gas rant.....

[1911JMB]

So tell me something Malone LaVeigh, for an administration that practicaly has its balls strapped to the oil industry, do you honestly think they could be doing nothing more to keep gas prices down?

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

Misconceptions

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some of y'all are operating from some serious misunderstandings & misconceptions.

Price/Availability of Oil Today
Oil today is priced waaaay out of line, mostly because so many invested in the oil futures mkt at such heady prices. The market will crash & all those who boght the inflated futures will take a bath. Today, we have more of an oil production buffer than at any time in the last 9 years. Barring natural distaster or political catastrophe in the ME, the near future will bring even more production on line.

Price/Avalability of Gasoline Today
You can thank Congress, the EPA, ADM, & every schmuck who wants oxygenates (ethanol, MTBE, etc) in gasoline to "burn cleaner" for the $3-4/gal gasoline. If it were just the gasoline, the price would be much less, probably ~$2/gal, despite the overpriced oil at $70+/bbl. The culprit is ethanol, which can not be put through pipelines as gasoline can. All the ethanol must be trucked to the site & mixed on the spot, 'cause that ethanol will suck up every last bit of condensate in a gasoline pipeline. Since we don't have enough trucks & drivers to get all the ethanol we'd like to every station, we are well & truly humped.

Ethanol & E85
Despite the fact that it can't be put through the gasoline pipelines, ethanol & E85 displacing gasoline to a significant extent is a pipe dream.

First, ethanol has 1/3-1/2 the energy content of gasoline. Your car that could go 300 miles between fill ups, now goes 150 miles. 10% eth nets you ~5% worse milage.

Second, corn & other non-sugar sources reap 1.2 units of energy worth of eth for every 1 unit put in. The only way this industry does not collapse is because of HEAVYHEAVYHEAVY gov't subsidies. Cane sugar reaps about 8 units of energy for every unit put in, making it more viable than corn. But the sugar market is even more volatile than the oil market. Brazil, at one point when sugar went through the roof, imported eth from the USA to burn. (Remeber, every gallon bought from the US & burned by a Brazilian was subsidized by the US taxpayer. Truly, a transfer of wealth.)

Third, producing vehicles that run E85 gets them bonus points when it comes to CAFE. Those GM SUVs that run E85, actually get ~35% worse milage when actually running E85 vs straight gasoline (as does any vehicle). So, they can sell more big SUVs while still staying CAFE compliant.

Fourth, we do not have enough arable land to produce enough (from corn/sugar/whatever) eth to drive America's cars.

Biodiesel
A cool way to get rid of waste frying oil, but as with eth, we don't have enough arable land to produce the biodiesel we need.

------------

You wanna increase your fuel efficiency by 30%? Buy a turbodiesel engine equipped auto. You'll get better milage than a hybrid with more utility and 6X the longevity. Hybrid's batteries give up the ghost at ~80K miles & the cost to replace the batts exceeds the value of a car with 80K miles. Diesels last 1/2 million miles with proper upkeep.
__________________
Regards,

jfruser

What he said. Right on the money, jfruser. That is one of the most concise and complete synopsis of the situation that I have yet seen. Thank you for posting that.

 

[CarbineKid]

Today I opened my gas bill. It was $400 for last month. I just filled up my car at $40 and my wife is due to fill hers up soon. I don't care what anyone says.....someones making alot of money at my expense. I also believe I am not alone. Americans are feeling the pinch, and they are getting very angry.
Im not about to assign blame here....as theres enough to go around. Theres also no doubt in my mind that the GOP and Mr. Bush are going to get slaughtered in the 06 elections. I was a huge Bush supporter...so I don't say this with any glee, but he looks so darn incompenent...almost like Jimmy Carter.

 

[Ivy Mike]

jfruser, your claims on ethanol production are a bit dated. It totally discounts forestry (wood ethanol) as well as oceans as potential sources for ethanol. While it would take quite a bit of work, it can be done. Sugar doesn't only come from sugar cane and the US is a huge producer of sugar beets. We can also produce cellulose based sources for ethanol to help bolster production. This is near cutting edge stuff and we just don't have all the answers yet. If you'd like a few sources of cellulose, just think about all the corn stalks, wood, there is a certain illegal plant that grows phenomenally (almost like a weed) that can be used to produce ethanol. Corn and sugar are not the only sources.
Without government subsidies (while I'm not a huge fan of government spending) we'd not be able to develop this at all and foreign oil would rule until it ran out. This gives us a way to hedge our bets against such a problem.

Your math also seems a bit off. In your first point, you mention going from 300 miles to 150 miles on a tank while only citing a 5% decrease in economy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but 5% of 300 miles is only 15 miles. 300 - 15 = 285. Did I miss something? The 35% estimate in fuel economy in the second point isn't out of line when discussing E85 though. Thats a compromise you make. Ethanol is cheaper and burns cleaner.

I think you'll find the solution to the big SUV problem is already here. Take a look at gas prices and car prices. As these numbers continue to climb, the number of SUVs will go down. Demand will dictate what cars Americans drive. GM could really help itself by dropping some new diesels into their SUV fleet. Such smart business decisions would be atypical of standard GM operating procedure.

Oh, and biodiesel can be produced in ways other than using old frying oil. There are a lot of oil seeds as well as possible algae farms that could supply demand.

Its going to come down to technology and the money to sink into it.

 

[S&W 910]

When Clinton was in office,wal mart was americas most profitable company

With oil man Bush in office,its exxon

i'd bet my life that if gore or kerry was in office,gas would not be this high

thank you bush and all the people who voted for him

 

[AaronE]

one small omission here

No need to build out a huge distribution system for gaseous or liquid H2 either. Hydrogen can be extracted from plain old H2O via electrolysis. Gas stations around the country already have feeds of water and electricity, so all thats needed is the means to crack the water, store the H2 and the equipment to connect to fuel tanks in vehicles.

somehow, you have to generate the electricity to crack the water...that means coal/gas fired power plants or hydro-dams where the greens havent pulled them down or hamstrung them. and in a FEW places a nuke plant, probably the best idea after the hydro dams.

Aaron

 

[Deavis]

I don't care what anyone says.....someones making alot of money at my expense. I also believe I am not alone. Americans are feeling the pinch, and they are getting very angry.

Nobody is making any money at your expense because you are giving them your money willingly. Don't like it, don't buy gasoline. Want to keep driving in the same fashion you are accustomed to? Get a second job, give up something else, or quit complaining. Nobody forces you to buy gasoline.

It is ironic to read things like the above because it assumes that Americans have a right to get angry over the price of a scarce resource. It is the "I have a right" mentality gone wrong. Then they pull out the "That bid baddie Exxon guy got $400 million in retirement, that is my gas money!" Topically it looks unjust but when is the last time you ran a company that made billions of dollars? When is the last time you were responsible for almost 90,000 jobs? When you are capable of managing such an important company and making sure it is profitable, you'll get a retirement package like that as well.

Rather than be angry at the politicians, who have brought on this mess through meddling in the free market, and the environmental whackos who prevent growth of the oil industry, Americans turn to the politicians and say, "Oh please, help us! You are our only hope!" There is no anger at the Green's "Economic Development ALWAYS hurts the environment" and their endless lawsuits delaying development of energy resources. Rather than ask why the government won't let oil producers drill of the coast, Californians, whos government also mandates special gasoline mixtures for the state, whine and act like they are innocent for allowing their politicians to screw the proverbial energy pooch. Joe 6-pack is just oblivious to the fact that he is begging the same people who screwed it up in the first place to somehow make it better.

If you think that governemnt control of the market is the solution to gasoline prices, let me tell you what gasoline costs where I am in Germany. Today, at the pump, regular gasoline is 1.34€ per liter. That is almost $6.25 per gallon for regular gasoline. Are you sure you want the government meddling in gasoline production and pricing? Do you really think you have it that bad? Wake up and smell reality, we've got it good at home.

Don't forget that when you discuss diesel in the U.S. you have to remember that you can't just plop a European diesel into a car and run it on our higher sulfur content diesel. That increases the cost of a diesel car and when you factor in the price of diesel, it isn't worth it to buy a diesel car even if it does get better fuel efficiency (true in all the cases I looked at before buying a car). Unlike Europe, we haven't subsidized the development of diesel to such a high extent and therefore its development was not artifically accelerated. Without a stimulus to develop cleaner diesel, the market will not do it.

 

[Draven32]

Best idea for long-term power generation is space-based solar power sattelites. No one wants to jump up to the initial investment, but the long-term payoff would be power that costs a tenth what we pay now for electricity.

 

[Ivy Mike]

Just as a bit of a thought experiment, just imagine that government had no right or ability to touch piwer sources through regulation or taxes.
Imagine the private sector developing what is essentially free electricity through solar power with the only costs to recipients being maintenance costs.

Our electricity costs would be next to nothing with enough development in solar tech.

 

[Kodiaz]

A dem. congress and POTUS will do nothing about anything.

BOTH parties have been bought and paid for nothing is going to be done on any issue that makes sense to Joe average.


The mega corporations are for the most part the puppet masters now. You might get a Tancredo or another 1 or 2 guys elected with some integrity but the rest are corporate shills.


Government is the problem now we need a LOT LESS of it. So stop saying the govt. has to do this or that.


Stop driving only drive when you really want and bundle your trips. Hell not happy with King Jorge don't buy a new TV and save the trip consume less that will get the price to go down lightning fast.

 

[wingman]

Nobody is making any money at your expense because you are giving them your money willingly.

Now that is funny.

 

[JohnBT]

"Imagine the private sector developing what is essentially free electricity through solar power with the only costs to recipients being maintenance costs."

Who is going to pay the development costs? Are you seriously suggesting that the "private sector" will invest hundreds of billions of development dollars and then only charge the end users "maintenance costs"? That's pie in the sky thinking.

John

 

[JohnBT]

Oil still looks relatively cheap, compared to 1973 when I was a starving grad student and 1980 when I bought my house.

Oil Prices 1861-2006

 

[MarkDido]

Well folks, you'll be happy to know that corn based ethanol is getting cheaper. We can now use cellulose to create ethanol

Man, we'll have energy until the End of the World!!!

But how are we going to get Oprah and Rosie to cooperate?????

Oh wait.... I thought you said "cellulite!"

My Bad...

 

[Beren]

Why do so many people believe cheap gasoline is an entitlement? Bush or Gore as President, neither has the right to force oil companies to provide their product at a specified price.

I mentioned earlier that I walk to work. This was a conscious decision on my part to live so close to my place of employment. I prefer not to drive if I don't have to do so. I don't expect everyone to live so close to work, but if you're making a career out of it, it's possible for many of us to live close to work. If I change jobs, will I move? Yes!

Want to see gas prices go down? Reduce demand.

People have always complained about rising gas prices. I remember way back in the early 90's, I used to drive a truck out of state once a week. Even back then, my employer complained that the rise in gas prices was killing his profits.

Again: reduce demand. Get involved in your community and encourage intelligent planning so that it isn't necessary to drive everywhere. Shop at the grocer closest to you rather than driving across town to save a nickel on bread or Pop Tarts.

Maybe it's my fault. I grew up in the country, and I feel like a fat lazy punk if I drive anywhere that isn't at least three miles away.

 

[Nehemiah Scudder]

What I get for this is that the reason for the spike is due to something regulatable by the industry, and it's their crappy planning that's making it happen.

(Or not so crappy planning, if you're inclined to believe that they're intentionally doing it.)

This blows.

 

[gm]

I dont think people believe they are entitled to cheap gas, I believe that they see whats going on with record profits in the oil industry, feel the burn of paying ever increasing costs of literally everything while maintaining a flat income thats increasingly going south.

 

[MCgunner]

This is a gun board and I'm seeing all sorts of socialist remarks against the capitalist pigs? Hey, capitalism works, communism doesn't. Price fixing as with Nixon didn't work then for the same reason it wouldn't work now. Basically it's an absolutely ignorant idea if you've ever studied high school economics... I see lots of democratic talking points being thrown around. No, I don't like some of the things Bush does. I don't think it's in any oil man's pocket. Now, the Christian right, maybe, but that's a compromise I made voting for him to keep gun ownership legal. Would you really prefer the socialist Kerry or greenpeacer socialist Gore in control of the second amendment's interpretation. Would you really want them appointing justices? If so, just go down to the police station and turn in your guns now. :banghead:

I'm a libertarian and would vote such if I thought one could get more than the 2% he got last time or could do anything BUT help the Democrats. I don't really want another Perot giving the socialists another election. I don't want another Janet Reno burning down compounds in Texas and shooting mothers in Idaho. I don't want to give fuel to "militia movements" either. That right there is a dangerous step in the other direction and just adds to democratic talking points, no thanks. We don't want any more Oklahoma Cities.

Suck it up and pay what gas costs and live free, I say.

Personally, I'm holding out for a pluggable hybrid that's optimized for E85/E100 or even diesel. By making it pluggable, I would use no gas during normal operations, but still be able to travel long distances by filling it up with ethanol.

But, what would your electric bill look like? I'm wondering if electrics are really more efficient. Price of electricity is KILLING me lately, too. However, I do agree that running and electric vehicle is the ultimate answer and a pluggable hybrid would be HIGHLY desirable to me.

I'm also wondering if a solar array could be built to charge an electric vehicle, especially a little one like that little scooter I was talking about. Wouldn't it be neat to be able to drive on power supplied for free? I'd give up some roof space on my shop or in my back yard for that! Might be cost prohibitive, but maybe not. I have this cheap little thing I bought out of Northern Tool, a solar panel that plugs into my van's power/cig lighter outlet. It keeps the battery up for extended periods, works GREAT. The battery will go flat over a month if I don't use that, plug in a trickle charger I put under the hood, or run it. The clock memory runs it down slowly. The 1 amp that solar panel puts out is way more'n enough to keep it topped off. BTW, that's how often I run that van... LOL

Politics aside, I've long wished for higher gas prices for one reason, to change the habits of the American driver. I see some soccer mom in a gas guzzling SUV and I wanna puke. Why, oh why, isn't she driving a small car or if she has kids, at least a MORE gas efficient mini van or something. Does she really need a 7mpg Suburban?????? Gripe about capitalist pigs, vote for your Democrats, that's exactly falling into the hands of the Democrats. They've been railing against SUVs for quite a while now, even burning them at dealerships. They've been taxing gas at every turn, trying to bring the price up so consumers would change their habits. NOW, they're all about low gas prices and blaming Bush and claiming Clinton kept the price down???????? Gimme a break. I've always said that sooner or later economics was going to do what the socialist have been trying to do for 30 years plus. The left wing has to be throwing giddy parties over all this right now. They're getting their higher gas prices and blaming the republicans for it and moron voters are BUYING IT ALL!

 

[BigG]

McGunner: Good post!

 

[RecoilRob]

Agree with MCgunner. Great post!

A thing to consider about solar power...as currently produced, it takes about 5 years (in a sunny low latitude location) to recoup the energy invested in the production of the panel.

Most panels have a life expectancy of 20 or so years so they DO make sense to use, but it takes an increase in conventional pollution NOW to make them a viable solution in the future.

And, just like in the ethenol production taking more power than it returns, until solar panel plants can be run on solar power, it just moves the pollution to another place and still depletes the finite fuel in the earth.

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

So tell me something Malone LaVeigh, for an administration that practicaly has its balls strapped to the oil industry, do you honestly think they could be doing nothing more to keep gas prices down?

Probably nothing that wouldn't make the situation worse. Like I said, gasoline is cheap at twice the price. The problem is that there isn't going to be the supply necessary to keep our economy going, and the environmental damage from trying to make it so.

You can thank Congress, the EPA, ADM, & every schmuck who wants oxygenates (ethanol, MTBE, etc) in gasoline to "burn cleaner" for the $3-4/gal gasoline. If it were just the gasoline, the price would be much less, probably ~$2/gal, despite the overpriced oil at $70+/bbl. The culprit is ethanol, which can not be put through pipelines as gasoline can. All the ethanol must be trucked to the site & mixed on the spot, 'cause that ethanol will suck up every last bit of condensate in a gasoline pipeline. Since we don't have enough trucks & drivers to get all the ethanol we'd like to every station, we are well & truly humped.

Well, some of us think it's a small price to pay to be able to breathe. This is as much a national security issue as a secure border.

First, ethanol has 1/3-1/2 the energy content of gasoline. Your car that could go 300 miles between fill ups, now goes 150 miles. 10% eth nets you ~5% worse milage.

The energy content as such is really not important, other than the minor inconvienience of cruising range.

Second, corn & other non-sugar sources reap 1.2 units of energy worth of eth for every 1 unit put in. The only way this industry does not collapse is because of HEAVYHEAVYHEAVY gov't subsidies. Cane sugar reaps about 8 units of energy for every unit put in, making it more viable than corn. But the sugar market is even more volatile than the oil market.

Corn is not a viable source. Subsidizing corn ethanol is a stupid political boondoggle. But other sources - currently switchgrass seems to be the most promising - could come in at a positive EROEI (energy return on energy investment). As far as the volatility of the sugar market is concerned, that's a good reason to promote sugar ethanol. Sugar is a product of sugar cane as is ethanol. Adding a value-added product would only tend to stabilize the market.

Biodiesel
A cool way to get rid of waste frying oil, but as with eth, we don't have enough arable land to produce the biodiesel we need.

True, not nearly enough to meet the current demand for petro-diesel. But it could be a viable supplement to get us through some of the rough transition period. Very little infastructure investment would be needed or modification of existing diesel engines.

 

[Ivy Mike]

MCgunner, claiming that people are spouting socialism is kind of off base. Socialism is actually attacking the corporate heads and demanding true democratic public control of industry.
That is not what people are complaining about. What we are complaining about is the increased cost of living. We have more bills to pay now and the dollar value on these bills is higher. Inflation has managed to keep itself ahead of wages. There is a costly occupation we are funding right now. The US dollar is losing value and is weakening in the face of the Euro. As of today, 1 Euro = 1.236 US Dollars. 1 USD = 1.13 CAD.
Thats right, our own dollar and the Canadian dollar are reaching parity. I'm happy for Canada as they've been able to increase the value of their currency, but ours is in decline.

Bsically, people see the cost fluctuations of gas everyday. It has a more noticable effect on the money in their pocket. While the adjusted price of gas hasn't gone up too fast, our money isn't as valuable and we've got more people asking for it. We also see record oil profits.

Questioning whether or not a company is price gouging isn't socialist. We aren't opposed to paying for a commodity we use. We simply want a desperately needed item at a fair price in a time where our dollar isn't as strong and there are more people taking them from us.
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/energy/gasprices/

Malone Laveigh, you are also forgetting that while the US isn't a huge sugar cane producer, we are a huge producer of sugar beets. In fact, we are the second largest producer of sugar beets in the world just behind France and tied with Germany and just ahead of Russia. A full 30% of the worlds sugar comes from beets. The nice thing is that we have land to step up beet production where as we are limited in land suitable for cane growth. Diesel engines don't need to be modified to burn biodiesel, just their fuel systems. There are already companies out there producing kits to convert diesel engines.

 

[roo_ster]

jfruser, your claims on ethanol production are a bit dated. It totally discounts forestry (wood ethanol) as well as oceans as potential sources for ethanol. While it would take quite a bit of work, it can be done. Sugar doesn't only come from sugar cane and the US is a huge producer of sugar beets. We can also produce cellulose based sources for ethanol to help bolster production. This is near cutting edge stuff and we just don't have all the answers yet. If you'd like a few sources of cellulose, just think about all the corn stalks, wood, there is a certain illegal plant that grows phenomenally (almost like a weed) that can be used to produce ethanol. Corn and sugar are not the only sources.

True, it has been a while since I read them & was interested in this subject, but the studies I read (way back before the 'net. Printed on actual paper.) about assumed that not only would we use land currently in production, but that we would clear all land that was once in production but has been let go back to wild. IOW, all the top producing land plus all the land that was not economically viable, given competition from the Midwest. That land that went back to the wild is mostly in the east & especially in the northeast. Just how much support do you think a proposal to cut back all the forest lands regained since the year 1900, so we could drive eth autos? Also, it assumed that sugar beets would be grown where viable.

OK, assume we did all that, plus planted wacky tobaccy in every ditch & marsh. *** do we then eat? We go from being energy dependent to being food dependent. What a wonderful improvement.

Also, I recall (from dimming memory), that the stalks & other unusable veg matter was to be distlled into methanol (wood alcohol). Very little was to be wasted. Which brough the question to my mind, "Just how long until the soil gets played out, when every last bit of veg material is used for fuel & none goes back to replenish the soil?"

Also, wood alcohol is not "wood ethanol." Two very different alcohols. Methanol is much more toxic than ethanol and when burned produces formaldehydes. I recall distilling wood in 9th grade. Whooooeeee! What a stink!

Without government subsidies (while I'm not a huge fan of government spending) we'd not be able to develop this at all and foreign oil would rule until it ran out. This gives us a way to hedge our bets against such a problem.

Oil will rule until it is no longer economically viable. All the silly, wasteful edicts by congresscritters matter not a whit; certainly no more than if some congresscritter, 'round 'bout the year 1830 tried to subsidize the petroleum industry in anticipation of the oncoming shortage of whale oil in 70 years.

Your math also seems a bit off.

I should have been clearer. Lemme try again:
* Eth has 1/2-2/3 the energy per unit volume of gasoline. This can vary according to a few factors, one of which it is nearly impossible to get all the water out of ethanol.
* So, a car with a 300 mi range on gasoline would be able to go 150mi running on straight eth.
* An auto running on E85 (15% gas + 85%eth =15% + 42.5% = 57.5% of the energy you'd expect from gasoline. Roughly a 40% loss in energy stored in the fuel tank)
* Oxegenated fuel (mandated by EPA or others) runs 2-10% eth. If it is 10%, expect 5% worse miles per gallon.

I think you'll find the solution to the big SUV problem is already here. Take a look at gas prices and car prices. As these numbers continue to climb, the number of SUVs will go down. Demand will dictate what cars Americans drive. GM could really help itself by dropping some new diesels into their SUV fleet. Such smart business decisions would be atypical of standard GM operating procedure.

Yeah, sorta. There are folks who can not operate without SUV functionality. They will eat fuel costs. Also, most folks who buy SUVs (need or not), can afford a pricey item. Increasing the fuel cost is negligible to TOC of the vehicle, unless you're driving a LOT of miles per year. Folks who buy a new SUV every 3 years are eating much more in depreciation than they will spend on the difference between $2/gal & $3/gal fuel.

Amen, on offering diesels in more SUVs, trucks, etc...esp 1/2 ton & compact trucks. I wish I coulda bought a diesel in my 1997 Nissan Ext Cab Pickup, way back in 1997. I get 20/26 MPG with a 2.4L gasser. I'd expect 26/35 MPG with a similar turbodiesel in the 135Kmiles I have driven.

Oh, and biodiesel can be produced in ways other than using old frying oil. There are a lot of oil seeds as well as possible algae farms that could supply demand.

Diesel first designed his engine to run on hempseed oil, if I recall. There is still not enough arable land to produce enough to satisfy America's demand. Also, what is produced is only economically viable if deisel gets a lot more expensive than current prices.

What is the deal with the algae farms? I never though algae produced much in the way of oil/fat/grease.

Its going to come down to technology and the money to sink into it.

I think I disagree. It will come down to the market. When oil looks to be pumping its last, other energy sources will step to the fore and then folks will invest in the technologies to exploit those energy sources profitably.

The technology used in the late 19th/early 20th century to drill for oil had existed for hundreds of years. No one thought to do too much with it until whale oil became scarce & other products from refined oil found a profitable use. (FYI, naptha (gasoline) was usually dumped aside as waste before the advent of the otto cycle engine & the automobile became ubiquitous. Everyone wanted kerosene, machine oil, & grease.)

Well, some of us think it's a small price to pay to be able to breathe. This is as much a national security issue as a secure border.

Just how does it help, again? When ethanol is mixed in our fuel, we burn more eth & gasoline. Let us take it as a given that the oxygenates make it burn a teensy bit cleaner (a not inconsiderable granting of a point, considering how clean burning new autos are, nowadays...an example would be my Honda Element, which qualifies as a Kaliforny LEV). When burning that mixed fuel, more pollutants are expelled into the atmo than if the auto was running straight gasoline. The loss in fuel efficiency outweighs the beneficent effects of the oxygenate (eth). It is a bad deal for everybody excpet the eth industry.

That's why I call the oxygenate proponents schmucks. No real upside for the consumer or the enviro.

What I get for this is that the reason for the spike is due to something regulatable by the industry, and it's their crappy planning that's making it happen.

(Or not so crappy planning, if you're inclined to believe that they're intentionally doing it.)

I think you're confusing the hazmat freight hauling industry with the petroleum industry. Yes, some petroleum companies own fleets of semis. Some even have tankers capable of hauling ethanol.

But most of their hauling capacity is hired out, as the oil companies are in the oil business, not the hauling business

Another twist is that hauling ethanol & other fuels requires a Hazmat license. If you have a felony, you can not get one. The proportion of folks who drive semis and do not have a felony is astonishingly small (Maybe I am easily astonished). So, we are short drivers to deliver ethanol. This shortage has induced some governors to relax driving restrictions on tanker truck drivers, allowing them to drive longer & with less shuteye.

This still does not address the shortage of trucks & tankers to haul ethanol.

Even if all hte drivers, trucks, & tankers were around to ensure speedy delivery of eth when the transition to boutique oxegenated fuel mixes occur in the spring, they would be idle 6 months of the year when those mixes are not mandated during the colder months.

 

[Thin Black Line]

if we can't figure this oil thing out, we're doomed to fight a war in the desert every 10 years

Or less, and I'd rather not have to go back again....and again....

 

[wingman]

Maybe it's my fault. I grew up in the country, and I feel like a fat lazy punk if I drive anywhere that isn't at least three miles away.

Raised by depression era parents in the 40/50's I learned to conserve at a early age and it has given me a better then average life on average pay, having said that the American consumer is taking one in the back not only with oil but in a number of ways. Simply greed on the part of large corporations.