Gas Prices -- Help at last?

JohnH wrote:

"In 1981, the U.S. had 324 refineries with a total capacity of
processing 18.6 million barrels of crude per day. Today just 149
refineries have
a daily capacity of 16.8 million barrels."


If we truly have a refinery shortage, why aren't people waiting in lines to
buy fuel?

Because the increase in prices has stabilized the demand, for the moment
anyway. Lines will appear in the very near future, just as rolling
blackouts and brownouts began to appear a few years ago. We are running
out of energy generating capacity, be it liquid fuels or electricity.
We're just now seeing the leading edge of this problem, but if we don't
begin to dramatically increase production capacity or increase
conservation at a rate to keep the demand at current levels, we'll have
some serious issues in less than five years.


Matt

Matt Whiting wrote:
anyway. Lines will appear in the very near future, just as rolling
blackouts and brownouts began to appear a few years ago. We are running
out of energy generating capacity,

actually we weren't running out of energy generating capacity,
but the analogy is good since this is another example of
price gouging...

--Sylvain

"Sylvain" wrote in message
...
Matt Whiting wrote:
anyway. Lines will appear in the very near future, just as rolling
blackouts and brownouts began to appear a few years ago. We are running
out of energy generating capacity,

actually we weren't running out of energy generating capacity,

We're not "running out", but our generating capacity is now running
something like 96% as opposed to running 50-60% in the past.

Would you run your engine near redline for an extended period?

but the analogy is good since this is another example of
price gouging...

In deference to those who cite me for too often being harsh, I'll just say
your grasp of the fuels market is distinctly abysmal.

Sylvain wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote:

anyway. Lines will appear in the very near future, just as rolling
blackouts and brownouts began to appear a few years ago. We are
running out of energy generating capacity,


actually we weren't running out of energy generating capacity,
but the analogy is good since this is another example of
price gouging...

Sorry, but we are running out of electrical generating capacity and
gasoline refining capacity. You don't have to believe it now, but you
will in the not too distant future.

Matt

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Sylvain wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote:

anyway. Lines will appear in the very near future, just as rolling
blackouts and brownouts began to appear a few years ago. We are running
out of energy generating capacity,


actually we weren't running out of energy generating capacity,
but the analogy is good since this is another example of
price gouging...

Sorry, but we are running out of electrical generating capacity and
gasoline refining capacity. You don't have to believe it now, but you
will in the not too distant future.

We won't run out and are not RUNNING out; the capacity can't keep up with
demand, and expansion is just about as heavily regulated as the initial
construction.


Matt

The other Matt

On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 17:48:13 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:


"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Sylvain wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote:

anyway. Lines will appear in the very near future, just as rolling
blackouts and brownouts began to appear a few years ago. We are running
out of energy generating capacity,


actually we weren't running out of energy generating capacity,
but the analogy is good since this is another example of
price gouging...

Sorry, but we are running out of electrical generating capacity and
gasoline refining capacity. You don't have to believe it now, but you
will in the not too distant future.

We won't run out and are not RUNNING out; the capacity can't keep up with
demand, and expansion is just about as heavily regulated as the initial
construction.

Ahhh... You just described exactly what he said. We are running out
of generating capacity and refining capacity. He did not say we are
running out of gas or crude.

However, increasing our refining capacity is only going to increase
out dependence on foreign crude. Nothing magical is going to happen
to reduce the average American's use of gas unless forced to do so. So
I don't see alternative energy sources happening, or becoming viably
economical until gas prices are high enough to make them so. So in 20
years we will just be using more gas unless the price gets high enough
to force a change.

I do agree that *rebuilding*, or replacing current refineries with
more efficient ones would be a good way to go, but a buddy of mine who
retired from a refinery told me they basically rebuild them every ten
years through incremental maintenance.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com


Matt

The other Matt

"Roger" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 17:48:13 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:

Sorry, but we are running out of electrical generating capacity and
gasoline refining capacity. You don't have to believe it now, but you
will in the not too distant future.

We won't run out and are not RUNNING out; the capacity can't keep up with
demand, and expansion is just about as heavily regulated as the initial
construction.

Ahhh... You just described exactly what he said. We are running out
of generating capacity and refining capacity. He did not say we are
running out of gas or crude.

"Running out" to me infers having ZERO capacity; "running short" means not
being able to keep up with demand. That, to me, is a significant difference.
My take on the other Matt is that he means we're losing _all our capacity_.


However, increasing our refining capacity is only going to increase
out dependence on foreign crude.
Correct -- producing enough crude or other supplies is another issue.

Nothing magical is going to happen
to reduce the average American's use of gas unless forced to do so.

Yes, there will; PRICES.No maginc involved, just reality. Prices are the
balance point between supply and demand. There's no thuggery of force
involved. If the utility you get from $4 or $5 a gallon is significant to
you, you use it; if not, you don't. There's always options.

In running my business, fuel for my airplane is worth it, even at $4.00 or
more a gallon. In my case, fuel costs are a tiny portion of running the
business. OTOH, for my private use in my car or PU truck, $2.70 a gallon
gas means I don't make frivolous trips to the store to buy a handful of
goods.

So
I don't see alternative energy sources happening, or becoming viably
economical until gas prices are high enough to make them so. So in 20
years we will just be using more gas unless the price gets high enough
to force a change.

Well, I wouldn't use the word "force", but I know what you mean.


I do agree that *rebuilding*, or replacing current refineries with
more efficient ones would be a good way to go, but a buddy of mine who
retired from a refinery told me they basically rebuild them every ten
years through incremental maintenance.

Yes, there is much to encourage keeping them as technically "state of the
art" as feasible. As for "rebuilding them every ten years", that sounds
rather hyperbolic.

The issue I'm addressing is that with shale, tar sands and other options
hopefully coming along, we'd not be able to produce what we need. Running
refineries at 95+% of capacity is an invitation to a boondoggle, both
economically and strategically.

About two years ago, the pipeline that supplies Phoenix with gasoline was
broken for about five days. My in-laws described it as "reminiscent of the
1970's waiting in line for gas".

Katrina was another example, but as Mike Rappoport said, it was a 50 year
incidence. And he's right. It should, though, give a clue as to our
vulnerabilities. What if Rita has gone a bit further south and took out
Houston/Galveston? Most of our remaining refineries are in very tenuous
locations.

Hurricane intensities are cyclical, and I don't buy the BS that they have
anything to do with "Global Warming", but more than half (?) of our refining
capacity is in "hurricane alley". It hasn't been a disaster yet, but why
tempt "fate"?

--
Matt

---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 01:04:37 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:

Hurricane intensities are cyclical, and I don't buy the BS that they have
anything to do with "Global Warming", but more than half (?) of our refining
capacity is in "hurricane alley". It hasn't been a disaster yet, but why
tempt "fate"?

It's true that the number of hurricanes per year appears to vary as a
result of a natural cycle, the reasons for which are not well
understood at this point. There have been years in the past when many
hurricanes developed. However, the intensity of hurricanes is purely
the result of the fuel that feeds them: The warmth of the ocean under
which they develop and travel. Upper level atmospheric pressure also
plays a part, but the biggest factor is the warmth of the ocean. The
warmer the ocean under which the hurricane spawns, the better the
chance it will develop into a strong storm. Katrina is a perfect
example, it reduced in intensity during it's passage over the Florida
penninsula, and then intensified into a category 5 hurricane once it
moved onto the gulf of Mexico where the waters were very warm.

More storms per year are occuring in the last few years and the warmer
oceans are creating storms of high intensity.

That the oceans are warmer than they've ever been in recorded history
is not at question, you only have to look at the temperatures over the
last 100 years or so to see that they've been going up.

Another data point is the melting of most glaciers the world over.
They are melting because the average temperature has increased in the
last several decades. Still another data point is the ocean level is
rising.

That the world is warming is not in question, the numbers are obvious.
What is causing it to warm is still in debate (especially by the Bush
White House), but a great number of scientists feel that man and the
greenhouse gasses he produces is likely the root cause.

Corky Scott

Matt Barrow wrote:

"Roger" wrote in message
...

On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 17:48:13 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:

Sorry, but we are running out of electrical generating capacity and
gasoline refining capacity. You don't have to believe it now, but you
will in the not too distant future.

We won't run out and are not RUNNING out; the capacity can't keep up with
demand, and expansion is just about as heavily regulated as the initial
construction.

Ahhh... You just described exactly what he said. We are running out
of generating capacity and refining capacity. He did not say we are
running out of gas or crude.


"Running out" to me infers having ZERO capacity; "running short" means not
being able to keep up with demand. That, to me, is a significant difference.
My take on the other Matt is that he means we're losing _all our capacity_.

What I meant was running out of EXCESS capacity. I think that was
pretty clear from the context, but I realize that some people aren't
able to understand context and need things spelled out literally.

Matt

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 01:04:37 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:


"Roger" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 17:48:13 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:

Sorry, but we are running out of electrical generating capacity and
gasoline refining capacity. You don't have to believe it now, but you
will in the not too distant future.

We won't run out and are not RUNNING out; the capacity can't keep up with
demand, and expansion is just about as heavily regulated as the initial
construction.

Ahhh... You just described exactly what he said. We are running out
of generating capacity and refining capacity. He did not say we are
running out of gas or crude.

"Running out" to me infers having ZERO capacity; "running short" means not
being able to keep up with demand. That, to me, is a significant difference.
My take on the other Matt is that he means we're losing _all our capacity_.


Ah, the vagarities(sp?) of the English language.
So, I shall rephrase it to we are fast running out of the refining
ability to meet the demand. Like being I/O bound in a computer the
energy system is currently approaching being refinery bound

However, increasing our refining capacity is only going to increase
out dependence on foreign crude.
Correct -- producing enough crude or other supplies is another issue.

Nothing magical is going to happen
to reduce the average American's use of gas unless forced to do so.

Yes, there will; PRICES.No maginc involved, just reality. Prices are the
balance point between supply and demand. There's no thuggery of force
involved. If the utility you get from $4 or $5 a gallon is significant to
you, you use it; if not, you don't. There's always options.

We are basically saying the same thing. Nothing is going to reduce
the price except supply and demand. As the average American is not
going to reduce their use of fuel unless *forced* to do so, and I use
the word advisedly as in forced to reduce the use because they can't
afford to maintain the current use. IE, they do not have enough
discretionary income to use except for the most necessary of trips.
I'm not sure starving would convince them to use mass transit, but
then again, we don't have much in the way of mass transit except in
some of the largest cities and on each coast.

In running my business, fuel for my airplane is worth it, even at $4.00 or
more a gallon. In my case, fuel costs are a tiny portion of running the
business. OTOH, for my private use in my car or PU truck, $2.70 a gallon
gas means I don't make frivolous trips to the store to buy a handful of
goods.

I spend $4.00 a gallon for avgas to play and visit a widely dispersed
family, albeit it I don't play near as much as I used to and I fly a
plane that requires a good many hours a year in which to stay
proficient. I believe the average pilot flies about 30 some hours a
year and it takes that many to stay proficient. So if not flying much
I spend most of my time practicing maneuvers, which I happen to enjoy.


So
I don't see alternative energy sources happening, or becoming viably
economical until gas prices are high enough to make them so. So in 20
years we will just be using more gas unless the price gets high enough
to force a change.

Well, I wouldn't use the word "force", but I know what you mean.

I'd still use it, but qualify it by adding forced by the cost of fuel.



I do agree that *rebuilding*, or replacing current refineries with
more efficient ones would be a good way to go, but a buddy of mine who
retired from a refinery told me they basically rebuild them every ten
years through incremental maintenance.

Yes, there is much to encourage keeping them as technically "state of the
art" as feasible. As for "rebuilding them every ten years", that sounds
rather hyperbolic.

However, there is just so much we can get out of a gallon of crude and
even the most efficient refineries are not going to change that a lot.
Basically the efficiency is how much of each gallon of crude do they
use to run the refinery versus how much product they get out of that
gallon?

Crude, depending on quality contains everything from asphalt on the
high boiler end to highly volatile chemicals on the other with a lot
of stuff in between. The contents are separated out using plain old
distillation. They can change the ratio of high boilers to low
boilers by a process called cracking (generally using platinum as a
catalyst) where they break apart the long molecules of the high
boilers, add hydrogen and create smaller molecule lower boilers. So
in the winter they make more fuel oil which requires less cracking
than making gas for cars. But when they make fuel oil there is less
crude available from which to make gas for cars.

There is sweet and sour crude. Sour contains a high sulphur content
while sweet has a low content and is easier to handle with less
pollutants. "As I understand" the crude from Alaska is relatively
sour so we sell much of that and then purchase a higher quality sweet
crude.

My understanding is *Generally* sour crude like soft coal comes from
shallower depths than sweet.


The issue I'm addressing is that with shale, tar sands and other options

These are all expensive and relatively low returns for the energy
required to get the crude out, although the amount of crude in these
deposits is huge. The same is true with coal. We have very large
deposits of coal that are readily available, but they come with a high
pollution price. We need to develop better scrubbers and ways of
reclaiming the pollutants.

hopefully coming along, we'd not be able to produce what we need. Running
refineries at 95+% of capacity is an invitation to a boondoggle, both
economically and strategically.

Refineries need to run at the 95% plus level to be at their most
efficient. Less than that and the efficiency goes down in a hurry.


About two years ago, the pipeline that supplies Phoenix with gasoline was
broken for about five days. My in-laws described it as "reminiscent of the
1970's waiting in line for gas".

Katrina was another example, but as Mike Rappoport said, it was a 50 year
incidence. And he's right. It should, though, give a clue as to our
vulnerabilities. What if Rita has gone a bit further south and took out
Houston/Galveston? Most of our remaining refineries are in very tenuous
locations.

Hurricane intensities are cyclical, and I don't buy the BS that they have
anything to do with "Global Warming", but more than half (?) of our refining
capacity is in "hurricane alley". It hasn't been a disaster yet, but why
tempt "fate"?

That I do. Science has shown there is a cyclic warming and cooling,
but they have also shown this cycle is accelerating and it'd directly
related to the amount of extra CO2 in the air.
The temperature of the oceans has risen, the levels have risen, and
the glaciers are retreating. Hurricanes are fueled by warm water and
it takes very little increase to make them much stronger.

*Most* scientists now agree that global warming is real. What no one
knows for sure is how much is due to mankind and how much is natural.
What they can do is trace , or compare the temperature rise to the
amount of CO2 in the air and they do correlate fairly well right back
to the beginning of the industrial revolution. That and the huge
amount of slash and burn going on in South America.

Another thing upon which they agree; is with any increase of global
temperature the weather will become more varied and more violent.
We'll have to wait a few more years to see just what is happening.
Once thing is for certain, mother nature will fight any change. The
jet streams and winds are her effort to even out the earth's
temperatures.

One thing they seem to agree on is, fresh water melt could cause the
ocean circulating currents (Gulf Stream as an example) to stop in less
than a decade once the process were started and many hundreds if not
thousands of years to restart.

IF and that is a big IF the Antarctic glaciers (the ones on land not
the ones already floating) were to melt or to slip into the sea all of
out coastal cities would cease to exist, but at least that would not
happen overnight, or at least they don't think so. Of course we don't
know what the fresh water from the floating ones would do. OTOH they
do agree that the state of Florida and the City of New Orleans would
no longer be problem sites and the Gulf of Mexico would be a whole lot
bigger.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com