<An Economist response, or is it a techie Sunday?The Oil DrumEuropean gas supplies and a more than gentle cough from Russia>

Monday Open Thread: The GasBuddy Price Map Edition

Posted by Prof. Goose on April 25, 2006 - 12:05am
Topic: Miscellaneous
Tags: gas prices, oil, peak oil [list all tags]

If you haven't seen the Gas Buddy Price Map yet, you probably should.  Anyone want to combine it with the gasoline grade map (which I can't seem to find right now...) that has 43 different grades of gasoline for US consumption?

And, don't forget to check out this article which states:

DOHA, April 24 (Reuters) - OPEC ministers conceded on Monday there was nothing they could do to halt surging oil prices that threaten consumer nations' economies and could trigger a collapse in demand disastrous to producer states.

110 comments on Monday Open Thread: The GasBuddy Price Map Edition

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Alaskan Pete on April 24, 2006 - 11:19am Permalink | Subthread | Comments top
Ruh RoH! From Reuters:
DOHA (Reuters) - OPEC ministers conceded on Monday there was nothing they could do to halt surging oil prices that threaten consumer nations' economies and could trigger a collapse in demand disastrous to producer states.
The group, already pumping as much as refiners can handle, concluded at talks here that raising its 28 million barrels per day output ceiling would not rein in runaway prices.
"The market determines the oil price," Saudi Oil Minister Ali Al-Naimi, OPEC's most influential voice, told reporters. "You know and I know that the reason the price is where it is is not from a shortage of (crude oil) supply," he said. OPEC ministers, meeting during global energy talks here, had little enthusiasm for a Kuwait proposal to offer up all the organization's spare capacity of two million bpd as they did in September when oil spiked above $70 a barrel."
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Marotti32 on April 24, 2006 - 1:38pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The german minister for economic affairs gave an address at that meeting. He told OPEC producers not to postpone urgent big investments in new wells and technology. It is necessary for the consumers to come back to a reasonable price for oil.

I am somewhat surprised this man knows so much about the oil infrastructure on the arabian peninsula. I wonder if the audience war laughing secretly at him. It probably just shows the naivety and the helplessnes our politicans are confronted with, when the oil prices is rising and nothing actually can be done.

Sorry, just a source in german language.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
The Interloafer on April 24, 2006 - 3:06pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
"The market determines the oil price," Saudi Oil Minister Ali Al-Naimi, OPEC's most influential voice, told reporters. "You know and I know that the reason the price is where it is is not from a shortage of (crude oil) supply," he said.
Supply is fine! There's plenty of supply!!!  Prices are high because ... of ... some other reason.  But that reason is definitely NOT SUPPLY!!
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
westexas on April 24, 2006 - 5:35pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Speaking of a bidding war between importers. . .

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyid=2006-04-24T072003Z_01_L247 50869_RTRUKOC_0_US-ENERGY-RUSSIA-EUROPE.xml

Russia should cut oil to Europe: Transneft

Excerpt:

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia's planned oil pipeline to Asia will help cut deliveries to Europe, which is currently being oversupplied with Russian crude, the head of Russia's pipeline monopoly Transneft told a newspaper.

"We have overfed Europe with crude. And every single economic manual says that excessive supplies depress prices," Semyon Vainshtok told the daily Nezavisimaya Gazeta in an interview published on Monday.

"So far we cannot reduce supplies as all our exports are going to Europe. But as soon as we divert (flows) to China, South Korea, Australia, Japan it will immediately take away crude from our European colleagues," he added.

Vainshtok has repeatedly said that building a pipeline to Asia would help diversify Russian oil flows and cut discounts on the country's mainstay Urals crude blend in European markets.

His new comments are likely to come under much closer scrutiny after another Russian monopoly, state gas behemoth Gazprom, shocked Europe last week by saying it would supply gas elsewhere if its expansion in Europe was blocked.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
smekhovo on April 24, 2006 - 6:00pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Strange.
Urals used to be underpriced compared to blends of comparable gravity/sulphur content, but as of recently is so no longer.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
magwitch on April 24, 2006 - 9:42pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Particularly strange in light of that inversion in Texas WTI vs. UK's Brent Crude a few weeks back.  Great observation.

Just remember, it's not supply.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
totoneila on April 24, 2006 - 9:51pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Hello Westexas,

Great post! I encourage Russia to sell to the highest bidder no matter who it is: the more this happens, the sooner people will start conserving and Powerdown as best they can.  If this makes Europe, and even parts of internal Russia start to setup biosolar habitats 3-5 years earlier, so much the better for their environment and related biodiversity in the long run.  Fair higher prices, not corrupt political-driven preferential pricing schemes will make the great unwashed masses face the Peakoil 'music' sooner.

The difficult part to control in the future is my predicted rise of the detrito-terrorist.  No religious ideology, like Islam, is required, just an addicted desire to maximize detritus access vs adopting Powerdown.  Just as the Ukrainians stole transiting natgas last winter, and some other unknown party blew up a critical pipeline supplying Armenia, I forsee covert Europeans and/or Central Asians disabling Chinese pipelines to increase the flow to their respective country, and of course, the Chinese or some other country returning the favor some time later. Nigerian 'bunkering' is another example of theft that will bedevil oil companies worldwide postPeak.

Add this in to the enviro-terrorist, and the religio-terrorist: Gazprom and Rosneft will have their hands extremely full the further we go postPeak.

Bob Shaw in Phx,AZ  Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
westexas on April 24, 2006 - 8:10pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
China acts to secure oil reserves amid record crude prices
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/04/24/060424184139.e1iolabv.html
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
totoneila on April 24, 2006 - 10:17pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Hello Westexas,

Another interesting post loaded with press doublespeak in my estimation.  The very fact that China feels it is most important to lock in deals to build their SPR is telling.  Possibly, the Chinese topdogs are more Peakoil aware than our US topdogs.

Bob Shaw in Phx,AZ  Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
eric blair on April 25, 2006 - 6:55am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Ruh RoH!

The fun's just starting!
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Paper_Chavez_moves_toward_nationalizing_Venezuela_0424.html
Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez is planning a new assault on Big Oil, potentially taking a major step toward nationalization of Venezuela's oil industry that could hurt oil-company profits, reduce production and put further pressure on global oil prices, the Wall Street Journal reports on Monday front pages.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
odograph on April 24, 2006 - 11:20am Permalink | Subthread | Comments top
I suspect it might also correlate well with a state gas tax map, if there is such a thing.

(to pop another issue up to top-level, don't believe the CNW Marketing Research hybrid study

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Leanan on April 24, 2006 - 11:22am Permalink | Subthread | Comments top
From Australia:

Fuel prices hit new vehicle sales

Australians held off making new vehicle purchases in March as the onward march in fuel prices kept consumers away from car yards.

Australian new motor vehicle sales fell two per cent in seasonally adjusted terms to 79,634 units in March, from a downwardly revised 81,249 units in February, the Australian Bureau of Statistics said.

This was below economists' expectations of a 0.6 rise in new motor vehicle sales.

Commonwealth Bank senior economist John Peters said heavy fuel prices were continuing to weigh on car sales.

"It appears that the annual total of new car sales will stay just under the one million mark until there is some signs of lower petrol prices or lower new car prices," Mr Peters said.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
odograph on April 24, 2006 - 11:26am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Mobjectovist reports:

Bike sales outpaced car sales for the first time ever in Australia. It happened in the USA as well last year, as not since the oil crisis of 1973 have they sold in such big numbers. We just might catch up to the rest of the world at some point, unless China decides to go the reverse route.

http://mobjectivist.blogspot.com/

the direct link to that article should work, but Blogger claims some kind of error:

http://mobjectivist.blogspot.com/2006/04/earth-daze.html

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
PaulS on April 24, 2006 - 12:07pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
China has long since decided to go the reverse route. For a ton of articles, type this into Google, Yahoo, or whatever:

ban bikes bund

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
LevinK on April 24, 2006 - 11:27am Permalink | Subthread | Comments top
I wonder are there places in the US where "marshroute taxis" (not sure about the correct name here) are available? Basicly these are small vans/shuttles (10-12 seats), going by a fixed route, which you can stop and get off at will.

In many European countries they are very popular, being much faster and regular than buses; and much more affordable than regular taxis or a personal car. I suppose they will also be a good idea for small-scale personal business in the future to come.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
TN Granny on April 24, 2006 - 1:10pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
While this ("marshroute taxis") is a good idea, a similar grass-roots business whereby locals were running shuttle services for hikers has been pretty effectively killed by legislation requiring special licensing, insurance, etc. maing it cost prohibitive to operate such a business. This is especially true, since for most of these folks,it was just a way of earning a few extra dollars on weekends.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Donal on April 24, 2006 - 1:31pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
If you are in a situation where everyone knows and trusts each other, fine.  Otherwise, the passengers are no safer than hitchhikers.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
LevinK on April 24, 2006 - 2:10pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
This is a question of balance. You can provide licensing and insurance framework that can ensure the safety needed, without killing the business before it even started.

In this regard I find the legislation environment in the US quite discouraging for the small businesses. Only a large company could afford to pay for those licensing fees or to potentially meet the prodigious liability claims that are common here.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Ben on April 24, 2006 - 2:41pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Our current climate would have killed many existing ventures had it been in place back when they started.

Can you imagine getting approval for heavier-than-air passenger travel?  Basically the only reason it exists is because they can point to a long (relative) safety record, which they have because of the many sacrifices of the pioneers who took huge risks to test new designs.  

If you were trying to start the "Air travel industry" from scratch now, not only would the NIMBY's prevent any airports at all from being built, but every govt from local to national would have to be convinced that the things wouldn't plummet out of the sky or cause unforeseen environmental damage or what have you.  It would take decades before anyone permitted even a pilot project (ooh, bad pun, sorry) to get off the ground (groan).

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
LevinK on April 24, 2006 - 10:24pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
This is very educative for countries, making their first steps in the market economy like the countries in Eastern Europe. With the European integration and the modernization of their economies it is often the case that Western standards are being applied in a pretty straightforward manner. It is ideologically forgotten that the viability and applicability of these standarts are a result of many years of accumulation of capital and infrastructure and evolution of traditions, buseness relations, legislations etc. The idea that these standarts will be reached by simply enforcing them by the government is simply silly and very counterproductive.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
BalticMan on April 24, 2006 - 3:16pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
LevinK makes a good point: these vans driving regular routes make a nice compromise between buses and cars. Just to toss out a few numbers - in Vilnius (capital of Lithuania), a municipal bus fare is roughly 40 U.S. cents. To get where you're going, that bus might take anywhere from 20 to 45 minutes. In contrast, one of these vans driving the same route as that bus will charge from 70 U.S. cents to $1.40, but will get you to where you're going in half the time or less.

I'm not sure how the vehicles compare in terms of mileage per gallon (or, as they say around here, in liters per 100 kilometers). The bus fleet and the van fleet are in an arms race, with the municipal guys and the private guys buying newer and newer vehicles. Don't know who's ahead, at the moment. Maybe the vans.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
LevinK on April 24, 2006 - 4:05pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I guess more important would be what is the fuel consumption per passenger kilometer. These vans usually have not very big diesel engines - making probably around 17 mpg. With 7 passengers on average the overall efficiency would be better than a 2 passenger 55 mpg Toyota Prius (119 vs 110 passenger miles/gallon).
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
oldhippie on April 24, 2006 - 10:29pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
On the South Side of Chicago they are called jitney cabs. They are very illegal, serve as many people as does the regular city bus system(though mostly a.m. & p.m. rush). The city needs them & tolerates them. Same system on smaller scale throughout Black America.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
tom deplume on April 25, 2006 - 12:46pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
During the 1980s there was a safety problem of mostly truckers on drugs causing accidents as well as things like school buses being driven by students. Truckers were carrying licenses from several states to avoid too many penalty points from being accumulated on any single license. So the Feds created the Commercial Driver's License system. They also imposed mandatory drug testing that is so expensive it costs nearly $100,000 per violator caught. A person now must prove they know the rules of the vehicle they are operating as well as the skill to do the job. They must pass the drug test which has discouraged users from entering the profession. They must pass a medical exam every two years. The only fixed requirement in passing the medical is a blood pressure under 140/90. Beyond that its the judgement of the doctor. I am not aware of any scientific study that has shown that the CDL laws and drug testing has improved safety. As long as a company doesn't cross state lines drivers can and are pushed to work overtime so much that fatigue is a serious safety problem.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
cs101 on April 25, 2006 - 12:40am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
A similar system exists in SE Asian countries. In Thailand it is very common to see both bok-bok and sangthaew that carry from 7-20 people in something equivalent or similar to a converted pickup. In fact they are now running with prices less than the local city bus system and causing some anguish as some bus companies in Bangkok are now holding protests about inability to compete with these little guys.

In most western countries people would not even consider these types of things due to safety concerns whereas here it quite expected that you would stand off the back hanging on for your life. I suspect that as the prices rise and the world changes we will see much more of this kind of thing long before we see people simply deciding not to go anywhere. So even if people cannot afford to drive to work in their SUV the day will come when they may be forced into using some form of shared transport to get to work.

Of course, that will only happen once other measures like invading and stealing the oil have been exhausted but I don't think those plans are likely to be successful for too long anyway.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Dot on April 24, 2006 - 11:41am Permalink | Subthread | Comments top
How big can the effect of speculation be on front month futures oil prices? I have seen this topic broached several times in these open threads, and usually simply lurk and try to digest the argument. However, I am still stuck on this simple problem.

As I understand it, on one day each month (second last Friday?), anyone who holds a net sell position is obligated to deliver oil, and anyone who holds a net buy position is obligated to receive it. I have been told there are large fines for not being able to fulfil these obligations. Does that not mean, clearly and precisely, that, at least on that one close, the market is composed of actual buyers and sellers, and that speculating money has been displaced?

I can understand how speculation can happen during the month. Looking at the most recent month, it looks a little to me like speculators tried to short oil once it got up near $70. Unfortunately for them, the price kept rising, and they were forced to buy their way out of trouble before the final close last Friday. According to this interpretation, the shorters were surpressing the price in the final days leading up to the close, but speculation was shaken out before the end of the month, rushing prices back to fair value as the close approached.

I can also understand how speculation could effect more distant contracts, and that the more distant the contract is (from the point of obligation), the more speculation could effect the contract price.

I'm still confused about the front month contract however. The MSM is often referring to speculation driving up prices, but according to my perhaps simplistic understanding, the effect of this just cannot be very big in the front month contract.

Am I wrong, if so, how? Thanks.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
teemu on April 24, 2006 - 2:11pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
This is exactly the same question that has been puzzling me for long time and so far I haven't found any good answer to this one. It is easy to understand that distant contract prices could be up due speculation and there is contango, but how speculation could affect front month? Possible solutions:

a) Increase in price is not caused by speculation. Media just cannot understand differences between futures and stock markets.

b) Some speculators are really taking the delivery and paying storage fees.

c) People who are really using the oil are buying distant contracts.

d) Because future prices are high, the users are willing to pay the same price for delivery also because they considere it to be "fair price".

I really would like to see more discussion of this topic. If there's some who understands commodity markets better, it would be nice to have a article about that written in TOD.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
magwitch on April 24, 2006 - 10:08pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
b) Some speculators are really taking the delivery and paying storage fees.

This was pretty popular back during the initial contango in some of the physical markets caused by the creation of the index funds and presumable entrance of additional retail investors to the fray who may have been bidding up contracts.  Whether that was the reason for inversion or not is beyond me, but if you short 1 month out, buy the delivery month, accept delivery, and then deliver when the contract closes, there's a few dimes of 100% guar-ron-teed profit per barrel.

It's a definite mechanism of some transmission of speculation to the actual physical price, but not a huge amount.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
odograph on April 24, 2006 - 12:06pm Permalink | Subthread | Comments top
This is the oil-related story that google news puts on the front page.  It puts a dark spin on the oil/dollar story:

http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,18919311%255E5003680,00.html

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
magwitch on April 24, 2006 - 10:14pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The IMF has been looking for a reason to exist ever since third world countries began running net current account surpluses -- and generally large ones -- due to the 1997-98 outbreak of Bahtulism, ample liquidity, and rising commodity prices.  The ones that still didn't have refused their advice and seem to be better off for doing so.

They've already said they don't want to be currency referrees, which is similar to saying you don't want to be dropped into a shark tank.  Trade is obviously generally handled by the WTO, which, while sincere and actually somewhat effective, is too slow to matter.  Convening a roundtable on oil won't kill any more dinosaurs.

Maybe they should ring up New Zealand and Iceland.  Might be interested.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
PeakOilPete on April 24, 2006 - 12:24pm Permalink | Subthread | Comments top
in savannah, ga, we have pedal cabs, like bike-rikshaws.  they get pretty good usage, it seems.  and will probably get more usage as life gets peakier.

but since this is an open thread, let's talk tv and pop-culture's take on peak oil.  i finally saw the cnn fantasy piece, "we were warned."  its re-airing followed a very good environmental piece that was truly scary.  makes one wonder which disaster will come first: the chicken of oil depletion or the egg of the abrupt climate change.  (A: they will come together: great news, eh?!)  it also stood in stark contrast to the ludicrous "we were warned" piece.

is it me, or was "we were warned" worse than bad?  it communicated very few facts and its overall message seemed to be don't worry about oil and gas unless something extrinsic (hurricane, terrorism) that is really bad happens, and probably only if 2 really bad things happen in the same week.

i mean, is THAT the right message to send to joe hummer?  i suppose anything that sheds light on the issue of our dependence on oil and the ramifications of its depletion is marginally positive, but this was almost negative, imo.

then i saw saw roundtable discussion on fox "news" that had juan williams shilling to be the "balance" on o'reily central saying that the current price o' gas is a combo of politics and greed, as opposed to economics and geology, because there is no shortage of oil and supply is the highest it's been in 8 years.  you can't argue with that, he argued, because it's a fact.  huh?  didn't you just see "we were warned"?!  oh yeah, it said basically the same thing, but with cooler special effects.

we are toast, folks.  and we're toasting ourselves.
have a nice day,
pop

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Leanan on April 24, 2006 - 12:46pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I don't think "We Were Warned" was that bad.  (Though it is interesting that they cut that part that mentioned peak oil by name.)

Sesno did say specifically that it would not take an extraordinary event like a hurricane or a terrorist attack to cause the problems described in their scenario, though perhaps the average viewer wouldn't notice.

Sesno seems really big on ethanol.  He thinks the answer is to do what Brazil is doing.  Someone should send him a link to the "Life in a Grass House" thread here.

"Melting Point," the global warming show, was pretty good.  One moment that really struck a chord: when the Tuvalu native expressed anger that his way of life was being wiped out not by anything he had done, but by people in Europe and the U.S. and Canada who don't give a damn what happens to anyone else.  

Today it's Tuvalu, and the Inuit, and New Orleans.  Tomorrow, who knows?  Rotterdam?  San Franscisco?  London?  New York?  Houston?  No one cares, unless they personally are affected.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Ben on April 24, 2006 - 12:50pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I still hear things all the time like "fifteen MPG is pretty good."

The public is anything but scared at this point.  They are still more afraid of "middle-easterners with box-cutters."  There's plenty of oil, if the stoopid politicians would let us drill Alaska and drop gasoline taxes, everything would be peachy.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Dan Ur on April 25, 2006 - 12:45am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The neighbor whose house I am at the most, does not watch network tv, During the Day she watchs movies and makes her house prefect, During the night if he is not watching fighting or sports, they are watching movies or singing to their favorite songs.  They do not care what is going on, and don't want to know.  To many other things in life to worry about and why add more.  

Not everyone is glued to who is going to get cut off the next big game reality show next.  Some people hardly know the news of the day.  If you were to ask me 5 years ago I would have told you the 3 top stories,  today,  who cares.  

I have a move in the works, and I have to pay gas prices that will make this move my final move of the year, if not decade or ever.  If need be I can live in a cardboard box, On a back lot somewhere, but no more burning money for gas to move.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Yankee on April 24, 2006 - 1:00pm Permalink | Subthread | Comments top
I'm not sure who the GasBuddy demographic is, but when I looked at their poll with the question "As gasoline prices increase towards $3 per gallon (US)/120 c/L (CDN), do you...?", I was surprised to see that "Conserve as much as possible" got 73% of 15,166 votes. Now, what behavior that actually translates into is unknowable, but there you have it from the horse's mouth.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Ben on April 24, 2006 - 1:09pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Only 450 of their respondents bike or use public transit (the 3% figure).

Does that count as conserving?

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
JCK on April 24, 2006 - 1:14pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Do you expect very many heavy public transportation users to be visiting a site called "Gas Buddy"?
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Ben on April 24, 2006 - 1:31pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Excellent point.  The guys on the train aren't looking for the cheapest gas in town, at least not for commuting.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
magwitch on April 24, 2006 - 10:23pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Many of us are still interested in ethanol, though.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Ben on April 25, 2006 - 9:34am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I know it isn't very probable, but somebody that depends on mass transit or rides a bike to work may still be interested in gas prices.  For planning a vacation or weekend trip, for one example.

I don't fly for business but sometimes look for air fare deals so I can travel when I have some time off, I would think this could be similar.

But gas buddy is aimed squarely at the car culture, certainly.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
dima on April 24, 2006 - 1:24pm Permalink | Subthread | Comments top
Why are Utah, Nevada, Montana, and Wyoming green? Is there an unbilical tying them to Canada, feeding them cheap gas? Or do they have no taxes or environmental standards? Or both?
0