GivemTheAxe;842448255 said:

---

Let's say that Oil hits $60/barrel. Sure the oil companies will suffer; but that will translate to a boom for consumers who would then have lots and lots of spending cash for other things. This has been stressed in a number of recent news articles. Many pundits focus so much on the big companies that they forget the fact that increased consumer spending can create its own spike in the economy. Consumers spread the wealth around much more than oil companies.

---

Oil is below $ 50 barrel for the last 3 weeks or so.

It's not always about us, meaning the U.S.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/04/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-is-said-to-use-oil-to-lure-russia-away-from-syrias-assad.html?hpw&rref=world&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region®ion=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well&_r=0

Bears2thDoc;842447919 said:

---

LOL!
I grew up in the 60's and 70's
Filled my Honda Mini 50 tank for a 2 dimes.
Fill the tank of my plymouth valiant for 10 bucks or less.

---

Left Texas in 1971 where gas was 29-30 cents a gallon ( though I did see it at 19.9 in "gas war" earlier that Spring in Jacksboro.) Was shocked to see it at 37-39 cents a gallon upon arriving Oakland.

slotright20;842448336 said:

---

Left Texas in 1971 where gas was 29-30 cents a gallon ( though I did see it at 19.9 in "gas war" earlier that Spring in Jacksboro.) Was shocked to see it at 37-39 cents a gallon upon arriving Oakland.

---

Yeah gas prices were sky high back then. I don't know how people could afford to drive.
I am old enough to remember gas at 19 cents a gallon when I started driving at 16 years old.

People have been predicting the collapse of the House of Saud since the founder (Abdul Aziz ibn Saud) died November 9, 1953. He was the last of the warrior kings and a very shrewd man. He conquered most of the Arabian Peninsula in the period 1915-1922. He was a true unquestioned monarch - he unified the kingdom by marrying women from most of the tribes. Life is tribal and he knew the strength of blood relations. When he died, there were riots but the regime cracked down and that was the end of it.
The royal family acts by broad consensus. They deposed his successor - Saud ibn (son of) Abdul Aziz in a quiet way by exiling him to the Riviera after he proved to be a poor ruler. No riots, no coup de etat, just a gentle inside move based on wisdom. He was followed by Faisal ibn Abdul Aziz and every king to date has been a son of the founder. Salman ibn Abdul Aziz is the current King and he has already designated two successors to ensure stability and continuity.
A very good recent biography is Ibn Saud by Michael Darlow and Barbara Bray (published in 2010 and now in remainder at Edward Hamilton books). I have about 70 books on Saudi Arabia, so I try to keep up.
The Saudis have always had lots of oil reserves (proven - not speculation) and are in no immediate danger of running out of oil. In the early 1950s, Ras Tanura (the refinery and oil exporting port on the Persian Gulf where I lived) became the world's largest oil port and to my knowledge it still is. How many other sites of business can make the claim that for the last 60 years they have been the center of any important business for so long? Only London and New York come to mind.
The family is also pretty smart (lots of princes educated in the US and Europe). They are developing large areas of solar panels for all their electricity needs. They use desalinization and have for a long time. For example, when I was a boy, we had two water systems in our house in the American compound - one was non-potable water for lawns, washing etc and the other was distilled water for drinking. As they say, in poor, arid areas there are two types of people - the shrewd and the dead.
I don't think they will become another Yemen. Yemen, for example, has been pretty tumultuous for a long time. They have had warring tribes roaming the country for years (lots of kidnappings for ransom of Westerners over the years) - and it is in upheaval now (recently deposed the sitting government last week). Did you know there was a civil war in Yemen with Egypt (and Gamal Abdul Nasser) supporting a rebel group and Saudi Arabia financing the Royalists from 1962-1967? See Yemen the Unknown War by Dana Adams Schmidt. At the 2000 reunion, we went to the border area near Yemen and toured some historic areas. An ancient old man did a war dance with a pre-WWI rifle on a rooftop of a preserved old home in the mountains to impress us with their warlike qualities. It was a sight to behold. The nearby souq (shopping area) was pretty small and grim.
I would not expect any revolution or overthrow of the Saud family for a long time.

beelzebear;842448095 said:

---

Synthetic jet fuel. If not this stuff, something else. LINK: US navy synthesizes jet fuel solely out of seawater; costs $3-6 gallon

BTW, all the big oil companies are already investing heavily in alt fuels and renewable energy. They know oil is a limited deal now.

---

Big C_Cal;842448008 said:

---

Big picture, oil is a non-renewable resource. Heck, even used/wasted water eventually comes back. If I were a youngish Saudi prince, I'd be looking for my exit strategy, before the non-royalty in the country, i.e. the types that made up most of the 9/11 hijackers, storms the gates of the palaces.

Hey, I have a question: Let's say, in 50 yrs or so, we've largely weened ourselves from petroleum. What about jet fuel? I'm assuming that's some sort of petroleum derivative, right? What are our options there?

---

Next time you book your Southwest Airlines passage, think about what might be in the tank. Story

slotright20;842448336 said:

---

Left Texas in 1971 where gas was 29-30 cents a gallon ( though I did see it at 19.9 in "gas war" earlier that Spring in Jacksboro.) Was shocked to see it at 37-39 cents a gallon upon arriving Oakland.

---

Glenn King, one of my all-time favorite players, is from Jacksboro. He was the first African-American captain at OU, in 1971 I believe. Gas was 25-31 cents per gallon at the local discount station two blocks from my house in OKC that year, I could fill up my VW bug for about $2.50 and that lasted me 3-4 weeks.

CAL6371;842448359 said:

---

People have been predicting the collapse of the House of Saud since the founder (Abdul Aziz ibn Saud) died November 9, 1953. He was the last of the warrior kings and a very shrewd man. He conquered most of the Arabian Peninsula in the period 1915-1922. He was a true unquestioned monarch - he unified the kingdom by marrying women from most of the tribes. Life is tribal and he knew the strength of blood relations. When he died, there were riots but the regime cracked down and that was the end of it.
The royal family acts by broad consensus. They deposed his successor - Saud ibn (son of) Abdul Aziz in a quiet way by exiling him to the Riviera after he proved to be a poor ruler. No riots, no coup de etat, just a gentle inside move based on wisdom. He was followed by Faisal ibn Abdul Aziz and every king to date has been a son of the founder. Salman ibn Abdul Aziz is the current King and he has already designated two successors to ensure stability and continuity.
A very good recent biography is Ibn Saud by Michael Darlow and Barbara Bray (published in 2010 and now in remainder at Edward Hamilton books). I have about 70 books on Saudi Arabia, so I try to keep up.
The Saudis have always had lots of oil reserves (proven - not speculation) and are in no immediate danger of running out of oil. In the early 1950s, Ras Tanura (the refinery and oil exporting port on the Persian Gulf where I lived) became the world's largest oil port and to my knowledge it still is. How many other sites of business can make the claim that for the last 60 years they have been the center of any important business for so long? Only London and New York come to mind.
The family is also pretty smart (lots of princes educated in the US and Europe). They are developing large areas of solar panels for all their electricity needs. They use desalinization and have for a long time. For example, when I was a boy, we had two water systems in our house in the American compound - one was non-potable water for lawns, washing etc and the other was distilled water for drinking. As they say, in poor, arid areas there are two types of people - the shrewd and the dead.
I don't think they will become another Yemen. Yemen, for example, has been pretty tumultuous for a long time. They have had warring tribes roaming the country for years (lots of kidnappings for ransom of Westerners over the years) - and it is in upheaval now (recently deposed the sitting government last week). Did you know there was a civil war in Yemen with Egypt (and Gamal Abdul Nasser) supporting a rebel group and Saudi Arabia financing the Royalists from 1962-1967? See Yemen the Unknown War by Dana Adams Schmidt. At the 2000 reunion, we went to the border area near Yemen and toured some historic areas. An ancient old man did a war dance with a pre-WWI rifle on a rooftop of a preserved old home in the mountains to impress us with their warlike qualities. It was a sight to behold. The nearby souq (shopping area) was pretty small and grim.
I would not expect any revolution or overthrow of the Saud family for a long time.

---

Thanks for the background.

Well, what IS the current smart speculation as to when Saudi oil begins to dry up? I'm just thinking, with world demand ever on the increase, it can't last TOO long, but are we talking 15 yrs? 30 yrs? 100 yrs? And then what happens to Saudi Arabia?

Big C_Cal - I don't know. However, it isn't like the fear of an overthrow was ignored by Aramco when I was there. It was then owned by Chevron, Exxon, Texaco and Standard Oil of Ohio (now totally Saudi owned). The center street in our small camp was as wide as a ten lane highway. I asked my father why - he said it was so you could land several DC 3 planes (C47) and evacuate everyone in a short period. The plan was then to fly us to Asmera - an old Italian camp then in Ethiopia and considered very safe. It is now in Eritrea - and has been in near constant turmoil for 40 years. Nothing stays the same does it?
Incidentally, the head pilot for Aramco Airlines in those days was the father of singer/songwriter Kris Kristofferson. How's that for obscure trivia?

I find this thread ironic in that it was posted when oil prices have actually gone up a fair amount since last week.

Big C_Cal;842448008 said:

---

Hey, I have a question: Let's say, in 50 yrs or so, we've largely weened ourselves from petroleum. What about jet fuel? I'm assuming that's some sort of petroleum derivative, right? What are our options there?

---

Biodeisel

wifeisafurd;842448238 said:

---

Marianne Kah, chief economist of ConocoPhillips , said oil prices would need to fall to $50 a barrel “if you wanted to completely halt production” in U.S. shale basins. She said 80% of the American shale sector—in which ConocoPhillips is a major operator—is profitable at prices between $40 and $80 a barrel for benchmark West Texas Intermediate crude.

---

I work at a chemical company that is involved in well stimulation (AKA fracking) and this is basically what I heard as well. The drilling of new wells is certainly down since last summer and there have been some recent layoffs at the service companies, but they should remain afloat due to the number of wells that are still operable.

Big C_Cal;842448566 said:

---

Thanks for the background.

Well, what IS the current smart speculation as to when Saudi oil begins to dry up? I'm just thinking, with world demand ever on the increase, it can't last TOO long, but are we talking 15 yrs? 30 yrs? 100 yrs? And then what happens to Saudi Arabia?

---

There lots of oil under there. I'd say 50 years worth minimum at current production rates, and factoring a gradual steady decline in demand.

Basically, there is enough oil and gas underground around the planet for us to destroy our climate past the point of no return if we really wanted to burn it all. We no longer hear stories in the media of running out. We hear stories of the polar ice caps melting.

For Saudi Arabia, 50 years could be a stretch, supposedly oil extracted at its main field already is 30% seawater (which has been reinjected into the soil to maintain pressure), which indicates that production might already be peaking or close to peaking.

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2004-07-29/trouble-worlds-largest-oil-field-ghawar

http://peakoilbarrel.com/closer-look-saudi-arabia/

Berliner, what do you think about fracking and its potential impact on the water table? There are some reports of pollution of aquifers in California due to fracking.

BerlinerBaer;842450232 said:

---

Basically, there is enough oil and gas underground around the planet for us to destroy our climate past the point of no return if we really wanted to burn it all. We no longer hear stories in the media of running out. We hear stories of the polar ice caps melting.

---

Unfortunately, this is true, and even if we slow down our rate of consumption, we are still going to keep increasing the CO2 levels, albeit at a slower rate--unless we discover some really cheap non-carbon based form of energy and it is dispersed and adopted worldwide very quickly. We will probably need some form of massive carbon sequestration as well.

Cal88;842450249 said:

---

For Saudi Arabia, 50 years could be a stretch, supposedly oil extracted at its main field already is 30% seawater (which has been reinjected into the soil to maintain pressure), which indicates that production might already be peaking or close to peaking.

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2004-07-29/trouble-worlds-largest-oil-field-ghawar

http://peakoilbarrel.com/closer-look-saudi-arabia/

Berliner, what do you think about fracking and its potential impact on the water table? There are some reports of pollution of aquifers in California due to fracking.

---

That's true about the Saudi field, but the capability exists to effectively remove the oil from the water so that the field remains productive. Think about it this way: that field has been running for decades and is still 70% oil.

Normally fracking poses little risk to groundwater as long as the well is drilled and sealed correctly before they begin operations. There have been service companies, mainly a few of the small ones, who have cut corners and damaged the formation and risked contaminating ground water. There actually is major research going on with so-called traceable fracturing fluids, in which the fluid used to fracture each well has a certain chemical tracer, normally a fluorescent dye, that can be detected in groundwater at extremely low concentrations if contamination occurs. In many areas, industry is actually one step ahead of the EPA and the state and local environmental authorities. Nobody wants to get caught ruining an aquifer nowadays.

California is a bit tricky with all of its faults and terranes. I think all the worry about earthquakes is bogus but I'd imagine the threat to groundwater contamination there is higher than in the more stable ground east of the Rockies.

Fracking does require gigantic amounts of water (10 million gallons per well!) that would make it hard to pull off in CA. There is a major push to recycle fracking water but this is difficult since the salts that are present make the additives used to control viscosity ineffective. This is a major area of research.

BerlinerBaer;842450264 said:

---

Fracking does require gigantic amounts of water (10 million gallons per well!) that would make it hard to pull off in CA. There is a major push to recycle fracking water but this is difficult since the salts that are present make the additives used to control viscosity ineffective. This is a major area of research.

---

Looking at some desalination company info the other day and found an article about how some desal companies are starting to look at the processes they use to see if they could be used with fracking operations. Interesting expansion of the concepts if it works. Fundamentally it's about water resources and preserving them.

goldenokiebear;842448426 said:

---

Glenn King, one of my all-time favorite players, is from Jacksboro. He was the first African-American captain at OU, in 1971 I believe. Gas was 25-31 cents per gallon at the local discount station two blocks from my house in OKC that year, I could fill up my VW bug for about $2.50 and that lasted me 3-4 weeks.

---

Been up in Seattle past few days - how they recruit anyone to that dreary place is a complete mystery to me- July and August another story. Anyway, I remember King - good db and punt returner he paved the way for Greg Pruitt, the Selmons, Overstreet, etc. - gave OU a definite edge and starting in King's senior year OU beat Texas 5 straight years.

BerlinerBaer;842450264 said:

---

That's true about the Saudi field, but the capability exists to effectively remove the oil from the water so that the field remains productive. Think about it this way: that field has been running for decades and is still 70% oil.

Normally fracking poses little risk to groundwater as long as the well is drilled and sealed correctly before they begin operations. There have been service companies, mainly a few of the small ones, who have cut corners and damaged the formation and risked contaminating ground water. There actually is major research going on with so-called traceable fracturing fluids, in which the fluid used to fracture each well has a certain chemical tracer, normally a fluorescent dye, that can be detected in groundwater at extremely low concentrations if contamination occurs. In many areas, industry is actually one step ahead of the EPA and the state and local environmental authorities. Nobody wants to get caught ruining an aquifer nowadays.

California is a bit tricky with all of its faults and terranes. I think all the worry about earthquakes is bogus but I'd imagine the threat to groundwater contamination there is higher than in the more stable ground east of the Rockies.

Fracking does require gigantic amounts of water (10 million gallons per well!) that would make it hard to pull off in CA. There is a major push to recycle fracking water but this is difficult since the salts that are present make the additives used to control viscosity ineffective. This is a major area of research.

---

You would know more than me to say the least- all I know is there are swarms of earthquakes - particularly in Irving, Texas and to a lesser extent other places where there were certainly no previous regular quakes of this magnitude. And my story for whatever it is worth- back in about 2007 or 2008, they are fracking a well 1.3 miles from my house. I hear this pop, pop, pop, go into kitchen and see three different lengthy cracks along grout lines of ceramic tiles. Some of the tiles literally popped up over an inch. Per gas co, insurance co, etc. " Me no Alamo, me no Goliad." No explanation from anyone.

BerlinerBaer;842450264 said:

---

That's true about the Saudi field, but the capability exists to effectively remove the oil from the water so that the field remains productive. Think about it this way: that field has been running for decades and is still 70% oil.

Normally fracking poses little risk to groundwater as long as the well is drilled and sealed correctly before they begin operations. There have been service companies, mainly a few of the small ones, who have cut corners and damaged the formation and risked contaminating ground water. There actually is major research going on with so-called traceable fracturing fluids, in which the fluid used to fracture each well has a certain chemical tracer, normally a fluorescent dye, that can be detected in groundwater at extremely low concentrations if contamination occurs. In many areas, industry is actually one step ahead of the EPA and the state and local environmental authorities. Nobody wants to get caught ruining an aquifer nowadays.

California is a bit tricky with all of its faults and terranes. I think all the worry about earthquakes is bogus but I'd imagine the threat to groundwater contamination there is higher than in the more stable ground east of the Rockies.

Fracking does require gigantic amounts of water (10 million gallons per well!) that would make it hard to pull off in CA. There is a major push to recycle fracking water but this is difficult since the salts that are present make the additives used to control viscosity ineffective. This is a major area of research.

---

I learn more on BI than I do reading the WSJ. Thanks for the interesting and technical discussions guys.

http://fuelfix.com/blog/2015/08/24/oil-falls-to-38-amid-wider-rout/#34823101=3

Wow under 40 bucks a barrel. Any chance this bird goes to under $20?

Loosely related, I suppose this is a good time to be investing in the market?

burritos;842529584 said:

---

http://fuelfix.com/blog/2015/08/24/oil-falls-to-38-amid-wider-rout/#34823101=3

Wow under 40 bucks a barrel. Any chance this bird goes to under $20?

Loosely related, I suppose this is a good time to be investing in the market?

---

Why is gas $1.99 in New Jersey and $3.50 in California The answer is not the cost of meeting CA environmental standards. That explanation used to justify only a 20 - 30 cent differential.

burritos;842529584 said:

---

http://fuelfix.com/blog/2015/08/24/oil-falls-to-38-amid-wider-rout/#34823101=3

Wow under 40 bucks a barrel. Any chance this bird goes to under $20?

Loosely related, I suppose this is a good time to be investing in the market?

---

Where, oh where, has the paranoia and hysteria about $5 gas gone?
How strange that the tea potty Pubes have discontinued that ideological rant, and they're supposedly the savvy money men.

People using heating oil should get a bonus this year IF the oil companies don't try to maintain prices by limiting supply.

SonOfCalVa;842529591 said:

---

Where, oh where, has the paranoia and hysteria about $5 gas gone?
How strange that the tea potty Pubes have discontinued that ideological rant, and they're supposedly the savvy money men.

People using heating oil should get a bonus this year IF the oil companies don't try to maintain prices by limiting supply.

---

While I am not a teabagger, I must admit to believing in the whole the imminent "peak oil" prediction.

GivemTheAxe;842529590 said:

---

Why is gas $1.99 in New Jersey and $3.50 in California The answer is not the cost of meeting CA environmental standards. That explanation used to justify only a 20 - 30 cent differential.

---

Doesn't California have more road upkeep costs? State with that largest population, more roads, etc... Just speculation, I'm not sure.

burritos;842529601 said:

---

Doesn't California have more road upkeep costs? Biggest state, more roads, etc... Just speculation, I'm not sure.

---

There a tons of reasons, many are of California's doing. I wouldn't rule out companies taking advantage of events, but if you read this article in the LA Times (there are several over the years,), you'll see much of the problem IS because of our energy politics and structure....Many oil analysts who don't wax political talk about California's unique supply and demand structural problems. No interstate pipelines, less refineries due to cost and no out of state refineries make our unique blends, taxes blah blah blah....if you're really interested, GOOGLE some of this stuff, but it isn't the simple "oh, the oil companies are screwing us"...you're getting screwed by Calif's politics, rules and regs just as much as the refineries etc....blame to go around.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-gasoline-manipulation-infobox-20150706-story.html

burritos;842529584 said:

---

http://fuelfix.com/blog/2015/08/24/oil-falls-to-38-amid-wider-rout/#34823101=3

Wow under 40 bucks a barrel. Any chance this bird goes to under $20?

Loosely related, I suppose this is a good time to be investing in the market?

---

I bought in this morning. I'm a long term investor so I'm always looking for a dip to buy into. Still, I expect the market will go down through the fall and I hope to buy more later. But who knows.

burritos;842529584 said:

---

http://fuelfix.com/blog/2015/08/24/oil-falls-to-38-amid-wider-rout/#34823101=3

Wow under 40 bucks a barrel. Any chance this bird goes to under $20?

Loosely related, I suppose this is a good time to be investing in the market?

---

If it hits $20 there will not be a well being drilled in Texas other than an occasional one to keep a promising lease alive. Breakeven point for cheapest drilling in Texas is about $25.

On market, would definitely wait before going in - crazy activity today. It's going lower, much lower I suspect.

CAL6371;842448359 said:

---

People have been predicting the collapse of the House of Saud since the founder (Abdul Aziz ibn Saud) died November 9, 1953. He was the last of the warrior kings and a very shrewd man. He conquered most of the Arabian Peninsula in the period 1915-1922. He was a true unquestioned monarch - he unified the kingdom by marrying women from most of the tribes. Life is tribal and he knew the strength of blood relations. When he died, there were riots but the regime cracked down and that was the end of it.
The royal family acts by broad consensus. They deposed his successor - Saud ibn (son of) Abdul Aziz in a quiet way by exiling him to the Riviera after he proved to be a poor ruler. No riots, no coup de etat, just a gentle inside move based on wisdom. He was followed by Faisal ibn Abdul Aziz and every king to date has been a son of the founder. Salman ibn Abdul Aziz is the current King and he has already designated two successors to ensure stability and continuity.
A very good recent biography is Ibn Saud by Michael Darlow and Barbara Bray (published in 2010 and now in remainder at Edward Hamilton books). I have about 70 books on Saudi Arabia, so I try to keep up.
The Saudis have always had lots of oil reserves (proven - not speculation) and are in no immediate danger of running out of oil. In the early 1950s, Ras Tanura (the refinery and oil exporting port on the Persian Gulf where I lived) became the world's largest oil port and to my knowledge it still is. How many other sites of business can make the claim that for the last 60 years they have been the center of any important business for so long? Only London and New York come to mind.
The family is also pretty smart (lots of princes educated in the US and Europe). They are developing large areas of solar panels for all their electricity needs. They use desalinization and have for a long time. For example, when I was a boy, we had two water systems in our house in the American compound - one was non-potable water for lawns, washing etc and the other was distilled water for drinking. As they say, in poor, arid areas there are two types of people - the shrewd and the dead.
I don't think they will become another Yemen. Yemen, for example, has been pretty tumultuous for a long time. They have had warring tribes roaming the country for years (lots of kidnappings for ransom of Westerners over the years) - and it is in upheaval now (recently deposed the sitting government last week). Did you know there was a civil war in Yemen with Egypt (and Gamal Abdul Nasser) supporting a rebel group and Saudi Arabia financing the Royalists from 1962-1967? See Yemen the Unknown War by Dana Adams Schmidt. At the 2000 reunion, we went to the border area near Yemen and toured some historic areas. An ancient old man did a war dance with a pre-WWI rifle on a rooftop of a preserved old home in the mountains to impress us with their warlike qualities. It was a sight to behold. The nearby souq (shopping area) was pretty small and grim.
I would not expect any revolution or overthrow of the Saud family for a long time.

---

Thanks for the info. Nice to get information and perspective from someone there who was there and respects the history. Hard to get info like this.

slotright20;842529609 said:

---

If it hits $20 there will not be a well being drilled in Texas other than an occasional one to keep a promising lease alive. Breakeven point for cheapest drilling in Texas is about $25.

On market, would definitely wait before going in - crazy activity today. It's going lower, much lower I suspect.

---

How much does it cost to pump oil out of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Iraq? I've heard $5/barrel for Saudi Arabia.

I agree with the many posters herein, praising the knowledge base of our BI family. Very interesting.

While not being in the oil or energy sector, the clear and obvious first order reason is that increased production has occurred in a time of moderate demand. In addition, as some have stated, Russia and Venezuela are indiscriminate in their price drops and to some extent OPEC has to respond. Oil prices are at a six year low, that period being a time of more global depression than the more isolated issues today. I'm guessing that high quality energy companies may be attractive at this point.

In response to differences in gas prices regionally and the seemingly instantaneous pricing changes we see at the pumps, I often wonder about the production lead time from crude oil to the pump. Certainly someone knows if this is 2 months, 4 months, etc. In any event, the oil companies can price as they see fit to the end-user gas consumers, but it galls me to see these changes reflect commodity pricing instantaneously when the lead time to production is lengthy. Please advise.

GivemTheAxe;842529590 said:

---

Why is gas $1.99 in New Jersey and $3.50 in California The answer is not the cost of meeting CA environmental standards. That explanation used to justify only a 20 - 30 cent differential.

---

Time for another marketing study to determine of the California consumer is getting screwed ...again. When I lived in the Bay Area these studies were coming up every few years with the same results: no market manipulation, just the cost of doing business in California.

California/Federal taxes on gas is about $0.65 per gallon on a chart I looked at this morning, one of the highest or the highest in the nation.

Cal_Fan2;842447932 said:

---

Don't forget the free glasses. I remember getting tons of free glassware pumping 36 cent gas at those new fangled "self serve" stations. I mean, WTF?, who is gonna check the oil and clean the windows?

---

I don't get the glasses, but I (and everyone else) can still get the great service in Oregon. It's kind of cool.

I'm fine with the extra gas costs in California because as a kid I grew up in SoCal and remember the air quality. I remember going to Dodger games and driving through downtown LA and it being overcast in August due to smog. 85 degree out, overcast with smog. It was serious sh*t and now with air quality regulations, the air is vastly better despite a 100%+ increase in population and cars since the 60s.

GivemTheAxe;842529590 said:

---

Why is gas $1.99 in New Jersey and $3.50 in California The answer is not the cost of meeting CA environmental standards. That explanation used to justify only a 20 - 30 cent differential.

---

Hmm, CA gas tax is ~ 42 cents according to wikipedia, which is 28 cents higher than NJ. I'd almost think that because CA has requirements that mean specially formulated gas, the oil/refinery companies can rig the market a bit more. It's hard to build a refinery in CA and since the gas cannot be imported from other states as easily, the companies can manipulate $$ more.

1979bear;842529664 said:

---

I don't get the glasses, but I (and everyone else) can still get the great service in Oregon. It's kind of cool.

---

The same is true in New Jersey. The customer is not allowed to pump his/her own gas. And even with the service the gas is still $1.20 to $1.50 less than in California.
But there is a move underway to allow self service. the rationale is that the service stations will in exchange grant a discount to the customers.
To which I have told all my NJ friends that it is a big scam. Within 2 years the price will go back up to the non-discounted price.

NVGolfingBear;842529656 said:

---

Time for another marketing study to determine of the California consumer is getting screwed ...again. When I lived in the Bay Area these studies were coming up every few years with the same results: no market manipulation, just the cost of doing business in California.

California/Federal taxes on gas is about $0.65 per gallon on a chart I looked at this morning, one of the highest or the highest in the nation.

---

Sunshine tax. I wonder what the population of California would be if the cost of living here were the same a Kansas.

BerlinerBaer;842450264 said:

---

That's true about the Saudi field, but the capability exists to effectively remove the oil from the water so that the field remains productive. Think about it this way: that field has been running for decades and is still 70% oil.

Normally fracking poses little risk to groundwater as long as the well is drilled and sealed correctly before they begin operations. There have been service companies, mainly a few of the small ones, who have cut corners and damaged the formation and risked contaminating ground water. There actually is major research going on with so-called traceable fracturing fluids, in which the fluid used to fracture each well has a certain chemical tracer, normally a fluorescent dye, that can be detected in groundwater at extremely low concentrations if contamination occurs. In many areas, industry is actually one step ahead of the EPA and the state and local environmental authorities. Nobody wants to get caught ruining an aquifer nowadays.

California is a bit tricky with all of its faults and terranes. I think all the worry about earthquakes is bogus but I'd imagine the threat to groundwater contamination there is higher than in the more stable ground east of the Rockies.

Fracking does require gigantic amounts of water (10 million gallons per well!) that would make it hard to pull off in CA. There is a major push to recycle fracking water but this is difficult since the salts that are present make the additives used to control viscosity ineffective. This is a major area of research.

---

Let's assume that the oil companies are honest and really mean well and do not want to harm the environment.
(a big assumption in view of BP's conduct in the Gulf and elsewhere).
Let's assume the oil companies are willing to cut back on their profits to protect the enviroment.
Let's assume that the oil companies actually spend the money and do a competent job in trying to seal the wells correctly.
There is still a potential for major catastrophic damage to the water supply.

1. Sh*t always happens no matter how much one tries to anticipate and protect against it.
2. Ca is Earthquake country From San Diego to Eureka and Weed. But more importantly its subsurface is riddled with underground fractures which are constantly increasing Existing faults rupture and new faults are always being discovered.
(I live in the Oakland Hills. There are many underground streams in the Oakland Hills ... because of the Hayward Fault I am told. With the constant movement of the earth near and around faults, there are numerous cracks underground. the ground water then runs along those cracks to create the underground streams.) Even without a major earthquake, the constant creep of the faults will pose major threats of underground water contamination.