So we pay higher prices for gas because oil companies are exporting excess crude overseas?

[aggiealum]

It is relevant. I can explain how once i know.
Yet another one of your cryptic circular logic responses. Sorry, my TV is American made. Look up Elements Electronics. Now tell me how if I owned one of them foreign TV's there's these similarities to why oil companies export their oil. Next time just say what's on your mind and quit playing these juvenile guessing games.

 

[aggiealum]

Fracking is for gas not crude.
If you want to know why gas here has gone up so much then you can thank all of the abundant regulations that have been slapped on refineries and gas companies over the years.
Gas prices in California for instance are so high because of the extra refining processes to make it burn cleaner and safer for the environment. Its a catch 22. We want cleaner air but no one wants to pay the costs to get there.
Companies would love to export because they can refine it for cheaper and sell it to other countries for higher profits. So who do we blame for prices? Is it greedy oil companies or regulation? If it's regulation then we all blame ourselves.
Driving or flying is a privilege not a right. If you want to save on gas perhaps you should look into a chevy volt or something along those lines. That way when your warranty runs out and it costs you 12k for a new set of batteries you can blame all of the renewable energy guys for raping you on battery cost.
What has driving or flying being a privilege have to do with why these oil companies jack up their gas prices? That has absolutely nothing to do with the issue.Regulations are yet another excuse why oil companies justify why they charge what they charge. Easy out. Try looking up the profit margins of those billion dollar corporations and tell me again regulations are hindering their ability to make all the profits they want. Heaven forbid the Feds put tighter restrictions on California because their air quality is so bad, you can slice it with a knife on certain days of the year. Naw, just let them burn any kind of gas they want. People in LA can just wear those same respirators they wear in China.
My wife drives a Volt. She the ultimate hyper-miler. We had to take it on an out-of-town trip couple weeks ago because she hadn't burned any gas out of her tank for almost 3 months.She has some app that tracks her MPG. Last six months she's averaged a little over 200 MPG.

 

[aggiealum]

Oh, and you are complaining about 3% of all U.S. crude oil.
Gasoline exported is 16 million barrels a month. we use about 9 million barrels of gasoline a day.
if we didn't export, oil prices would be higher as would the cost of many of our goods....I will let you try and figure out why.
There also refining capabilities to take into account.....there are different grades of crude oil and not all refineries can process every grade of crude. in fact most are set up for heavy dirty crude, compared to what we pump out of the ground.
Yes there are winter blends and summer blends. Some with more Ethanol than others. Oil prices are driven more by OPEC than the oil companies. Exxon doesn't dictate the cost of a barrel of crude. They go by international rates and fluctuate their gas prices based on future costs for that next barrel of oil. If they only paid $100/barrel for crude, they adjust their margins on what it costs to refine that oil into gas, then base their pump prices on that specific batch of gas. If a barrel goes up to $120, the price of gas goes up accordingly. Gas prices drop if that same barrel drops down to $80/barrel. That's why you could be driving by your local gas station in the morning and see a price of $2.98, and drive by the same station on your way home and the price jumped to $3.10. The $2.98 gas dried up, and the gas tanker filled the pumps back up with that $3.10 gas.

 

[2quills]

FWIW here's my take.
Oil is a world market.
the only reason we import oil is because it is less expensive then producing locally.
The only reason we export is because it is more profitable then selling locally.
Indeed. We have an abundance. Between us and Canada we're pretty much set to become the world's top seller and exporters before long. We just took over the top "production" spot from Russia. With the demand of rising economies in India and China it puts a load on world market prices for oil and gas. Demand goes up so does price. Even though demand here is down, which we'd like to think would lower prices the demand elsewhere has increased. We can't think of ourselves as loners within the global community. Doesn't work that way.

 

[jay0705]

I live in ny. As far as eastern us states its one of the highest for gas. It sucks!!!!! I get the fact oil company's want to make the most they can. Ok fine the thing that pisses me off is they make billions a year. I make thousands a yr and I survive just fine. At what point did we become the the land of the free and home of the homeless? Maybe that .50 cent a gallon hike makes them an extra billion, but costs the guy on a budget his house!
I dont think we should drill in Alaska even tho the amount of oil is astronomical there. Why? Sure pollution is a factor but mainly why should we compromise a truly amazing state so those billion dollar bastard s can make that jump to a trillion and still screw this country's people. If Europe has higher gas prices so be it, are they sitting on god knows how many barrels of oil? No but bc we are shouldn't are gas prices be lower? Yes I know they are lower, but gas effects more than just are vehicles. It effects are food costs aswell. Price milk lately? WTF!!!!!

 

[2quills]

I live in ny. As far as eastern us states its one of the highest for gas. It sucks!!!!! I get the fact oil company's want to make the most they can. Ok fine the thing that pisses me off is they make billions a year. I make thousands a yr and I survive just fine. At what point did we become the the land of the free and home of the homeless? Maybe that .50 cent a gallon hike makes them an extra billion, but costs the guy on a budget his house!
I dont think we should drill in Alaska even tho the amount of oil is astronomical there. Why? Sure pollution is a factor but mainly why should we compromise a truly amazing state so those billion dollar bastard s can make that jump to a trillion and still screw this country's people. If Europe has higher gas prices so be it, are they sitting on god knows how many barrels of oil? No but bc we are shouldn't are gas prices be lower? Yes I know they are lower, but gas effects more than just are vehicles. It effects are food costs aswell. Price milk lately? WTF!!!!!
For Californians and New Yorkers you need to look at local and state tax rates on gasoline. Both of those states are the highest in the nation. New York taxes .69 cents on the gallon. Texas taxes .38 cents.
Another thing is that most refineries are centrally located in the country and along the gulf coast. Pumping that fuel all the way to the East and the West cost a little more money as well.
Oil companies can lose billions faster than they can make it. We can argue that they are especially greedy or understand that the stakes are equally as high if not higher than they are for small business to some degree. Gas companies will actually be laying a lot of people off pretty soon if the keystone project doesn't get finalized.
Holding up the extra supply isn't going to keep costs lower in this case because of the demand on export. Best thing Obama could do for us IMO would be to approve the project and bring the abundance in.

 

[aggiealum]

For Californians and New Yorkers you need to look at local and state tax rates on gasoline. Both of those states are the highest in the nation. New York taxes .69 cents on the gallon. Texas taxes .38 cents.
Another thing is that most refineries are centrally located in the country and along the gulf coast. Pumping that fuel all the way to the East and the West cost a little more money as well.
Oil companies can lose billions faster than they can make it. We can argue that they are especially greedy or understand that the stakes are equally as high if not higher than they are for small business to some degree. Gas companies will actually be laying a lot of people off pretty soon if the keystone project doesn't get finalized.
Holding up the extra supply isn't going to keep costs lower in this case because of the demand on export. Best thing Obama could do for us IMO would be to approve the project and bring the abundance in.
Where do you get your information that "massive people will be laid off" from these oil companies because of Keystone being held up?
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324324404579045060424047346
http://www.newsweek.com/state-department-keystone-xl-pipeline-would-only-create-35-permanent-jobs-228898
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101144616
http://www.providencejournal.com/opinion/commentary/20140423-stephen-r.-kelly-saying-no-to-keystone-xl-invites-ugly-options.ece

 

[reefraff]

Not to let facts get in the way of a good liberal spin but.

1. Valero energy has a contract to purchase a percentage of the increased capacity the XL pipeline will bring in. Valero is a refiner, not a shipping or export company so....
2. The XL Will also be used by companies producing oil in the new fields in Eastern Montana and North Dakota. Having more pipeline capacity will increase development in those fields.

 

[2quills]

Where do you get your information that "massive people will be laid off" from these oil companies because of Keystone being held up?
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324324404579045060424047346
http://www.newsweek.com/state-department-keystone-xl-pipeline-would-only-create-35-permanent-jobs-228898
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101144616
http://www.providencejournal.com/opinion/commentary/20140423-stephen-r.-kelly-saying-no-to-keystone-xl-invites-ugly-options.ece
Your last link was a good support for my argument. Perhaps you could browse that one again. The rest seem like short sighted speculation and completely ignore the tens of thousands of contracts jobs associated with everything the project entails.

 

[aggiealum]

Your last link was a good support for my argument. Perhaps you could browse that one again. The rest seem like short sighted speculation and completely ignore the tens of thousands of contracts jobs associated with everything the project entails.
Did you bother reading the second one?Those "tens of thousands of jobs" would only be expected to last a year, if that. Once it's all said and done and the construction phase is completed, those jobs are depleted to less than a hundred. Not sure how the last link supported your argument, considering all the others were viable resources that refute every one of your arguments, and the last one was some commentary/blog from so called "expert" that I scanned the first paragraph before posting.

 

[2quills]

Did you bother reading the second one?Those "tens of thousands of jobs" would only be expected to last a year, if that. Once it's all said and done and the construction phase is completed, those jobs are depleted to less than a hundred. Not sure how the last link supported your argument, considering all the others were viable resources that refute every one of your arguments, and the last one was some commentary/blog from so called "expert" that I scanned the first paragraph before posting.
I did but I had a hard time agreeing with it.
It's more than just the pipeline project itself. Sure the extra construction contracts will be beneficial for many who are out of work now. In construction and building trade that's typically how it works. Times of feast and famine. We have a lot of hungry people here right now. Extra full time work at the refineries that have been in expansion for this.
In the context of thinking that we are somehow independent in the global oil business I can't except. If you think like that then I understand where you get the logic of thinking more export means higher price at home. I think it's the opposite in this case because of the rising modernization of other countries and their dependency on what we have. If we could give it to them then it will be easier to keep costs down here.
This isn't really a discussion. It's a dependency on a resource that will have to be tapped untill a viable alternative has been reached.

 

[aggiealum]

Not to let facts get in  the way of a good liberal spin but.
1. Valero energy has a contract to purchase a percentage of the increased capacity the XL pipeline will bring in. Valero is a refiner, not a shipping or export company so....
2. The XL Will also be used by companies producing oil in the new fields in Eastern Montana and North Dakota. Having more pipeline capacity will increase development in those fields.
 
Valero committed to obtain the heavier Canadian crude to refine it in their Port Arthur refinery, then they send it to their distribution center in the same area to ship it out other pipelines to other companies that may or may not use the fuel in the US. They started that commitment back in 2011, and because of the political delay of getting the pipeline moving, they built their own rail system up to Canada and are bringing it down to Port Arthur by train.
http://www.valeroenergypartners.com/About/Operations/Pages/Port-Author.aspx
How is the delay affecting that area Montana's and North Dakota's access to the Keystone oil? Last thing I read the bottleneck for this pipeline continuing all the way down South was somewhere in Nebraska. They're close enough to the Canadian border they could send trucks up there to get it.
Nice try with the Conservative spin, but it didn't do much to help your argument for a reason to get this pipeline built anytime in the near future.

 

[reefraff]

Montana and North Dakota need the pipeline to ship the crude they are producing themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AggieAlum http:///t/397575/so-we-pay-higher-prices-for-gas-because-oil-companies-are-exporting-excess-crude-overseas/20#post_3543972
Valero committed to obtain the heavier Canadian crude to refine it in their Port Arthur refinery, then they send it to their distribution center in the same area to ship it out other pipelines to other companies that may or may not use the fuel in the US. They started that commitment back in 2011, and because of the political delay of getting the pipeline moving, they built their own rail system up to Canada and are bringing it down to Port Arthur by train.
http://www.valeroenergypartners.com/About/Operations/Pages/Port-Author.aspx
How is the delay affecting that area Montana's and North Dakota's access to the Keystone oil? Last thing I read the bottleneck for this pipeline continuing all the way down South was somewhere in Nebraska. They're close enough to the Canadian border they could send trucks up there to get it.
Nice try with the Conservative spin, but it didn't do much to help your argument for a reason to get this pipeline built anytime in the near future.

It's going to be cheaper and safer for Valero to access it through the pipeline. They also have an option to buy an interest in the pipeline (I hope they don't, I bought a bunch of their stock last summer and that would initially drive the price down).
Montana and North Dakota need access to the line (which is part of the plan) to ship the oil they are producing down to the refineries.

 

[2quills]

Also, if you know anything about the trucking industry you know how ridiculously costly it is having trucks stuck in bottle necks not moving. You seen the cost of diesel these days? Horribly inefficient way to move huge amounts of crude across state or international lines.

 

[aggiealum]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Quills http:///t/397575/so-we-pay-higher-prices-for-gas-because-oil-companies-are-exporting-excess-crude-overseas/20#post_3543974
Also, if you know anything about the trucking industry you know how ridiculously costly it is having trucks stuck in bottle necks not moving. You seen the cost of diesel these days? Horribly inefficient way to move huge amounts of crude across state or international lines.
I don't disagree with the benefits of moving that oil using a pipeline over the conventional methods of trucking and rail. I just don't buy into your spin that there will be massive layoffs in oil companies, or our economy is going to collapse if they don't get this pipeline created.

 

[reefraff]

I honestly haven't heard anyone say it would hurt the economy. I've seen the high and low estimates of jobs created by it and obviously the real number is somewhere in between. Even if 100% of the Canada oil is exported it creates port jobs here as well as the people to oversee and maintain the pipeline so it's a good deal all around. Hell, 0bama could do something smart (fat chance) and put a requirement in the deal that a certain percentage of the oil has to be refined here whether the end product is marketed here or shipped overseas.

 

[aggiealum]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/397575/so-we-pay-higher-prices-for-gas-because-oil-companies-are-exporting-excess-crude-overseas/20#post_3543985
I honestly haven't heard anyone say it would hurt the economy. I've seen the high and low estimates of jobs created by it and obviously the real number is somewhere in between. Even if 100% of the Canada oil is exported it creates port jobs here as well as the people to oversee and maintain the pipeline so it's a good deal all around. Hell, 0bama could do something smart (fat chance) and put a requirement in the deal that a certain percentage of the oil has to be refined here whether the end product is marketed here or shipped overseas.
Have you been reading Quills comments? I agree with you completely that it could potentially create some long-term jobs, and there are some benefits to pumping that crude down in a pipeline. But the reports also say that the crude being pumped here won't provide any significant help to reduce gas prices, and in the Midwest region of the country, it would actually cause the price to rise. The main roadblock is the environmental impact of the line. Yes, there is factual data to prove/disprove both sides of that argument, but the one's putting the hold on the building of the project are the people who would be most affected if a major leak or spill did occur. If you had some oil pipeline running over your only viable water source, and you had to rely on the assurances of the owner of that line that it could never contaminate your source of water, you may have the same hesitations about letting that thing run over your land.

 

[beaslbob]

Quote:Originally Posted by jay0705 http:///t/397575/so-we-pay-higher-prices-for-gas-because-oil-companies-are-exporting-excess-crude-overseas/20#post_3543946
I live in ny. As far as eastern us states its one of the highest for gas. It sucks!!!!! I get the fact oil company's want to make the most they can. Ok fine the thing that pisses me off is they make billions a year. I make thousands a yr and I survive just fine. At what point did we become the the land of the free and home of the homeless? Maybe that .50 cent a gallon hike makes them an extra billion, but costs the guy on a budget his house!
I dont think we should drill in Alaska even tho the amount of oil is astronomical there. Why? Sure pollution is a factor but mainly why should we compromise a truly amazing state so those billion dollar bastard s can make that jump to a trillion and still screw this country's people. If Europe has higher gas prices so be it, are they sitting on god knows how many barrels of oil? No but bc we are shouldn't are gas prices be lower? Yes I know they are lower, but gas effects more than just are vehicles. It effects are food costs aswell. Price milk lately? WTF!!!!!

IMHO the only thing that matters is not the total profits but rather if you had say $100 (or whatever) to invest in your retirment where would you invest that. In the oil companies or the half of the furtune 500 companies that have higher profits? I hope you would want a greater return on your $100 from those other companies then what the oil companies would return on your $100.
my .02

 

[darthtang aw]

Yet another one of your cryptic circular logic responses. Sorry, my TV is American made. Look up Elements Electronics. Now tell me how if I owned one of them foreign TV's there's these similarities to why oil companies export their oil. Next time just say what's on your mind and quit playing these juvenile guessing games.
Your TV is American Assembled. Not American made. All the parts come from China. Many of which are made from oil. China will be importing about 3/4 of its oil usage by 2015. By selling overseas it increases foreign dependance on a U.S. product. It increases tax revenue to the federal government.
Look at Exxon alone.
Over the last five years, ExxonMobil's U.S. taxes have totaled more than $55 billion - about $16 billion more than our U.S. operating earnings during that period.
For every dollar of net earnings in the U.S. between 2008 and 2012, ExxonMobil incurred more than $1.40 in taxes to federal, state and local governments.
On a dollar-for-dollar basis, the oil industry's profits are generally in line with the average of all U.S. industry. In 2012, the U.S. oil and gas industry earned on average 6.2 cents per dollar of sales – below the average of 8.6 cents per dollar of sales for "All Manufacturers."
From 2008 through 2012, ExxonMobil distributed $145 billion (and $26 billion in 2012) to our U.S. shareholders, representing a significant transfer of income from foreign resource development into the U.S. economy, including ultimately to the U.S. Treasury.
Yes there are winter blends and summer blends. Some with more Ethanol than others.
That is not what I was referring to. There are different grades of oil taken out of the ground. What you are talking about is the end result. I am talking about the beginning state of the product.
this link gives a basic understanding of what I am talking about.
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/A-Detailed-Guide-On-The-Many-Different-Types-Of-Crude-Oil.html
Currenttly most of our refineries were refitted a couple decades back to be able to handle the most common type of crude the U.S. Refines. This has created a bottleneck affect as our capabilities for refinement is limited or bottlenecked so to speak for certain crudes.
Along the gulf coast, their are currently 202 million barrels of crude awaiting to be refined. They are a crude oil that is more dificult to refine. So this oil is shipped overseas. There are restriction on this as well due to an age old law and why we have 202 million on hand just doing nothing. But that is not part of the discussion.
Oil prices are driven more by OPEC than the oil companies. Exxon doesn't dictate the cost of a barrel of crude.
They go by international rates and fluctuate their gas prices based on future costs for that next barrel of oil. If they only paid $100/barrel for crude, they adjust their margins on what it costs to refine that oil into gas, then base their pump prices on that specific batch of gas. If a barrel goes up to $120, the price of gas goes up accordingly. Gas prices drop if that same barrel drops down to $80/barrel. That's why you could be driving by your local gas station in the morning and see a price of $2.98, and drive by the same station on your way home and the price jumped to $3.10. The $2.98 gas dried up, and the gas tanker filled the pumps back up with that $3.10 gas.

True, to a degree. Opec does influence oil pricing considerably. However their influence is based off what extra capacity they are able to mainitain. There is talk within opec that the shale oil boom in the U.S. and Canada could greatly impact their control and influence. There is talk that by 2018 Opec would drop from a 2.1 billion per day cushion to a 8.9 billion per day cushion of spare capacity. Not due to their increasing capabilities, but due to less demand from them on the market. Have you been reading Quills comments?  I agree with you completely that it could potentially create some long-term jobs, and there are some benefits to pumping that crude down in a pipeline.  But the reports also say that the crude being pumped here won't provide any significant help to reduce gas prices, and in the Midwest region of the country, it would actually cause the price to rise.  The main roadblock is the environmental impact of the line.  Yes, there is factual data to prove/disprove both sides of that argument, but the one's putting the hold on the building of the project are the people who would be most affected if a major leak or spill did occur.  If you had some oil pipeline running over your only viable water source, and you had to rely on the assurances of the owner of that line that it could never contaminate your source of water, you may have the same hesitations about letting that thing run over your land.

I agree with you completely that it could potentially create some long-term jobs, and there are some benefits to pumping that crude down in a pipeline.
at this stage, I think jobs are jobs. Be they long term or short term. To a person needing a job, it doesn't matter.

But the reports also say that the crude being pumped here won't provide any significant help to reduce gas prices, and in the Midwest region of the country, it would actually cause the price to rise.

Sounds a lot like a signature piece of legislation that has recently gone into effect, or well some of it went into effect.....
The main roadblock is the environmental impact of the line. Yes, there is factual data to prove/disprove both sides of that argument, but the one's putting the hold on the building of the project are the people who would be most affected if a major leak or spill did occur. If you had some oil pipeline running over your only viable water source, and you had to rely on the assurances of the owner of that line that it could never contaminate your source of water, you may have the same hesitations about letting that thing run over your land.

I wont disagree with this view at all. That is a concern I hold as well. But this discussion didn't start out about the pipeline, it started out about us exporting oil.

 

[2quills]

Have you been reading Quills comments?  I agree with you completely that it could potentially create some long-term jobs, and there are some benefits to pumping that crude down in a pipeline.  But the reports also say that the crude being pumped here won't provide any significant help to reduce gas prices, and in the Midwest region of the country, it would actually cause the price to rise.  The main roadblock is the environmental impact of the line.  Yes, there is factual data to prove/disprove both sides of that argument, but the one's putting the hold on the building of the project are the people who would be most affected if a major leak or spill did occur.  If you had some oil pipeline running over your only viable water source, and you had to rely on the assurances of the owner of that line that it could never contaminate your source of water, you may have the same hesitations about letting that thing run over your land.
What about my comments? Where did I say all of the layoffs in the delays were going to cause wide spread economic disaster. But now that you mention it, think of the impact it will have if these rising nations suddenly can't get what they need.
You keep acting like it's just about keystone and it isn't. Pipeline expansion is going on all over this country right now including the lines running from houston to corpus. The only reason the northern part of keystone is being delayed is because it crosses international lines. There are literally thousands of guys on temporary layoff right now because of the hold. My buddy works for one such company here that builds equipment and parts for all of the work that's going on. Two years ago they had 3000 guy's working in their yard. Today they have several hundred as many are sitting around on stand by. I can bring you dozens of links associated with the lay offs the hold up is causing. It isn't just those families, you have to consider economic impact in those areas as well. I never said it was going to be a calamity.
Obama could care less about the environmental impact. If he cared then he'd have the EPA all over this stuff. But he doesn't, in fact he's virtually ignore all of the claims that the impacts that fracking and drilling are having in some locations. But he cares about keystone? Why?