Got Gas? U.S. Economy to Worsen as Gas Prices Skyrocket

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

The-Noid

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,117
4
76
Ok, and now for a reality check I got the Dec 13th, edition. Btw Goldman are pretty worthless with their oil forecasts, the below excerpt has a good discussion about forecasting oil prices.

SNIP.

Nice cherry pick on the CS forecast. BBG survey is however at $110 for next year.

All depends on a wide range of factors, however it would appear as if money is going to chase oil. Obviously it has been a bad year to be an oil investor this year though, even with great roll control you are looking at 3%, not exactly knocking it out of the park.

Commodities take the escalator up and the elevator down. 440B under management in commodities now though as of last month, another all-time high. Makes sense that the price would go up.

At some point we will elevator down just like always, this is not new. Again, find more supply and we will elevator down quicker. Look at nat gas if you want to see supply and demand at work. Abundant, non-constrained supply and low prices. It is shocking how supply and demand works, in the end no matter how much money you have you can't speculate around supply.

Also to Dave, we are 1.28 standard deviations above the average for this time of year. Assuming there are somehow 100, 2M barrel supertankers being held away that puts us at 540 million barrels, or roughly 24 days of supply, that would be a 2.37 sd move from the mean though. Nowhere near 30 year highs on a day basis. In the 80's it was not uncommon to see 70-80 days supply in commercial stocks.
 
Last edited:

CLite

Golden Member
Dec 6, 2005
1,726
7
76
At some point we will elevator down just like always, this is not new. Again, find more supply and we will elevator down quicker. Look at nat gas if you want to see supply and demand at work. Abundant, non-constrained supply and low prices. It is shocking how supply and demand works, in the end no matter how much money you have you can't speculate around supply.

Of course you can and that is exactly how oil reached 140. Unless you want to demonstrate your complete incompetence on these boards by claiming that the previous rise in price was due to supply-demand. It was a market hedged up by betting, just like the next bubble will be if these idiots claiming $110/$120 bbl crude get a following of brain dead funds to lap up their predictions.

*edit* Regarding natural gas of course its cost of extraction is far lower than that of oil, so it's remarkably cheaper in terms of cost per energy content. There just isn't enough infrastructure dialed up yet to properly distribute the natural gas coupled with a lack of developed end-users. In the case of natural gas it is pretty much impossible to manipulate those markets because of how incredibly cheap it is. However, oil markets are much more vulnerable to manipulation, despite being able to sustain healthy production through more expensive extraction methods at levels around 80-90. The difference in supply/demand is not very large as compared to natural gas, and the amount of money that can be fueled into the speculation market massively dwarfs the actual physical value of stockpiled crude oil.

So in summary pointing towards natural gas and saying supply-demand works, is incredibly naive.
 
Last edited:

CLite

Golden Member
Dec 6, 2005
1,726
7
76
Also to Dave, we are 1.28 standard deviations above the average for this time of year. Assuming there are somehow 100, 2M barrel supertankers being held away that puts us at 540 million barrels, or roughly 24 days of supply, that would be a 2.37 sd move from the mean though. Nowhere near 30 year highs on a day basis. In the 80's it was not uncommon to see 70-80 days supply in commercial stocks.

I just read this part more closely, are you implying that we don't have 25.4 days of supply?

We have 355.9MM bbl as of a week ago which supports 25 days of supply when you factor in domestic production. Where are you getting your 1.28 standard deviation and the bullshit about 100, 2M barrel supertankers being held away?
 

The-Noid

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,117
4
76
I just read this part more closely, are you implying that we don't have 25.4 days of supply?

We have 355.9MM bbl as of a week ago which supports 25 days of supply when you factor in domestic production. Where are you getting your 1.28 standard deviation and the bullshit about 100, 2M barrel supertankers being held away?

Standard deviations are on the EIA website, use the last five years.

We have somewhere between 20-28 days of supply depending on domestic demand and capacity utilization. Assuming we get back to the 21M bp/d which all projections are based on, that is 17 days. Based on current production we have 25 days. Still no where near the 70-80 days seen in the past and as we move into the summer days continues to diminish.

That was just a quote to dave about the erroneous super tanker argument.

As far as speculation is concerned, sure there was speculation, but what happened?

Deliver more oil, prices go down. What is so hard to understand about this?
 

CLite

Golden Member
Dec 6, 2005
1,726
7
76
More oil was not delivered, people were just forced to jump ship and eat crow as futures expired with no one buying at $140. Please tell me you aren't actually arguing that $140 was a real market phenomenon rather than the direct result of excessive money being dumped into a market incapable of handling such a large infusion. I don't think there is a single industry expert that hasn't eaten crow on this already.

The 70-80 day stockpiles seen in the past will never again be achieved, nor are they required for a healthy market. The market is more liquid nowadays, with "reserves" existing in the excess capacity of OPEC nations (currently around 7% of worldwide demand), rather than physical stockpiles. Worldwide consumption is so great that we would have to invest incredible amounts of money to develop facilities capable of handling 70-80 day stockpiles. Anyone using this # of days stockpile criteria as a method of tracking healthy supplies is way behind the times and will lose money because they are living in the stone age of oil speculation.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
LOL Yoxxy if you think this is a supply issue. The only time it's a supply issue is when they scale back production. Hell it shouldn't be that hard to find the articles from a couple years ago stating OPEC nations were scaling back production. It happened a little before we had a HUGE spike in oil prices a couple years ago. There is no supply problem, we aren't running out, the shit is cheap except idiots or greedy assholes occasionally inflate the price.
 

CLite

Golden Member
Dec 6, 2005
1,726
7
76
The fact is that OPEC is artificially propping up the 80-90 price by keeping 7% of production offline. They don't want to crater prices by bringing 100% online and they don't want to inflate prices too much by taking more than 7% offline.

They are deathly afraid of 110/120+ prices because
1) it will force us to pursue alternative sources of energy more vigorously,
2) all their members will cheat on quotas
3) the price will ultimately crater hard once the number of expiring futures reaches a critical mass, because the only way the prices are propped up are by rolling over futures contracts.
 

The-Noid

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,117
4
76
The fact is that OPEC is artificially propping up the 80-90 price by keeping 7% of production offline. They don't want to crater prices by bringing 100% online and they don't want to inflate prices too much by taking more than 7% offline.

They are deathly afraid of 110/120+ prices because
1) it will force us to pursue alternative sources of energy more vigorously,
2) all their members will cheat on quotas
3) the price will ultimately crater hard once the number of expiring futures reaches a critical mass, because the only way the prices are propped up are by rolling over futures contracts.

I agree 100%.

Obviously you guys haven't read any of my posts. I fully agree that there should be two exchanges, one for specs one for net hedgers or fully collaterilized positions for specs.

My whole thought process is based on the fact the dollar is relatively weak and the US isn't the only game in town for demand, price should be is the $80-90 range, however I fully believe the price goes higher. Supply is a problem in the $60-70 range because a lot of the supply that comes online isn't sustainable at those prices.

A lot of the posts in this thread deal with oil staying in the $65-70 range and gas staying in the $2.50-2.75 level. These are not levels that supply dictates. Even CLite should agree with that.

Having said all that, based on the structure of the contracts and the fact there is finally a positive roll yield, I think you hit $110 before you hit $65 again.

It is hard to make an argument that there isn't excessive speculation when you look in cocoa, sugar, cotton, corn and beans where there isn't as much depth, prices have been fairly well cornered all year there. Commodity ETF's, letting the institutional money play in the space and the advent of the ICE (which let's anyone "invest" in markets that are incredibly thin to begin with) has driven up prices.
 
Last edited:

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
aside from this alarmist title gas prices have been pretty normal for me.

They're up a little over 20 cents around me, but I can't say when it happened exactly. Just up from two weeks ago, was on vacation last week.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,948
126
They're up a little over 20 cents around me, but I can't say when it happened exactly. Just up from two weeks ago, was on vacation last week.

Well mine are always moving within a range. I wouldnt call them higher then normal though. Not like 2 years ago or whenever.
 

The-Noid

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,117
4
76
Well mine are always moving within a range. I wouldnt call them higher then normal though. Not like 2 years ago or whenever.

I think that is the normal range.

Somewhere between the low's of the recession when no one thought any commodity was ever going to be used again and the speculation fueled summer of 2008. The idea that $40 crude is the real fair value is a bit low however.

Call $85 the midpoint between the two.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
Well mine are always moving within a range. I wouldnt call them higher then normal though. Not like 2 years ago or whenever.

Ah yeah I mean 20 cents over the range. Normally it floats 2.89 - 3.05, it was 3.23 this morning when I drove by.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,839
2,624
136
aside from this alarmist title gas prices have been pretty normal for me.

Here in CT it seems to jump 5-10 cents per gallon every week since at least early October. A low price around here is now about 3.13 a gallon for regular. Once again we are way over the national average.
 

The-Noid

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,117
4
76
Source EIA:

U.S. dependence on oil imports in 2035 is expected to drop to its lowest level since 1992, cut by rising domestic output, efficiency gains and stepped-up use of biofuels, government forecasters said Thursday. Reliance on foreign oil peaked at more than 60% in 2005 and clocked in at near 52% in 2009. In 2035, the world's largest oil consumer will be relying on imports for 42% of its needs, the Energy Information Administration said in its Annual Energy Outlook.

The net import share of total U.S. energy consumption in 2035 is projected at 18%, down from 24% in 2009, the EIA said. The forecast is based in part on expectations of rising crude oil prices that will "spur domestic energy production across all fuels, particularly natural gas from plentiful shale gas resources," said EIA, the independent analytical and statistical wing of the Energy Department.

The average real price of crude oil is expected to be $125 a barrel in 2035, in 2009 dollars. On a nominal basis that would be $200 a barrel, double the average price in 2008, when crude peaked at $147.27 a barrel. Last year, the price averaged near $62 a barrel. Oil prices "will rise gradually" by about 2.8% annually through the forecast period "as the world economy recovers and global demand grows more rapidly than liquids supplies from producers outside the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. Total conventional oil supply is expected to rise by 0.8% annually to 2035, reaching 97.28 million barrels a day, with OPEC crude oil and associated liquids supply rising 1.2%, to 44.78 million barrels a day. OPEC's share of conventional oil supply reaches 46% in 2035, up from 41% in 2009.
 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
We need to stop importing gasoline, oil prices lol. The biggest reason our gas prices are higher and will go higher is because of the cost to import gasoline. We used to NEVER import gasoline, only raw crude. That changed during the Bush Administration and it's because hippies fight tooth and nail to shut down any sort of energy production, ie refineries, which are very much needed for jobs, keeping energy costs down, etc. I believe there's a new refinery springing up in South or North Dakota. Like the first one in 20+ years.

You're wrong about that. When Shell tried to close their Bakersfield refinery in 2004, hippies, that is Democratic politicians, fought that and were able to keep it open.
http://articles.sfgate.com/2005-01-...-refinery-california-s-gasoline-prices-diesel

A Utah company that runs trucks stops has agreed to buy Shell Oil Co. 's Bakersfield refinery, which the international petroleum giant had threatened to close last year.

Flying J Inc. of Ogden, Utah, has signed an agreement with Shell to buy the 73-year-old refinery in the next three months pending the approval of federal regulators, the two companies said Monday.

The agreement caps more than a year of public pressure on Shell to find a buyer. Shell initially planned to close the plant last fall, saying it no longer made sense to operate a refinery in an area of declining crude oil production
Consumer advocates, however, saw the proposed closure as a way to pump up California's gasoline prices, already among the highest in the country.

Both California Attorney General Bill Lockyer and the Federal Trade Commission began investigations. Shell then postponed the closure and hunted for a buyer.

Although the Bakersfield refinery produces just 2 percent of the state's gasoline and 6 percent of its diesel, California already has to import much of its specially formulated fuel from out of state. Any drop in supply can drive up the price.
Losing 1 or 2 percent can push you over the edge, and prices go up," said Severin Borenstein, director of the University of California's Energy Institute. "If they're going to continue to produce gasoline and diesel, I think this is a net winner for California consumers."

Lockyer welcomed the sale agreement Monday.

"Our first goal was to keep it running and maintain that 2 percent gas, 6 percent diesel that's so important to California farmers and drivers and truckers," he said.

The refinery produces about 20,000 barrels of reformulated gasoline each day, as well as 15,000 barrels per day of diesel. Flying J Senior Vice President Jeff Utley said his company hasn't decided whether to keep that same proportion of fuels but wants to increase the refinery's overall output.

"We're still working on it, but we certainly intend to increase both the gasoline production and diesel production," he said.

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/new...refinery-shell-oil-trying-shut-down-our-plant
Consumer Group Calls on Sen. Boxer, California Officials To Investigate at Facility Shell Previously Tried to Shut Down; Warns Gas Prices Could Spike

(Santa Monica, CA)—Consumer Watchdog called for an investigation of a possible attempt by Shell Oil to shut down a Bakersfield refinery that is crucial to California's supply of diesel and gasoline, in a letter to Senator Barbara Boxer, California Attorney General Jerry Brown and Treasurer Bill Lockyer. Shell appears to be "unilaterally shutting down pipelines to the refinery," the group writes, which would lead to higher pump prices, particularly in the West.

Leaders of the United Steel Workers local at the Big West refinery, owned by truckstop operator Flying J, charged Shell with "trying to shut down our plant" by shutting off pipelines and demanding payment 30 days in advance. The union memo to members said Shell had refused an offer of eight days' advance payment.
(read a pdf of the memo at http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/resources/BigWestUpdate.pdf ). The refinery's parent company, Flying J, filed for bankruptcy in December, but continues to operate its business.

"This appears to be blatant attempt by Shell to shut down the refinery, which it tried and failed to do in 2005 when it owned the plant," said Jamie Court, president of the nonprofit Consumer Watchdog, which helped prevent the closure. "Shell aimed then to raise pump prices by restricting refinery output in California, and closing the Bakersfield refinery would have the same result now."

In its letter to California officials, Consumer Watchdog wrote:

"We write to warn you of the alarming possibility that the Big West refinery in Bakersfield, which supplies 6% of diesel fuel and 2% of gasoline in California, may shut down for good. We urge you to launch an immediate investigation into whether Shell and possibly others are trying to artificially short the gasoline market and raise prices by refusing to make crude available to Big West, unilaterally shutting down pipelines to the refinery.

"As you know, the refinery's owner, Flying J, is in Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The company is still operating its truck stops and a refinery in Utah. Big West, in Bakersfield, is largely not operating and shows no sign of emerging from a '10-day maintenance shutdown' that the company announced Dec. 30.

"You will recall that your offices and ours prevented Shell Oil from shuttering this medium-sized refinery (68,000 barrels a day capacity) in 2005. You helped prove that, unlike Shell’s assertions, the plant was profitable and that a ready supply of crude petroleum was available to it. Internal Shell Oil documents showed the company publicly misrepresented the conditions at the refinery in what appeared to be an effort to reduce California’s already anemic refining capacity and spike fuel prices."

Efforts by Boxer and Lockyer in 2005 ultimately pressured Shell into selling the refinery to Flying J, whose plans to upgrade and expand the refinery were approved shortly before the company’s declaration of Chapter 11 bankruptcy Dec. 22. The company has continued to operate its truck stop network and another refinery in Utah, its corporate headquarters, without interruption since the company filed for bankruptcy protection.

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/sto...ts-statement-about-bakersfield-calif-refinery
The president of Shell Oil Co. has retracted a statement he made to Senate committees last month, saying the company in fact did not seek buyers before deciding to close its Bakersfield refinery.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., has alleged Shell's attempt to close the Bakersfield refinery was part of a concerted effort to reduce the state's gasoline supply.
Boxer has asked the Senate's Commerce Committee to bring back key oil executives, including Shell president John Hofmeister, to testify under oath.

They knew by keeping this refinery closed they would have been able to charge a dime more a gallon," said Jamie Court of The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights in Santa Monica. "This is a case study on what actually happens in the oil industry every day."
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
You're wrong about that. When Shell tried to close their Bakersfield refinery in 2004, hippies, that is Democratic politicians, fought that and were able to keep it open.
http://articles.sfgate.com/2005-01-...-refinery-california-s-gasoline-prices-diesel=====================================================
They knew by keeping this refinery closed they would have been able to charge a dime more a gallon," said Jamie Court of The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights in Santa Monica. "This is a case study on what actually happens in the oil industry every day."

That bf character is wrong about a lot, it's clear he is a Fox News watcher

12-17-2010

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO10...ended-exposure-to-fox-makes-voters-stupid.htm

Study Shows Extended exposure to Fox makes people stupid


The troublesome record of spin by conservative television station Fox News has long been a cause for concern to many Americans, who frequently allege that the nation's most viewed "news" network has the effect of dumbing down voters.

91 percent believed the stimulus legislation lost jobs;
72 percent believed the health reform law will increase the deficit;
72 percent believed the economy is getting worse;
60 percent believed climate change is not occurring;
49 percent believed income taxes have gone up;
63 percent believed the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts;
56 percent believed Obama initiated the GM/Chrysler bailout;
38 percent believed that most Republicans opposed TARP;
63 percent believed Obama was not born in the U.S. (or that it is unclear).

The poll's findings seem to sync with those of an NBC News survey (PDF) taken during the height of America's health care reform debate, where Fox News viewers were found to be most likely to have believed wildly inaccurate interpretations of the legislation.

And it doesn't help that one of their most-watched opinion hosts, conspiracy theorist Glenn Beck, is prone to making up outrageous falsehoods to scare viewers.
The network has big plans to expand it's brand into the future: According to anchor Chris Wallace, the 2012 Republican presidential primary elections will be "a production of Fox News," not unlike the Fox network's American Idol.
 

The-Noid

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,117
4
76
That bf character is wrong about a lot, it's clear he is a Fox News watcher

12-17-2010

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO10...ended-exposure-to-fox-makes-voters-stupid.htm

Study Shows Extended exposure to Fox makes people stupid


The troublesome record of spin by conservative television station Fox News has long been a cause for concern to many Americans, who frequently allege that the nation's most viewed "news" network has the effect of dumbing down voters.

91 percent believed the stimulus legislation lost jobs;
72 percent believed the health reform law will increase the deficit;
72 percent believed the economy is getting worse;
60 percent believed climate change is not occurring;
49 percent believed income taxes have gone up;
63 percent believed the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts;
56 percent believed Obama initiated the GM/Chrysler bailout;
38 percent believed that most Republicans opposed TARP;
63 percent believed Obama was not born in the U.S. (or that it is unclear).

The poll's findings seem to sync with those of an NBC News survey (PDF) taken during the height of America's health care reform debate, where Fox News viewers were found to be most likely to have believed wildly inaccurate interpretations of the legislation.

And it doesn't help that one of their most-watched opinion hosts, conspiracy theorist Glenn Beck, is prone to making up outrageous falsehoods to scare viewers.
The network has big plans to expand it's brand into the future: According to anchor Chris Wallace, the 2012 Republican presidential primary elections will be "a production of Fox News," not unlike the Fox network's American Idol.

You really are quite insane aren't you...
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
marincounty, these refineries also account for a lot of jobs, a lot of union jobs. just something to think about when you see Dems fighting to keep a place open they'd never let be built in the first place. Not saying that's the only driving force, but it probably had a little something to do with it.
 

marincounty

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2005
3,227
5
76
marincounty, these refineries also account for a lot of jobs, a lot of union jobs. just something to think about when you see Dems fighting to keep a place open they'd never let be built in the first place. Not saying that's the only driving force, but it probably had a little something to do with it.

I never heard a peep from any Republican to try and keep this refinery going. And gas prices spiked under the Republicans GWB and Cheney. Remember Bush filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve with $120 a barrel oil?, and refusing to stop even though prices were spiking? Remember how Iraq was going to pay us with cheap oil?
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
I never heard a peep from any Republican to try and keep this refinery going. And gas prices spiked under the Republicans GWB and Cheney. Remember Bush filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve with $120 a barrel oil?, and refusing to stop even though prices were spiking? Remember how Iraq was going to pay us with cheap oil?

I'm not defending any Republicans here marin, I'm stating that there might be some political motive to saving that plant. Also, anyone who thought Iraq was going to lead to cheap oil is a moron. Honestly who really believed that shit? Same idiots who kept yelling no blood for oil. Morons.