Fuel prices/crisis

[Les Paul]

I'll just drive my 50 year old 356 30 in town 35-37 on the highway. I smile like a fool at all the thumbs up I get every day

[Oh Haha]

The MF ers raised it back up to 3.85 overnight.

Tell me, what happened in the last 24 hours to cause this?

Did I miss something epic?

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by Nostril Cheese

April Fools about Portland prices, I take it?

Nope, the wholesale price for regular unleaded in Portland today was $2.78 and wholesale low-sulfur diesel was $2.98

The rest is taxes, distribution, and dealer mark-up.

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by Oh Haha

The MF ers raised it back up to 3.85 overnight.

Tell me, what happened in the last 24 hours to cause this?

Did I miss something epic?

Wierd, I'm not aware of anything that would affect the price lately which is why I was asking it maybe it was an east coast thing.
Around here the margins are stable and relatively low, prices are trending downward slowly.

[on2wheels52]

Filled the GS yesterday with non-ethenol premium @ $3.55/gsl.
Jim

[creaturecat]

Originally Posted by creaturecat

6.25/us gallon for premium in Vancouver.
$100 to fill the 964.

Calculation error!
ONLY 5.60/us gal for premium in Vancouver.

[Aragorn]

Originally Posted by Oh Haha

The MF ers raised it back up to 3.85 overnight.

Tell me, what happened in the last 24 hours to cause this?

Did I miss something epic?

Over the last couple of years around here (northeast) gas prices seem to drift up and down in around .05 to .20 cents a gallon increments overnight. It used to be that retailers only changed the prices when they purchased more off the truck. Now with small independent chain stations, the managers say the prices are set by the company on a daily basis and they (managers) have no control over the prices. Someone presses a button and all the stores prices go up or down.

[red-beard]

Originally Posted by 1-ev.com

Sorry guys not to "beat this horse to the death", but we should all start thinking about commuters cars, such as mine, more info in this thread http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/738609-green-cars-have-dirty-little-secret-10.html

Best Regards, -Y.

In SoCal, the price of electricity is $0.20/kWh at the cheapest rate.

[red-beard]

Originally Posted by sammyg2

Nope, the wholesale price for regular unleaded in Portland today was $2.78 and wholesale low-sulfur diesel was $2.98

The rest is taxes, distribution, and dealer mark-up.

Hey Sammy, fill us in on the low sulfur gasoline...

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by Aragorn

Over the last couple of years around here (northeast) gas prices seem to drift up and down in around .05 to .20 cents a gallon increments overnight. It used to be that retailers only changed the prices when they purchased more off the truck. Now with small independent chain stations, the managers say the prices are set by the company on a daily basis and they (managers) have no control over the prices. Someone presses a button and all the stores prices go up or down.

Dunno about Canada but in the US, over 90% of all stations are independently owned or operated.
Most of the stations with big names are actually privately owned franchises.

There are a go-zillion different types of franchise agreements, some of them include set prices depending on spot prices, wholesale prices, competitors, etc. Some give the station owner a great deal of freedom, some not at all.

Point is, the oil companies have a little bit on influence on the pump prices but not as much as most folks think.

More often than not a station's price is determined by what Joe Blow across the street has on his sign.
There's not supposed to be collusion at the retail level but I'm sure there is some.

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by red-beard

Hey Sammy, fill us in on the low sulfur gasoline...

LOL, you talkin about the EPA's new mandate for fuel specs? Ya know how gasoline and diesel tends to be way more expensive in California than in the rest of the country?
Welcome to California.


They want the whole country to make gasoline similar to what Kalifornia already requires. Note it won't be zackly the same, but close. It'll be more 'spensive too.
Of course as soon as that happens, Kalifornia will change their specs again making them even tighter (and more spensive).

The bottom line is this:
The EPA, in step with the current administration, wants gas to be really expensive. Really really expensive.
They want refineries moved to India and Indonesia.
Hey, what could possibly go wrong if we import all our fuels?

they are doing everything possible to make it really expensive to operate an oil refinery in this country.
And when they do, electric cars will look cheaper in comparison.
Most of us won't be able to afford operating either type of car on a regular basis, but as least the electric cars won't look quite as impractical comparatively.

EPA proposes sulfur cut in move toward California gasoline
HOUSTON 04/01/2013
By Bob Tippee
OGJ Editor

US refiners would need to lower the sulfur content of gasoline to levels in place in Europe and elsewhere under a Mar. 29 proposal by the Environmental Protection Agency aimed at aligning federal regulations with those in effect in California.

The agency’s Tier 3 regulations call for a reduction in gasoline sulfur content to 10 ppm from a present average of 30 ppm. They also call for cuts in vehicle tailpipe and evaporative emissions in a package EPA said would move federal requirements toward strict standards in effect in California.

The proposed sulfur limit matches that of “Euro 5” gasoline in Europe. Comparable standards are in effect in Japan, South Korea, and several other countries, as well as in California. EPA said its Tier 3 proposal “is harmonized with the California Air Resources Board [CARB] Low Emission Vehicle program so automakers could sell the same vehicles in all 50 states.”

EPA’s Mar. 29 proposal omitted direct action on gasoline volatility, which had been part of earlier versions of the proposal. But reference to harmonization with CARB standards implies such a move might be necessary.

The CARB flat limit for gasoline Reid vapor pressure is 7 psi for oxygenated fuel and 6.9 psi for nonoxygenated. Volatility standards vary geographically across the US, but commonly are about 7.8 psi rvp during summer and 9 psi rvp at other times.

The proposal

EPA proposes that the 10 ppm gasoline sulfur limit take effect on an average annual basis by 2017. It also proposes either to maintain the current 80-ppm refinery gate and 95-ppm downstream caps or to lower those caps to 50 ppm at the refinery gate and 65 ppm downstream.

The proposal includes a program for averaging, banking, and trading to spread out investments through an early credit program and rely on nationwide averaging to meet the lower sulfur standard. (anyone remember cap and trade?)

Small refiners and refiners processing 75,000 b/d of crude oil or less would receive a 3-year compliance delay.

EPA also proposes to adjust the federal emissions test fuel “to better match today’s in-use gasoline and also to be forward-looking with respect to future ethanol and sulfur content.” The new test fuel would contain 15 vol % ethanol, lower octane, and lower sulfur content. For the first time, EPA proposes test-fuel specifications for 85-15 ethanol-gasoline blends (E85).

For vehicles, EPA proposes to lower the fleet average standard for tailpipe emissions by light-duty vehicles of nonmethane organic gases (NMOG) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) by about 80% from current levels. It would cut allowable particulate matter (PM) emissions by about 60% per light-duty vehicle.

Proposed heavy-duty tailpipe standards represent reductions of about 60% for fleet average NMOG+NOX and per-vehicle PM. The proposal would extend the regulatory useful life period during which standards apply to 150,000 miles from 120,000 miles.

Tailpipe standards would phase in on schedules varying by vehicle class but generally would take effect between model years 2017 and 2025.

For fuel vapor-related evaporative emissions, EPA proposes about a 50% reduction for all light-duty and onroad gasoline-powered heavy-duty vehicles. The regulatory useful-life period during which the standards apply would increase as proposed for tailpipe standards.

Refinery adjustments

Lowering sulfur-content limits for gasoline mainly will require refiners to add hydrotreating capacity upstream and downstream of fluid catalytic crackers. The new capacity will require new inputs of hydrogen, which some refiners might have available in sufficient quantity from onsite steam methane reformers and catalytic reformers and others would have to purchase.

In a March 2012 study for the American Petroleum Institute, Baker & O’Brien Inc. predicted refinery hardware changes necessitated by a lowering of gasoline sulfur with no accompanying change in volatility standards.

Such a change, it concluded, would require one new FCC feed hydrotreater and 13 new FCC gasoline hydrotreaters in the US. It also would require revamps and expansions to 23 FCC feed hydrotreaters and 33 FCC gasoline hydrotreaters, requiring total investment of $9.766 billion.

Baker & O’Brien foresaw no refinery closures associated with a sulfur-only regulatory tightening. The annualized increase in net hydrogen purchases in that case would be 129 MMscfd (calendar).

In an earlier study, the consultancy examined a range of possible regulatory changes for gasoline involving both sulfur-content and volatility reductions. That study projected the closure of four to seven refineries, the higher number resulting from assumption of a 5 ppm sulfur cap and summertime 7 ppm rvp limit. In that case, Baker & O’Brien projected investment required for compliance totaling $17.343 billion.

Reasons and responses

EPA said lowering the sulfur content of gasoline would improve the effectiveness of emission-control systems aboard new and existing vehicles and “would enable more stringent vehicle emissions standards since removing sulfur allows the vehicle’s catalyst to work more efficiently.”

The agency said its proposed regulation would improve public health by lowering vehicle emissions of NOX, volatile organic compounds, direct PM, carbon monoxide, and air toxics.

It also would be “aligned with and designed to be implemented over the same timeframe” as its program for cutting greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions from light-duty vehicles starting in model-year 2017.

EPA estimated its proposal would raise the price of gasoline by 1¢/gal.

The oil and gas industry disputed the need for new gasoline standards and warned of fuel prices higher than EPA’s estimate.

American Petroleum Institute Downstream Group Director Bob Greco said, “There is a tsunami of federal regulations coming out of the EPA that could put upward pressure on gasoline prices.” He said the new requirements would increase GHG emissions “because of the energy-intensive equipment required to comply.”

Citing the Baker & O’Brien study, an API statement estimated the sulfur-only proposal would raise the price of gasoline by 9¢/gal. If accompanied by tougher volatility standards, the increase could be as much as 25¢/gal, it said.

American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers Pres. Charles T. Drevna said, “Tier 3 rulemaking that targets trace amounts of sulfur in gasoline is not worth the direct threat to our domestic fuel supply, consumer cost at the pump, and American jobs.”

Drevna said EPA “has not previously offered any cost-benefit analysis to justify this onerous rulemaking.”

AFPM estimates Tier 3 regulation would require investment of $10 billion in new infrastructure and new operating costs of $2.4 billion/year.

http://www.ogj.com/articles/2013/04/epa-proposes-sulfur-cut-in-move-toward-california-gasoline.html

[creaturecat]

Canada is the land of collusion. Gas prices, mortgage rates, cell phone providers, you name it.
There has not been gasoline price competition (here in BC) for at least a decade.

[cairns]

I'd love to see the cost/benefit analysis the EPA performed. Oh wait there isn't one.

[1-ev.com]

Are't we all at a mercy of the oil beast ?

[Aragorn]

Originally Posted by sammyg2

Dunno about Canada .

Are you trying to make me Canadian?

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by 1-ev.com

Are't we all at a mercy of the oil beast ?

I believe you meant to say this:

Aren't we all at the mercy of a high standard of living, a comfortable, fruitful life with freedom to go where we please when we please, to live where we choose and to enjoy things that even kings could not dream of 120 years ago?
We are at the mercy of being spoiled with the truly blessed life that oil provides us, and the only reason we feel chained to it is because nothing else can come close to providing as much benefit for so little cost.
.

The alternative is to go back to living in the stone age in caves, rubbing sticks together to keep from freezing to death, which any one of us is free to do any time we want. All we have to do is give up every one of those wonderous, great things that oil provides.
Who's first?

[sammyg2]

Originally Posted by Aragorn

Are you trying to make me Canadian?

Not that there's anything wrong with that, but not on porpoise.

You mighta got lumped in there acidental-like tho ........

[jyl]

Why do you think that the choice is binary - either "all oil" or "no oil", with no in-between? Obviously there is a whole range of possible choices.

Old rhetorical trick, to pretend the only alternative to the desired choice is a doomsday scenario. Not many people fall for it.

Quote de 1-ev.com

Are't we all at a mercy of the oil beast ?

I believe you meant to say this:

Quote

Aren't we all at the mercy of a high standard of living, a comfortable, fruitful life with freedom to go where we please when we please, to live where we choose and to enjoy things that even kings could not dream of 120 years ago?

We are at the mercy of being spoiled with the truly blessed life that oil provides us, and the only reason we feel chained to it is because nothing else can come close to providing as much benefit for so little cost.

.

The alternative is to go back to living in the stone age in caves, rubbing sticks together to keep from freezing to death, which any one of us is free to do any time we want. All we have to do is give up every one of those wonderous, great things that oil provides.

Who's first?

[Jim Sims]

This morning, north of Santa Fe, NM, out in the country: $3.41/US gal regular. This afternoon in Houston, TX: $3.80/US gal regular. ?????? Marooned ND oil?

[Brian 162]

[QUOTE=porsche4life;7362828]In the next few years therewillbe quite a few nice halfton trucks that are already converted coming on to the market. They should get in the mid 20s and on 99/gge that ain't too shabby.




Sorry, but if the rest of the country would put in some filling stations, CNG is the answer right now. It's cheap, clean, and abundant. Pretty much any existing IC engine will run on it, and be able to switch back and forth with pump gas for extended range. Engines have very little wear on CNG due to it being a clean fuel. You change the oil in a CNG truck after 10k miles and it looks new....



I agree.
My old 5 ton company truck ran on gas and CNG. It was great in the city not so much on the highway.
They stopped promoting CNG up here a few years ago. Shell had CNG refuelling stations throughout Toronto. They removed all of them a couple of years ago because of cost to maintain the equipment. I guess they couldn't make enough profit.
The only way now is to purchase a home re-fueling station.