Russians proved the most efficient place to burn food crops is on the stalk. One has to wonder what kind of filthy fucking scum would buy into using a food crop for fuel...

Ronald Reagan signed a number of corporate welfare bills for Archer Daniels Midland including extensions of the ethanol  tax credit, an increase in the ethanol subsidy to 50 cents per gallon, federally  insured loans for small ethanol producers, *price guarantees*, and  purchase agreements for federal agency use of gasohol. In 1984, the  subsidy was increased from 50 to 60 cents per gallon. We can't prove Reagan blew Dwayne Andreas in the bonus round, but we can't prove he didn't either. 

The white trash of America have a lot to answer for. The price of corn flakes being about 30% higher due to corporate welfare is just one of them.


----------



## Wyatt earp (May 28, 2013)

bear513 said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > Standard Oil, NCL, GM, Mack Truck, Firestone, Phillips Petroleum and a group of their key executives were indicted by a federal grand jury for conspiracy to monopolize.
> ...



Yea it goes back to 1862, In the U.S., a special tax is placed on industrial alcohol by the Union Congress to help pay for the Civil War. The tax is $2 per gallon and this makes ethanol fall out of favor as a fuel in the U.S. ethanol was commonly used in lamps.

and interesting link
Ethanol History - From Alcohol to Car Fuel




> 1824-1826 U.S. inventor Samuel Morey, chiefly known for creating the world's first internal combustion engine, develops an engine that runs on ethanol and turpentine.
> 1906 The 1862 tax on industrial alcohol is repealed by Congress. Ethanol is now once again a fuel of interest in the United States.


----------



## Missourian (May 28, 2013)

While we're at it,  let's cap the price of cars at $5000.


----------



## KissMy (May 28, 2013)

Dugdale_Jukes said:


> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



All of your ethanol talking points come from a few manipulated oil industry funded studies. They have been laughed at by the scientific community. Yet you idiots repeat them like they are fact because the media pounded it into your head. 

Corn Ethanol creates more food than Corn alone does. For that reason alone it is a winner. Corn is fed to livestock. Livestock evolved as foragers, not raw corn eaters. Animals eating corn emit methane gas & pass most of the nourishment of the corn out into manure that emits methane & pollutes water. Methane is 15 times worse on the environment as CO2. Ethanol plants grind, cook & use enzymes to breakdown corn into energy & protein. Ethanol plants turn all the starch in corn that animals emit into the atmosphere as methane, into Ethanol before feeding it. The Corn Ethanol Plant by-product is DDG livestock feed that grows animals 33% faster than corn or grass does. The fact is if you are in livestock production, you can not be competitive unless you are feeding Ethanol DDG Feed! Also ethanol plants run on waste heat from power plants & steel mills. They do not consume raw energy to generate Ethanol. The real EROEI for Corn Ethanol is 3 to 1 which is higher than Oil from Canada's Tar Sands.

Steel refineries waste heat create steam that spins a turbine that generates electricity that powers the grid & ethanol plant. The exhaust from the steam turbine heats the mash at the ethanol plant. The waste heat from the ethanol plant heats greenhouses that grow food. The ethanol mash is only heated for fermentation & no longer heated to a boil to distill it. Ethanol is evacuated from the mash.

The Broin plant I was involved with years ago before it became Poet Ethanol was built next to a Natural Gas Turbine Power plant. The waste heat from the Power plants NG Turbine went to a boiler & made steam to power a steam turbine that generated power for the grid & power plant. The heat from boiler vent stack & exhausted steam from turbine heated the mash for fermentation & ethanol was evacuated from the mash. Heat from the mash heated buildings.


----------



## Wyatt earp (May 28, 2013)

Dugdale_Jukes said:


> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



Seriously dude, have you ever drove across the midwest and witnessed 100's of !00's of miles of boring corn fields and never asked yourself "who the hell eats all that corn?" lol, its called whiskey.....along with ethanol, all long with food, all long with government subsidies to let it just rot....


----------



## Dugdale_Jukes (May 28, 2013)

KissMy said:


> Dugdale_Jukes said:
> 
> 
> > tjvh said:
> ...



Here are some more facts: 

The useful life of engines is significantly reduced by ethanol. 

The total cost of producing ethonal is greater than the benefit to consumers

Brazilian ethanol can be produced, shipped to and sold in any US port on the south or Atlantic coast cheaper than American made ethanol can be manufactured and shipped to east and south coast ports. 

Did I mention that EVERY. SINGLE. WORD. of my original post is accurate including noting which bobbleheaded scum did the most for corporate welfare for ADM and now dozens more corporate parasites.


----------



## edthecynic (May 28, 2013)

tjvh said:


> Gas prices would not be so high if it didn't take an Act of God to build a new Oil refinery in America. We are all paying the price for allowing decades of environmentalist loons to effectively take control our energy independence, and convert it into energy *dependence*.


Rather than build new refineries, the Oil Monopoly is shutting down refineries and increasing exports to keep the price of gasoline artificially high.


----------



## Wyatt earp (May 28, 2013)

Dugdale_Jukes said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > Dugdale_Jukes said:
> ...



You have a point at the US put a tax on Brazil sugar cane ethanol see one of my post links...and thanks to kiss my...poster....lol I so forgot about corn used in cattle feed.


----------



## itfitzme (May 28, 2013)

tipofthespear said:


> ......if the Oil Companies are or are not conspiring to keep prices at certain levels, but the price of Crude is set based on the "Speculators."  The reason most prices rise in the Energy Industry is because of the "Futures Market," and the price speculation that goes on there, or, at least that is what I am told.
> 
> Now, Big Oil may well be part of the problem, and probably are, but the real 800 pound gorilla in the room is the Futures Market as I understand it........could be wrong though.
> 
> ...



Thats right.  That list of margins is missing futures.  I have not seen them but have read that there are literally oil tankers that are sitting off coast holding oil until prices rise. That may be. I haven't seen anything that coukd be taken as evidentiary data.  Maybe they are there, maybe it's in storage tanks.  Maybe it is simply futures contracts that put upwward pressure on prices. Maybe it is not enough to be significant.  

Never the less, the more companies that compete for sales, the closer prices get to the ideal free market equilibrium prices. 

Some one pointed out the profits. The simple thing is that in a perfectly competative ideal market with no barriers to entry, no economies of scale, and dozens of competitors, there are no profits because if there are then someone either lowers theirp price to increase sales and increase their profit, causing a wave of competitive price reduction until price equals price.

The fact that profit exists demonstrates that it isn't an ideal free market.

The more companies that are competing, the closer it gets to an ideal free market.


----------



## KissMy (May 28, 2013)

Dugdale_Jukes said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > All of your ethanol talking points come from a few manipulated oil industry funded studies. They have been laughed at by the scientific community. Yet you idiots repeat them like they are fact because the media pounded it into your head.
> ...



Pure Bullshit!

- The US produces corn ethanol cheaper & in higher volume than any country on the planet including Brazil & their sugar cane ethanol.

- Because the US produces ethanol cheaper, we are the worlds largest ethanol exporter. We do not import ethanol from Brazil, we export ethanol to Brazil. Exports of ethanol to Brazil made up more than one-third of the 1.2 billion gallons the U.S. exported in 2011.

- Ethanol extends engine life. All gas for the last 10+ years has ethanol in it. Because of this ethanol todays vehicles go many times further than they did pre-ethanol. We have a fleet of 20 different gas vehicles that are not "Flex Fuel" ready & we have been running them all on E85 for over 10 years now with no problems other than the lean O2 service light comes on which means nothing. Every vehicle has gone nearly 200,000 miles before we sold them & they still ran fine. Never ate seals on any of them.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEZuVfAAK_I"]Non Flex Tahoe Runs 100,000 miles on E85[/ame]


----------



## KissMy (May 28, 2013)

bear513 said:


> You have a point at the US put a tax on Brazil sugar cane ethanol see one of my post links...and thanks to kiss my...poster....lol I so forgot about corn used in cattle feed.



The tax on Brazil ethanol was in defense of Brazil's tax on US ethanol. It had nothing to do with corn ethanol not being competitive. The US exports ethanol to Brazil. We do not import ethanol from Brazil because their price is to high. Exports of ethanol to Brazil made up more than one-third of the 1.2 billion gallons the U.S. exported in 2011.


----------



## Wyatt earp (May 28, 2013)

I would like to see the link on four cycle motors wearing out faster on ethanol, yea its water based, so it could be common sense? Idk.... know if thats true though because even on E85 you still have oil based gas in it at 15%... Two cycle motors and especially marine two stroke and four stroke motors? that stuff is bad news.


----------



## Wyatt earp (May 28, 2013)

KissMy said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > You have a point at the US put a tax on Brazil sugar cane ethanol see one of my post links...and thanks to kiss my...poster....lol I so forgot about corn used in cattle feed.
> ...



Note, dont look at me as the bad guy here..... let me look it up.


----------



## bornright (May 28, 2013)

OnePercenter said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



Are you saying the fuel alternatives pushed so strongly for by Obama's administration are just talk?  A lot of our money has gone in to prop these companies up.  Competition is what we need.  What you seek would put us all a foot.  The oil companies could wait us out until we threw Obama or whoever else came up with such an idea out on their ear.


----------



## Wyatt earp (May 28, 2013)

guess you are right thanks....
CARD: Biofuel Taxes, Subsidies, and Mandates: Impacts on US and Brazilian Markets



> The biodiesel tax credit increases the competitiveness of US biodiesel relative to sugarcane ethanol. Thus, biodiesel production will likely exceed levels needed to meet the biomass-based diesel mandate and will result in lower imports of sugarcane ethanol. The decline in Brazilian ethanol exports decreases Brazilian domestic demand for imported US corn ethanol so the extent of two-way trade in ethanol is reduced under the tax credit


----------



## Wyatt earp (May 28, 2013)

So curious why did Brazil need the US corn ethanol import in the first place if the Brazil sugar cane ethanol was enough to fill domestic demand and to export it as a poster suggests?


----------



## OnePercenter (May 28, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...



I never stated that the oil companies broke any laws, although, when anti-trust is meantioned, oil companies are the first I think of.


----------



## OnePercenter (May 28, 2013)

tipofthespear said:


> ......if the Oil Companies are or are not conspiring to keep prices at certain levels, but the price of Crude is set based on the "Speculators."  The reason most prices rise in the Energy Industry is because of the "Futures Market," and the price speculation that goes on there, or, at least that is what I am told.
> 
> Now, Big Oil may well be part of the problem, and probably are, but the real 800 pound gorilla in the room is the Futures Market as I understand it........could be wrong though.
> 
> ...



Two things can be influenced with a thought; your Richard, and the futures market. 

Big oil is every bit as culpable as the rest of the futures gamblers.


----------



## OnePercenter (May 28, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Cap regular unleaded and diesel prices to 40 cents above taxes at the pump nationwide.
> ...



Manipulations in the futures market is the largest factor in gasoline and diesel prices.


----------



## OnePercenter (May 28, 2013)

bornright said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



The year was 2005.


----------



## itfitzme (May 28, 2013)

OnePercenter said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



I'm not saying that you said that. We are in total agreement that the fossil fuel market has the greatest market leverage of all markets.  We agree that the fossil fuel companies profits prove that the market is not the theoretical ideal free market.

They are not a monopoly though, to which anti-trust law would apply.  They aren't a cartel, at least not that we know.  They are not explicitly in collusion.

If they were a monopoly then it seems that the PUC thing applies.

So, then, what would be the basis for forcing market management? Under what authority? How should it be managed?  If the issue were presented to economists, politicians, and the court, how shouldnit be worded?  How about to the voters?  Swing voters?  The general public? Left wing liberals?  Moderate conservatives?

Obviously, price controls are non-functional.


----------



## itfitzme (May 28, 2013)

OnePercenter said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



But the idea is that it saves product for future consumption when it will be in higher demand, right?


----------



## Mr. H. (May 28, 2013)

If gasoline/diesel fuels were not "affordable" for the geophysicists that searched for, the companies that drilled for or produced or stored or transported or refined or again transported and then finally marketed.... then you sorry fucks wouldn't have any would you?


----------



## Pogo (May 29, 2013)

KissMy said:


> Dugdale_Jukes said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



Not true.  I haven't used anything but pure gas in my Saturn for at least four years, and when I did have to use E10 it was only because I had to go deep into Florida.  And it's got over twice your 200k.  Hell, it had more than 200 when I bought it.  And to this day there's not a drop of ethanol in it.

List of ethanol-free gas stations

And I avoid the ethanol because if I don't, my mileage drops 15 to 20 percent -- _more _than the proportion of ethanol in E10, so I actually use _more _oil.

YMMV.


----------



## edthecynic (May 29, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...


Big Oil IS a monopoly controlled through banks which are immune to anti-trust laws. That is why Rockefeller switched his control of his oil monopoly from the Standard Oil holding company to Equitable Trust Company/Chase National Bank/Chase Manhattan Bank/J P Morgan Chase.


----------



## Wyatt earp (May 29, 2013)

OnePercenter said:


> bornright said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



Whatever? lol ....


----------



## JWBooth (May 29, 2013)

OnePercenter said:


> Cap regular unleaded and diesel prices to 40 cents above taxes at the pump nationwide.


 and guarantee limited availability.

Price controls have never failed to create shortages.

Make it more affordable?
Drop all the mandated mixtures, kill the alcohol requirements and reduce the taxes.


----------



## zeke (May 29, 2013)

tipofthespear said:


> ......if the Oil Companies are or are not conspiring to keep prices at certain levels, but the price of Crude is set based on the "Speculators."  *The reason most prices rise in the Energy Industry is because of the "Futures Market," and the price speculation that goes on there, or, at least that is what I am told.*Now, Big Oil may well be part of the problem, and probably are, but the real 800 pound gorilla in the room is the Futures Market as I understand it........could be wrong though.
> 
> The thing is, most people hate Big Oil and want to replace it with another renewable energy source such as Bio-Diesel, Wind, Solar, Coal, Natural Gas...........whatever.......and they don't consider that IF this happened, then there would just be......
> 
> ...




I've been making this point for years. The futures market is making bets on what the price of a barrell of oil MAY be at a point in the near future. But the oil retailers get to price thier retail sales for today based on what the product cost could or may be IN THE FUTURE.

What a great way to run a business. Make money on the up side and make money on the down side. Record profits.

But I would bet that the traders on the futures market represent the major oil companies from around the world.

What a racket.


----------



## Pogo (May 29, 2013)

JWBooth said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Cap regular unleaded and diesel prices to 40 cents above taxes at the pump nationwide.
> ...



Fuel prices are controlled (uniform) in Brazil.  I don't believe they have shortages.


----------



## Mr. H. (May 29, 2013)

Where's my affordable food? 
Record prices for groceries while agriculture exports hundreds of millions of metric tons of OUR food!
It ain't fair, I tells ya.


----------



## JWBooth (May 29, 2013)

For now...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/27/w...-regain-lost-swagger.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


----------



## usmcstinger (May 29, 2013)

Natural gas will become the new fuel. In fact, most heavy duty equipment, power plants, big Earth Movers, farm machinery produced by CAT and John Deere are made to run on natural gas. A good number TAXi's in NYC have been running on natural gas for over 5 years. Warren Buffet is testing natural gas powered on the trains. A Ford 150 running on natural gas should be for sale soon. Natural gas is the cleanest fossil based fuel.


----------



## Mr. H. (May 29, 2013)

JWBooth said:


> For now...
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/27/w...-regain-lost-swagger.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0



Whoa, hold on a second. Brazil imports ethanol from the U.S.....

That is so fucking insane and typical of our agriculture industry. They've given it to us up the ass for decades. We pay them to do it, and thank them in the process.

After all... God made a farmer.


----------



## Mr Natural (May 29, 2013)

Considering what it has to go through to get to the pump, it's astonishing that it doesn't cost a whole lot more than it does.


----------



## KissMy (May 29, 2013)

Pogo said:


> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



That is because Brazil controlled price is above the market rate. They pay $5.26 a gallon for gas. If they dropped the price below market rates there would be a shortage. If the price was limited to 40 cents a gallon, production would halt & demand would soar. You would not be able to find a drop of gas anywhere in the country.


----------



## KissMy (May 29, 2013)

Mr Clean said:


> Considering what it has to go through to get to the pump, it's astonishing that it doesn't cost a whole lot more than it does.



If we had to pay the $1 a gallon cost of defending our oil suppliers at the pump it would cost a lot more.


----------



## JWBooth (May 29, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> > For now...
> ...



and Congress made ethanol subsidies and mandates


----------



## KissMy (May 29, 2013)

JWBooth said:


> and Congress made ethanol subsidies and mandates



There is no ethanol subsidy. The so called ethanol subsidy was just lower tax on ethanol vs gas. Ethanol was still taxed just at a lower rate. This lower tax was eliminated in 2010. Ethanol is now taxed at the same rate. It cost us $1 a gallon to fight wars to secure our oil supply. Gas should be taxed a dollar a gallon higher than ethanol, but oil companies cried like a baby because the ethanol tax was 20 cents lower. They blasted the airwaves with anti-ethanol propaganda & crippling subsidy bullshit. The day that ethanol tax was raised gasoline price soared 40 cents a gallon at the pump because it decreased ethanol as a competitor to gasoline.

There was never a lower ethanol vs gas tax on exports, yet we exported billions of gallons at a profit up until last years drought. We were the worlds cheapest & largest ethanol producers. Brazil & Saudi Arabia were importing US ethanol like crazy & we were making a profit on it.


----------



## Wyatt earp (May 29, 2013)

KissMy said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> > Considering what it has to go through to get to the pump, it's astonishing that it doesn't cost a whole lot more than it does.
> ...



I stll dont know why we just dont send the bill to China,Great Britian, Australia, New Zealand .............I dont see their Aircraft carrier fleets defending the shipping lanes around the middle east and in the Pacific and Atlantic


----------



## Mr. H. (May 29, 2013)

KissMy said:


> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> > and Congress made ethanol subsidies and mandates
> ...



"Fighting wars to secure oil supply" is convoluted logic. Always has been. 

What oil companies primarily "cried" about was the mandated blending and retailing of ethanol. And the guaranteed 15% market that was handed agriculture- on a platter. 

Methanol was railroaded out of the picture by agriculture interests to clear the way for their little pet project to be rammed down consumers' gullets. 

The entire ethanol program was based on pro-ethanol propaganda:
a) It will result in cleaner air. Bullshit.
b) It will reduce imports. Bullshit.
c) It will result in higher prices for the poor little farmers' pocketbooks. BINGO

As if diverting 40% of corn acreage to ethanol production isn't enough to satisfy that greedy industry, so much of the shit is made that we export 20% of it!

Was THAT part of the intent when this program was introduced? No it wasn't. 

Farm state votes. That's what it's all about. Do the Hokey Pokey and turn yerself around.


----------



## KissMy (May 29, 2013)

Oil companies have many states banning Tesla car sales. They are cry babies!

Tesla is the only company to completely pay back all government DOE loans. Their stock is up 400% in 6 months. Big oil is trying to shut them down.


----------



## JWBooth (May 29, 2013)

KissMy said:


> Oil companies have many states banning Tesla car sales. They are cry babies!
> 
> Tesla is the only company to completely pay back all government DOE loans. Their stock is up 400% in 6 months. Big oil is trying to shut them down.


Link?


----------



## KissMy (May 29, 2013)

JWBooth said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > Oil companies have many states banning Tesla car sales. They are cry babies!
> ...



Tesla Repays Department of Energy Loan Nine Years Early

Colorado baned Tesla sales & now North Carolina is trying to do the same.

Forbes: North Carolina's Threat To Tesla Likely Unconstitutional

*Tesla stock (TSLA) topped $110 yesterday! It's up 400% in 6 months*


----------



## JWBooth (May 29, 2013)

KissMy said:


> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



What I see here is a threat to the direct marketing model in selling the cars, not a ban of the cars. Is this the problem in Colorado as well, the report linked does not mention a ban there.


----------



## bornright (May 29, 2013)

OnePercenter said:


> bornright said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



Are you telling me that the Bush administration over regulated the oil industry?  

Like I said the only thing we need is competition with an inexpensive efficient fuel that can stand by itself without the government having to hold it up.  The trouble is we are still waiting.


----------



## KissMy (May 29, 2013)

JWBooth said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > JWBooth said:
> ...



Sure - And Rockefeller paying for prohibition was not about eliminating ethanol competition. And the wars in the middle-east has nothing to do with oil.


----------



## PaulS1950 (May 29, 2013)

Gasoline, in America, is subsidized to keep the price artificially low.
If Americans stopped using gas the oil companies would simply sell it on the spot market, world wide, for over ten dollars a gallon. They would make tremendous profits if they didn't sell in the USA at all.

Ethanol is not a "water based" product. The empirical formula for Ethanol is: C2H6O
It combines readily with water but the Ethanol can be removed from the water through a controlled temperature increase to approximately 140F leaving the water behind in a liquid state as the Ethanol evaporates out and is recovered through condensation. This can be done in a "cracking" tower just as products are separated from crude oil but it can also be accomplished through the use of a simple "reflux" still.
Ethanol is not corrosive to most metals. It is a solvent that will clean most metals of oxidation and adding Ethanol to a rusted fuel system will result in the rust being dislodged and carried with the fuel to the injectors or carburetor. If the fuel system is flushed prior to the addition of Ethanol the rust deposits can be eliminated completely. Ethanol does not degrade flexible fuel lines. Any fuel line in current use is not affected adversly by Ethanol.

The production of ethanol in the USA uses largely feed grade corn and not the corn you serve with your dinner. The production has two major by-products. 1. A high protein feed that contains more protein than corn does pound for pound. 2. A high nitrogen fertilizer that is a better fertilizer than that produced by the distillation of petroleum products. If the value of all three products are calculated then Ethanol production is more cost efficient from the ground to the pump than petroleum products.

If an engine is designed to take advantage of the octane capabilities of ethanol it can be as efficient as current engines designed to run on gasoline and the Ethanol engine will produce more power for the same displacement.

Corn is a poor product to make into Ethanol. There are many others that produce more of all three components per acre with less cost.
example:
Jeruselum Artichokes can produce a perenial crop (never take the bulbs out of the ground) that converts to 2000 gallons per acre per year (with two harvests per year of the stalk only).

Alcohol can be made locally by individuals while gasoline cannot.
A 5 acre plot can produce 10000 gallons of Ethanol each year which converts to 12000 gallons of fuel.


----------



## Mr. H. (May 29, 2013)

Remind me again why we need to make gasoline/diesel "more affordable".


----------



## Pogo (May 30, 2013)

KissMy said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > JWBooth said:
> ...



OK, you just said "price controls have *never failed* to create shortages", so I gave an example that disproves it.
Now you wanna throw in all kinds of qualifiers as to  "what would happen if".

So _never _means never, except when it doesn't?

You lose.


----------



## KissMy (May 30, 2013)

Pogo said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



I Win! - You are an idiot.  I never claimed "price controls have never failed to create shortages". Your confused & quoting JWBooth.


----------



## Pogo (May 30, 2013)

KissMy said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



uh- that means JWBooth is who I was talking to in the first place.
Should I run that by slower?

How do you "win" if it's not even your quote?

Sheeeesh.


----------



## KissMy (May 30, 2013)

A peer reviewed study from Roger Stern of Princeton, shows it cost the US $7.3 trillion to defend the oil supply over the past 30 years. Why the hell do us tax payers have to pay for that. Oil companies should be taxed to pay for that.

We need to stop taxing ethanol until the oil companies pay for their true defense cost.


----------



## Politico (May 30, 2013)

Wow so few have a clue how things work.


----------



## freedombecki (May 30, 2013)

KissMy said:


> A peer reviewed study from Roger Stern of Princeton, shows it cost the US $7.3 trillion to defend the oil supply over the past 30 years. Why the hell do us tax payers have to pay for that. Oil companies should be taxed to pay for that.
> 
> We need to stop taxing ethanol until the oil companies pay for their true defense cost.


Obama already did that. He shut down America in the Gulf of Mexico. That wiped out $200 billion per year in American holdings and gave $200 billion to communist countries--Cuba, China, and Russia, who rest assured, moved right on in after Obama's unilateral shutdown of thousands of American jobs in and around the Gulf of Mexico, and all because they were not fastidious contributors to his election campaign.

The loss in private sector jobs was horrendous, plus it destroyed many mom-and-pop Gulf Coast eateries who were hit when workers no longer were there to buy lunch, breakfast, or dinner, for good.

Don't be fooled by fools, KissMy. Taking out a huge arm of the oil companies that drilling in the Gulf of Mexico more than made up for what we lost and was the reason why oil prices doubled by the time Obama started his second year.

He used BP to beat up America' South for not voting for him and not allowing his ACORN subsidiaries to infiltrate and corrupt the vote so he could win states he couldn't win by honest means. 

Why do you think President Obama is known by both sides as one of the Ten most corrupt politicians who ever lived in America? I'd give anything to say he was one of the best that people looked up to, but he is the Poster Boy for making America a Marxist (in a spread the wealth of other people) and his Sharia-friendly state. Maybe that's what some Americans want now, but it's not what I care for. I think America needs private sector jobs. When you turn all receipts for a country in to a one-world situation, it will revert back to being a dog-eat-dog world in which someone outside our borders decides what kind of slavery it has in store for free men and women.

When Russia did that, more than twenty million people died as the replacements for the Czar handed death warrants to workers by taking their productivity away from them and leaving them with not even so much as a loaf of bread, starving them to death, literally. I've seen some say the human life toll was as high as one hundred million, but most of those who actually went by the official body count agree it's twenty million. There is still a faction that said the count was corrupt and that it is higher, but it's a little hard to prove a death when birth certificates and death certificates alike are destroyed. The Bolsheviks killed untold numbers of their fellow Russians over jealousy of their ownership of private property and loyalty to old ways.

The EU would rather talk about how Americans killed the native Americans off when in fact, it was the Spanish Conquistadors, the British Army, certain French patrols, and only certain American Presidents, namely Andrew Jackson and his followers, did that. The EU doesn't hold its own feet to the fire for pandemic religious persecution massacres, tribal warfare and genocides, etc. that it wiped out all written information on them during Renaissance times to excuse itself forever from such deeds. They are liberals. Like Sandy Berger, if you get rid of the incriminating evidence showing you made a mistake, well, you just didn't do the deed since prosecutors have nothing to go on. Their pretense of never having harmed other human groups is basically a self-serving lie. The wealthy whose prodigy joined religious groups disagreeing with the monarch-du-jour were sent to America where their pilgrimage and servitude of poorly-paid labor would at least continue their line, and they wouldn't be bothered with the family disgrace of having children disagreeing with leaders, often weak puppets due to their birth into ruling families and susceptibility to following strong political forces within their sundry nations. Well, that's just my humble opinion. Carry on, but people living today had very little to do with what happened 400 years ago and even up through the present in most cases.

And the Oil Companies have repaid their debts in addition to being targets of opportunists in government like President Barack Obama.


----------



## Sunshine (May 30, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > A peer reviewed study from Roger Stern of Princeton, shows it cost the US $7.3 trillion to defend the oil supply over the past 30 years. Why the hell do us tax payers have to pay for that. Oil companies should be taxed to pay for that.
> ...



I was down to the Gulf last October, there is still evidence of the oil spill.  And they were still 'sifting sand' so to speak trying to salvage what businesses where left that depend on tourism.


----------



## freedombecki (May 30, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...


There was a complete Media shutdown of causes of the problem, Obama wouldn't let BP investigators look into it and used American resources to block them from even finding evidence of the source. No reports of Greenpeace or other ships in the area is available to us, it's all been shut down due to "security" reasons. I smell a rat, but it's just a smell, nothing more. It's one thing to blame someone for something, but to prevent them from even looking into the matter after you've sent them a montrocious bill is beneath reproach. You used to have to prove malfeasance. Now, you only allow that if it is politically expedient to your re-election. 

Transparency, thy name is not President Obama.

Sunshine, your point is most well-received. Pardon me if I'm a little on the perniciously skeptical side, but we're still in for one discovery after another when the onus is removed from investigators looking into this if Sandy Burger's boys are less than perfect removing eraser dust. Sandy Burger--the guy caught removing Clinton doings from the National ARchives a few years later for which he was convicted in court and had to do public service and pay a little fine. In order to send him the message he wasn't to do that again, Hillary Clinton let this sleight-of-hand info-removal artist be her campaign manager when she ran for President and gave him access to her after she became State Department Secretary. Just sayin.' 

And the American press/infomercial corps increases the size of their blinders every day.


----------



## Wyatt earp (May 30, 2013)

KissMy said:


> A peer reviewed study from Roger Stern of Princeton, shows it cost the US $7.3 trillion to defend the oil supply over the past 30 years. Why the hell do us tax payers have to pay for that. Oil companies should be taxed to pay for that.
> 
> We need to stop taxing ethanol until the oil companies pay for their true defense cost.



No like I said before, the rest of the world should be sent a bill for the U.S. Navy defending their oil as well as ours. They world is a bunch of freeloaders....


----------



## Mr. H. (May 30, 2013)

What kills me is that we were "defending the oil supply" under Clinton, when oil was $10/barrel and gasoline was $1/gallon. That fuckwad allowed foreign countries to dump their commodity on our markets at below cost, destroying the hydrocarbon industries.


----------



## Wyatt earp (May 30, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> Gasoline, in America, is subsidized to keep the price artificially low.
> If Americans stopped using gas the oil companies would simply sell it on the spot market, world wide, for over ten dollars a gallon. They would make tremendous profits if they didn't sell in the USA at all.
> 
> Ethanol is not a "water based" product. The empirical formula for Ethanol is: C2H6O
> ...



So sorry still wrong.... Ethanol is water based. Oil don't have water in it 200 proof Ethanol does.



> Pure (undenatured) anhydrous (200 proof/100%) ethyl alcohol. Meets USP and Multicompendial specifications. Used in research, healthcare, industrial, and production applications as a cleaner, solvent, and reagent. 200 proof ethanol is commonly referred to as "anhydrous." Koptec's water specification is less than 0.1%.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 30, 2013)

OnePercenter said:


> Cap regular unleaded and diesel prices to 40 cents above taxes at the pump nationwide.



Nationwide affordable gasoline.
Both gallons.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 30, 2013)

bear513 said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > The list also includes heating oil which is a big budget item for the middle class. Ethanol is an expensive additive to gas and it's nothing but a feel-good promotion. Ethanol lowers octane and it costs more to grow than it saves in energy.
> ...



OMG! That's hilarious. And wrong.
Why not mandate 30% ethanol, we'll save $3.27 per gallon!
So silly.


----------



## KissMy (May 31, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



You are wrong! Ethanol was lowering gasoline prices at the pump by 25% that equals $1 a gallon on $4 gas. We can't mandate 30% ethanol because shortage & imbalances will cause prices to rise. 10% ethanol was only mandated to replace MTBE because it contaminated the water supply.

There use to be lower taxes on ethanol at the pump. But since idiots in congress raised ethanol taxes December 31, 2011 the price you pay for gas & ethanol skyrocketed 45 cents a gallon. Enjoy bending over & taking it up the wallet even more at the pump. Ethanol held gasoline prices down over $1 a gallon. If you idiots keep on believing the garbage the oil companies keep spewing & ban ethanol, gas price will increase another $1 a gallon to stay permanently over $5 a gallon.

Note the price spike in gasoline at the pump when taxes were raised on ethanol on December 31, 2011. Enjoy the higher prices you tax & spend idiots!





We produce enough ethanol to supply 15% of the gasoline in this country. That means E85 sales were over 5% of pump sales & that competition was holding gasoline prices down. Since the ethanol tax increase made it less competitive it caused the ethanol storage to swell & production falling since 1/1/2012. Gasoline demand has increased by 5% since that time.

Ethanol is still replacing 10% of gasoline so it still holds down prices but ending the ethanol tax break most certainly increased the price by 45 cents at the pump. I do know it was holding gas prices down by at least 25%. Here is how I can prove it.

In the winter the demand for heating-oil/diesel-fuel is high & gasoline is low. That makes gasoline a bi-product from the barrels of crude oil they refine into heating oil. So the gas price dropped below & heating-oil/diesel-fuel would rise above gasoline every winter.

The exact opposite happened every summer.

In the summer the demand for gasoline is high & heating-oil/diesel-fuel is low. That makes heating-oil/diesel-fuel a bi-product from the barrels of crude oil they refine into gasoline. So the heating-oil/diesel-fuel price dropped below & gasoline would rise above heating-oil/diesel-fuel every winter.

Before the big rise in Ethanol production this translated into gasoline being at least 25% higher than diesel-fuel at the pump in the summer & diesel-fuel costing at least 25% more than gasoline in the winter.

Now in the past 4 years since ethanol production ramped up gasoline prices never even get as high as diesel-fuel even in the summer. At current prices that means Ethanol is holding Gasoline prices at the pump down by at least a $1 a gallon. Last years drought plus this years corn seed shortage & to cold & wet planting season has stopped ethanol exports & triggered importing for the first time. Gas prices are higher because of less ethanol competition.


----------



## Mr. H. (May 31, 2013)

Ethanol contaminates water supplies, ma'am. 
Methanol was replaced because it was strong-armed out of the equation by Agricultural interests.

Ethanol is a bill of goods, rammed through by Agriculture and farm-state politicians. 
Then it was given a guaranteed 10% market share. 
Pretty sweet deal for the poor little American Farmer.

GOD MADE A FARMER!

  ​


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 31, 2013)

KissMy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > bear513 said:
> ...



*You are wrong! Ethanol was lowering gasoline prices at the pump by 25% that equals $1 a gallon on $4 gas. *

How does adding 10% ethanol lower the price 25%? Show me your math.

*There use to be lower taxes on ethanol at the pump. But since idiots in congress raised ethanol taxes December 31, 2011 the price you pay for gas & ethanol skyrocketed 45 cents a gallon.*

If ethanol rose 45 cents, that would raise the price of E10, 4.5 cents.

*We produce enough ethanol to supply 15% of the gasoline in this country.*

Why not make it easier to drill for oil, and eat our food, instead of burning it?

*At current prices that means Ethanol is holding Gasoline prices at the pump down by at least a $1 a gallon.*

That's an awesome theory! Let's end the mandate, if it makes sense economically, they'll still use it.


----------



## KissMy (May 31, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Show your math?  What a retard!  Prices & percentage change in supply are not linear. 

If 100 people want 100 gallons of gas but suddenly there is only 95 gallons available, prices don't just rise 5%. They rise until 5% can't afford gas.

A 45 cent tax hike on a competitors product means demand will drive your price up 45 cents before consumers demand the competition product again. The 4.5 cent increase was only for the 10% mixed in the gas, the rest was from E85 being completive until gas rose 40 cents.

Corn Ethanol creates more food than Corn alone does. Prior to ethanol the corn was just fed to livestock. Livestock evolved as foragers, not raw corn eaters. Animals eating corn emit methane gas & pass most of the nourishment of the corn out into manure that emits methane & pollutes water. Methane is 15 times worse on the environment as CO2. Ethanol plants grind, cook & use enzymes to breakdown corn into energy & protein. Ethanol plants turn all the starch in corn that animals emit into the atmosphere as methane, into Ethanol before feeding it. All the corn protein (that builds muscle steak & hamburger in animals) remains as a highly digestible ethanol plant by-product called DDG livestock feed that grows animals 25% faster on 30% less feed than corn or grass does. The fact is if you are in livestock production, you can not be competitive unless you are feeding Ethanol DDG Feed! Also ethanol plants run on waste heat from power plants & steel mills. They do not consume raw energy to generate Ethanol. The real EROEI for Corn Ethanol is 3 to 1 which is higher than Oil from Canada's Tar Sands.

Steel refineries waste heat create steam that spins a turbine that generates electricity that powers the grid & ethanol plant. The exhaust from the steam turbine heats the mash at the ethanol plant. The waste heat from the ethanol plant heats greenhouses that grow food. The ethanol mash is only heated for fermentation & no longer heated to a boil to distill it. Ethanol is evacuated from the mash. Other ethanol plants are built next to a Natural Gas Turbine Power plant. The waste heat from the Power plants NG Turbine went to a boiler & made steam to power a steam turbine that generated power for the grid & power plant. The heat from boiler vent stack & exhausted steam from turbine heated the mash for fermentation & ethanol was evacuated from the mash. Heat from the mash heated buildings.


----------



## Mr. H. (May 31, 2013)

Let's keep it simple folks.
This was a sham from day one. Don't try to manicure the bullshit.


----------



## KissMy (May 31, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> Let's keep it simple folks.
> This was a sham from day one. Don't try to manicure the bullshit.



Please explain the 45 cent rise in gasoline when ethanol got a 45 cent tax hike. Please explain why gasoline used to be 25% higher than diesel this time of year prior to ethanol, but is now lower than diesel.

Note the price spike in gasoline at the pump when taxes were raised on ethanol on December 31, 2011.


----------



## Mr. H. (May 31, 2013)

KissMy said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > Let's keep it simple folks.
> ...



Me? Why?

I've followed this program from its infancy. 

There is a singular purpose to this program- get that extra bushel of grain to market, and line the pockets of agriculture. 

I like ya, Ms. My. But I have an intense disdain for the agriculture industry. They railroaded this bullshit based on shady science and lie after lie. Screw them and their cock-eyed schemes.


----------



## KissMy (May 31, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...



Rockefeller railroaded ethanol by paying congress to ban it with prohibition. Farmers can't force congress to do shit because we are less than 1% of the population & are not rich. The EPA found MTBE to be a threat to the public & mandated replacing it with ethanol. The farmer had nothing to do with that. We also had nothing to do with the "God Made A Farmer" Super-Bowel advertisement that you hate. That was all Dodge motor company.


----------



## Mr. H. (May 31, 2013)

You are well aware of the power of farm-state votes, and farm-state legislators. 
Political campaigns were made or broken based upon a candidate's stance on ethanol. 

The EPA re-wrote emissions rules to accommodate ethanol blends. And I repeat- ethanol pollutes.
Ethanol plants pollute. 

It's snake oil, it's based on bullshit, and it has accomplished one - and only one- of its intended goals... to create a new market for corn.


----------



## KissMy (May 31, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> You are well aware of the power of farm-state votes, and farm-state legislators.
> Political campaigns were made or broken based upon a candidate's stance on ethanol.
> 
> The EPA re-wrote emissions rules to accommodate ethanol blends. And I repeat- ethanol pollutes.
> ...



The EPA fined the Tesoro oil refinery in Alaska $1.1 million dollars yesterday.  Did farmers make that happen?

The EPA nails farmers just like they do oil companies. If pig shit washes into the ditch or your lagoon floods over in a storm, you can bet you will get fined at least $10,000 a day until it gets cleaned up. Same with farm fertilizer & chemicals. Hell the EPA fined Kansas cattle farmer Norbert Hornung $250,000 & threatened 3 years of jail time because his cattle lagoon overflowed.

The EPA enviro wackos do what ever the hell they want.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 31, 2013)

KissMy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



*If 100 people want 100 gallons of gas but suddenly there is only 95 gallons available, prices don't just rise 5%. They rise until 5% can't afford gas.*

When is there only 95 gallons available?
The only time I can think of such a thing is when government disrupts supply.

*Corn Ethanol creates more food than Corn alone does. *

That is awesome. Then you don't need government forcing the market to do something that makes so much sense.

*Methane is 15 times worse on the environment as CO2. *

Since CO2 isn't bad for the environment, 15 times zero equals zero. 

*The real EROEI for Corn Ethanol is 3 to 1 which is higher than Oil from Canada's Tar Sands.*

Excellent! End the mandate. It's obviously not needed.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 31, 2013)

KissMy said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > Let's keep it simple folks.
> ...



*Please explain why gasoline used to be 25% higher than diesel this time of year prior to ethanol, but is now lower than diesel.*


Probably doesn't have anything to do with new government rules on diesel. LOL!


----------



## Mr. H. (May 31, 2013)

KissMy said:


> The EPA enviro wackos do what ever the hell they want.



... like green-light the ethanol nonsense. 

Agriculture has fouled our environment for a hundred years, and it will continue to do so in perpetuity. The Mississississississippi is a shit hole, the Gulf of Mexico is a big dead zone, and the Ogallala aquifer is polluted and drained. 

But oh noze, we can't have the Keystone XL pipeline crossing the Ogallala for fear that it MIGHT spring a leak. 

Ag gets the pass, the special treatment, the exemptions and deferments. 
Ethanol was never needed, but it was WANTED by the ag industry. Now they want 15% ETOH blended with gasolines? Hell, they can't EXPORT that shit fast enough. 

No, ethanol is a cottage industry created by special interest and political jockeying.


----------



## KissMy (May 31, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > The EPA enviro wackos do what ever the hell they want.
> ...



US farmers get the blame every time city people or companies dump their crap into the rivers & cause a dead zone. Big retailers like Walmart, HomeDepot, Lowes, etc. park skid loads of chemicals, fertilizers, herbicides & pesticides out in parking lots & garden centers at these retailers. Rain washes that stuff from leaking & broken bags down into the storm drain & out into the Mississippi River.

Also business & residents use way more of this stuff per acre than farmers ever do. All this washes off their yards, parking lots, sidewalks & streets down into the storm drain & out into the Mississippi River. But who gets blamed? The Farmers.


----------



## Mr. H. (May 31, 2013)

Yes, dear. Whatever you say.


----------



## Mr. H. (May 31, 2013)

A half-billion acres of cropland in the U.S. and you bark about pallets at Wal Mart.


----------



## Mr. H. (Jun 1, 2013)

I personally know many farmers. I've worked side-by-side with them for the last 36 years.
Most are extremely hard-working honest dependable reliable trustworthy individuals.
But I've run across some mighty unscrupulous fuckers too.

Yet that industry as a whole is one of smoke and mirrors that will stop at nothing to push that incremental bushel of grain to market.

Pork, the other white meat. Beef, it's what's for dinner. God made a farmer. 

It's just so much marketing bullshit. Getting paid for fallow ground, getting paid when the weather goes south, getting paid when prices crater. So many buffers and safety nets, it's hard to fail. 

You are in the 21st century and it's time you were treated as such. Grow up and grow out of it.


----------



## Glensather (Jun 1, 2013)

Just a thought, because I'm an eternal optimist.

When/If solar power or wind power or whatever becomes affordable enough that entire states can run on it without fear of blackouts, and gets to a state where they can compete with fossil fuels... would that lower the cost of oil? If less people need it, would it lower it, or would the prices raise due to lack of demand?

This isn't some environmentalist "save the forests" bullshit - I want the Keystone XL pipeline used so bad I can't stand it, mostly because I want the country off of foreign oil - but without that option, I feel that other forms of energy will be required.

I know this isn't relevant to the ethanol debate currently at hand, but at the same time, it may be: If alternative energy became highly affordable, and downright competitive with the oil companies, what would happen to the price of oil?


----------



## Mr. H. (Jun 1, 2013)

Glensather said:


> If alternative energy became highly affordable, and downright competitive with the oil companies, what would happen to the price of oil?



The U.S. imports 11 million barrels of oil per day.
Do the math, Charlie.


----------



## Glensather (Jun 1, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> Glensather said:
> 
> 
> > If alternative energy became highly affordable, and downright competitive with the oil companies, what would happen to the price of oil?
> ...



Its why I say "If".
I know we import a fuckton of oil.


----------



## Mr. H. (Jun 1, 2013)

Thank you, Dr. fuckton.


----------



## Glensather (Jun 1, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> Thank you, Dr. fuckton.



That's right, just call me Doctor.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 1, 2013)

Glensather said:


> - I want the Keystone XL pipeline... because I want the country off of foreign oil



Surely you know, that Canadanis a foreign country, that evem without Stage III. we are already shipping it to Oklahoma.  The Keystone XL stage three just adds an additional leg to Texas

It will not increass US supply or drop prices. It is a global market.


----------



## edthecynic (Jun 1, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Glensather said:
> 
> 
> > - I want the Keystone XL pipeline... because I want the country off of foreign oil
> ...


It will actually do the opposite. The Canadian tar sand that is piped to the Midwest can only be sold in the USA. But the tar sand piped into Texas can be exported thus reducing the US supply of Canadian tar sand and increasing gas prices here.


----------



## editec (Jun 1, 2013)

OnePercenter said:


> Cap regular unleaded and diesel prices to 40 cents above taxes at the pump nationwide.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 1, 2013)

edthecynic said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Glensather said:
> ...



*The Canadian tar sand that is piped to the Midwest can only be sold in the USA.*

What about the stuff that gets shipped to the west coast of Canada and then to China?


----------



## KissMy (Jun 1, 2013)

Never mind that government must force private land owners to surrender their property through eminent domain for the Keystone XL Pipeline.

Oil supporters cried like babies & blocked it when Poet Ethanol wanted eminent domain for their Ethanol Pipeline. Plus oil companies won't allow ethanol in their pipeline. Oil pukes force ethanol to be trucked to force less competition & more public resistance to it's production.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 1, 2013)

KissMy said:


> Never mind that government must force private land owners to surrender their property through eminent domain for the Keystone XL Pipeline.
> 
> Oil supporters cried like babies & blocked it when Poet Ethanol wanted eminent domain for their Ethanol Pipeline. Plus oil companies won't allow ethanol in their pipeline. Oil pukes force ethanol to be trucked to force less competition & more public resistance to it's production.



End the mandate and build a pipeline if you want.
If it makes so much sense, you don't need a mandate.


----------



## KissMy (Jun 1, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > Never mind that government must force private land owners to surrender their property through eminent domain for the Keystone XL Pipeline.
> ...



If you are for government forcing private land owners to surrender to the Keystone Pipeline then tell government officials to allow the ethanol pipeline or force oil pipeline companies to transport ethanol. Oil companies lie & brainwashed the public into believing ethanol eats up pipelines. That is such bullshit. I have a thin metal can of ethanol that is over 30 years old & still in perfect shape. But oil companies used the media to blast their propaganda claiming ethanol eats holes it their very thick metal pipes.


----------



## Mr. H. (Jun 1, 2013)

That's all ag can do, is piggyback and suck off of other industries?
Force oil companies to market a product via the infrastructure they built?
Have corn, will travel. LOL
There is no need for ethanol, only selfish greed from agriculture.


----------



## freedombecki (Jun 1, 2013)

KissMy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...


The problem with procuring ethanol from corn is tricky because it costs more to make it than the present cost of gas, not to mention it depletes the earth through monocropping and needs to be rotated frequently. Its harvest eventually would be susceptible to the same problem that happened in Ireland called the Great Potato Famine when crops failed due to predation by microscopic organisms. That is nature's way of telling mankind to diversify and use land wisely or else. It would cripple a nation by inducing a failure in defense, too. Our present enemies are famed for genocide. Their genocidal mania to murder all Americans as they would Jewish people would result in another of their Holocausts. Yep. They were behind the acceleration of the European Jewish Holocaust for several purposes--to ally themselves with the brilliant people that Germans are, as well as rid themselves of a problem they couldn't get rid of by themselves, which was to kill all Jewish heritage people off the face of the earth, still a popular saying among crazed Middle East leaders today, except according to them, they never said that, and they never said that less than 50 times a day as well as in their prayers to Allah to avenge them of things that happened centuries ago. When I hear one of them brings that garbage over here and goes after the corporation's Jewish employee or two in the most offensive, office-gut-wrenching scream fest imaginable, there's no question in my mind that person was raised on hate through sundry techniques of intimidation and threats to his personal security from a very early age on. And there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about it except take measures that would just drive the hatred underground to be avenged in another avenue to eliminate nearness to the prejudicially hated one. For crying out loud in public!

Haj Amin al-Husseini: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2150


----------



## KissMy (Jun 1, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> That's all ag can do, is piggyback and suck off of other industries?
> Force oil companies to market a product via the infrastructure they built?
> Have corn, will travel. LOL
> There is no need for ethanol, only selfish greed from agriculture.



Gee-wiz - I wonder why those lazy ass good for nothing but feeding the world farmers don't have their own nation wide fuel infrastructure? 

It's because an asshole oil tycoon wanted to show everyone how powerful he was. He paid off congress to pass prohibition to stop all US farmers from making ethanol & competing with standard oil.

Now that farmers are producing ethanol again the oil big shots have used their power to blast all forms of media with lies about how bad ethanol is for the environment. Lies saying it cost more to make. Lies about it using more energy than it produces. Lies about how it causes hunger, food shortage & food prices to rise. Everyone I talk to rattles off these talking points straight away. None of them are farmers, primary ethanol users or ethanol plant operators. But they are very sure of their facts they got from the media or on-line that are all based on discredited research from professors funded by big oil.

These brainwashed idiots believe it's great that Big Oil has the government use eminent domain to force land owners to submit to the wishes of Big Oil. They did not mind that Big Oil used government power of prohibition to halt & jail ethanol producing farmers. Big Oil uses government power to strip away land owners mineral rights. Big Oil uses the US government & military to fight wars & negotiate with terrorist so they can extract oil from foreign countries. But how dare farmers be allowed to use oil pipelines that already run across their farmlands to transport their ethanol. Those evil good for nothing leaches can go fv<k themselves - right?


----------



## Mr. H. (Jun 1, 2013)

That's MISTER brainwashed idiot to you, young lady.


----------



## Mr. H. (Jun 1, 2013)

P.S. you're kinda cute when you're mad.


----------



## PaulS1950 (Jun 2, 2013)

The first cars out of the Ford factory came with ethanol carburetors installed. Gasoline wasn't widely available and most farmers used their homemade ethanol to run the cars trucks and farm equipment. Ethanol became a "cottage" industry when the government subsidized the production and transportation of oil and gas.


----------



## usmcstinger (Jun 9, 2013)

Is ethanol a clean burning fuel? 
Burning ethanol in automobiles emits several pollutants such as peroxyacetyl nitrate (PAN), acetaldehyde, alkyates, and nitrous oxide. These have significant negative human health effects, as well as negative impacts on other organisms and ecosystems.
Corn Ethanol as Energy | Harvard International Review
Does ethanol have any negative effects on autos?
Yes! Problems and Disadvantages of Ethanol Alcohol Blend Gasolines - E10.

In addition, Ethanol increases the vapor pressure of gasoline by 1 psi. resulting in higher evaporative emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds, while tailpipe emissions of Acetaldehyde increase 150%.
Ethanol dissolves oxide scale from the walls of pipes and tanks, subjecting the systems to internal corrosion, which leads to leaks.
Top Ten Facts about Ethanol


----------



## PaulS1950 (Jun 9, 2013)

The fact that ethanol is cleaner than gasoline is not even up for debate. 
The list of emissions from gasoline is both long and toxic - moreso than ethanol.
Ethanol removes the scale from components cleaning them of corossion - it does not cause the corossion.
I have been using ethanol in my cars for over ten years and have not had a single leak as a result. Even the rubber hoses are still intact. 

Ethanol does not produce the sulfuric acid that comes out of the exhaust of every gasoline powered car since catylitic converters were installed. Now THAT is corrosive! Ethanol does not produce the ozone that gasoline and diesel cars and trucks produce, while it does produce a bit of water vapor (steam) from the combustion process. Ethanol also generates more power per gallon than gasoline does when both engines are tuned for the fuel used. (that is why NASCAR switched to ethanol a couple of years ago)


----------



## Pogo (Jun 9, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> The fact that ethanol is cleaner than gasoline is not even up for debate.
> The list of emissions from gasoline is both long and toxic - moreso than ethanol.
> Ethanol removes the scale from components cleaning them of corossion - it does not cause the corossion.
> I have been using ethanol in my cars for over ten years and have not had a single leak as a result. Even the rubber hoses are still intact.
> ...



I just want the choice to not have to use it without it being mandated into 99% of the gas pumps.

I'm just back from a trip to northern New England, Canada, PA and back (2000 miles) without using E10.  But I had to jump through many hoops to do it.


----------



## Mr. H. (Jun 9, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> The fact that ethanol is cleaner than gasoline is not even up for debate.
> The list of emissions from gasoline is both long and toxic - moreso than ethanol.
> Ethanol removes the scale from components cleaning them of corossion - it does not cause the corossion.
> I have been using ethanol in my cars for over ten years and have not had a single leak as a result. Even the rubber hoses are still intact.
> ...



Dream on...

_However, contrary to popular belief, scientific analysis  including analysis from the Environmental Protection Agency  proves that the net greenhouse gas impact of corn ethanol is much worse than that of gasoline._

http://libcloud.s3.amazonaws.com/93/2c/d/514/Corn_ethanol_and_climate_change.pdf


----------



## JoeBlam (Jun 10, 2013)

Since the taxman takes about 4 times what the company who found and refined the crude oil, and drove the gasoline to your neighborhood station, good luck with telling them they'll lose their ass if they stay in business....ridiculous.  One thing you might want to think about though is making those who buy oil futures (Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley) take physical possession of that oil.  That will put those fucking pirates on the sidelines and you'd see an immediate drop in pump price.


----------



## JoeBlam (Jun 10, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> That's all ag can do, is piggyback and suck off of other industries?
> Force oil companies to market a product via the infrastructure they built?
> Have corn, will travel. LOL
> There is no need for ethanol, only selfish greed from agriculture.



Correct.....corn going into ethanol production has raised the price of every food item corn is used in and that's most everything we eat by the time we eat it.  Crazy.  A more likely future is massive algae ponds.....University of Michigan white coats just made petroleum from algae in less than an hour.....a huge advance in a process that used to take weeks.  And where would these algae ponds be?  In Louisiana and south Texas where our light-sweet crude comes from...think they might be related in terms of origin?....uh yeah.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jun 10, 2013)

Back to the OP, I am shocked anyone can recommend price controls with a straight face.  I thought we had enough experience to know what happens with price controls.  I guess not.  Do they not teach economics anymore?  Anywhere?

As for ethanol, it is another green liberal boondoggle that has backfired and as usual cost middle class people far more than it is worth.  The truth is that ethanol contains much less energy than gasoline.  If Congress had not mandated ethanol as an additive it would have died for being economicall inefficient.


----------



## Mr. H. (Jun 10, 2013)

JoeBlam said:


> Since the taxman takes about 4 times what the company who found and refined the crude oil, and drove the gasoline to your neighborhood station, good luck with telling them they'll lose their ass if they stay in business....ridiculous.  One thing you might want to think about though is making those who buy oil futures (Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley) take physical possession of that oil.  That will put those fucking pirates on the sidelines and you'd see an immediate drop in pump price.



Would you suggest such a thing for all commodity futures trading?


----------



## whitehall (Jun 10, 2013)

Price caps are like putting a band aid on a terminal wound. The US needs to produce and refine more fossil fuel.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 10, 2013)

whitehall said:


> Price caps are like putting a band aid on a terminal wound. The US needs to produce and refine more fossil fuel.



The US doesn't produce or refine fossil fuel.  Exxon/Mobiile and Chevron produce and refine oil in the US for global sales.


----------



## JoeBlam (Jun 10, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> Would you suggest such a thing for all commodity futures trading?



Good question.....so I'll turn it around ask you.....should we allow middle-men to drive up the price of essential commodities by speculating in a market they've rigged and cannot lose in?


----------



## JoeBlam (Jun 10, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > Price caps are like putting a band aid on a terminal wound. The US needs to produce and refine more fossil fuel.
> ...



Thank God they do.  And BTW, there is no such thing as "fossil fuel"....oil is an abiotic resource the earth is constantly producing.  It's also not a "finite" resource as is obvious by wells once believed dead, begin producing again.  Most oil is found at depths no organic material ever existed at.


----------



## Pogo (Jun 10, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > Price caps are like putting a band aid on a terminal wound. The US needs to produce and refine more fossil fuel.
> ...



It's amazing how many people don't get that.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jun 10, 2013)

JoeBlam said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > Would you suggest such a thing for all commodity futures trading?
> ...



Is that what you think happens?  Seriously?


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 10, 2013)

OnePercenter said:


> Cap regular unleaded and diesel prices to 40 cents above taxes at the pump nationwide.



Yeah, make the rich pay for our gas!  We should make them give it to us if they want to live.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 10, 2013)

JoeBlam said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



QFT.. it rains hydro carbons on Titan.  The folks here went nutzo over the idea that because you can reduce carbon based life forms to hydrocarbons there must therefore be only one way that hydrocarbons are generated.  I suppose Titan may be teeming with life, but I doubt the hydrocarbon shortage the oil companies, grant seeking scientists, and politicians keep clamoring about.


----------



## Pogo (Jun 10, 2013)

JoeBlam said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



:::wwhhooooosssh:::  (<< point sails over his head)


----------



## JoeBlam (Jun 10, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> JoeBlam said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...



No I KNOW that's what happens.....seriously.  Goldman is a criminal enterprise, PERIOD.  Further, if anybody wants to buy futures in any commodity, let them take possession, store it, and ship it to it's destination.....these rodents on Wall St. do nothing but interfere with free enterprise and always win by virtue of nobody being able to match their resources.  Time that came to a halt.


----------



## JoeBlam (Jun 10, 2013)

Pogo said:


> :::wwhhooooosssh:::  (<< point sails over his head)



Uh, the "point" was bogus....and stupid.  You'll have to get used to me being right 99.9% of the time.....


----------



## The Rabbi (Jun 10, 2013)

JoeBlam said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > JoeBlam said:
> ...



Neg rep and a place on iggy.
Some people are just too stupid to bother with.


----------



## Pogo (Jun 10, 2013)

JoeBlam said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > :::wwhhooooosssh:::  (<< point sails over his head)
> ...



The point was bogus?

So you actually believe the government, and not the oil industry, does the drilling and refining?

What the hell are the Exxons for then?


----------



## JoeBlam (Jun 10, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> JoeBlam said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Good idea, I accept your surrender.


----------



## JoeBlam (Jun 10, 2013)

Pogo said:


> JoeBlam said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



I have no idea what you're talking about.....do you?


----------



## Pogo (Jun 10, 2013)

JoeBlam said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > JoeBlam said:
> ...



Wow, cloudy and dense today.  Density may be heavy at times.

Usually when a point sails over a head it eventually floats down.  Let's run it again with the keywords blown up:



itfitzme said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > Price caps are like putting a band aid on a terminal wound. The US needs to produce and refine more fossil fuel.
> ...



Let me know when/if anything sinks in here.  I'll give you a day.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 13, 2013)

Pogo said:


> JoeBlam said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...




I really don't know how to say that more clearly or succinctly.

I've been trying to find some data on the "countries" and proportion of our export of fuel. *Recently our exports surpassed domestic consumption.

It would be intesting to see what more domestic supply of crude would do in terms of a percentage increase in world supply. *The elasticity of prices would be really cool. *I suspect that both are low.


----------



## Mr. H. (Jun 13, 2013)

In 152 posts, I still don't see any explanation as to exactly what is the purpose of making gasoline/diesel more affordable. Or why even posit such nonsense?


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 13, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> In 152 posts, I still don't see any explanation as to exactly what is the purpose of making gasoline/diesel more affordable. Or why even posit such nonsense?



Oh snap.


----------



## Mr. H. (Jun 13, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > In 152 posts, I still don't see any explanation as to exactly what is the purpose of making gasoline/diesel more affordable. Or why even posit such nonsense?
> ...



What's your problem? You're not the idiot that started this thread.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 13, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> In 152 posts, I still don't see any explanation as to exactly what is the purpose of making gasoline/diesel more affordable. Or why even posit such nonsense?



It doesn't really matter.  It's just pissin' in the wind. Prices can't be made lower.

There is one possibility but it will never fly.


----------



## Mr. H. (Jun 13, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > In 152 posts, I still don't see any explanation as to exactly what is the purpose of making gasoline/diesel more affordable. Or why even posit such nonsense?
> ...



Would it be that same "possibility" that drove world crude prices to $10/barrel in 1999?

You're a fucking tool.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 13, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...



Nice example of transferance.


----------



## Mr. H. (Jun 13, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...





itfitzme said:


> That said, the global oil production and refining market is dominated by ologopolies that enjoy dominant market leverage. *That is to say, that market has more leverage and power than any other market in tbe free market economy. *The oil production and refining market has huge economies of scale and entry costs. *The product itself is as close to a neccessity as can be expected, shot of air, water and food. *It provides huge returns to efficiency in use. *It is in short supply by comparison to other high demand products.



Ahhh... as in 1999 when crude was $10/barrel?

Choke on your own bullshit, asshat.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 13, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...



Choke on what. *It just describes the market. *It doesn't say anything about it being right or wrong, its just a description. *Something about that description you disagree with? *You think there are no economies of scale? *You think its a perfectlu competative market? *You think that the demand is highly elastic? *What exactly?

I'd love to analyze it.

Nor did I say what one can do about it. *I just said I have an idea.

You filled in the blanks with your own shit.

That is transferance.


Here, I'll give you a clue. *I wrote about the fossil fuel market. *That was the picture in my mind.

What object did you write about? *What picture was in your mind? *The oil fossil fuel market? *No. *


----------



## Mr. H. (Jun 13, 2013)

I give up. Carry on, moron...


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 14, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> I give up. Carry on, moron...



Ah, don't give up. *Get back on track. *Focus on the object,*

"That said, the global oil production and refining market is dominated by ologopolies that enjoy dominant market leverage. *That is to say, that market has more leverage and power than any other market in tbe free market economy. *The oil production and refining market has huge economies of scale and entry costs. *The product itself is as close to a neccessity as can be expected, shot of air, water and food. *It provides huge returns to efficiency in use. *It is in short supply by comparison to other high demand products."

instead of that distracting image of "who knows who" that has you switch from the market economics to whatever drives using the conjugations of the second person pronoun like

"You" and "You're" as in *"You're a fucking tool."

Come on, you can do it!

Here are the hypothesis;

the global oil production and refining market is*

A) *dominated by ologopolies

B) *that enjoy dominant market leverage.

** *1) that market has more leverage and power than any other market in the free market economy.*

** 2) *The oil production and refining market has huge economies of scale and entry costs.*

** 3) The product itself is as close to a neccessity as can be expected, short of air, water and food.*

** * * * a) *It provides huge returns to efficiency in use.*

** * * * *b) *It is in short supply by comparison to other high demand products.

What is our framework for comparison to qualify and quantify a market? *Do we measure relative to; another market that we take as a standard; the average of all markets; or an idealized reference as in a perfectly competative free market?

Here, I'll start out;

"b) *It is in short supply by comparison to other high demand products."

High demand products include food and water. *
*Housing is a product that may be considered as having high demand.*

Cigarettes and beer are not so much demanded that we would consider them as being generally as highly demanded. *They do seem to have a low price elasticity.

DVDs and baseballs don't strike one as being in such high demand and seem to have good price elasticity.

So how do we quantify the "demand" in such a way that we can confidently rank distilled petrol among all market product? *

It seems to me that just the general necessity of transportation to deliver labor and food is a sufficient consideration to take it as being in the highly demanded category.

Do you feel otherwise? Do you see petrol products as something that people easily do without, choosing *a new couch and foregoing driving to work? *Beer and wine over petrol? *A pepsi and a burritto over that gallon of gas at the 7-11? Some would. *Some might forgo that last two gallons of gas for a pack smokes, but what about the first gallon, the only two gallons they can afford on payday morning?

Seems to me, given the option, most people express greater utility for gas than most everything. *Heck, they may even choose itmover food because they need to drive to get food.

Common, you're smart. *Obviously you think you're smarter than me. *I'm just a "moron" andna "tool". *So analyze it. *What are the measures to put the petrol markets on a scale that compares it to other markets.

You can do it.

Or is "Carry on, moron.." and "You're a fucking tool." you're best example of objective thinking?*

Hmm.. *Maybe you're on to something, maybe that is not being a "moron" and focusing on objective measures of petrol utility and price elasticity is moronic.

Nah...sounds to me more like someone needs their huggies changed.


----------



## KissMy (Jun 14, 2013)

bear513 said:


> Dugdale_Jukes said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



Don't believe his lies. Brazil imposed a huge tariff on U.S. ethanol imports into Brazil, so we imposed a counter ethanol tariff on their ethanol coming here. In 2010 Brazil dropped its ethanol import tariffs, so in 2011 the U.S. Congress dropped our ethanol import tariffs.

Don't be fooled by Big Oil rhetoric. The U.S. Corn Ethanol industry produces more ethanol & does it cheaper than Brazil does with sugar & all other sources combined. We are the worlds largest ethanol exporter & Brazil has been our largest ethanol customer. The only time we import is after huge drought events like we had here last year.


----------



## JoeBlam (Jun 14, 2013)

KissMy said:


> Don't be fooled by Big Oil rhetoric. The U.S. Corn Ethanol industry produces more ethanol & does it cheaper than Brazil does with sugar & all other sources combined. We are the worlds largest ethanol exporter & Brazil has been our largest ethanol customer. The only time we import is after huge drought events like we had here last year.



Been in a grocery store lately?  You are either involved in ethanol subsidies or don't know your ass from up.   Food prices are at an all-time high because of trying to make fuel out of foodstuff.  It looked good on paper but like everything else the leftists come up with, the unintended consequences dwarf any imaginary good.  Feed the corn to the cattle and pigs, corn starch/syrup for humans, and drill for the SEA of oil under US soil.  Any other path is lunacy.


----------



## KissMy (Jun 14, 2013)

JoeBlam said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > Don't be fooled by Big Oil rhetoric. The U.S. Corn Ethanol industry produces more ethanol & does it cheaper than Brazil does with sugar & all other sources combined. We are the worlds largest ethanol exporter & Brazil has been our largest ethanol customer. The only time we import is after huge drought events like we had here last year.
> ...



Corn Ethanol Produces DDG feed that is 66% better feed than the corn that made it was. Livestock grow 33% faster on 25% less DDG feed than they do on corn. Ethanol production produces more food. Big Oil Brainwashed Idiots believe the opposit.






*Corn Ethanol is not reducing corn for food.*


----------



## JoeBlam (Jun 14, 2013)

KissMy said:


> JoeBlam said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



Why are you lobbying me?  I told you what ethanol has resulted in.....high food prices and burnt valves in piston engines....all the fake graphs and charts your group produces doesn't change that fact.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 14, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...



You have some serious personal issues there.


----------



## PaulS1950 (Jun 14, 2013)

Corn used for Ethanol is not the same corn we eat for dinner. It is a feed grade corn and the by-products of Ethanol are a higher protein feed than the corn itself along with some of the best fertilizer on the planet. 

What makes the food prices go up is the same thing that makes the rest of our products increase in price - real inflation. (the value of the dollar as it relates to gold or the other legal tenders in the world.)


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 14, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> Corn used for Ethanol is not the same corn we eat for dinner. It is a feed grade corn and the by-products of Ethanol are a higher protein feed than the corn itself along with some of the best fertilizer on the planet.
> 
> What makes the food prices go up is the same thing that makes the rest of our products increase in price - real inflation. (the value of the dollar as it relates to gold or the other legal tenders in the world.)



I've been looking at the various CPIs for food and beverages, milk and dairy, cerials and bakery, alchohol, etc.

It's hard to make a case for a clear correlation between the data graphs posted and any inflation of food prices.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 15, 2013)

JoeBlam said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > Would you suggest such a thing for all commodity futures trading?
> ...



Rigged? Cannot lose? LOL!
You realize speculators are on both the long and short side?
How do speculators who never take delivery cause the price to rise?
Spell it out, if you can.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 15, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> Corn used for Ethanol is not the same corn we eat for dinner. It is a feed grade corn and the by-products of Ethanol are a higher protein feed than the corn itself along with some of the best fertilizer on the planet.
> 
> What makes the food prices go up is the same thing that makes the rest of our products increase in price - real inflation. (the value of the dollar as it relates to gold or the other legal tenders in the world.)



*Corn used for Ethanol is not the same corn we eat for dinner. *

But it is planted in place of foods we eat for dinner.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 15, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> > Corn used for Ethanol is not the same corn we eat for dinner. It is a feed grade corn and the by-products of Ethanol are a higher protein feed than the corn itself along with some of the best fertilizer on the planet.
> ...



Do you mean to say that we've used up all the land?

That's an issue. How are we going to support a growing population now?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 15, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PaulS1950 said:
> ...



*Do you mean to say that we've used up all the land?*

No.

*How are we going to support a growing population now?*

Stop burning our food.
Stop importing millions of illegals.
Drill baby drill!


----------



## Mr. H. (Jun 16, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Not once in this thread have you addressed the OP. 
Who's the one with issues here?

In fact, no one has addressed this "need" to make gasoline/diesel "more affordable".


----------



## Pogo (Jun 16, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Drill baby drill!*



I see they mythmakers are still swimming in their ignorance of how the oil bidness works ... smh

Number one, oil companies drill, not the gummint, not we the people.  You can't force them to drill unless you nationalize the oil companies.
Number two, oil companies are for-profit corporations; their loyalties and goals are based on their shareholders, not the citizens of whatever country they're based in.  They're not going to undermine their own profits.
Number three, even if they do start additional drilling (which is kinda magical since the surplus equipment to do so doesn't exist), that oil has nowhere to go, as refineries are already running at capacity;
Number four, even if you get past one through three and find a refinery, that oil then goes on the international market, not to the pump in Dubuque.  
Number five, even if you get past one through four and pump up that international supply (which takes about 22 years according to the EIA), the net effect on the world price is literally pocket change;
And number six, when that barrel price drops by thirty-two cents, OPEC, if it notices at all, simply cuts their own production back to compensate, and we're back where we were.

Happy motoring.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 16, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Drill baby drill!*
> ...



*You can't force them to drill unless you nationalize the oil companies.*

No, but you can try stop them from drilling. Or make it easier for them to drill. One guess where Obama is leaning.

*They're not going to undermine their own profits.*

Right, oil companies don't want to drill, they want to make money instead. LOL!
What is that, liberal economics?

*Number three, even if they do start additional drilling (which is kinda magical since the surplus equipment to do so doesn't exist), *

Right, there is no possible way to build more equipment. 

* that oil has nowhere to go, as refineries are already running at capacity;*

I guess building more refining capacity is out of the question?

*Number four, even if you get past one through three and find a refinery, that oil then goes on the international market, not to the pump in Dubuque.  *

Right, and why is lowering the world price of oil a bad thing? And adding more gasoline doesn't drop the price?

*Number five, even if you get past one through four and pump up that international supply (which takes about 22 years according to the EIA), *

Selling oil on the world market takes 22 years? LOL!
If you have a source for whatever silly point you imagine you're making here, please post it.

*And number six, when that barrel price drops by thirty-two cents, OPEC, if it notices at all, simply cuts their own production back to compensate, and we're back where we were.*

Back to where we were? But we now have more US production and fewer imports.
Why is that bad again?


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 16, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...





> oh snap - Also simply "snap"; an exclamation of dismay or disbelief, surprise, or joy.





> OH SNAP has more of an emphasis on playfulness and can be said by people other than those being insulted.





> I think I've understood it to mean:
> 
> "Ooooh, what an appropriate joke. You are very clever."
> 
> ...



I'll try not to use slang that you are unfamiliar with.

I considered saying, "Awesome. *Now that's taking a number of steps back and seeing the bigger picture." *

I'll make a note of your "must address the OP" rule.


----------



## Pogo (Jun 16, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Wow.  Worst case of rationalization infection I've seen all day.  Put your masks on folks.  And cover me-- I'm going in.

Maybe you didn't notice, Sparky, where the end product goes on the international market?  You do know what _international _means, doncha?



> No, but you can try stop them from drilling. Or make it easier for them to drill. One guess where Obama is leaning.



I don't know that there is any "lean" but I do know that back in '08 when we picked this fake mantra apart, the oil companies were already sitting on 68 million acres of leased drilling land that wasn't being drilled --- the point being, it's not like they're out of territory to exploit.   Today's number is prolly not much changed.



> Right, there is no possible way to build more equipment. I guess building more refining capacity is out of the question?



Once again, talk to the oil companies, which are private profit making enterprises.  If they wanted more facilities or found them profitable, they would build them.  To the contrary, they've been _closing _refineries.  Wanna nationalize them so you can tell them what to do?



> Right, and why is lowering the world price of oil a bad thing? And adding more gasoline doesn't drop the price?



Way to read through to the end.  Again, search the word "OPEC" for the relevant part -- if it's relevant at all, since the differential in the resulting market price would be, as the EIA put it, "insignificant".  And if it is significant, see the OPEC part.



> Selling oil on the world market takes 22 years? LOL!
> If you have a source for whatever silly point you imagine you're making here, please post it.



:: sigh :: done before but here again, just because you said "please"...

Silly source 1
Silly source 2

Anything else?


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 16, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Drill baby drill!*
> ...



Maybe you should explain the details of production increase as it progresses from geological survey to the gas tank. *Some folk can add 1 +1=2 but their short term memory isn't capable of 2.5+8.3+1.6+3.9=16.3 *They may know how to add, just not what to add. *When your short term memory is capable of only three items, a supply chain is just too long.*And solving simultaneous equations is beyond them.*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 16, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



*Maybe you didn't notice, Sparky, where the end product goes on the international market?*

No end product stays in the US market? Really?

*I don't know that there is any "lean" but I do know that back in '08 when we picked this fake mantra apart, the oil companies were already sitting on 68 million acres of leased drilling land that wasn't being drilled *

So when they lease land and determine it's not worthwhile to drill, they should be forced to drill? And they should be prevented from finding more sources to drill, just because?

*Today's number is prolly not much changed.*

Prolly? What's the amount of Federal land leased in 2008? In 2013?

*Once again, talk to the oil companies, which are private profit making enterprises.  If they wanted more facilities or found them profitable, they would build them.*

That simple? Just build them? LOL!

*done before but here again,*

Thanks for the links. Did either source back your 22 year claim? Because I didn't see it.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 16, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



It's The Beverly Hillbillies theory of production. *All you gotto do is miss, while shootin' possum. *Up from the ground comes bubblin' crude. *Then you sell your land, fill up your truck with the new gasoline, and move to Beverly Hills. *It's just that simple. *One round of buckshot plus one truck equals two million dollars. *

See how simple the math is, Sparky?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 16, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Supply chain?

Is that what you get when you claim increasing the supply is a bad idea, because it won't make the price go down? Or it's bad because drilling won't add to supply tomorrow?


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 16, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



What's the time from lease to increase in supply at the pump?

What is the current demand for leases by the crude oil suppliers in the US?

What is the current supply capacity of current unused leased land, Sparky?

Oh, I'm sorry. *I may have misunderstood.

A supply chain is the sequence if companies that support production and supply in market. *It begins with the raw materials and ends with the consumer.

Do you need the word "sequence" explained? It is a word from precalculus so I understand if you didn't get to it after you finished that math thing.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 16, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



*What's the time from lease to increase in supply at the pump?*

If you never allow drilling, the time is really, really long.

*What is the current demand for leases by the crude oil suppliers in the US?*

In ANWR, higher than the supply.


----------



## PaulS1950 (Jun 16, 2013)

If you want cheaper gasoline then buy crude by the barrel and make your own.
Heck, the chemistry isn't hard at all. You basically build a reflux still that is high enough to cool the volitiles in the crude and combine those you want to make the most of (gasoline) and tap the still at the point where those combinations distill out. You keep cycling the higher volitiles and the sludge at the bottom until you stop getting gasoline. You can sell the other stuff and that will reduce your cost for the gas you make.

There is the small matter of the billions of dollars that the reflux still and supporting mechanicals will cost but heck - after a few trillion gallons it will all equal out.

Its a lot cheaper to grow Jeruselum artichokes or sugar beets and make alcohol. You can legally make up to 10000 gallons a year without paying anything on it as long as it is for fuel.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 16, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > *Drill baby drill!*
> ...




In 1991, there were 30,093 US wells drilled, of the 71,013 total for the world. That is 42%.

Could be 30k/(30k+70k) = 30%. *Dagnabit table totalmis hard to interpret. *

Page 28 of*http://www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/natu...ational_exploration_develop_1991/pdf/0577.pdf


----------



## Pogo (Jun 16, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



In linky-blinky 1:
>> The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before *2030*. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017. << 
(report dated *2007*; 2030 - 2007 = 23) 

I misunderestimated by a year; I had the year '2008' in my head because that's when we did this before, at the time McCain/Palin were selling this bullshit.
So if you're scoring at home (or even if you're alone) it's not 22 years after all; it's *23*.



> So when they lease land and determine it's not worthwhile to drill, they should be forced to drill?



-- that's what _*I'm*_ saying.  You're the guy with the "drill baby drill" mantra.  Don't step on my lines, read your script.



> That simple? Just build them? LOL!



I suppose you could wave a magic wand  but yes, that's how we roll on earth; you want a drilling rig, you build it.  You want a refinery, you don't shut down the ones you already have.
It's not petroleum science.  Oh wait, yes it is.  Matter of fact that's exactly what it is.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 16, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> If you want cheaper gasoline then buy crude by the barrel and make your own.
> Heck, the chemistry isn't hard at all. You basically build a reflux still that is high enough to cool the volitiles in the crude and combine those you want to make the most of (gasoline) and tap the still at the point where those combinations distill out. You keep cycling the higher volitiles and the sludge at the bottom until you stop getting gasoline. You can sell the other stuff and that will reduce your cost for the gas you make.
> 
> There is the small matter of the billions of dollars that the reflux still and supporting mechanicals will cost but heck - after a few trillion gallons it will all equal out.
> ...



That's how the Beverly Hillbillies got started. *Just adapted that moonshine still out back and converted the truck from ethanol to fossil fuel.

'Course, they put it all back when Granny started gettin' the shakes.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 16, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



*access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030.*

They probably said the same about shale oil, and yet US production of oil climbed about 1 million barrels per day last year.

Whatever we do, we shouldn't start today, or in 2009, or in 2000 or in 1995, because it'll take a few years for production to ramp up.  

*I suppose you could wave a magic wand  but yes, that's how we roll on earth; you want a drilling rig, you build it.  You want a refinery, you don't shut down the ones you already have.*

Yeah, no government regulatory impact on refinery building or expansion. LOL!

Let's not increase domestic production, because OPEC _might _cut their production.
Instead, make us *more* subject to the whims of our OPEC pals.

Is that another example of "liberal logic"?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 16, 2013)

> So when they lease land and determine it's not worthwhile to drill, they should be forced to drill?



-- that's what _*I'm*_ saying. 

Yes, you're full of faulty economic ideas, aren't you?


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 16, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> If you want cheaper gasoline then buy crude by the barrel and make your own.
> Heck, the chemistry isn't hard at all. You basically build a reflux still that is high enough to cool the volitiles in the crude and combine those you want to make the most of (gasoline) and tap the still at the point where those combinations distill out. You keep cycling the higher volitiles and the sludge at the bottom until you stop getting gasoline. You can sell the other stuff and that will reduce your cost for the gas you make.
> 
> There is the small matter of the billions of dollars that the reflux still and supporting mechanicals will cost but heck - after a few trillion gallons it will all equal out.
> ...



Oh great. I got nuf trouble with the neighbor's dagnabit roosters. *Now I gotta get woken up by their still blowin' up? *Thought we had nuf problems with the meth lab down the street. At least the hydroponic pot farmer is to stoned to make trouble.


----------



## Pogo (Jun 16, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> > So when they lease land and determine it's not worthwhile to drill, they should be forced to drill?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Hey, you're the clown taking positions contrary to your own positions so obviously you don't need me to help dig your hole.  You're arguing with yourself.

Thanks for the reminder of why I had you on Ignore.  Later.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 16, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > > So when they lease land and determine it's not worthwhile to drill, they should be forced to drill?
> ...



Pointing out your idiocy is arguing with myself?
That's funny!


----------



## freedombecki (Jun 16, 2013)

Pogo said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > > So when they lease land and determine it's not worthwhile to drill, they should be forced to drill?
> ...



 You put someone you called "sparky" and "clown" on ignore for stating facts? I think it would be nice to reconsider, as the entire point of debating is to come to understanding and not to lock the door on viewpoints other than the one we bring to debates. After all, you're not missing an arm or a leg, are you?

Come on, Pogo. Didn't you ever take PE where the coach requested that good sportsmanship was observed?


----------



## Pogo (Jun 16, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Well Becki, if you read back (it's not really worth the time), he just took a position against his own position, i.e. the position I started with.  That's why I said "that's what *I'm* saying".

He's playing games.  There is debate, and then there are people whose only purpose is to waste your time which yes I do think is a goal worthy of derision. 

And no, I don't see "Yes, you're full of faulty economic ideas, aren't you?" as stating any facts or content on the topic at all.  I see it as trolling.


----------



## freedombecki (Jun 16, 2013)

I did read back. Trust me, Mr. [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION], your loyal opposition is not trolling. It's a debate style. But it's neither a scorched earth nor is it a threat. I call it USMB University. 

Everybody wins when we learn something. Honest.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 16, 2013)

Pogo said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



*he just took a position against his own position*

Where do you imagine I did that?


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 16, 2013)

"According the Energy Information*Administration, it would take five years for oil production to begin at any new site on the OCS. EIA predicted that there would be no significant effect on oil production or price until nearly two decades after leasing begins."

Still looking for that on the EIA site


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 16, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> "Administration, it would take five years for oil production to begin at any new site on the OCS. EIA predicted that there would be no significant effect on oil production or price until nearly two decades after leasing begins."



*Administration, it would take five years for oil production to begin at any new site on the OCS. *

So if we had started in 2009, production would be coming on line next year.

Wish we had done that, don't you?


----------



## Pogo (Jun 16, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> "According the Energy Information*Administration, it would take five years for oil production to begin at any new site on the OCS. EIA predicted that there would be no significant effect on oil production or price until nearly two decades after leasing begins."
> 
> Still looking for that on the EIA site



?
Whence cometh this quote?  I don't see it on the EIA pages or in the thread 

The OCS page actually said,
>> The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017 <<

Given a release date of 2007, that's _ten_ years to production and 23 years to "significant" production.
And in any case it doesn't go to the pump in your town because that kind of intranational supply/demand system is simply not how oil works.

More detail in here--

Why Abundant Oil Hasn't Cut Gasoline Prices

>> Complicating the equation is a 1920 law called the Jones Act, which requires any cargo shipped between U.S. ports to be carried by vessels that are based in the U.S., made in the U.S., and crewed mostly by U.S. citizens. The law was intended to protect U.S. shipping interests but has made it more costly to move fuel between U.S. ports. This in particular hurts the Northeast, which is struggling to meet its fuel needs after several refineries closed in the last two years. According to Ed Morse, chief commodity analyst at Citigroup (C), those constraints add between $6 and $8 a barrel to transport costs. As a result, it&#8217;s often cheaper for a Gulf Coast refiner to send gasoline to Brazil than to New York. 

In late 2011 the U.S. quietly surpassed Russia as the largest exporter of such refined products as gasoline and diesel. Canada&#8217;s fuel imports from the U.S. jumped 15 percent in 2012. Brazil&#8217;s demand for U.S.-made fuel rose 6 percent. China&#8217;s leapt 17 percent. Exports to Venezuela and India more than doubled. Without realizing it, U.S. drivers are competing for American-made gasoline with consumers in Latin America and Asia, where demand is rising. <<






Big oil is not scrounging for supply of raw material.  It's actually gorging on a glut already.  And making a killing.  Were we to open up even more fields there would be a lot of head-scratching as to what to do with them.

As noted before, a profit-making venture works for its shareholders, not its base country.  They're going to put the product where it makes the most money.  That's why this idea that "gummint is in the way" doesn't hold water.  Or gas.  _They_ choose where to sell it -- not us.  That's how the free market works.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 16, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > "Administration, it would take five years for oil production to begin at any new site on the OCS. EIA predicted that there would be no significant effect on oil production or price until nearly two decades after leasing begins."
> ...



You got some magic time machine?


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 16, 2013)

Pogo said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > "According the Energy Information*Administration, it would take five years for oil production to begin at any new site on the OCS. EIA predicted that there would be no significant effect on oil production or price until nearly two decades after leasing begins."
> ...



That quote remains uncorroberated. *It does support 22 years.**I'm still digging through EIA reports.

http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/pdf/sroiaf(2008)03.pdf

**I've also got uncorroberated five years just to pump the first barrel of oil out of the ground. *I am not sure if that is from the beginning of the lease,*seismic crews on the ground, or what.

You started me off on an interesting direction.

**I learn a lot taking a statement, as a hypothesis, and researching it. *There seems to be a correlation between who presents facts that play out and who presents facts that are wrong. *It seems to do with re-membering what you believe or believing what you remember.

I treat it all the same. Whatever the data says, it really don't matter what I want to believe. *Never occurred to me that the time frame was so long.*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 16, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



No. All I can do is point out liberals whining about how long new production will take.
They use it as an excuse to never open new exploration.
They were whining about it back in 2001.
If we have done it anyway, production would be higher and prices would be lower, right now.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 16, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > "Administration, it would take five years for oil production to begin at any new site on the OCS. EIA predicted that there would be no significant effect on oil production or price until nearly two decades after leasing begins."
> ...



So you think that cars run on crude oil? Or are you still having difficulty with the "supply chain" concept?

The math gets hard when it requires adding more than two numbers.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 16, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



2001 and 2009 are different "numbers".  It is part of that "math" thingy.*

9 is 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1.

See how that works, Sparky?

 *You should go back and review that.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 16, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



*So you think that cars run on crude oil?*

Where do you imagine I said that?

*The math gets hard when it requires adding more than two numbers.*

That's why I mock liberals and their weak math skills.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 16, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...


*
2001 and 2009 are different "numbers".*

Congrats! You know more than most liberals.
Now tell that we shouldn't increase drilling, because it'll take a few years for production to come on line.

That one always makes me laugh.


----------



## tjvh (Jun 16, 2013)

Pogo said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > "According the Energy Information*Administration, it would take five years for oil production to begin at any new site on the OCS. EIA predicted that there would be no significant effect on oil production or price until nearly two decades after leasing begins."
> ...



The goverment has nothing to do with it? So those gas taxes I pay that rise when the price per gallon rises is just a figment of my imagination.


----------



## Pogo (Jun 16, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



I still don't know who made that quote (?) but I do remember this imaginary time frame has been all over the map, especially in 2008 when the presidential campaign was on and gas prices were at record highs.  We heard variously seventeen years, ten years, then five years, then two years, then one year... it was like an auction in reverse.  I believe McCain had it down to _*two months*_ (!)

All lies anyway; as outlined earlier, "our" resources do not make "our" gasoline, regardless what the timetable is, so even if we had opened up ANWR and OCS in 1990 (23 years ago), that end product would now be fueling the Chinas and Indias of the world.  Not to mention what might have been lost in those areas that were the whole point of defending when George H.W. Bush ordered them protected in that very year.


----------



## Pogo (Jun 16, 2013)

tjvh said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Your state raises taxes when the market price of gas goes up?   What state is that?

No, those gas taxes have nothing to do with drilling, exploration, refining, shipping or marketing.  They're for building and maintaining those roads and bridges you need to drive the car on.

Everybody wants a free ride...


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 16, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Which is more than you.

Oh, I didn't know you worked for EXXON. *You should start drilling.

So when are you gonna start?


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 16, 2013)

Pogo said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Yeah, I also have that the refineries haven't built a new refinery since 1976 or even indicated the plan to build one four years ago. The process was streamlined but goes unused.

Still, uncorroberated. *It may require digging through Congressional testimony to see what those "liberal" oil companies were whining about, and why they didn't start drilling in the socialist state of Alaska.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 16, 2013)

Empirical data has the Alaska North Slope Badami and North Slope oil fields at a minimum of 8-10 years from discovery to first barrel. *This doesn't include leasing, collecting and interpreting seismic data or exploratory drilling. *There is an additional
3-4 years to reach peak production. *

Source sited in*http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/pdf/sroiaf(2008)03.pdf


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 16, 2013)

Also, the real dollar price for gasoline at the pump was flat for decades.  It was in about 1998 that China exports and the real dollar cost of gasoline, in the US, began rising simultaneously.  The obvious relationship is the increase in global demand as China began demanding more fossil fuel product.  The real dollar pump price crashed with global demand during the great recession.  When the global economy stabilized, prices returned to the pre-recession levels.  Clearly prices are the result of GLOBAL demand.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 17, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> Also, the real dollar price for gasoline at the pump was flat for decades.  It was in about 1998 that China exports and the real dollar cost of gasoline, in the US, began rising simultaneously.  The obvious relationship is the increase in global demand as China began demanding more fossil fuel product.  The real dollar pump price crashed with global demand during the great recession.  When the global economy stabilized, prices returned to the pre-recession levels.  Clearly prices are the result of GLOBAL demand.


Ayup demand is flat with production.  The cost increases then are mainly due to devaluation of the dollar resulting in inflation.  If anything one could argue our governments through the managed oligarchy, has forced a quasi monopoly on production and consumption thus managed to keep the prices (and profits) artificially high.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 17, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Also, the real dollar price for gasoline at the pump was flat for decades.  It was in about 1998 that China exports and the real dollar cost of gasoline, in the US, began rising simultaneously.  The obvious relationship is the increase in global demand as China began demanding more fossil fuel product.  The real dollar pump price crashed with global demand during the great recession.  When the global economy stabilized, prices returned to the pre-recession levels.  Clearly prices are the result of GLOBAL demand.
> ...



Uh, no *DEMAND*.  I used the word four times.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 17, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Uhmm... hello McFly ... hello anyone in there?  What happens to the price of a commodity in which supply and demand are controlled by storage facilities storing the product when demand is low and selling the stored product when demand is high?

What happens to the price of a commodity when the value of the dollar falls due to unequal quantitative easing of the dollar as compared to the monetary system of the primary producers of said commodity?  

Are you trying to say the people selling the commodity can't up their price based on devaluation of the dollar?  Are you saying oil should be less valuable than the dollars generated by quantitative easing?  Yeah all they do is say here you go more money no drilling required, just add zeroes to the balance sheet.  Here's our dollars give me more oil?  

Further the law of supply and demand goes out the door when the seller is an oligarchy that is allowed to set price.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 18, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



That sets the market price above the free market equilibrium.  The standard models are the Carnout and Nash models.  The market price then fluctuates on demand.  The major driver is demand, with China increasing that demand.   They aren't mutually exclusive.  Which is why I find amusing to see the oiln execs before Congress saying then price is set by supply and demand.  They are the supply.

You do get the concept of "and"? Supply "and" demand?  Or in this convo, demand and supply.  I said demand, you said supply.

You should see my other post where I detailed the ologopoly and talked about market power. Got called a liberal for that.

Yep, I think we nailed it.  Good work.  I think we nailed it.  It's about F'in time two people nailed the fact that its SUPPLY *AND* DEMAND.

No, really, you should see my other posts. Though it's been a while since I've mentioned speculation, the commodity market.

Still, I can't find data on the tankers, just some comment that some one once made about actually seeing them off the coast.

I'll see if I can find my post on the major suppliers.  It leaves an open question about how much they can raise market price above then ideal market equulibrium.  The clue is profit per gallon.  In a perfect market with perfect competition tbere is no profit.  

Oil refineries have economies of scale and barriers to market entry, ergo not an ideal free market.  The major companies number less than ten.  

Thanks, I've had the demand side one day, the supply side the next.  Just could't get them together.


----------



## RKMBrown (Jun 18, 2013)

itfitzme said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> > itfitzme said:
> ...



Ah... now I get your point.  FYI... when I said "demand is flat with production" I meant I was agreeing with your point to equilibrium cost being a matter of supply and demand, production being the supply side in my phrasing.

If there is no profit there is no reason for investment... if there's too much competition the narrow profit margin will chase the investment money to better returns.   Supply and demand also applies to investments, and monetary valuation.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 18, 2013)

RKMBrown said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > RKMBrown said:
> ...



Yeah, good. *There are too many personalities in this place.

Here is a good post,*#8 You can find it on page

Here -> *http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...line-diesel-more-afforedable.html#post7292888*

If that includes a list of major oil companies, it's the one I'm thinking of. If not, i'll see if I can find it.

I think we were getting somewhere, in #8,*but stopped. *I think it's relevant and worth review. *Theory only gets so far before it degrades to speculation and can't move forward without some data. *

I literally just got my own "and" point.*I want to let this "AND" thing digest. **

I have to reread it and work on better understanding your responses. *

I think it's time to just list the concepts. *See if they will congeal.

There is simply the ideal market equilibrium point that moves on shifts in supply and demand.

There is the Nash and Carnout models that have the equilibrium point above the ideal, the supply curve shifted upward. *That upward shift is a different model that I had just as profit. *Now I know what the profit model is.

I've got the equilibrium point, the real dollar price, tracked by EIA or some websites data. *It was flat through 1998 then began rising to the recession. *It crashed. *Then it returned to pre-recesion levels.

We have oil tankers off shore. *How speculators got into that market, I can't figure. *You'de think that refineries could lock in long term contracts.

I was suprised that the price of crude is such a large percentage of the total pump price.

Taxes are not as significant as some may believe. *If they went away, prices wouldn't drop by the full amount. *Profits would go up to take up alot of that slack.

There is some other convo, up the thread, about the fact that it takes at least 8-10 years from the seismic crew beginning to survey leased land to the first barrel. You commented on investment. *It's a huge investment.

If Mexico, Canada, etc. have easier to get to supply, they can provide raw crude more cheaply than new reserves can be opened up. <-- hypothesis


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 18, 2013)

The following are the gas prices.

Gasoline price, real dollars, midgrade






Gasoline Price, Nominal





The recession drove prices down. *Someone askednthe question how the price could be so low at *that recession deflationary bottom.

The following is 100/CPI over same time frame.






The value of the dollar spiked, but it didn't spike to 1998 levels. *

The obvious answer is demand fellnso far that prices had to fall to maintain volume and return maximu
P*Q.

I've been saying all along that

Profit = (Price - Cost ) * Quantity.

The shere volume of sales is enormous. Still, that's not enough to explain profit for prices falling from*
$4.15 to $1.90. *

Even for a short time, why not just stop sales? *

I want to see sales volume and reported profit to see how that could possibly make sense.


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 18, 2013)

OnePercenter said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...




Yeah, this is just going to bug the shit out of me now.

If you haven't seen it, here is the real dollar price for an arbitrary grade in an arbitrary region.

Gasoline price, real dollars, midgrade





So how can they sell it at 40%? And make a
profit? *Did they get all fuzzy about America and decide to take a loss for a while? *Is the timing of raw crude to the pump so fast that the price per barrel fell?

I don't know. Bring up alot of questions..


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Jun 18, 2013)

OnePercenter said:


> Cap regular unleaded and diesel prices to 40 cents above taxes at the pump nationwide.



So exploration, refining and distribution and R&D costs LESS than 40 cents a gallon?

Seriously?


----------



## itfitzme (Jun 18, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Cap regular unleaded and diesel prices to 40 cents above taxes at the pump nationwide.
> ...



No way, it's more like $1.59


----------



## OnePercenter (Jun 27, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Cap regular unleaded and diesel prices to 40 cents above taxes at the pump nationwide.
> ...



Yes. The crude oil prices are the culprit. 

March 1999, regular gasoline cost $1.00/gal. Do you really think exploration, refining and distribution and R&D costs are that much higher today?


----------



## OnePercenter (Jun 27, 2013)

When gasoline prices dropped in the end of the Bush caused catastrophe, Exxon/Mobil made record profits. How is that possible?

When your refinery blows up because you failed to follow your own maintenance schedule, you get to raise prices for gasoline to make up for losses even though your insurance company paid off on the claim. Pretty fucking sweet!

Bottom Line: Gasoline price are fixed.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 27, 2013)

OnePercenter said:


> When gasoline prices dropped in the end of the Bush caused catastrophe, Exxon/Mobil made record profits. How is that possible?
> 
> When your refinery blows up because you failed to follow your own maintenance schedule, you get to raise prices for gasoline to make up for losses even though your insurance company paid off on the claim. Pretty fucking sweet!
> 
> Bottom Line: Gasoline price are fixed.



*When gasoline prices dropped in the end of the Bush caused catastrophe, Exxon/Mobil made record profits. How is that possible?*

Because they sell oil. They sold oil in 2008 at $140/bbl.

Why are you so ignorant?

*When your refinery blows up because you failed to follow your own maintenance schedule, you get to raise prices for gasoline *

When your refinery "blows", you can't make any gasoline there, you moron.

*Bottom Line: Gasoline price are fixed.*

Bottom Line: Stay away from sharp objects, idiot.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 27, 2013)

Exxon 2008 profit: A record $45 billion
The oil company rides $147 crude to set an all-time high despite oil price collapse in back half of the year.


NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Exxon Mobil reported the largest annual profit in U.S. history Friday, making $45.22 billion on the back of record oil prices.

But Exxon's quarterly profit fell over 33%, as crude prices dropped precipitously in the last quarter as recession spread through the globe.

Exxon (XOM, Fortune 500), the world's largest publicly traded oil company, made $7.82 billion in the fourth quarter on revenue of $84.7 billion. On a per share basis, the company made $1.55, beating analysts' estimates of $1.45 a share.

Exxon Mobil year net sets mark, but profit down for quarter - Jan. 30, 2009


----------



## PaulS1950 (Jun 27, 2013)

So, are you suggesting that we invest?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 27, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> So, are you suggesting that we invest?



No, I'm suggesting the original poster is an idiot.


----------



## Mr. H. (Jun 27, 2013)

OnePercenter said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



You're a moron to believe otherwise.


----------



## OnePercenter (Jun 28, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > When gasoline prices dropped in the end of the Bush caused catastrophe, Exxon/Mobil made record profits. How is that possible?
> ...





Toddsterpatriot said:


> Exxon 2008 profit: A record $45 billion
> The oil company rides $147 crude to set an all-time high despite oil price collapse in back half of the year.
> 
> 
> ...



Thank you for making my point. 

It's the price of crude that is the culprit for high gasoline prices, so if you cap at forty cents above taxes we'd bring the cost of crude and gasoline down from the stupid levels we are currently seeing.



> *When your refinery blows up, because you failed to follow your own maintenance schedule, you get to raise prices for gasoline *
> 
> When your refinery "blows", you can't make any gasoline there, you moron.



Didn't Chevron in the bay area of California have insurance that paid them for any losses?


----------



## OnePercenter (Jun 28, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> > So, are you suggesting that we invest?
> ...



An 'idiot' all the way to the bank.


----------



## OnePercenter (Jun 28, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> So, are you suggesting that we invest?



Only if you need a loss.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 28, 2013)

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



*Thank you for making my point. *

Your point was you have no understanding of markets. I'm happy to point that out.

*It's the price of crude that is the culprit for high gasoline prices, so if you cap at forty cents above taxes we'd bring the cost of crude and gasoline down from the stupid levels we are currently seeing.*

Yeah, cap it at below the cost of production and you'd crush supply. 

That would be stupid.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 28, 2013)

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > PaulS1950 said:
> ...



America is a great country, even an idiot can do well.


----------



## OnePercenter (Jun 28, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



So the only variable is the cost of crude and gasoline which is fixed by the market. Capping would fix the price in the favor of the middle class and poor as the market price of crude and gasoline would fall to match the pump price.


----------



## OnePercenter (Jun 28, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



As of today, my portfolio is $165M strong, hows yours?

Who's the idiot now?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 28, 2013)

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



*Capping would fix the price in the favor of the middle class *

You want to cap the price of gasoline at taxes plus 40 cents, even if the cost of the oil, refining etc is $3.50?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 28, 2013)

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



You. You're the idiot now.


----------



## Mr. H. (Jun 28, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Watch it, Todd. He's got a $165 million portfolio.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 28, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



*Capping would fix the price in the favor of the middle class and poor as the market price of crude and gasoline would fall to match the pump price.*

Look, I'm selling gas at $0.60 per gallon, how long before the price of oil and gas starts to fall?

LOL! He is such a maroon.


----------



## OnePercenter (Jun 28, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Pay attention. It's $0.40 above taxes.

With short calls, crude oil and gasoline will drop weeks before any law goes into effect.


----------



## OnePercenter (Jun 28, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



Jealous?


----------



## Mr. H. (Jun 28, 2013)

OnePercenter said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Of?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 28, 2013)

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...



*Pay attention. It's $0.40 above taxes.*

Yes, way below the cost of production.

*With short calls, crude oil and gasoline will drop weeks before any law goes into effect.*

The price would skyrocket first, because of stockpiling in anticipation of crashing production once the price drops to $0.40 above taxes.


----------



## OnePercenter (Jun 28, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...



So the answer is yes?


----------



## daveman (Jun 28, 2013)

Has anyone pointed out to OP that government makes more money off a gallon of gas than the gas company does?


----------



## daveman (Jun 28, 2013)

OnePercenter said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Did you know anyone can say anything on the internet?


----------



## Mr. H. (Jun 28, 2013)

daveman said:


> Has anyone pointed out to OP that government makes more money off a gallon of gas than the gas company does?



Has anyone stated exactly why gasoline/diesel needs to be made "more affordable" in the first place?


----------



## daveman (Jun 28, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



Given his horrible math skills, it's more like $235K.


----------



## daveman (Jun 28, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Has anyone pointed out to OP that government makes more money off a gallon of gas than the gas company does?
> ...


You hush.  The rich guy has spoken, and us proles aren't allowed to question him.


----------



## OnePercenter (Jun 28, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Crashing production would be collusion since three companies purchase the vast majority of the crude in the US.


----------



## Mr. H. (Jun 28, 2013)

daveman said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



But he's 27.5 times cooler than this guy...


----------



## OnePercenter (Jun 28, 2013)

daveman said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



But you made my point for me, and answered why the Senate (GOP) rejects amendment to build border fence because concrete alone would cost $32,253,333,300.00. Thank You for playing!


----------



## OnePercenter (Jun 28, 2013)

daveman said:


> Has anyone pointed out to OP that government makes more money off a gallon of gas than the gas company does?



Someone has to pay for the streetlights.


----------



## daveman (Jun 28, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...



Just ask him!


----------



## daveman (Jun 28, 2013)

OnePercenter said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...


Hear that sound?  That's the sound of the last shred of your credibility flushing down the toilet.

Thanks for playing!


----------



## OnePercenter (Jun 28, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...



I am. And I'm 19 years younger too!


----------



## daveman (Jun 28, 2013)

OnePercenter said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Has anyone pointed out to OP that government makes more money off a gallon of gas than the gas company does?
> ...


Why not you?


----------



## OnePercenter (Jun 28, 2013)

daveman said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Prove me wrong. I dare you.


----------



## OnePercenter (Jun 28, 2013)

daveman said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



I do, but not when I'm driving my Tesla.


----------



## KissMy (Jun 28, 2013)

daveman said:


> Has anyone pointed out to OP that government makes more money off a gallon of gas than the gas company does?



That's not true where I live.


----------



## daveman (Jun 28, 2013)

OnePercenter said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...


You really _suck_ at the internet.


----------



## Mr. H. (Jun 28, 2013)

KissMy said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Has anyone pointed out to OP that government makes more money off a gallon of gas than the gas company does?
> ...



In my head?


----------



## daveman (Jun 28, 2013)

OnePercenter said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...


Say, did I ever mention I'm a billionaire?


----------



## daveman (Jun 28, 2013)

KissMy said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Has anyone pointed out to OP that government makes more money off a gallon of gas than the gas company does?
> ...



Where do you live, and what's the price of gas there?


----------



## Mr. H. (Jun 28, 2013)

daveman said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Pay attention. She's in your head, man.

_In your head. _

That's some heavy shit there.


----------



## daveman (Jun 28, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



Why would she want to be in anyone's head?


----------



## Mr. H. (Jun 28, 2013)

daveman said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Don't ask, man.

Don't ask.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 29, 2013)

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



Companies refusing to sell gasoline at a $3.00 per gallon loss is collusion?


----------



## Indofred (Jun 29, 2013)

OnePercenter said:


> Cap regular unleaded and diesel prices to 40 cents above taxes at the pump nationwide.



Buy a step though motorcycle.
100+ MPG and very cheap to service.






Of course, if you don't feel your dick is big enough; you'll need a gas guzzling car to extend it.


----------



## KissMy (Jul 1, 2013)

daveman said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Kennesaw, GA gas pump price today is $3.399

Wholesale RBOB gasoline $2.752 + Fed Tax $0.183 + State Tax $0.075 = $3.01

$3.399 - $3.01 = $0.389 profit vs $0.258 Total Tax.

That is not counting the wide profit margins on some oil production operations. Older oil wells have very low productions cost & were making money at $30 oil. Now they get $100 for the same production cost. New shale & oil sands cost up to $70 to produce & they are getting $100 also.


----------



## daveman (Jul 1, 2013)

KissMy said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...


Out of that $0.389 also comes the retailers overhead.  It's not pure profit.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 1, 2013)

KissMy said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



*$3.399 - $3.01 = $0.389 profit vs $0.258 Total Tax.*

Don't forget distribution costs.


----------



## daveman (Jul 1, 2013)

Indofred said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Cap regular unleaded and diesel prices to 40 cents above taxes at the pump nationwide.
> ...


Why are you obsessed with the size of people's dicks?


----------



## daveman (Jul 1, 2013)

I repeat:  Government makes more money off a gallon of gas than the gas company does.

Estimated 2013 Gasoline Price Breakdown & Margins Details


----------



## KissMy (Jul 1, 2013)

When (WTI) West Texas Intermediate & (LLS) Light Louisiana Sweet Crude Oil were selling at over $20 difference, oil companies made $4,000 a truck load or 50 cents a gallon transporting it a short distance. Then they made big money producing, refining & retail mark-up on top of that. The taxes don't come close to being that much. 10 years ago 50 cents a gallon was the entire wholesale cost of oil, now they make that just transporting it.


*West Texas Intermediate & Light Louisiana Sweet Crude Oil Price Spread*


----------



## PaulS1950 (Jul 1, 2013)

Have you heard the term "inflation"?
Ten years ago I could buy 5 loaves of bread for $1, beef for as little as 35 cents a pound. Chicken was only 25 cents a pound and hamburger was the same price as chicken.
I can remember when I could buy gasoline for 10 cents a gallon, homes sold for $30,000 and cars sold for $1700 new.
In the last ten years your money has dropped 50% of its value and it will continue to drop like that or worse in the foreseeable future. Get a life and get over it or at least quit complaining and try to do something about it!


----------



## KissMy (Jul 1, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> Have you heard the term "inflation"?
> Ten years ago I could buy 5 loaves of bread for $1, beef for as little as 35 cents a pound. Chicken was only 25 cents a pound and hamburger was the same price as chicken.
> I can remember when I could buy gasoline for 10 cents a gallon, homes sold for $30,000 and cars sold for $1700 new.
> In the last ten years your money has dropped 50% of its value and it will continue to drop like that or worse in the foreseeable future. Get a life and get over it or at least quit complaining and try to do something about it!



 We did not have 1500% inflation in 10 years. But oil went from $10 to $147 in 8 years. 

It cost less than $350 to transport a truck load of oil, but they made $4,000 a load doing it. It cost even less by train & even less by pipeline. That is not inflation, that is windfall profits.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 1, 2013)

KissMy said:


> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> > Have you heard the term "inflation"?
> ...



You are correct. The price of gasoline has increased at a rate faster than general inflation. In real dollars, it began rising as China began developing as a major economy, about 1998.

There are perfect supply and demand components as well as components that are due to market imperfections. *The issue is that there has been no historical success in being able to substantially and reasonably manage the market imperfections. *It's not even possible to adequately identify them. *We do identify the obvious gross aggregate effect. *

The world will get there, just not as quickly as we would like.


----------



## OnePercenter (Jul 1, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



No. Crashing production would be.

Oil needs to be reduced to $7-8 bucks/barrel where it should be.


----------



## Cuyo (Jul 1, 2013)

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



Ok I know this is the clean debate zone so...

How... Do you intend... To get oil down to $7-8 per barrel?

If your... "Interesting" plan were to be put into place, we wouldn't have the authority to compel other nations to follow suit...

Who would purchase and refine the oil, and bring it to market at a loss?

And honestly, are you even serious with this plan at all?


----------



## Cuyo (Jul 2, 2013)

KissMy said:


> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> > Have you heard the term "inflation"?
> ...



Have you considered that the worldwide supply is down, whilst the worldwide demand is up?


----------



## KissMy (Jul 2, 2013)

Cuyo said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > PaulS1950 said:
> ...



Supply is controlled by governments & cartels. It is not a free-market supply & demand business sector. My point & the fact of the discussion was that government oil taxes are not more than oil profits. Also government spends 5 times more defending oil production than it ever gets in oil taxes.


----------



## Mr. H. (Jul 2, 2013)

The high prices of gasoline and diesel fuels is precisely what has led to the increased search for crude oil- the source component. 

Americans (and these days, I use the term loosely) are to be thankful that the oil and natural gas industries are busting balls. 

Risking private (not public) capital, chasing profits, and getting the fucking job done. 

Screw you nayslayers... lead- follow- or get the fuck out of the way.


----------



## Mr. H. (Jul 2, 2013)

KissMy said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



Let's take a relaxed stroll down memory lane....

It's 1999... flowers are blooming, birds are chirping...

Oil is $10/barrel and gasoline is $1/gallon. 

Ahhhh... the good old days. 

When supply was controlled by governments & cartels. 

You get my drift?

You so often posit knowledgeable thought around here, but you are equally as often clueless.


----------



## Cuyo (Jul 2, 2013)

KissMy said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



Tin-foil hat stuff aside, you've started with an abnormally low price. A similar tactic is oft used by climate change deniers.  Can I start measuring in 2008 and claim that oil prices are falling over time?

There is a bumpy plateau of oil prices, but over time you're going to see higher highs and higher lows.  This is a finite resource, and the demand is ever-rising here and abroad, especially in developing areas of the world.

It's easier to pick an apple from the bottom of the tree than the top.  This is not something that's going to get better over time.  A large discovery may flood the global market and lower prices modestly once more, but there is a grain of truth to what you say - If a new discovery is found, the major producers (or 'Cartels' if you prefer) will cut production accordingly to keep prices high.

The only thing that is going to make a substantial difference is a new, economically feasible energy source.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 2, 2013)

KissMy said:


> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> > Have you heard the term "inflation"?
> ...



*We did not have 1500% inflation in 10 years. But oil went from $10 to $147 in 8 years*

And 5 months later, oil was down to $34


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 2, 2013)

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



*No. Crashing production would be.*

Production will naturally decrease when you demand a product, which costs over $3 to produce, be sold for less than $1.
Not collusion, reality.

*Oil needs to be reduced to $7-8 bucks/barrel where it should be.*

Get crackin' skippy. Let me know when you get it there.


----------



## KissMy (Jul 2, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > Cuyo said:
> ...



I never said things were good for domestic oil companies when oil was $10. Governments around the world control oil supplies & does OPEC. Multinational oil companies were making money on cheap oil in foreign countries. They were helped in those countries by our government & tax payers. That is a undeniable fact backed by peer-reviewed study.

Farmers were also getting screwed with $1 corn every since the US grain embargo. All our customers invested in Brazil because the US could no longer be trusted to feed them.

The facts are oil companies today are enjoying windfall profits in excess of taxes. Brain dead parrots keep repeating the lie that taxes are higher than profits.


----------



## Mr. H. (Jul 2, 2013)

KissMy said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



I am astounded by your knowledge of agriculture coupled with your ignorance of hydrocarbonculture.


----------



## OnePercenter (Jul 3, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> The high prices of gasoline and diesel fuels is precisely what has led to the increased search for crude oil- the source component.
> 
> Americans (and these days, I use the term loosely) are to be thankful that the oil and natural gas industries are busting balls.
> 
> ...



How many $10's of billions does the oil industry receive in subsidies? Risking 'private' capital?


----------



## OnePercenter (Jul 3, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I've explained how to make motor fuel more affordable. It's really not that hard.


----------



## Mr. H. (Jul 3, 2013)

OnePercenter said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > The high prices of gasoline and diesel fuels is precisely what has led to the increased search for crude oil- the source component.
> ...



It's the $167 million man! 

Still can't name an oil "subsidy". Can you now?

Git some learnin' s0n.


----------



## OnePercenter (Jul 3, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...



Read on old man.......

http://priceofoil.org/content/uploads/2012/05/FIN.USCapitolSubsidyGraphicFlyer.pdf


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 3, 2013)

OnePercenter said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > The high prices of gasoline and diesel fuels is precisely what has led to the increased search for crude oil- the source component.
> ...



How many? Show me.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 3, 2013)

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



Yes, your fantasy was very enjoyable.
Meanwhile, in the real world, we're pointing and laughing.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 3, 2013)

OnePercenter said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



No specifics in there. Try again?


----------



## usmcstinger (Jul 4, 2013)

Natural Gas is the new fuel. FEDEX, UPS, Waste Management and many other companies have or are in the process of converting all their vehicles to natural gas. The Ford F 350 pick up truck can be purchased to run on natural gas. The hybrid natural gas/ electric. Honda Civic has been around since 1998.

Prices at refueling stations in the USA range from .85 to 2.80 dollars per GGE - Gasoline Gallon Equivalent.http://www.altfuelprices.com
It appears that the wide range most likely could be the difference in price between CNG and LNG.

Obviously, many of you are clueless about natural gas as a fuel.


----------



## Jos (Jul 4, 2013)

Just filled up with bio-diesel I made from used cooking oil, works a treat


----------



## OnePercenter (Jul 4, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...



Scroll down to the words.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jul 4, 2013)

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...



No specifics in there. Try again?


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 7, 2013)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Actually --- it's laughable stuff.. Really should be a parody of this "proof".. 

If you go down to 



> $10 billion. Low end credible comprehensive estimates. Several recent independent estimates of U.S. fossil fuel subsidies all arrive at roughly this number, although they consider slightly different things. Recent studies include those conducted by Management Information Services, Environmental Law Institute, and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development &#8211; OECD. (The OECD numbers compiled and analyzed here.)



And open the Excel Spreadsheet for OECD ---  what you'll find is by FAR the largest "subsidies" to the oil companies in their accounting are :::

Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program  0.5Bil$$$$$

And 

Fuel Tax Exemptions for Farmers == about 1.0Bill$$$$

Gut busting funny how economically naive our leftist buds are.. These folks consume crap for analysis where a gift to a favored constituency is counted against "big oil".. 

*PLEASE ONE-PERCENTER --- you go MARCH right up to the Capitol Mall AND DEMAND that those EVIL REPUBLICANS and DEMOCRATS KILL aid to Low Income Homes for Energy. 

And make sure those dirty old farmers aren't in the pockets of "big oil".. *

Hysterical fun.. I tell ya...


----------

