Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Ever wonder why gasoline is so high ?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Wiregrass Willie Donating Member (436 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 10:42 AM
Original message
Ever wonder why gasoline is so high ?
I've always been a good little capitalist. Up until now. I'm wondering if the government may not be able to operate these oil companies better than this bunch of pirates do ?

Gas Prices Rise on Refineries’ Record Failures
By JAD MOUAWAD

Oil refineries across the country have been plagued by a record number of fires, power failures, leaks, spills and breakdowns this year, causing dozens of them to shut down temporarily or trim production. The disruptions are helping to drive gasoline prices to highs not seen since last summer’s records.

These mechanical breakdowns, which one analyst likened to an “invisible hurricane,” have created a bottleneck in domestic energy supplies, helping to push up gasoline prices 50 cents this year to well above $3 a gallon. A third of the country’s 150 refineries have reported disruptions to their operations since the beginning of the year, a record according to analysts.

There have been blazes at refineries in Louisiana, Texas, Indiana and California, some of them caused by lightning strikes. Plants have suffered power losses that disrupted operations; a midsize refinery in Kansas was flooded by torrential rains last month.

American refiners are running roughly 5 percent below their normal levels at this time of the year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/business/22refine.html?ei=5065&en=652e82b4f396b467&ex=1185681600&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
snappyturtle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 10:44 AM
Response to Original message
1. Two words: record profit. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomWV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 10:45 AM
Response to Original message
2. When any other company's facilities fail it would lose money - Oil companies make more. How cum?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lynnertic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 10:49 AM
Response to Original message
3. Too bad I don't make record profits when my operation continually breaks down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 10:50 AM
Response to Original message
4. sounds like the steel industry .
starting in the mid 70`s the steel industry put profits into everything but rebuilding their mills. it`s going to be cheaper to build gasoline refinery capacity overseas than to rebuild here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 10:51 AM
Response to Original message
5. Welcome to reality
What this article didn't mention was the number of refineries that were mothballed in the 90s, making certain that all the remaining refineries would be operating at peak capacity, 100% of the time.

Then they started a PR campaign against environmentalists, whining and wringing their hands over regulation that prevented them from breaking ground on shiny new refineries, never considering rebuilding on the ground the mothballed refineries occupied.

What we have now is an industry that is so close to monopoly that it is acting as a classic monopoly, controlling supply at the production point in order to manipulate the price.

Oh, the low prices of the 90s are a thing of the past. The 40% decline in the value of the dollar has seen to that. However, anything above $2.00 or so a gallon is pure gravy for the monopolistic producers.

Unfortunately, this is a lesson in what unregulated capitalism always does. I just hope people out there are willing to learn it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whistle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 10:55 AM
Response to Original message
6. Oil cartel price fixing and Big Oil oligopoly monopoly on supply
...There is more oil reserves under the Rockie Mountains than anywhere else on earth

<snip>
U.S. HAS MASSIVE OIL RESERVES
SHALE REMAINS UNTAPPED AFTER DECADES OF FAILURE

By Christopher J. Petherick

There is an estimated 2 trillion barrels of oil buried beneath parts of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. Geologists, petroleum companies and the federal government have known about these massive deposits for nearly a century. The trouble has always been: how do you get at it?

It is believed that the shale deposits in the Green River region of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming are holding the equivalent of approximately 1.5 trillion to 1.8 trillion barrels of oil. Called “oil shale” or “shale oil,” according to scientists and petroleum companies, much of it cannot be recovered with current technology due to the costly processing involved and the depth of the deposits buried beneath the Rocky Mountains.

Still, if only half can be extracted, scientists believe the amount is nearly triple the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia.

There has been quite a bit of hype surrounding the shale oil deposits of late. The problem with this, however, is that the type of oil in the western United States is contained in fine-grained sedimentary rocks—hence the name “shale oil.”

NOT REALLY OIL

Technically, it is not really oil at this stage, say geologists. It’s kerogen—sort of an oil-like substance that, when heated in an expensive, laborious process, can be turned into a lower-grade oil, which can then be used in cars.

Walter Youngquist, a geologist from Eugene, Ore., published an article on the web site of the World Energy Council which delves into this subject. Youngquist put it this way:

The term “oil shale” is a misnomer. It does not contain oil nor is it commonly shale. The organic material is chiefly kerogen, and the “shale” is usually a relatively hard rock, called marl. Properly processed, kerogen can be converted into a substance somewhat similar to petroleum. However, it has not gone through the “oil window” of heat (nature’s way of producing oil) and therefore, to be changed into an oil-like substance, it must be heated to a high temperature. By this process the organic material is converted into a liquid, which must be further processed to produce an oil which is said to be better than the lowest grade of oil produced from conventional oil deposits, but of lower quality than the upper grades of conventional oil.

There are currently two main processes for refining shale oil, both of which are capital and labor intensive. In one method, the shale is broken down on-site and heated. The gases and liquids can then be extracted. In the second, the shale oil is removed and transported to facilities where it is then heated and refined.

NO SECRET

It is no secret that there is a potential oil bonanza in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. The Association of Petroleum Geologists (APG) reports that in the 1900s, oil companies began looking into the deposits in this part of the United States.

In fact, in the 1920s, thousands of so-called “oil placer claims” were filed on public lands following a rules change by the federal government that allowed private companies to lease government-managed land and extract the natural resources there.

Large deposits of shale oil are also not unique to the United States. In fact, there are huge reserves of the substance all around the world, from China to Australia to Scotland to South Africa. But, once again, the problem rests with the expense of getting to it and processing it. In the mid-to-late 19th century, France and Scotland extracted large deposits and processed it for their own purposes.

For the most part, the shale oil deposits in the United States were ignored in the United States up until the oil crisis of the late 1970s forced petroleum companies to begin thinking about alternative sources of oil. However, since then, the price of gas has been rock bottom so oil companies—motivated by huge profits and not the need to ensure that the United States is energy self-sufficient—have been avoiding spending the money to research new techniques for refining shale oil.

Today, as oil prices creep up again, petroleum companies are again looking at shale oil despite its high price tag, evidenced by the fact that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has requests from multinational oil conglomerates to extract shale oil in the Green River region.

But even with modern technology, the difficulties associated with extracting and processing shale oil have forced even some of the largest oil companies to drop out of the game.

An April 11 article in Colorado’s daily newspaper, The Rocky Mountain News, noted that the BLM began accepting proposals by companies to develop the shale oil in the Western part of the United States in the summer of 2005.

But BLM officials, citing various reasons, have already rejected bids put forth by 14 out of 18 companies, including an offer by Exxon Mobil.

The BLM said it dumped Exxon Mobil because it did not appear to be dedicating enough resources to shale oil research. But Exxon is reportedly notorious in that part of the country. According to The Rocky Mountain News, many Coloradans still remember “Black Sunday,” or May 2, 1982, when Exxon execs announced the closure of a shale oil processing facility that had been running for decades in western Colorado. The closure put 2,200 people out of work in that part of the state, resulting in a rash of bankruptcies and foreclosures, which hurt the locals for many years after.

Shell has reportedly been studying ways to extract oil shale on land in Colorado since the 1990s. The company said it hopes to have a full-blown operation by 2010.

Two others reportedly still in the running include Chevron and the Texas-based EGL Resources. Industry experts are optimistic that, with help from the government, new techniques can be developed to economically extract oil from the shale deposits and process it with relative ease.

(Issue #20, May 15, 2006)

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/u_s__has_massive_oil.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mojorabbit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 11:08 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. I thought I read
that getting oil from shale was polluting land and water in Canada.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whistle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Well perhaps the ESSO/Exxon people have "shit for brains"
...when it comes to extracting oil from shale and tar sand!

<snip>
Seebach: Shell's ingenious approach to oil shale is pretty slick
Linda Seebach
September 2, 2005


When oil prices last touched record highs - actually, after adjusting for inflation we're not there yet, but given the effects of Hurricane Katrina, we probably will be soon - politicians' response was more hype than hope. Oil shale in Colorado! Tar sands in Alberta! OPEC be damned!
Remember the Carter-era Synfuels Corp. debacle? It was a response to the '70s energy shortages, closed down in 1985 after accomplishing essentially nothing at great expense, which is pretty much a description of what usually happens when the government tries to take over something that the private sector can do better. Private actors are, after all, spending their own money.

Since 1981, Shell researchers at the company's division of "unconventional resources" have been spending their own money trying to figure out how to get usable energy out of oil shale. Judging by the presentation the Rocky Mountain News heard this week, they think they've got it.

Shell's method, which it calls "in situ conversion," is simplicity itself in concept but exquisitely ingenious in execution. Terry O'Connor, a vice president for external and regulatory affairs at Shell Exploration and Production, explained how it's done (and they have done it, in several test projects):

Drill shafts into the oil-bearing rock. Drop heaters down the shaft. Cook the rock until the hydrocarbons boil off, the lightest and most desirable first. Collect them.


Please note, you don't have to go looking for oil fields when you're brewing your own.

On one small test plot about 20 feet by 35 feet, on land Shell owns, they started heating the rock in early 2004. "Product" - about one-third natural gas, two-thirds light crude - began to appear in September 2004. They turned the heaters off about a month ago, after harvesting about 1,500 barrels of oil.

While we were trying to do the math, O'Connor told us the answers. Upwards of a million barrels an acre, a billion barrels a square mile. And the oil shale formation in the Green River Basin, most of which is in Colorado, covers more than a thousand square miles - the largest fossil fuel deposits in the world.

Wow.

They don't need subsidies; the process should be commercially feasible with world oil prices at $30 a barrel. The energy balance is favorable; under a conservative life-cycle analysis, it should yield 3.5 units of energy for every 1 unit used in production. The process recovers about 10 times as much oil as mining the rock and crushing and cooking it at the surface, and it's a more desirable grade. Reclamation is easier because the only thing that comes to the surface is the oil you want.

And we've hardly gotten to the really ingenious part yet. While the rock is cooking, at about 650 or 750 degrees Fahrenheit, how do you keep the hydrocarbons from contaminating ground water? Why, you build an ice wall around the whole thing. As O'Connor said, it's counterintuitive.

But ice is impermeable to water. So around the perimeter of the productive site, you drill lots more shafts, only 8 to 12 feet apart, put in piping, and pump refrigerants through it. The water in the ground around the shafts freezes, and eventually forms a 20- to 30-foot ice barrier around the site.

Next you take the water out of the ground inside the ice wall, turn up the heat, and then sit back and harvest the oil until it stops coming in useful quantities. When production drops, it falls off rather quickly.

That's an advantage over ordinary wells, which very gradually get less productive as they age.

Then you pump the water back in. (Well, not necessarily the same water, which has moved on to other uses.) It's hot down there so the water flashes into steam, picking up loose chemicals in the process. Collect the steam, strip the gunk out of it, repeat until the water comes out clean. Then you can turn off the heaters and the chillers and move on to the next plot (even saving one or two of the sides of the ice wall, if you want to be thrifty about it).

Most of the best territory for this astonishing process is on land under the control of the Bureau of Land Management. Shell has applied for a research and development lease on 160 acres of BLM land, which could be approved by February. That project would be on a large enough scale so design of a commercial facility could begin.

The 2005 energy bill altered some provisions of the 1920 Minerals Leasing Act that were a deterrent to large-scale development, and also laid out a 30-month timetable for establishing federal regulations governing commercial leasing.

Shell has been deliberately low-key about their R&D, wanting to avoid the hype, and the disappointment, that surrounded the last oil-shale boom. But O'Connor said the results have been sufficiently encouraging they are gradually getting more open. Starting next week, they will be holding public hearings in northwest Colorado.

I'll say it again. Wow.



Linda Seebach is an editorial writer for the News. She can be reached by telephone at (303) 892-2519 or by e-mail at seebach@RockyMountainNews.com.

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_86_4051709,00.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yael Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. Israel is a pioneer with this process [shale oil]
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkofos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 10:57 AM
Response to Original message
7. The oil companies have become masters of gaming the system.
The same shit happens every year, and the sheeple say "poor oil companies, we feel your pain".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TreasonousBastard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 11:05 AM
Response to Original message
8. What pirates? They're not angels, but...
business is business, and if demand is heigher than what the refineries can put out there's gonna be a problem. And, every time I hear some comapany come up with a new scheme for saving money, it almost always involves getting the people who know how to run things properly out of the way. We've got too damn many accountants and MBA's telling the engineers how to do their jobs.

I'm pretty much a socialist and usually don't see much reason for capitalists to muck about in necessary commodities, but if gummint nationalized the oil bidness, they would just hire the same experts in the oil companies to run things, so the only real difference would be in stockholder's equity and the greater possibility of gummint sticking its nose in with unstable price caps and such.

Main problem as I see it is we just don't get our shit straight on what we want-- something about cake and eating.

We refuse to allow new refineries to be built, but we also refuse to reduce our fuel consumption. Can't have both--one or the other has to give.

Peak oil will likely make the decision for us.








Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
taterguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-22-07 03:36 PM
Response to Original message
12. Gas prices are high because there's a high demand for that product
I guess we could cut back on consumption but why spend 10 minutes getting to the store on a bicycle when you can get there in a car in 5 minutes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 07:04 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC