Expect a big jump in gasoline prices

[frayne]

^ thank you very much.

Ditto

 

[Koolau]

I dunno. We cannot even stockpile enough TP for the masses to hoard, and the chintzy surgical masks that could have saved some doctors' and nurses' life at the beginning of this pandemic. There were plenty of stories about doctors having to wear the same cheap mask for 1 week. Don't forget the $1 bottles of hand sanitizer either.

You can't stockpile TP (or masks or hand sanitizer or IPA alcohol, etc. etc.) in anticipation of the un-anticipatable (if that's a word.) No one (well very few) anticipated COVID 19. Wild guess is, at least for a while, folks WILL NOW stockpile TP (etc.) even when Covid is a bad memory.

Oil, we've known could be manipulated by folks who were not our friends for almost 50 years now. NOT preparing for that would seem an error at best. NOT figuring a "work around" in 50 years seems almost criminal but I lay no particular blame as the problem has transcended several administrations and is STILL not really planned for.

Keep in mind, that even though the USA is technically awash in oil now - because of fracking, oil is almost as fungible as money or gold or other commodities. If someone pulls a string (like the Russians and IIRC the Saudis did - withholding millions of barrels) the prices STILL rise because even our excess oil gets sucked up (as well as our not-excess oil) since it's a world market. If we had the few million barrels/day of oil stored (convenient to the 140 or so refineries) the problem would probably go away as we could hold out longer than those with oil as their main export.

The whole opec threat thing (or a clone, thereof) works for those who manipulate because of the inelastic supply demand. Withholding a little raises prices a lot, allowing the withholders MORE money for the LESS oil they supply - until it works itself out over months or years. Art Laffer could have just as easily drawn a curve for "how to maximize oil revenues" on that cocktail napkin.

Defusing the "withhold the oil" game at the source might look like: (1000 each of 30,000 gallon tank cars on sidings all within 100 miles - one day's trip - from each of 140 refineries would go a LONG way to making up the occasional "game" opec might pull. If my math is correct, that's 100 million barrels of oil.

Now lets say the "infrastructure bill" mandates that each gas station double their current storage from (estimate of average) 20,000 gallons of fuel to 40,000 gallons. 110,000 such gas stations would thus add storage of another 50 million barrels of crude equivalent (actually more since refined is way less volume than crude equivalent.)

Now double the storage of refined products at all refineries, distribution centers, fuel depots and fuel wholesalers. No idea, but it's certainly millions of barrels worth. Again mandate a doubling of that storage.

SWAG: We could easily store 200 million equivalent barrels of crude around the USA in anticipation of the next world wide oil shock. Heck, our "allies" might even kick in some cash to cover the costs since they would keep their economies afloat as well. Remember, the big oil shocks hurt the WORLD, not just the USA.

How much would it cost? No idea, but almost certainly less than another oil war or oil shock. Who wouldn't kick in 25 cents a gallon tax to prevent $4.50 to $6.00 gas when ever opec gets an "itch?"

Storing close to refineries, distribution sites, at gas stations would be way better than in salt caverns in W2R's back yard (sorry about that).

Again, it's a pipe dream 'cause we never learn big lessons - they cost too much and no one wants to pay for something that might not happen. The irony is, if we prepared, it WOULDN'T happen because oil supplying countries would realize the futility.

While it will never happen, there is no practical reason it would not work - not even the price tag since that's vs. some really big price tags we already have data for. Of course, and as usual, YMMV.

 

[CaptTom]

While it will never happen, there is no practical reason it would not work

I like this line of reasoning, and I agree it'll never work for political/societal reasons, but I'm not sure it's all that practical, either.

I'm no expert, but I've seen very few gas stations or tank farms with the space to double their storage capacity. Then there's the permitting process, with all the spill containment and environmental protection rules. And, of course, NIMBY neighbors all around.

I think the more likely long-term fix is to continue our slow crawl away from fossil fuels. It's not going to happen fast enough to satisfy proponents, and it's not going to happen as fast as the opponents fear. But technology marches on. We'll get there.

 

[Koolau]

I like this line of reasoning, and I agree it'll never work for political/societal reasons, but I'm not sure it's all that practical, either.

I'm no expert, but I've seen very few gas stations or tank farms with the space to double their storage capacity. Then there's the permitting process, with all the spill containment and environmental protection rules. And, of course, NIMBY neighbors all around.

I think the more likely long-term fix is to continue our slow crawl away from fossil fuels. It's not going to happen fast enough to satisfy proponents, and it's not going to happen as fast as the opponents fear. But technology marches on. We'll get there.

I don't disagree that we'll eventually work ourselves away from fossil fuels - of necessity. In the mean time, oil supplying countries see the handwriting on the wall too. They realize that their time to take advantage of the power they hold (in the form of oil supplies) is slipping slowly away. They may wish to use what power they still have - while they still have it. Being ready for that seems worth at least more effort than we are putting into it now. Again, it's all academic as we don't learn lessons very well - especially at the political level. YMMV

 

[NW-Bound]

I don't disagree that we'll eventually work ourselves away from fossil fuels - of necessity. In the mean time, oil supplying countries see the handwriting on the wall too. They realize that their time to take advantage of the power they hold (in the form of oil supplies) is slipping slowly away...

I just read a Web article on Saudi Arabia's large plant to use solar energy to produce hydrogen. Because hydrogen is difficult to store and to transport, it is converted to ammonia, and once delivered by tankers to the users, the ammonia is converted back to hydrogen.

I was able to read the following WSJ article without a subscription. There are several articles by different news sources on the same subject, if one cares to look for them.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/green-...desert-aims-to-amp-up-clean-power-11612807226

 

[Koolau]

I just read a Web article on Saudi Arabia's large plant to use solar energy to produce hydrogen. Because hydrogen is difficult to store and to transport, it is converted to ammonia, and once delivered by tankers to the users, the ammonia is converted back to hydrogen.

I was able to read the following WSJ article without a subscription. There are several articles by different news sources on the same subject, if one cares to look for them.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/green-...desert-aims-to-amp-up-clean-power-11612807226

Yes, H2 was the "hot" topic when I was in university. It was THE technology to power space craft (electronics as well as as rocket fuel), so naturally, it would soon power cars. That enthusiasm was true for the computer as well. The space race DID give us home computers, but H2, not so much - at least not for 2 more years. YMMV

 

[NW-Bound]

Hydrogen has 3 times the energy density of gasoline per pound.

The problem is the volumetric energy density of hydrogen sucks. It takes a cryogenic tank to store hydrogen in liquid form. With hydrogen as a compressed gas, it's hard to store enough of it onboard a car because of the required volume and the weight of a high-pressure tank.

The above problem has not been solved after all these years. So, I suspect that hydrogen will be used solely as an industrial fuel, and remains impractical for passenger vehicles.

 

[RobbieB]

Gas now $3.80 in CA. When it goes to $5...yup, still won't care

 

[Music Lover]

Gas now $3.80 in CA. When it goes to $5...yup, still won't care

It's not just about you. You're very well off and can afford to not care but millions of others aren't so lucky.