Diesel fuel Prices

chrismc · **Posted:** Sat Aug 05, 2006 6:12 pm

kjfishman wrote:

chrismc wrote:

Taz wrote:

In the Twin Cities there was a 15 Cent increase in Diesel Fuel Prices this week. Anyone else notice the same in other parts of the country? Anyone know whats causing it?

In St Louis, it jumped $2.79 to $3.09. Yowza.

We used to live in St. Charles, moved because of the new airport runway and the politics are so bad. I do miss access to the Katy Trail. Well back to the point, I live down the road in Wentzville and we are getting the new 15ppm sulfer fuel. Are the stations in St. Charles selling the new low sulfer fuel yet?

Don't get me started on that darn new runway... Grrr.. I just got back from a walk down to the Katy Trail, so its not all bad.

I haven't seen ULSD anywhere yet. In fact, I read your post about seeing it in Wentzville, and tried to find some on the way to the county fair the other day. I never did find the station that had it. Pretty soon I'll have my bio processor up and running. Then I won't be nearly as bothered by fuel prices! (although methanol is on the rise locally- over $3 a gal)

naturist · **Posted:** Sat Aug 05, 2006 7:36 pm

Cowpie1 wrote:

naturist wrote:

kjfishman wrote:

Taz wrote:

In the Twin Cities there was a 15 Cent increase in Diesel Fuel Prices this week. Anyone else notice the same in other parts of the country? Anyone know whats causing it?

The reason is they don't need a reason. All the company's that sell products or services to the oil companys should charge the oil company's twice as much or more than they charge everyone else. The oil company's report record profits and try to blame the high prices on the middle east, bad weather when it is simple greed on thier part.

The green people that don't want any drilling in the US or any new refineries aren't helping any.

Funny, in talking to the oil industry people, I've been told that it wouldn't matter if they were allowed to drill anyplace their heart desired -- or for that matter every 10 feet everywhere on the planet -- there isn't enough oil left to be tapped to make a dent in what is expected to happen in the oil markets over the next 50 years or so.

I heard those same forcasts over 40 years ago. I remember hearing in the 80's that we would only have 20 years of cost effective oil reserves left at the rate of consumption. Heck, in the 80's, actors were in the media claiming the oceans would not sustain life after another 20 year's of man's actions!

When allowed to thrive, the free market will always win out. The current chairman of BP has testified that between the oil sands of Canada, the KNOWN oil deposits in the Gulf of Mexico, and the oil reserves untapped on the N.A. continent, we have enough to take care of our needs past the 50 year prediction by doom and gloom scenarios. The government just restricts going and getting it. To wit, the lastest round of congressional debate about drilling in the Gulf and ANWR.

Get the government out of the way and you will see plenty of oil at a price less than we have now. Also, we wouldn't be lining the pockets of those that like to shoot missles and blow up children. Let's get the oil that is available here, increase biodiesel and ethanol use, build a few more refineries, and lower our consumption a little, and we would be sitting pretty good.

Considering the massive world-wide recession in the '90s (which for some reason the US mostly did not experience), the prediction from the '80s is right on target, unless, of course, you consider the current run-up in fuel prices to be of no consequence.

It should be noted that the BP chairman you cited was absolutely correct about the abundance of oil sands. What he didn't mention, or you neglected to add, was that nobody has been able to extract the oil from those sands without burning more oil than they got out of the sands. The rest of that citation, however, runs counter to everything else I've read from every other oil industry source. I don't buy it.

I'd also add that if you "got the government out of the way" completely, meaning also that the government quit subsidizing oil production around the world, we'd finally have to pay what petroleum products REALLY cost us at the pump instead of hidden in our taxes. The last analysis on that said with oil at $70 a barrell, the true cost of gasoline was $10.28 a gallon.

But there is no need to argue about this one, you know. If YOU are right, sometime in the next 20 years, I'm sure we'll see 32 cent a gallon gasoline again. If I am right, you'll never see $3 a gallon gas again after the end of 2006. Anybody want to lay a little wager on the chances?

KJMedic · **Posted:** Sat Aug 05, 2006 10:03 pm

Funny thing is North Carolina has higher taxes on fuel than Virginia and the prices are not that far off. Some places in NC diesel is 2.99-3.09 and in VA it is 2.89-2.99. I don't get it. The diffrence in taxes the last time I checked was about .17 per. gallon I think (I am not sure)

oz_crd · **Posted:** Sat Aug 05, 2006 10:08 pm

I would put my money on Naturist's prediction. Here in the KC area, I wish we were only paying $3 for a gallon of diesel. We were until this past week, when it suddenly shot up to $0.25 higher per gallon than Regular, which is going for $2.99. What the Heck? We even saw some gougers near I-70 asking $3.36/gallon for diesel! :!:

Luckily, our one beloved Valero that sells B20 in KCMO still has it at $3.11. I am thinking of buying a couple 5 gallon cans and stocking up. At the rate pricing rises around here, that is maybe the best percentage of return on a short-term investment that I can get!

RFCRD · **Posted:** Sat Aug 05, 2006 10:16 pm

naturist wrote:

Cowpie1 wrote:

naturist wrote:

kjfishman wrote:

Taz wrote:

In the Twin Cities there was a 15 Cent increase in Diesel Fuel Prices this week. Anyone else notice the same in other parts of the country? Anyone know whats causing it?

The reason is they don't need a reason. All the company's that sell products or services to the oil companys should charge the oil company's twice as much or more than they charge everyone else. The oil company's report record profits and try to blame the high prices on the middle east, bad weather when it is simple greed on thier part.

The green people that don't want any drilling in the US or any new refineries aren't helping any.

Funny, in talking to the oil industry people, I've been told that it wouldn't matter if they were allowed to drill anyplace their heart desired -- or for that matter every 10 feet everywhere on the planet -- there isn't enough oil left to be tapped to make a dent in what is expected to happen in the oil markets over the next 50 years or so.

I heard those same forcasts over 40 years ago. I remember hearing in the 80's that we would only have 20 years of cost effective oil reserves left at the rate of consumption. Heck, in the 80's, actors were in the media claiming the oceans would not sustain life after another 20 year's of man's actions!

When allowed to thrive, the free market will always win out. The current chairman of BP has testified that between the oil sands of Canada, the KNOWN oil deposits in the Gulf of Mexico, and the oil reserves untapped on the N.A. continent, we have enough to take care of our needs past the 50 year prediction by doom and gloom scenarios. The government just restricts going and getting it. To wit, the lastest round of congressional debate about drilling in the Gulf and ANWR.

Get the government out of the way and you will see plenty of oil at a price less than we have now. Also, we wouldn't be lining the pockets of those that like to shoot missles and blow up children. Let's get the oil that is available here, increase biodiesel and ethanol use, build a few more refineries, and lower our consumption a little, and we would be sitting pretty good.

Considering the massive world-wide recession in the '90s (which for some reason the US mostly did not experience), the prediction from the '80s is right on target, unless, of course, you consider the current run-up in fuel prices to be of no consequence.

It should be noted that the BP chairman you cited was absolutely correct about the abundance of oil sands. What he didn't mention, or you neglected to add, was that nobody has been able to extract the oil from those sands without burning more oil than they got out of the sands. The rest of that citation, however, runs counter to everything else I've read from every other oil industry source. I don't buy it.

I'd also add that if you "got the government out of the way" completely, meaning also that the government quit subsidizing oil production around the world, we'd finally have to pay what petroleum products REALLY cost us at the pump instead of hidden in our taxes. The last analysis on that said with oil at $70 a barrell, the true cost of gasoline was $10.28 a gallon.

But there is no need to argue about this one, you know. If YOU are right, sometime in the next 20 years, I'm sure we'll see 32 cent a gallon gasoline again. If I am right, you'll never see $3 a gallon gas again after the end of 2006. Anybody want to lay a little wager on the chances?

From what I've read lately, the magic number is @ $80/barrel to make new oil sources worth the capital risk of developing. There are plenty of domestic sources, it's a matter of economics. Even at $75/barrel it still cheaper to import the stuff.

Cowpie1 · **Posted:** Sat Aug 05, 2006 10:55 pm

You will never see .32/gal fuel anyway. That is a invalid argument. Most of the oil cannot be brought to market below $20/bbl. That is why so many existing wells were capped.

Now that the price has gotten higher, many of the wells that weren't producing are doing so now. I have seen wells in Illinois that were dormant for quite a while, now the pumps are running. However, new production is a regulatory nightmare, thanks to the government and environmental interests.

Much of what oil is being used for could easily be done more effectively with other means, specifically, nuclear power for electrical generation. It is the electrical that would mean cost effective oil production from harder sources such as oil shales and oil sands.

Again, it's the government and those it owes that hinder business from developing the means to get what the consumer wants at a reasonable market value. The government should not be in the business of providing subsidies to anyone nor using taxation to regulate the growth or use of products. This goes for oil companies down to the smallest farmer (me). Even a free market educational system would make for better educated young people than what are coming out of the public school system.

I guess I don't have to tell you that my views tilt considerably towards Libertarian. :wink:

midwest · **Joined:** Tue Apr 25, 2006 12:03 am **Posts:** 173

naturist wrote:

Cowpie1 wrote:

naturist wrote:

kjfishman wrote:

Taz wrote:

In the Twin Cities there was a 15 Cent increase in Diesel Fuel Prices this week. Anyone else notice the same in other parts of the country? Anyone know whats causing it?

The reason is they don't need a reason. All the company's that sell products or services to the oil companys should charge the oil company's twice as much or more than they charge everyone else. The oil company's report record profits and try to blame the high prices on the middle east, bad weather when it is simple greed on thier part.

The green people that don't want any drilling in the US or any new refineries aren't helping any.

Funny, in talking to the oil industry people, I've been told that it wouldn't matter if they were allowed to drill anyplace their heart desired -- or for that matter every 10 feet everywhere on the planet -- there isn't enough oil left to be tapped to make a dent in what is expected to happen in the oil markets over the next 50 years or so.

I heard those same forcasts over 40 years ago. I remember hearing in the 80's that we would only have 20 years of cost effective oil reserves left at the rate of consumption. Heck, in the 80's, actors were in the media claiming the oceans would not sustain life after another 20 year's of man's actions!

When allowed to thrive, the free market will always win out. The current chairman of BP has testified that between the oil sands of Canada, the KNOWN oil deposits in the Gulf of Mexico, and the oil reserves untapped on the N.A. continent, we have enough to take care of our needs past the 50 year prediction by doom and gloom scenarios. The government just restricts going and getting it. To wit, the lastest round of congressional debate about drilling in the Gulf and ANWR.

Get the government out of the way and you will see plenty of oil at a price less than we have now. Also, we wouldn't be lining the pockets of those that like to shoot missles and blow up children. Let's get the oil that is available here, increase biodiesel and ethanol use, build a few more refineries, and lower our consumption a little, and we would be sitting pretty good.

Considering the massive world-wide recession in the '90s (which for some reason the US mostly did not experience), the prediction from the '80s is right on target, unless, of course, you consider the current run-up in fuel prices to be of no consequence.

It should be noted that the BP chairman you cited was absolutely correct about the abundance of oil sands. What he didn't mention, or you neglected to add, was that nobody has been able to extract the oil from those sands without burning more oil than they got out of the sands. The rest of that citation, however, runs counter to everything else I've read from every other oil industry source. I don't buy it.

I'd also add that if you "got the government out of the way" completely, meaning also that the government quit subsidizing oil production around the world, we'd finally have to pay what petroleum products REALLY cost us at the pump instead of hidden in our taxes. The last analysis on that said with oil at $70 a barrell, the true cost of gasoline was $10.28 a gallon.

But there is no need to argue about this one, you know. If YOU are right, sometime in the next 20 years, I'm sure we'll see 32 cent a gallon gasoline again. If I am right, you'll never see $3 a gallon gas again after the end of 2006. Anybody want to lay a little wager on the chances?

Where do you get your information Naturist? Canada is refining millions of barrells of oil from the tar sands everyday, and i doubt they are doing it at a loss as YOU say. You may be burning it in your vehicle right now as they are a major supplier to the USA.

TXriverrat · **Posted:** Mon Aug 07, 2006 1:23 am

I was paying $2.69 when gas was $2.80-$2.87, and now I'm paying $2.99 while the gas price only went up about 5 cents.

hatchetman · **Posted:** Mon Aug 07, 2006 12:30 pm

Paid $2.99.9 for LSD #2 in Bridgeport, OH on my way to pick up another drum of B100 at Carson Dist. in Lansing, OH. $156.15 out the door for 55 gals, supplied my own drum :evil:

.

retmil46 · **Posted:** Mon Aug 07, 2006 12:51 pm

Might want to get ready for prices to go up again.

Big story on the news this morning is that BP is going to have to shut down several of the feeder pipelines from Prudhoe Bay. Had one major leak, and some of the other sections are showing below-spec wall pipe thickness.

Word is this will cut out 8% of our domestic crude production for the time being. Price per barrel on Wall Street is already going up.

no-blue-screen · **Posted:** Mon Aug 07, 2006 3:10 pm

allscan wrote:

http://allscan.homelinux.net/~brent/CRD/

Check out the last graph on this page to see fuel prices in Norteast Marlyand. I usually fill up at the same place every week or so. At least diesel is still 15 cents or so cheapre than gas around here.

Yeah, a while back Diesel was much higher than RUG. Now with RUG prices on the rise again, Diesel has actually become cheaper.

Did anyone see the news reports last night on the Alaskan pipeline disaster?

Here is a copy of the Story:

(AP) BP Exploration Alaska, Inc. began shutting down the Prudhoe Bay oil field Sunday after discovering unexpectedly severe corrosion and a small spill from a transit pipeline.

Company officials said it would take days to shut down the oil field.

Once completed, it's expected to reduce oil field production by 400,000 barrels a day.

"We regret that it is necessary to take this action and we apologize to the nation and the State of Alaska for the adverse impacts it will cause," BP America Chairman and President Bob Malone said in a prepared statement.

(© 2006 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)

Diesel fuel Prices

Who is online