What we can do about fuel prices " not "

[Ron Wenrich]

So, who is the #2 oil producing country?  The US.  We produce more oil than every country except Russia.  

Where do we get most of our imports?  The Western hemisphere.  Saudia Arabia is our 2nd highest country that we import from, but the bulk of our imports come from Canada, Venuzela, and Mexico.  Drillling more wells is not the answer.

I remember when we had those great polluting cars.  Of course, we could go back to those cars and allow our air to get pretty disgusting.  We already have dead lakes in the NE, thanks to acid rain.  We don't need any more.  Being green doesn't mean there is no use, it means wise use.  Most people on this forum are green.  

They had a pretty interesting show on future cars.  Ones that will be run with hydrogen.  Ford has an internal combustion engine that runs on hydrogen right now.  The problem is there aren't any hydrogen stations.  

Iceland (a country of 300,000 people) has skunked the rest of the world with hydrogen production.  But, they have cheap electricity thanks to geo thermal energy.  

Hydrogen stations are stand alone systems that use electricity and water to produce hydrogen.  No pipelines, no refinery, no trucks.  The technology is here.  

As a nation, we should be investing more in our infrastructure to accomodate the change to a new technology.  The sooner the better.  Our economy will not prosper under the old technology.  $1 billion over 10 years just ain't gonna do it.

[OneWithWood]

The US does not have the reserves to produce all the oil we consume.  We could never export oil.
Gasoline prices are very unlikely to come down as pressure for oil becomes greater in the world.  The wise countries and their populations will accelerate the quest for fuel alternatives and not waste a lot of time and money attempting to hold the line on petroeum based fuel costs.
just my .02

[Buzz-sawyer]

I tend to MUCH more optimistic about better production use and exploration regarding oil
here is an exerpt from gloom sayers in the 1950s

I remember as a young, trainee oil field accountant in the early 1950s just how credulous I was. What little I knew about the technical aspects of oil field operations was limited to what I had learned at a week's induction course, subsequently augmented by what I picked up accounting for the operations. I took what the technical experts -- geologists, reservoir engineers, petroleum engineers, production engineers, etc -- wrote and said as gospel.

However, it was not too long before I realized the experts' opinions were often based on some pretty shaky evidence.

My first doubts were raised when eminent geologists predicted that, at the then current production rates, the world's oil reserves would run out in 40 years. For some reason, 40 was the magic number agreed ... or at least not contradicted ... by many geologists.

However, this went against my experience because, in the oil fields where I was working, our oil reserves steadily increased i.e. more oil was found than had been extracted. The same was happening elsewhere in the world so ... despite increased oil extraction ... that quoted figure of 40 years did not go down. In fact, at the end of the 1950s and into the 1960s a number of new and substantial oil provinces were discovered including Nigeria, Libya, the North Sea and Alaska (Prudhoe Bay).

After these discoveries, the predictions of how long oil reserves would last were quietly dropped. This was just as well, because many more oil provinces have since been found, and who can say how much more oil exists in deep sea waters and in the Arctic and Antarctic?

So it was with a certain skepticism that I pondered on the experts' prediction of gloom and doom
By Oliver L. Campbell

[Buzz-sawyer]

Ron
I could not agree more with your comment regarding being green, and it's true meaning.  Fuel cell technology has progressed far, and can make better use of all petro  carbons including natural gas propane gas and diesel fuel.  All of these and more, can be exchanged on molecular level of afuel cell membrane.
Likewise hydrogen worked well to create electricity through the exchange of molecule on a fuel cell membranes.  It is a simple technology, with mass production of the membranes and stacks as the only obstacle to use a large scale.  However, modern internal combustion engines have improved immensely.  Efficiency ratings, I believe, of 60 to 70 are really very good.  Even in relation to new technologies.
Therefore the use of petroleum fuels remained the one of our best options.  In regard to the widespread use of hydrogen, the logistics of on the fly production of hydrogen and streetcorner hydrogen stations would require massive infrastructure changes that would take many, many decades.
Producing hydrogen on the fly is nowhere in sight, so streetcorner hydrogen/gas stations are the next alternative.  Currently, for people involved in private enterprise to do such a thing.  It is very costly with minimal market and zero profitable return seen in the future.  I believe it will only happen when the market demand hydrogen.  In other words, we can get hydrogen less expensively than other fuels.  Otherwise, what solution have we? Government to force the use of hydrogen? It will not work.  There are not enough dollars in our entire federal budget to subsidize and pressure the market into such a cataclysmic change.
All conventional internal combustion engines, can run easily on hydrogen.
It's hydrogen and the answer, only if the process of electrolysis can be accomplished to in a way that has not been discovered yet.  Meaning, to separate hydrogen and oxygen from water in an economical, and convenient manner.  I don't see the market forces, in place, too generate such a change.  Anyone have any suggestions, or ways to turn water into hydrogen and oxygen,?

[Ron Wenrich]

I'm going to have to disagree with your market analysis.  You're saying that we don't have hydrogen because there is not market demand.  The auto mfg are saying there's no production since there is no fuel.  Neither side is going to move first.  That's a dilemna and a catch-22.

With that type of thinking, we would still be in the Dark Ages.  Why would Bell invent the telephone?  Why should Edison make a light bulb?  Why should Ford mass produce cars?  Because of the potential markets.  That's why we should be developing hydrogen or some other type of energy source.

For most of our energy and transportation advances, the government has been there to subsidize the industry.  They did away with competition for electric and phone companies.  They gave land grants to railroads and canals.  They have given tax breaks to oil companies.  They've built roads for auto and truck use.  The government funds tons of research for a lot of industries.  The list goes on and on.  The old adage is that you have to spend money to make money.  Infrastructure seems like a good place to spend some money.

Internal combustion is an old technology.  It is too old for a modern economy.  I heard one economist say that we won't get to the next level until we have a new energy source.  Every time there has been a new energy developed, the economy has leaped ahead, along with the standard of living.  I tend to agree.

[Larry]

The US does not have the reserves to produce all the oil we consume.  We could never export oil.

Substitute the word China in OWW's statement.  Presently the number 2 importer behind the US.  They don't have established relationships with the oil exporting countries so they are in the hunt big time with money.

And it isn't just us that is using oil.  The rest of the world, especially China, is starting to buy cars.  They need fuel for their expanding industry base.  It is a global market.  If Chevron or Mobil can make more money by sending it to Thailand or Timbuktu, that's where they're going to send it.

China's economy is growing something like 8 to 10% a year.  They are going after all the oil they can get to maintain that growth rate.  Sure the price of crude is going to drop but it is just going to ratchet up even higher.  I don't see any relief until we adopt alternative fuels.

[Haytrader]

I don't have the answer but I paid $2.07 today.........ouch

[Buzz-sawyer]

that smarts!

[ksu_chainsaw]

I hate to see what fuel prices are when i get home.  In December, i was buying diesel at 1.30 per gallon and gas at 1.40 per gallon.  Now my wife says she is paying 1.80 for diesel and 1.90 for gas, and that is the tax free price from the indians.  I might have to fix up my old chevette so i can get 35 mpg on diesel.

charles

[Stan]

Speaking of hydrogen, it takes more energy to produce the DanGed stuff than you can get out of it. Controlled fusion reaction for electric generation is the only apparent answer.

[EZ]

My brothers son is in Bagdad and said gas is $.04 a gallon. I told him then when we were paying $1.50 their gas must have been free. :
EZ

[shopteacher]

I run 93 octane in my rollback. 2.25 yesterday. :( I think I better get down and fill it up before it gets light out. They don't seem to change the price sign in the dark. :D

[Frank_Pender]

Well., folks, I did not purchase fule on the 19th as many suggested.  I just could not run the mills.  I had about only one gallon left in one of two Gators, my F450 was reading empty and I as about to have to walk around on the farm :-/

  I did go for fuel on the 20th.  I filled the F450 and the fuel container for the gators and mills.  I was lighter in the pockets for sure by $310.  I paid $2.31 for diesel and $2.40 for 87 octane regular gas.   :'(  they had just raised the price of each by 3 cents about a half hour  before I arrived. :'(

[ksu_chainsaw]

current retail value here local is about 200 dinars per liter.  at an exchange rate of 1400 dinars per us dollar, that puts the fuel prices locally at about $.54 per gallon    ???  but on the other hand KBR is making a killing selling fuel to the military at a much higher rate.  still cant figure that out.  

charles

[Buzz-sawyer]

ez
Today ksu chainsawsaid gas is sky high in his area of Iraq
$.54!
for gas from the locals it is 200 dinars per liter.  the current exchange rate is about 1400 dinars per dollar.  about 3.8 liters per gallon.  so about $.54 per gallon here in my location.  in other spots it could be different, but i dont know.  I do know that KBR wants a whole lot more than that for the fuel that they truck in.

[Tracy]

It's greed. Thats the biggest plyer here. Oil cost the same in 92 and it didn't cost no where near what it does now at the pump. They tell us we shouldn't feel bad because the ADJUSTED price should be $3 a gallon=my butt, the ADJUSTED income doesn't even come close!. I read an interview with a refinery bigwig who stated "we see no need to change things. we are enjoying large profits and try to keep reserves low in order to keep the price high. without close attention we could easily over produce which would send the price down,we don't want that". Not that long ago the oil companies were saying that we are over producing and it is costing us with having so much oil out there so we will have to riase the price to keep our profits up if it doesn't change-well I quess they got what they wanted. I'm no fan of government but when they regulate the cost of stamps-cable-phone and a butt load of other things down to your seat belt but let this go unchecked when the entier state of the country and its enconomics depend on it they turn a blind eye to it is beyond me. The last time it shot up like this they finally said we are going to look into this and the truckers started parking thier trucks it fell like a rock in a hurry. This time the truckers have built in safe guards against fuel prices and the price of desiel has not gone up at the same rate as gas has-at least not here. It all spells greed and little eles to me.

[Buzz-sawyer]

Several truthful points tracy.
Definitely part of the equasion!

[Stan]

I don't know about that Tracy, seems like profits of 21 billion on 400 billion in sales is a pretty thin profit margin. Just a bit over 5%. Only grocery stores operate on a lower margin. CA knows that MTBE is a carcinogen, and is polluting the ground water, but they can't seem to repeal the requirement to have it in the summer blend.  :