Saturday, November 22, 2008

I filled up yesterday, $1.63.9 per gallon and it's gone down more.

As I recall the highest I paid to "top off" was $3.89.9  Now it is under half with the cost seeming to fall even more.

One way to watch the future price of gasoline is thru First Fuel Bank.  http://www.firstfuelbanks.com/V3/FuelPrices.aspx

It's in the St. Could area so not much good for me.  The two amounts to compare are a "rolling account" and a "locked account".  A "rolling account" is effectively a cash or prepaid "house debit card".  Unleaded is currently $1.65.9  The "locked account" is cash or check prepay with the price locked in the future.  For unleaded this is $2.39.9  This is basically seventy-two cents more for a hedged no expiration date future purchase of gas.  Using a credit card for a "current price" purchase is a dime a gallon more than a "rolling account".

The dime a gallon more for credit cards seems like more of a promotion of the house cards than a real savings.  Credit card companies charge 2% to 3% for gas payments so they came close to a dime when gas was pushing $4 per gallon.

Anyway, watch the left and right unleaded prices at http://www.firstfuelbanks.com/V3/FuelPrices.aspx to see future market trends.

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

http://www.newsweekly.com.au/articles/2008sep27_g.html

SCIENCE: Global-warming - myth, threat or opportunity? by Walter Starck

The most critical problem we face is not global warming, or how to make fuel more expensive so we will use less, but providing enough at affordable prices to keep our economy going until alternatives can become reality, writes scientist Dr Walter Starck. The Lucky Country has the choice between disaster and a unique opportunity.Climate change looks more and more like becoming a catastrophe we inflict upon ourselves in trying to avoid one we have only imagined.The theory of catastrophic global warming due to CO2 emissions rests on two fundamental elements. One is that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. The other is that interactive computer models of climate have been constructed to show increased warming with increased CO2. However, a couple of dozen different climate models all produce differing results in accord with the assumptions and estimates they each incorporate.While the absorption of infrared by CO2 is undisputed, the amount of such heating on global climate is highly uncertain. There is good reason to think it has been greatly overestimated. The current understanding on which the climate models are based is very incomplete. As for the widely publicised catastrophic consequences of warming, these are not even predicted by the models but are only speculations regarding such warming.Lack of verificationComplex interactive models can be constructed and adjusted to produce any desired result. Without verification they reflect only the ideas on which they are based.The famed mathematical physicist and father of cybernetics, John von Neumann, once said: "If you allow me four free parameters I can build a mathematical model that describes exactly everything that an elephant can do. If you allow me a fifth free parameter, the model I build will forecast that the elephant will fly."Those who claim a high degree of scientific certainty regarding global warming can only be woefully uninformed, overly impressed with themselves or less than honest. There are serious doubts and uncertainties about every aspect.The fundamental radiative physics involved in the complex and variable mix of gases and conditions that comprise the global atmosphere is far from clear. The distribution of heat through the myriad pathways of atmospheric and oceanic circulation is only poorly understood. The innumerable interactions and feedbacks involved in this immensely complex system have only barely begun to be recognised, much less understood well enough to be accurately modelled.In contrast to the virtual world of computer simulations, real world evidence presents a very different picture. To list but a few key facts:• Hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific studies from all over the world indicate a Medieval Warm Period as warm or warmer than present temperatures. Recent warming is not unprecedented.• Numerous studies of extreme weather incidences indicate that recent occurrences are also not unprecedented, nor even unusual.• The tropical mid-tropospheric warming predicted by the models as a prominent signature of CO2-induced global warming has not occurred. The models are wrong about the dominant area of warming.• Most of the warming predicted by the models comes from increased relative humidity acting as a positive feedback to amplify CO2-induced warming. This too has not occurred. The models are thus also wrong about the major source of warming.• Contrary to greenhouse warming expectations, southern hemisphere trends have shown negligible warming.• The global temperature trend has been flat for a decade despite increasing CO2.• Most important of all, global temperatures have declined markedly in both hemispheres over the past two years, with widespread record and near record lows.The current cooling was unpredicted by any models. Although warming advocates have tried to dismiss it as only natural internal variability, they have previously strongly denied any such possibility in connection with warming.Even if one accepts some natural variability, widespread record cold clearly refutes the degree of warming that has been attributed to the Greenhouse (GH) effect. Moreover, such cooling is fully in accord with well-established correlations of temperatures and solar activity as well as the major multi-decadal shift in oceanic conditions known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation which has just recently switched into its cool phase.However, if we accept these influences to explain current cooling, then we must also accept their likely responsibility for most or all of the preceding warming.The claim that the threat of global warming is 90 per cent (or often 99 per cent) certain is simply a figure of speech reflecting the speaker's commitment to a belief. It has no mathematical basis, and should be seen as comparable to the 100 per cent certainty professed by religious devotees that theirs is the one true faith.Although one might expect that evidence that a serious threat may not really exist would be greeted with hopeful interest by anyone professing concern about it, the opposite is true. That global warming is no longer just a theory, but has become a belief is reflected in the reaction to any suggestion of doubt.No matter how well founded and clearly presented, this provokes only anger and rejection, not interest, in believers. As contrary evidence mounts and climate cools, defence of the belief only becomes more desperate and the claimed threats are ratcheted up still further. One might be forgiven the impression that the threats are not so much feared as they are fervently being hoped for.The oil supplyMeanwhile, however, the obsession with global warming has blinded us to a far more real and imminent danger. The oil supply on which our entire economy is based is not keeping up with increasing demand, and we are doing nothing effective in response. Consider just a few important facts:• Production has already peaked and is in decline in some 50 nations.• Despite major advances in exploration technology and effort, the rate of discovery of significant new reserves has steadily declined for several decades and is far below depletion rates.• Exports are decreasing in most exporting nations as their own domestic demand increases.• Refining capacity has not kept pace with demand, due to environmental restrictions and concerns over future supply of crude.• Most existing refineries are designed for light sweet crude, the supply of which is rapidly declining.• Future oil will increasingly be heavy sour crude which only a minority of existing refineries can use.• The major oil-producing nations have no incentive for massive investment to increase production, accelerate depletion, reduce their earnings and end up with huge expensive infrastructure which would soon be surplus to dwindling supply.The price increases over recent years are primarily the result of near static supply in the face of increasing demand. Ongoing growth in demand, shortages, significant further price rises and a dampening effect on the global economy are almost certain to continue for the foreseeable future.While speculation may have contributed to accelerating the increases, it cannot sustain them. Their persistence and ongoing rise indicate a firm basis in underlying tightness in supply. Further price increases will only cease when cost suppresses demand.SynfuelAffordable liquid fuel for transport and mobile machinery is essential to the functioning of our whole economy. Viable alternative energy is still decades away and we are doing nothing to prepare to get from here to there.Synfuel from coal and gas could supply all our needs here in Australia at less than half the current price of oil. This can be done using commercially-proven technology which can be implemented now with no uncertainties.Companies are ready, willing and able to implement the technology. Only emission restrictions on CO2 are holding them back. All focus by government is on "clean" renewable technology that is totally inadequate now and decades from becoming commercial.Despite the resources boom, the Australian economy is in a highly vulnerable position. Manufacturing is in decline and, at 13 per cent of GDP, is among the lowest in the developed world. The trade balance remains in chronic deficit with no foreseeable improvement. Foreign debt is growing at twice the rate of the economy. At over $600 billion it is now about 60 per cent of GDP, the highest in the developed world.The current boom rests on high commodity prices; but commodity booms normally last only a few years before increased production, spurred by high prices, brings prices down again.With or without any added influence from a global economic slowdown, an end to the boom is inevitable. This will result in a fall in the exchange rate of the Australian dollar and a blow-out in foreign debt.In the almost certain event of fuel shortages leading to substantial widespread price increases and a global recession, a large debt obligation which could not be met would result in a collapse of the $AUD.Dependence on imports for most manufactured goods will exacerbate the problem. Having an economy that is independent of world markets for our own energy needs would be a huge advantage.Australia's contribution to global CO2 emissions is about 1.4 per cent. This is equal to only six months' growth in China's emissions. Natural uptakes of CO2 over Australia's land and exclusive economic zone (EEZ) area absorb half again more than this. Our net contribution to global CO2 emissions is already negative. Whatever we do or don't do will be trivial to the global situation, either in quantity or even as an example.The opportunityGlobal warming is a distant and uncertain possibility of a problem that most likely does not even exist. It can only be meaningfully addressed by developments that will require decades and which, in any event, must be undertaken even without the threat of warming.Severe economic hardship, however, is an imminent probability. This could be greatly alleviated, if not avoided altogether, by development of our own liquid-fuel supplies.It would be far easier to do this now in a time of prosperity than trying to do so in a recession. Having such capacity already in place might well even avert a recession here altogether. Being energy-independent would be a huge competitive advantage in a time of high energy costs and shortages everywhere else.Precaution in the face of uncertainty may sound sensible, but the realm of hypothetical risk is without limit. Many perceived risks turn out to have no reality. Remember the Y2K millennium-bug scare?We cannot build fortresses against every shadow of doubt. Precaution too is not without risk. Any proposed precautionary measure must be weighed against alternatives as well as consideration of its own consequences.Obsessing over distant uncertain risks, while ignoring immediate consequences, is poor precaution. For Australia, drastic cuts to carbon emissions to prevent global warming is to climate what anorexia is to obesity.Economic declineThe proposed carbon taxes will only result in a vast new windfall for government, large cost/price increases and economic recession. Emission-trading is set to become a huge new non-productive industry of wealth redistribution with little or no actual reduction in emission beyond what is effected by economic decline.The world is headed for an energy crisis with consequences we have not even begun to appreciate. Australia is better positioned to cope than any other nation. The only thing holding us back is blind adherence to an ill-founded belief that daily becomes more hysterical, in denial of conflicting evidence, contrary to sound science and detached from climate itself.The choice is unambiguous. We can either adhere to the dogma of the eco-cult and suffer immense self-inflicted hardship, or risk an increasingly dubious prophecy to take a clear path to the future.Seldom is the way forward so obvious. One path goes down easy street; the other takes a detour through Jonestown. The political leaders who recognise this and present it to the electorate will be the next government.- Walter Starck is one of the pioneers in the scientific investigation of coral reefs. He grew up in the Florida Keys and received a PhD in marine science from the University of Miami in 1964. This article is reproduced from National Observer (Council for the National Interest, Australia), No. 77, Winter 2008.

Sunday, September 7, 2008

I filled my gas tank up for the first time in a month

$3.45.9 per gallon, I later saw $3.43.9 but what the heck. I last filled up on August 07 for $3.49.9. Under 225 miles driven for the month but it's summer and I have been using the bicycle a lot. I may have to go out in the country, a 225 miles round trip.

Sunday, August 31, 2008

CNBC.com on the McCain VP pick.

Try watching this first.http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=836384597&play=1
Flipping channels on the kitchen TV I caught the interview less than 10 minutes into the hour. They filled in with more footage and background so it make for a full hour show with commercials. The CNBC "filler' seems useful so it made for a very good one hour show. This is a common, they don't trash the footage after the "first cut" of a shorter feature story.
CNBC repeats their one hour "special reports" frequently so it should be easy for catch. I haven't seem the 12 minute version yet but that should have the essence of it.
From the one hour TV CNBC special. She looks great on TV. She helps on the family Alaskan fishing boat (look like a line net rig) It's not quite "Deadliest Catch" but it is physically demanding work. I'm Sure Sarah Palin could actually "tune up" and engine or do other mechanical repairs. This is necessary on the fishing boats.
Next off, in interviews she seemed "sharp as a tack" and gave good answers in a second. She seemed an excellent public speaker who knows her subjects in depth.
For me, the important thing is that she seemed, in the CNBC interview to have an extremely good knowledge of energy, especially, the production side. Before this I felt that the major party political candidates were oblivious to the effects of higher energy costs. They mentioned them but they seemed small in the scale of their lives. Sarah Palen noted that in Alaska Gasoline and other fuels cost $5 in Urban centers and often $10 or more per gallon in more remote areas so Alaskans are way ahead on cost motivated conservation. Basicaly, she "feels our pain" on high energy costs.
This is important. As a personal example I now use under three gallons of gasoline per week so higher gas prices only cost me ten or twenty dollars a month. Obviously I can afford this (so what's the problem?) The problem is of course that many people drive a lot more starters and I constantly hear them say how it's "killing them". I must also heat http://searshouse.com this winter. It's pretty "tight" with and ultra high efficiency furnace but I figure my natural gas bills will be 50% higher. Also, prices for basics are up. My "must have" food is http://aldi.com oat bran bread. The one and price loaves are up 25%. Again at Aldi's I notice that canned tuna in oil is a dime more than canned tuna in water. Corn oil now costs more than Canola Oil even with Canola being a "poor persons Olive Oil" nutritionally. Let's not even mention meat costs!
I can afford it but I'm "street" enough to see how this is affecting people. Sarah Palin seems to comprehend this (IE the diesel for the family fishing boat is obviously getting far more costly in the last few years.)
Finally, a candidate who understand this and "feels our pain". (at the "pump"!) Sometimes instead of the "forest" you need to see the "trees".
I'll admit I knew little of Sarah Palin before this. I recall that beauty contest picture (which, for some reason reminds me of the TV show "Happy Days" though I can't find an internet reference). I was rooting for our Minnesota Governor Tim Palenty. I still think he would have made a fine choice. He is a known local who I have strong support for. (root for the home team!)
If John McCain anticipated the energy price situation when he started to considering Sarah Palen in February as the mainstream media now reports it was brilliant!
Cross posted to my http://excel08.com http://fourfiftygas.com and my http://fifthestate.net

Friday, August 29, 2008

Looks like my electric utility "wussed" out" and made money for the ambulance chaser lawers working the "global warming" beat.

Redrant: My pension fund which has resisted the "Ceres" pressures" has had a historic return of investment of 11% plus over 25 years. Taxpayers will bail out these "social activism" retirment funds if they under perform. 11% ofMNPERA is the benchmark.

The State of Minnesota had to recently bail out the Minneapolis Schools Pension which was very heavily into elimintating potential intestments for "divestment reasons" They got 2% return on the pension fund investment versus 11% for PERA. Do the math. This political activism will cost Minnesaota taxpayers a half a billion dollars or more that $1000 per resident. Other school districts are in the smae bind so the ultimate cost could be catastrophic.

Xcel to Disclose Global Warming Risks By NICHOLAS CONFESSOREALBANY — One of the country’s largest builders of coal-fired power plants will give investors detailed warnings about the risks that global warming poses to its business under a deal with New York’s attorney general.
The agreement Wednesday between the attorney general, Andrew M. Cuomo, and the company, Xcel Energy of Minneapolis, is the first of its kind in the country. It could open a broad new front in efforts by environmental groups to pressure the energy industry into reducing emissions of the greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming.
Until now, advocates have largely relied on shareholder resolutions as a way of pushing the companies to reduce their carbon dioxide output and invest more aggressively in renewable energy sources like wind or solar power.
That effort has picked up pace, according to Ceres, a coalition of investors and environmental groups, with dozens of shareholder resolutions filed during the 2008 financial reporting season.
“This really takes it another step, by making it a settlement agreement that should have an impact across the industry,” said Dan Bakal, the director of electric power programs at Ceres.
Mr. Cuomo subpoenaed Xcel and four other companies last September, seeking to determine whether their efforts to build new coal-fired power plants posed risks not disclosed to investors, like future lawsuits or higher costs to comply with possible regulations restricting carbon emissions.
The attorney general’s office is still negotiating with the four other companies — the AES Corporation, Dominion, Dynegy and Peabody Energy. But Mr. Cuomo hopes that the agreement will help persuade other companies to follow in the footsteps of Xcel, which supplies natural gas and electricity to customers in eight states. Among utilities, Xcel is one of the nation’s largest producers of greenhouse gases and a major provider of wind energy.
Many coal-fired power plants have been proposed or are under construction across the country and environmental advocates have made it a priority to reduce their impact.
“This landmark agreement sets a new industrywide precedent that will force companies to disclose the true financial risks that climate change poses to their investors,” Mr. Cuomo said in a statement. “Coal-fired power plants can significantly contribute to global warming, and investors have the right to know all the associated risks.”
The agreement represents another novel use by Mr. Cuomo of the Martin Act, a powerful tool that allows the attorney general to bring criminal as well as civil charges. Mr. Cuomo’s predecessor, Eliot Spitzer, used the law to vastly expand the office’s investigations of suspected Wall Street malfeasance.
Now Mr. Cuomo has turned it into a de facto form of environmental enforcement, too. For energy companies, including those based far from New York, he is able to claim jurisdiction because they issue securities on Wall Street.
The agreement with Xcel requires the company to analyze the likely effects on its business of current and future legislation or regulations in the states and countries where it operates and to disclose that information in its investor filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Congress and many states are considering global warming legislation. Ten states stretching from Maryland to Maine, including New Jersey, New York and Connecticut, have struck a deal to cap emissions and allow trading of pollution allotments among producers.
Under the agreement with Mr. Cuomo, Xcel will disclose the financial risks of lawsuits and of federal or state court decisions that would affect its business. The company will also analyze and disclosed the “material financial risks” to itself associated with global warming, like drought — coal plants are prodigious users of water — or rising sea levels.In a statement, the chairman of Xcel, Richard C. Kelly, said the company had already voluntarily reduced carbon emissions and planned to continue to do so.
“We previously provided detailed information concerning the expected impact of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions regulations on our operations, and under this agreement we will make even more detailed disclosures,” Mr. Kelly said. “This agreement will enhance our already aggressive efforts to be responsible environmental stewards.”
Xcel officials said their reductions of greenhouse gases had totaled 18 million tons since 2003. They added that the company planned to build an additional 6,000 megawatts of renewable energy generation by the end of the next decade.
Justin McCann, an energy analyst at Standard & Poor’s, said that the company had included more detailed information on climate change risks in its most recent filing, since Mr. Cuomo’s investigation began. But the new agreement will require even more disclosure, he said, and probably encourage other companies to follow suit.
“Utility lobbies are very strong, but they have read the writing on the wall in terms of greenhouse gas reductions,” Mr. McCann said. “They know it is extremely popular with the public, and so they have wanted to get ahead of the curve, so they can have some input.”
But some of the companies that Mr. Cuomo scrutinized might be less amenable to adopting the new requirements than others. When Mr. Cuomo issued his subpoenas last year, Vic Svec, a spokesman for Peabody Energy, described the attorney general’s inquiry as “outrageous” and suggested that Mr. Cuomo’s use of the Martin Act was a form of legal harassment.
Reached Wednesday, Mr. Svec said: “We’re confident that our disclosures around CO2” — carbon dioxide — “have been and continue to be adequate.”

Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Quick propane/natural gas primer:

Quick propane/natural gas primer: Propane, the stuff in you gas grill tank is basically refinery "flare gas" from the oil refining process that is recovered and processed. It liquefies at minus 70 farenheight and stays liquid at around 200 PSI.
Natural gas is a "lighter" gas found during oil drilling and increasingly from very deep wells where pressure and heat have "cooked" the oil deposits into natural gas. If you get a new gas appliance you have to specify propane or natural gas. The regulators and burners are a bit different but not by a lot.
In North Dakota there is a plant that converts coal to "natural gas". We probably consume some of this here in Minnesota.
I heard a figure that in the US 3% of the natural gas is brought in by LNG tanker ships. Basically the LNG ships are giant cryogenic containers where natural gas is chilled to a liquid at around minus 300 degrees F. It is used primarily in coastal area, notably the US Northeast and Southern California. Obviously, the LNG tanker is far more complex and costly than a pipeline. The remainder of natural gas "imports" in the US come from Canada and Mexico via pipeline.
For a common application of propane look for propane tanks on forklifts with engines. Both fuels burn cleaner than gasoline.
I just saw a commercial for natural gas as a vehicle fuel. It was http://cleanskies.org The commercial claimed natural gas costs "half of other fuels" which I assume means gasoline or diesel. I haven't checked out the website yet.
I'll cross post this at my http://fourfiftygas.com

Monday, August 25, 2008

Drilling Boom Revives Hopes for Natural Gas

This could be important with heating bills this winter.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/25/business/25gas.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnlx=1219662757-jOejdAlB0K51cRO6CtOI0A&pagewanted=print

August 25, 2008
Drilling Boom Revives Hopes for Natural Gas
By CLIFFORD KRAUSS
HOUSTON — American natural gas production is rising at a clip not seen in half a century, pushing down prices of the fuel and reversing conventional wisdom that domestic gas fields were in irreversible decline.
The new drilling boom uses advanced technology to release gas trapped in huge shale beds found throughout North America — gas long believed to be out of reach. Natural gas is the cleanest fossil fuel, releasing less of the emissions that cause global warming than coal or oil.
Rising production of natural gas has significant long-range implications for American consumers and businesses. A sustained increase in gas supplies over the next decade could slow the rise of utility bills, obviate the need to import gas and make energy-intensive industries more competitive.
While the recent production increase is indisputable, not everyone is convinced the additional supplies can last for decades. “The jury is still out how big shale is going to be,” said Robert Ineson, a natural gas analyst at Cambridge Energy Research Associates, a consulting firm.
Still, many people in the natural-gas industry believe a new era is at hand, and a rising chorus of Wall Street analysts and Congressional lawmakers supports that notion. Competition among companies for rights to the new gas has set off a frenzy of leasing and drilling.
“It’s almost divine intervention,” said Aubrey K. McClendon, chairman and chief executive of the Chesapeake Energy Corporation, one of the nation’s largest natural gas producers. “Right at the time oil prices are skyrocketing, we’re struggling with the economy, we’re concerned about global warming, and national security threats remain intense, we wake up and we’ve got this abundance of natural gas around us.”
Senior Democrats in Congress are getting behind natural gas, portraying it as an alternative fuel for transportation that can serve as a stopgap until renewable sources of energy, like solar and wind power, become economical on a broad scale.
“You can have a transition with natural gas that is cheap, abundant and clean,” the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi of California, said Sunday on “Meet the Press” on NBC.
She also said that an investment she and her husband had made in a company that produces natural gas for use in automobiles, revealed last week by The Wall Street Journal, was not a conflict of interest because “I’m investing in something I believe in.”
Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the chairman of the House Democratic caucus, has introduced legislation to offer more tax credits to producers and consumers of natural gas and mandate the installation of natural gas pumps in some service stations.
Domestic gas production was up 8.8 percent in the first five months of this year compared with the period a year earlier, a rate of increase last seen in 1959, during the great drilling boom that followed World War II.
Most of the gain is coming from shale, particularly the Barnett Shale region around Fort Worth, which has been under development for several years. The increase in gas production stands in sharp contrast to the trend in domestic oil production, which has been declining steadily since 1970 and dropped 21 percent in the last decade alone.
The Barnett region proved that, using new technology, shale gas could be extracted on a large scale. But lately, companies have set their sights on shale formations that could produce far more gas than the Barnett.
Testing to determine the productivity of fields has been completed on just a tiny fraction of the potential acreage. According to a new report by Navigant Consulting, paid for by a foundation allied with the gas industry, there could be as much as 842 trillion cubic feet of retrievable gas in shales around the country, enough to supply about 40 years’ worth of natural gas, at today’s consumption rate. But thousands of wells need to be drilled before the exact reserves will be known.
Domestic natural gas prices have already plunged 42 percent since early July, an even faster drop in price than oil or most other commodities, in part because the rapid supply growth has begun to influence the market. Price spikes remain possible, of course, but throughout the industry the shale discoveries are causing a shift in thinking about the long-term outlook.
Black or brown shales are a type of sedimentary rock, high in organic matter, found beneath millions of acres in at least 23 states, including New York. The rock has been known for more than a century to contain gas, but it was considered virtually worthless until a decade ago because typical wells on such sites would produce gas briefly and then die.
Now, companies are drilling long, horizontal wells and pumping in water to fracture the rock, releasing vastly more gas than could the vertical wells of old.
The Barnett was the first shale field to undergo major development, and gas production has gone up tenfold since 2001, so that it now produces 7 percent of the nation’s supply of natural gas. At least two other shale formations, the Haynesville in Louisiana and Texas and the Marcellus in Appalachia, are believed to be even larger, though substantial production in those will take another two to five years.
Prospectors have identified at least two dozen shale beds in North America that could contain large amounts of gas.
“Production is clearly growing, and the growth is sustainable,” said Michael Zenker, a natural gas analyst at Barclays Capital.
A Deutsche Bank report, by the analyst Shannon Nome, recently estimated that production from the eight largest shale fields was likely to hit 6.6 billion cubic feet a day this year, or 11.8 percent of national gas production, and then rise to 14.5 billion cubic feet a day by 2011 — almost a quarter of domestic production.
“Shale is the most significant domestic natural gas find in 50 years,” said Chris Ruppel, an analyst at the institutional brokerage firm Execution, “which means the United States will become gas independent, and more industrially competitive versus Europe for gas-intensive industries such as chemicals, fertilizer, smelting iron and aluminum.”
Shale gas could ultimately be important beyond North America. The rest of the world has shale formations on an immense scale. Many of them are known to contain gas, but exploration and assessment of those fields with the new production techniques have barely started.
Several large shale fields are being explored in Canada. In the United States, real estate speculators are becoming overnight millionaires in Pennsylvania, Louisiana and Texas by buying up parcels of land and flipping them to companies that drill for natural gas. Wildcatters are ordering every rig they can get their hands on, and paying signing bonuses of $25,000 an acre to drill below houses, schools and churches. Pipeline companies are building as fast as they can to get the new gas to market.
As the frenzy unfolds, some energy experts urge caution in projecting how big the new supplies will be and whether they will alleviate the loss in productivity of conventional wells, particularly those in the Gulf of Mexico.
“It’s hard for me to believe we will have more domestic gas production in six years than we have now,” said Chip Johnson, president and chief executive of Carrizo Oil and Gas, a Houston company involved in several of the shale fields.
The Energy Department’s 2008 estimates for shale gas reserves that may one day be economically produced stand at 125 trillion cubic feet, about a seventh of the most optimistic industry estimates. Jeffrey Little, a department gas analyst, said the government estimate was based on 2006 data and could increase after further testing.
“The larger reserves could very well be out there, but their magnitude is uncertain,” he said.
Some industry experts warn that shortages of engineers and rigs, scarcity of pipelines near some shale fields and fights over land and water use could slow development in some states.
In the Marcellus field, drilling and pipeline work must be done over woody and hilly terrain, and enormous amounts of water are needed to fracture the shale. Drilling has been halted in places after local regulators caught companies drawing water from streams without permits.
“We see natural gas as potentially a very important transitional fuel, but we can’t use it at the expense of our natural resources,” said Kate Sinding, a senior lawyer for the Natural Resources Defense Council, who warned that water-intensive drilling in shale could threaten local water supplies and aquifers.
Domestic gas production was in decline from the early 1990s to 2005, before production from shale beds and some lesser unconventional fields led to increases beginning in 2006. In the meantime, consumption increased by more than 15 percent, satisfied largely by rising imports.
Prices in recent years soared from less than $2 per thousand cubic feet in 1999 to more than $13 as recently as last month, before a precipitous decline in recent weeks. Natural gas closed Friday on the New York Mercantile Exchange at $7.84 per thousand cubic feet, the lowest price since Feb. 1.
With the growth of power generation from natural gas, the Energy Department estimates that gas consumption will increase 3 percent this year and an additional 1.7 percent in 2009. But that is well below expected supply increases.
Such increases carry risks. Some in the gas industry fear that if prices fall too much, producers will pull back on their investments in drilling and development. “If prices drop much more,” said Mr. Johnson of Carrizo Oil and Gas, “producers will slow down or at least not be as aggressive.”

Sunday, August 10, 2008

US Shale oil reserves that the Democratic Congress will not allow to be utilised.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/08/021214.php

August 10, 2008
Shale Oil To Be Developed, But Not Here
We've written about the fact that the United States has by far the largest known oil shale deposits in the world. In fact our Rocky Mountain oil shale is believed to amount to as much as two trillion barrels, far more than the entire world has consumed since oil was discovered in Pennsylvania in the 19th century. This chart, from the Institute for Energy Research, shows how our oil shale reserves dwarf the petroleum controlled by other countries:

Unfortunately, the Democrats have been able to place these vast reserves off-limits. Now, one country has announced plans to develop its shale oil resources, but it isn't the United States, it's Jordan:
Energy-poor Jordan said on Sunday it was in talks with Anglo-Dutch group Royal Dutch Shell on an agreement to extract oil from the desert kingdom's 40-billion-tonne oil shale reserves.
"Negotiations with Shell to sign a deal to process oil shale in Jordan are nearing an end," said Maher Hjazin, head of the state-run Natural Resources Authority. "If our plans succeed, it would be one of the country's largest projects to help the Jordan become energy self-sufficient, with a possibility to export oil in the future." ...
JEA president Wael Saqqa said exploiting the 40-billion-tonne oil shale reserves in 26 areas of Jordan "would provide the kingdom with oil for the coming 700 years."
Under the leadership of the Democratic Party, the United States continues to be the only country in the world that is deliberately devastating its own economy by refusing to develop its energy resources.

Keep in mind that fuel oil and diesel are made from the same refined oil stock so their price are closely connected.

http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080806/NEWS/808060326/-1/NEWS01

Oil prices could cause crisis for Maine homeowners
By Amy Phalon
yorkweekly@seacoastonline.com
August 06, 2008 6:00 AM
How high will they go? It's the question everyone is asking these days as crude oil prices climb, the average price of heating oil in Maine being $4.42 a gallon as of Tuesday.
"We are headed for what might be a crisis situation this winter," Town Manager Rob Yandow said at a recent selectmen's meeting, during which he discussed the town's intention to develop a program to offer heating assistance to households in need.
According to University of Maine professor of economics Jonathan Rubin, "Eighty percent of Maine's homes are heated by oil."
A large percentage of others are heated by propane, natural gas or kerosene, which are also at record prices. The vast majority of Maine households are facing a very expensive winter.
"This is obviously a very difficult time for consumers," said John Peters, president of Downeast Energy and Building Supply, which serves households in York. "It is unprecedented; the speed with which it is increasing. It is draining a lot of cash out of the economy."
While there is no argument that fuel prices have increased rapidly, the reason prices are climbing and whether they will fall again is unclear.
"This is an unprecedented time where even experts don't know what's driving all the forces," Rubin said. "There is no consensus on whether or not the price is going to go up or come down."
This uncertainty is what has Rubin worried.
"It's going to be hardest on households on fixed and low incomes."

Friday, August 8, 2008

The future of diesel/fuel oil prices.

http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=959

Posted on Aug. 07, 2008
The Diesel Crunch: Why Diesel Prices Are Skyrocketing
Back in October 2005, I wrote an article for Salon.com predicting that U.S. diesel prices would hit $4 or $5 per gallon within 18 months. I’m not recalling that story to brag. I rarely predict energy prices. And my estimate for when prices would hit $4 was a little premature. (It took about 30 months to break that barrier.) But it’s worth noting the factors I cited in that column, written shortly after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. I wrote:
The coming diesel disaster will be caused by several other things that have nothing to do with the weather. Those factors include stringent new federal regulations on sulfur content in motor fuel, a global shortage of refining capacity, and soaring demand for diesel, both in the United States and around the globe.

Today, those factors are not only still in play, they are even more acute. Add in two others – the growing refining imbalance in the European market and the U.S. ethanol mandates – and you have a recipe for sustained high diesel prices.
Given those conditions, I am going to make another prediction: for the next 5 to 8 years, diesel fuel will sell at a significant premium over gasoline. And by significant, I mean in the range of 15 to 30 percent. (In late July, according to the Energy Information Administration, diesel was selling for about 15 percent more than regular conventional gasoline.) Now that I’ve gone out on a limb, let me explain why diesel prices will remain high.
The first problem, not surprisingly, is due to government regulations. In 2006, U.S. refiners were required to meet the new federal standards for ultra-low sulfur diesel (U.L.S.D.). Designed to improve America’s air quality, these standards required fuel manufacturers to reduce their diesel’s sulfur to 15 parts per million, from 500 ppm. But in reality, to account for sulfur contamination that might occur during transport (by truck, tank, or pipeline) the refiners had to produce diesel with a sulfur content of 6 ppm at most. Going from 500 ppm down to 6 ppm is a reduction of about 99 percent. And that huge reduction requires refiners to do more hydro treating, which means they have to produce more hydrogen, which requires additional equipment, which raises costs and reduces output.
The U.L.S.D. mandates have added yet more complexity to the motor fuel supply chain, and that complexity increases costs. While refiners are producing U.L.S.D., they are also producing conventional diesel that meets the old 500 ppm standard. Thus, the U.L.S.D. must be segregated from the conventional diesel. Add in state-specific blends of diesel and the situation becomes even more complex. California, Minnesota, and Texas are all implementing regulations that will require specific diesel blends for their states. (For instance, Minnesota is requiring refineries to add 2 percent bio diesel to their product.) Segregating these boutique diesel blends, U.L.S.D., and high-sulfur blends means more tanks and pipes, which means more capital investment, which means higher costs.
In 2005, I mentioned the global shortage of refining capacity as a cause of higher diesel prices. This is still true. And while new refineries in Asia are helping to meet demand there, Europe continues to suffer from a lack of the complex refineries that can produce low-sulfur motor fuel as well as handle lower-quality crudes that, given the right upgrading equipment, could be turned into usable motor fuel. This shortage is due in part to the E.U.’s strict environmental regulations, which have slowed refiners’ upgrade efforts. That, in turn, will leave them more dependent on imports of U.L.S.D. According to the Mediterranean Energy Observatory, by 2010 the E.U. will need 100 million tons per year of U.L.S.D. and 40 million tons per year of ultra-low sulfur gasoline.
There is also a shortage of refining capacity in South America. And that has led to increasing exports of diesel from the U.S. For instance, in April, U.S. diesel fuel exports averaged 387,000 barrels per day. That’s an almost seven-fold increase from the 59,000 bbl/d exported in April 2007. (Overall, refined product exports have also increased. During the first four months of this year, refiners exported a record 1.6 million barrels per day, a 33 percent increase over the year-earlier levels. And February exports exceeded 1.8 MMbbl/d/.)
Those exports are indicative of a booming global diesel demand. On July 1, the International Energy Agency released its medium-term oil market report, which said that the “bulk of oil demand growth” worldwide “will be concentrated in transportation fuels.” It stated that while global gasoline demand is growing, “distillates (jet fuel, kerosene, diesel, and other gas oil) have become – and will remain – the main growth drivers of world oil demand.” The agency published a graphic that projects stunning demand growth for distillates. Between 2002 and 2013, the I.E.A. expects distillate demand to increase nearly five-fold.
At the report’s presentation in Madrid, Lawrence Eagles, its editor, told reporters, “It’s going to be very hard to keep pace with growth in middle distillate demand.” He went on to say, “At the moment it’s demand for diesel that is driving the increased consumption.” Furthermore, Eagles pointed to the lack of upgrading capacity in many refineries as a reason global demand for crude is rising, as some refiners are aiming to increase their diesel output. The result is that “you are consuming far more oil than you otherwise would.”
While all of those factors are important, perhaps the biggest reason gasoline can be expected to sell for substantially less than diesel over the next half decade or so is the refining imbalance in Europe. Simply put, European refineries are producing too much gasoline and not enough diesel. And they are doing so as European gasoline demand is declining and diesel demand is growing. This increasing demand is largely the result of the “dieselization” of the European auto market. About 30 percent of all vehicles on the road in Europe are now diesels. And by 2015, if current sales patterns continue, about 40 percent of the European motor fleet will be diesel powered.
The result of this shift toward diesel autos is easy to predict. European refiners will have to sell their excess gasoline to the closest market that has lots of gasoline-fueled cars and few diesels – and that means the U.S. But there’s a problem with that plan: gasoline demand in the U.S. isn’t growing. In fact, domestic gasoline consumption dropped by 1.7 percent during the first six months of this year. And analysts expect little growth in U.S. gasoline demand over the next decade or so. Indeed, according to the Mediterranean Energy Observatory, by 2015, Europe will likely be producing some 12 million tons of excess gasoline per year, but U.S. imports will only grow by about 2 million tons.
And if gasoline supplies exceed demand by such a wide margin, it can be assumed that gasoline prices will be depressed, particularly when compared to diesel’s.
This imbalance between gasoline and diesel is being exacerbated by a familiar boondoggle: the ethanol scam. At the same time that European and American refiners face an excess of gasoline, the ethanol mandates are adding more fuel into the U.S. gasoline pool. This year, U.S. corn distilleries will likely produce about 9 billion gallons of ethanol, and every gallon of that product makes gasoline more plentiful, while doing nothing to slow demand for the products that we need most, namely middle distillates like jet fuel and diesel.
All of these factors have led European analysts to expect that the disparity between gasoline and diesel will continue for several years to come. Jean-François Larivé, a technical coordinator with the European Oil Company Organization for Environment, Health and Safety, participated in a 2007 study of the refining imbalance problem. In early July, he told me that the trend now underway “cannot reverse because all the new demand is coming from diesel.” As for the pricing disparity between gasoline and diesel, he said that it may even “get worse.”
In other words, the diesel crunch has just started. And the inflationary effects of the higher costs of diesel fuel are going to be felt throughout the U.S. economy (and the global economy) for years to come. .

Thursday, August 7, 2008

I filled up the Ranger Wednesday at $3.49.9 for unleaded.


My long foray into the suburbs Saturday was probably the most "highway" ever. I got 24 PG on this fill.This email from the lefty move-on.org seems to imply that the campaign to drill more domestically is catching on. http://www.americansolutions.com/media/4CDF1CEC-779C-4699-A123-A8992F4D9219/e42dc13c-170e-4a5b-84ce-26d77244a9be.pdf


Monday, August 4, 2008

Today crude oil briefly got below $120 and closed at $121. ++++

MinnPost.com had an article that I submitted a comment for. It is being held for review before posting but it should get posted soon. The link than my spiel will be at the end of this posting.

I did some checking at http://fueleconomy.gov/ and in 1985 the Ford Ranger was offered with a diesel which was supposed to be a "dog". I compared it the gas 4 sticks and the diesel go 23% better mileage. Diesel used to be cheaper but it's now 20% more than unleaded regular so financially that is pretty much a "wash", especially with diesels requiring more service and maintenance.

I expect the diesel/gas spread to grow in the future for several reasons. In Europe, diesel cost ten to fifteen percent less than gas because of tax policy but more than half the cars being sold there are now diesel. Also there will be more diesel pollution requirements for things like sulfur levels and this will cost. Also, a gallon of diesel has substantially more energy BTU's than gasoline. Refineries are getting far better catalytic crackers that can convert heavier residual oils into lighter fuels. They can squeeze out more gallons of gas than diesel with the new "crackers".

Also, the public doesn't like a gas tax hike but they are less "reactive" to high fuel oil and diesel prices. (the same base fuel) Only a small percentage of people use fuel oil and high diesel cost is basically an "indirect tax" to the general public in the US.

That's my "spiel" for today. Below is the promised story link and the comment I submitted. They tend to publish but a moderator reviews.

http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2008/08/04/2819/no_bold_steps_on_gas_prices_--_at_least_not_in_the_us


So Air America claims that reducing the speed limit to 55 would end US imports? Hello!! We import 70% of our oil!
Here is a link to a list of imports by country. http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
Number eight is Iraq where we import a bit under half a million barrels a day out of total US consumption of 20 to 22 million barrels a day. Technically, an aggressively enforced 55 speed limit might reduce our usage equal to the amount we import from Iraq.
As for the claim in this article that vehicle "efficiency" was doubled after 1975 automotive efficiency "doubled" is misleading. The US production of vehicles before 1975 focused on the full sized large engine "boats". To give an example a modern day Crown Victoria police interceptor gets ten to twelve miles per gallon, not much better than the early 1970's "boat". The difference is mostly due to smaller vehicles.
Hybrids might save fuel but they have a relatively narrow "sweet spot" in use age. For example, I live and drive mostly in the city so I could benefit from a hybrid but I drive under 3000 miles a year and use under half a gallon of gas per day so the hybrid is not cost effective.
On a lark I checked the mileage of my 2005 Ford Ranger 4 cylinder "stick" (a poor persons hybrid) with the 1985 version. My fuel efficiency is well around 5% better. My 2.3 liter engine is far more powerful, with fuel injection, four valves per cylinder and double overhead cam but the MPG hasn't increased much in 20 years on the Ranger, which has used the same basic "platform" for around three decades. This makes it good for comparison.

Sunday, August 3, 2008

New York Times: The $4.49-a-Gallon Vacation

A typical "one tank of gas round trip" getaway story. Note the title making reference for $.449 gas. With the obligatory .9 at the end it rounds to $4.50. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/travel/03saugatuck.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=travel&pagewanted=all

Saturday, August 2, 2008

My Saturday foray into the outer tier suburbs.

The gas stove that came with the house when I bought it was getting pretty ratty. I replaced a few years back with a very basic stove with pilot lights. that I got for helping carry a few things with the pickup and trailer. I have been watching for the right replacement. I tried appliance stores and they told me that it would cost at least $500 for the type I wanted with electronic ignition and a programmable oven shut off. Carigslist had what I wanted from a remodeling pull out. The new stove was color coordinated. The price was right. I wanted a solid stove with electronic ignition but this also had electronic ignition.

Several energy angles here. The electronic ignition eliminated three pilot lights. That's somewhat irrelevant in the winter when the heat, well, heats! With my low level of stove and oven usage the pilots probably burn more gas than the actual cooking. I do not have Central Air conditioning so in summer it's only wasted heat. (That would be more load for Central AC).

Once installed my only pilot light will be on the gas water heater. That is vented outside and to some degree it keeps the water warm. Demand water heaters don't seem to pay off yet but I put a double insulating blanket on my water heater. Also, it helps to drain a little water from the hot water spigot on a regular basis so sediment doesn't build up on the bottom. I try to do this once a week and have a hose permanently on the drain spigot. I like to run a bucket of water and check the bucket for sediment. There usually is a little sediment each time. http://www.waterheaterrescue.com/pages/WHRpages/English/Longevity/sediment-in-hot-water-heaters.html

If the water tank has sediments (several inches is not uncommon on scrapped tanks) this greatly reduces efficiency and tank life. With the stove I bought my house will have no "indoor enviorment" pilot lights. On the Internet there are some nasty claims about these but I haven't noticed it. Instead of central AC I run one or two very high efficiency (under 10 watt draw) exhaust fans in high piano windows I installed scrap pipes in the high piano windows (I'll try to get pictures.) The pipes are further "tricked" to make them burglary proof. I have other windows "burglar proofed" so there is an extremely efficient air circulation. I live in a low crime area but I used to work night shifts before I retired so I wanted the house to be secure but cooled. This might be a subject of a future post. Doing a bit of "mental math" my summer fan cooling system adds fifteen to thirty cents per week to my electric bill and it keeps the house a lot cooler. A dollar a month more in summer electricity? Yeah I can afford that!

As for the trip to the outer burbs I tried to consolidate trips but the best laid plans oft go astray. Google maps said 25.3 miles but I of course got lost and drove almost 90 miles total so nearly 40 of it was lost. We somehow got cell phone numbers mixed up so I couldn't call. That burned up much of my $3.44 gas I topped off with a couple of days ago.

I try to treat everything as a learning/reporting experience. On the main roads of my "misroutes" I noticed that you had around one fifth of the density of city. On the main routes a lot of it seemed to be business and institutional room for expansion. The house lots are large of course. Economically, the area seemed healthy. I didn't see many vacant businesses and saw no distressed residential housing. A lot of miles driving there and that does not favor the so-called "alternative" energy vehicles. My standard transmission would probably match a hybrid there. If gas goes way up we have serious problems here because of the sheer distances.

The Craigslist seller seemed a nice guy. He bought the house from a relative. Ironically he works here in town with the base maybe three miles from me. I would guess his commute at 23 miles each way but I didn't ask. To round to 25 and figuring five day a week work I figure he is now spending at least $50 per week just on gas to commute. I didn't ask him but just getting around there seems to add a lot more. He seems to favor fuel efficient vehicles, he said he has owned several Ford Rangers. Added to that with the longer distances in the outer ring burbs the gas costs can be high.

The irony is that the guy works here in the city. He said he used to live in a higher crime area of the city. That's another subject for a future posting. Crime rates vary dramatically in the cities. Again, seems like a nice guy.

Friday, August 1, 2008

Top US oil import sources.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/import.html
Out of the top10 total petroleum importers, to the US, only 2 are “Arab States” and both are our allies. If you go to the top15, 3 are “Arab States.” Of the 3 that are, all 3 are our allies and 2 are relatively minor in quantity.
Total Imports of Petroleum (Top 15 Countries)(Thousand Barrels per Day)Country YTD 2007
1 - CANADA 2,426
2 - MEXICO 1,533
3 - S ARABIA 1,489
4 - VENEZUELA 1,362
5 - NIGERIA 1,132
6 - ALGERIA 670
7 - ANGOLA 507
8 - IRAQ 485
9 - RUSSIA 413
10 - VIRGIN ISLANDS 346
11 - U KINGDOM 278
12 - ECUADOR 203
13 - BRAZIL 202
14 - KUWAIT 183
15 - NETHERLANDS 127

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

I filled up the Ranger today at $3.44.9 for unleaded.

On my weekly consolidated trip to the "burbs". That's down fifty cents in three weeks.

Letter I sent to a reporter who will remain unnamed.

With prices falling I have been drawing my gas tank down to now a bit under half. Yesterday, on a lark I checked the credit card on line statement (nice tree saver!) and found I last topped off the tank on July 09. The trip odometer read 145 after a trip to the grocery so figure 50 miles per week. My Ranger four stick gets a very solid 20MPG so that two and a half gallons a week or $10 per week at $4 per gallon. I retired last fall but if I had a day job downtown, the airport or such I would use the Light rail. I measured it with GPS the other day and I'm under one mile to the 38th Street station. I'd use a "beater bike" to get there and back. With a ride under one mile a crummy bike works fine. Thinking of the last three weeks I could have saved twenty-five miles of driving, fifty miles would have been "pushing it". I use bicycles mostly for exercise but but for things like DVD rentals I tend to use the bike. The other day I needed a few small plumbing supplies. I bicycled. Again it's mostly for exercise.I tend to be politically conservative and think that "Global Warming" is total BS, especially in terms of CO2. I was pleased when I found out that my 2005 Ford Ranger had a California emissions engine. That said, if I am going to the store to get milk or eggs I'll take the Ranger. That said a lot of the automotive energy conservation is "strategic". Before light rail and when gas was cheap I recall wanting to watch the odometer roll over $100K on my old Toyota 4 stick pickup. I was going for a flu vaccination (forgot and odometer was 100002 when I got there). A year later when I went for a shot the odometer was 106K. My parents were alive then so visiting them put on 2K miles. Work commuting took a solid $1K miles. That's 3K total eliminated. If we extrapolate the current rate I and driving 2.5K per year. An annualized savings of maybe 500 miles. Not much!My low miles driven is mostly "strategic", basically living where I live and driving what I drive. We have the zealots in my neighborhood but to me it seems like "preaching to the choir". If I really sacrifice I might save half a gallon of gas a week.I find it easy to compose via email. I'll post the above on my http://fourfiftygas.com without citing who I sent it to.

188 years of US natural gas?

CNBC video
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=807915389

I just checked my odmeter and credit card record.

145 miles driven in the last 20 day or 50 miles per week. I don't use the Ranger for work commuting and average one or two trips out to the "burbs" a week. I try to consolidate these longer trips. I will still use the Ranger for something like a grocery store run but for something like DVD rental I tend to bicycle. When I last topped the tank on July 09 I think I paid $3.93.9. It's a bit under half a tank. Gas seems to be going down so I'll probably wait a while before filling up.

Below is a story about a huge oil trading (speculating) company going bankrupt. I wonder if the futures market is worried about speculators being able to cover their positions. Not even the government would bail them out.

http://in.us.biz.yahoo.com/rb/080722/semgroup.html?.v=2

Huge oil trading loss sinks energy trader SemGroupTuesday July 22, 5:00 pm ET By Robert Campbell
NEW YORK (Reuters) - SemGroup LP declared bankruptcy on Tuesday after $3.2 billion in oil trading losses torpedoed the formerly 12th-largest private U.S. company.
The Tulsa-based company racked up the massive losses as oil prices ran up record gains, undercutting short crude futures positions SemGroup bought to hedge against its 500,000 barrel-per-day trading business.
To meet obligations, SemGroup plans to sell off oil and natural gas gathering, transportation, and storage assets worth an estimated $6.14 billion that were purchased in a whirlwind of acquisitions since it was founded in 2000.
"We have determined that the best way to maximize value for our creditors is to undertake a sales process that will transition our valuable businesses to well-established companies," Terry Ronan, SemGroup's acting chief executive, said in a statement.
SemGroup took a $2.4 billion loss on July 16 after it transferred its New York Mercantile Exchange oil futures trading account to Barclays Plc, converting what they called "loss contingencies" into an actual loss.
Included in the NYMEX loss was $290 million owed to SemGroup by a trading company owned by co-founder and former chief executive Thomas Kivisto, who was placed on administrative leave on July 17.
Securities legislation limits publicly traded company executives from extensive dealings with their firms, but experts said privately held companies have more flexibility.
"They can't do anything illegal. But there is no particular disclosure to anyone apart from any contractual agreements that they may have with investors," said Kenneth Froewiss, a professor of finance at New York University.
SemGroup had engaged in regular hedging transactions with BOK Financial Corp, where Kivisto had been a board member since 2006 before resigning on July 16. As of the end of 2007, SemGroup had hedged 21 million barrels of crude oil with BOK, which had a fair value of negative $130 million.
As of the end of March, this position was worth negative $88 million, said BOK spokesman Jesse Boudiette, who declined to comment on BOK's current exposure to SemGroup saying the bank would not speak publicly about individual clients.
Since going public just over a year ago, SemGroup Energy's stock has lost 72 percent of its value, most of that in the past five trading days. The stock closed at $22.69 on July 16, the day before Semgroup Energy disclosed SemGroup LP was having liquidity issues, and ended Tuesday at $8.28.
BIG LOSSES
SemGroup, ranked the No. 12 private U.S. company by Forbes.com in a 2007 article, also took $850 million in losses on July 17 when its over-the-counter hedging program was marked to market. It listed liabilities of $7.53 billion in its bankruptcy filing, including $3.1 billion of total debt $2 billion of secured debt and $594 million in unsecured notes.
SemGroup's financial difficulties were disclosed by its publicly traded affiliate SemGroup Energy Partners LP last week, when it warned that a liquidity crisis at its parent could lead to bankruptcy.
SemGroup Energy Partners management said it was confident the partnership could survive despite SemGroup's bankruptcy and would seek new business from third parties. The company's board has also authorized management to consider a sale or merger.
SemGroup Energy Partners also warned it was not ready to say if it would make a cash distribution to unitholders in the second quarter, though its management believes parent SemGroup will continue to use its fee-based assets to maintain operations while in bankruptcy.
(Additional reporting by Michael Erman and Matthew Robinson; writing by Matthew Robinson and Robert Campbell; Editing by Gary Hill)

Saturday, July 26, 2008

Local unleaded below $3.50

Before President Bush signed the executive order ending the ban on coastal drilling it was above $4 per gallon. I saw $4.09 at the Super America by my house. The local natural gas distributors are starting to warn of a thiry to fouty percent increase in residential retail gas costs this upcoming winter.

Sunday, July 20, 2008

Meet the Press transcript of Al Gore interview.

Redrant: No one bothered to challenge Al Gore on weather carbon dioxide is really a threat.
'Meet the Press' transcript for July 20, 2008

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25761899/

NetcastJuly 20: Exclusive! Former Vice President and 2007 Nobel Peace Prize winner Al Gore goes one-on-one with Tom Brokaw. Plus, a political roundtable with NBC's David Gregory & Chuck Todd.
Gore backs new energy policy
Gore: We must listen to scientists
Gore sees role outside White House
Gore: Drilling won’t cure oil price ‘hangover’
Trip ‘important’ for Obama’s image
getCSS("3053751")
getCSS("3053751")
Most Popular



MR. TOM BROKAW: Our issues this Sunday: He served as Bill Clinton's vice president for eight years, then lost the presidential election to George W. Bush in 2000. He has since focused on his environmental crusade, winning an Oscar for his documentary "An Inconvenient Truth," as well as the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. On Thursday he proposed a bold new plan to address global warming and the energy crisis.
FMR. VICE PRES. AL GORE: Today I challenge our nation to commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean, carbon-free sources within 10 years.
MR. BROKAW: With us, our exclusive guest Al Gore. Then, the 2008 presidential candidates turn their attention overseas, as Barack Obama makes his first trip to Afghanistan and arrives this week in Iraq; while John McCain goes on the attack with his first negative television ad.


Narrator: (From McCain political ad) Barack Obama never held a single Senate hearing on Afghanistan. He hasn't been to Iraq in years. He voted against funding our troops.
(End videotape)
MR. BROKAW: Insights and analysis from NBC News White House correspondent and host of MSNBC's "Race for the White House" David Gregory and NBC News political director Chuck Todd.
But first, the former Vice President Al Gore.
Welcome back to MEET THE PRESS, Mr. Gore.
VICE PRES. GORE: Thank you very much, Tom.
MR. BROKAW: We were just checking the records. It was eight years ago this week that you last appeared here. Now, the old Vaudeville line would be, "What have you been doing in the meantime?" but we all know. Nobel Laureate, Oscar winner and crusader for conservation of energy and attacking the climate change that we're all experiencing in this country. Made a major speech this week. We want to begin with that. I think that probably our audience understands that there is a growing consensus that climate change is real, but the debate is really, internally, how real is it, what are the effects of it going to be, and how serious will it affect us?
This is how The Boston Globe described your audacious plan to change the way that we get electricity in this country: "Gore challenged Americans to switch all of the nation's electricity production to wind, solar, and other carbon-free sources within 10 years, a goal that he said would solve global warming as well as economic and natural security crises caused by dependence on fossil fuels."
The reaction was pretty quick and not all of it was favorable, even from those who are aligned with you in thinking that we have to do something about climate change. This is what Philip Sharp, president of Resources for the Future, a Washington think tank, had to say. "At this point I don't think there's anyone in the industry who thinks that goal, as a practical matter, could be met. This is not yet a plan for action; this is a superstretch goal." Your friends at MIT, the Energy Initiative Group up there, and they have some radical ideas as well. They said, "Can we do it this quickly? It would be very, very tough." What you have outlined, in fact, is a goal that may not be achievable.
VICE PRES. GORE: I think it is achievable, and I think it's important that we achieve it, Tom. There were also many other reactions from people who said this is the right goal because we need to reset the bar and change the debate. Our current course is completely unsustainable. We are being told by scientists around the world, particularly the international group that is charged with studying this and reporting to world leaders, that we may have less than 10 years in order to make dramatic changes lest we lose the chance to, to avoid catastrophic results from the climate crisis. We're building up CO2 so rapidly that we're seeing the consequences scientists have long predicted. And the only way to take responsible action is to get at the heart of the problem, which is the burning of fossil fuels. And the quickest and easiest way to back out the coal, which is the worst of the problem, and oil, is to look at electricity generation. And there, there have been two important changes. Number one, the cost of the new solar electricity options, wind power and geothermal power, not to mention efficiency gains, have come down and they're coming down as the demand increases the attention paid to innovation. The other change is that oil prices and coal prices have been skyrocketing and because China and other emerging economies are demanding so much of it, and new discoveries of oil have fallen off dramatically, no matter the debate over drilling, the new discoveries have been declining and the new demand has been completely swamping it, and over the long term, those prices, everyone agrees, are going to continue to go up. So now it is competitive to switch over. At the same time we're seeing our national security experts saying we're highly vulnerable with 70 percent of our oil coming from foreign countries, the largest reserves being in the most unstable region of the world, the Persian Gulf; and our economy is being really hurt badly by rising gasoline prices, rising coal prices. So we need to make a big strategic shift to a new energy infrastructure that relies on renewables.
MR. BROKAW: I don't think anyone doubts that we have to make some profound changes in this country and make some tough decisions and maybe even suffer some pain, but let's talk about the cost. This is your own group in terms of describing what this may cost. The numbers are from $1 1/2 trillion to $3 trillion as an estimate. Where does that money come from for a new president who is facing a $400 billion deficit, has two wars going on, needs an economic stimulus if it's a Democrat, as Obama has outlined--we have a housing crisis in this country--and probably diminished tax revenues?
VICE PRES. GORE: Well, those, those are not all public funds. That's the total private and public investment, which is comparable to what we would spend over that same period of time if we continued to rely on coal and oil, which is rising so rapidly in price. It's less than the cost of the Iraq war, according to Joe Stiglitz and some other economists, and it is an investment.
MR. BROKAW: We haven't spent that much on the Iraq war, but we've spent a lot of money.
VICE PRES. GORE: Well, if you--well, Joe Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize winner in economics, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, estimates the all-in cost of the Iraq war as more than that total. But, but, in any case, when you talk about a large strategic initiative of this kind, whichever direction we take, it's going to cost a lot of money. But, in this case, the investment would be paid back many times over and we could get the equivalent of dollar a gallon gasoline for cars as we switch toward an electric fleet.
MR. BROKAW: What would electricity cost in terms of the transition while it's under way? Most estimates are that it would cost a lot more money, and that would have a devastating effect on Main Street and especially on rural America.
VICE PRES. GORE: Well, I, I don't agree with that, and I think that the devastating effect on Main Street and the rest of the country is coming from the present rising costs for electricity. And the reason why is China and the other emerging economies again are bidding up the price of every lump of coal and every drop of oil, and the new discoveries have been declining, so the estimates are now that these price increases are likely to continue until we stop just taking baby steps and offering gimmicks and, instead, have a strategic initiative.
Now, Tom, among other things, you are the biographer of the, of the greatest generation, and, at the beginning of that period when they rose to that challenge, there were a lot of people who said that couldn't be done. We couldn't make these hundreds of thousands of airplanes, we couldn't mobilize to win that struggle. And yet we did. The only limiting factor here is political will. This climate crisis is threatening our country, threatening all of human civilization. I know that sounds shrill, and I know people don't like to, to hear phrases like that, but it is the reality. We have to awaken to it, and we have to mobilize to confront it.
Click for more from 'Meet the Press'
Video: Schwarzenegger on his two-party home Video: Can Obama win in the WestSurrogates outline campaign strategies
MR. BROKAW: But what do we have to give up to reach the cost of a trillion and a half to three trillion dollars? There's going to have to be some pain, some sacrifice on the part of the American taxpayer, isn't there?
VICE PRES. GORE: Well, I, I think we should have a shift in our tax system, and I think we should tax what we burn and not what we earn, and I think we should take account of the incredibly expensive environmental costs that go into burning coal and oil. I also think that the coal and oil industries can play a big role in this if they will make good on the promise that carbon capture and sequestration will be real. Right now, there's no demonstration project, there's nothing real about it. The, the phrase clean coal is a contradiction in terms. There's no such thing as clean coal now. But the industry knows that with an all-out push toward capturing the CO2 and burying it safely, that can be done.

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

McCain Closes the Gap

McCain Closes the Gap
By Dick MorrisFrontPageMagazine.com 7/15/2008 Issues don’t always flow from the top down — from the campaign hierarchy to the voters. Sometimes they flow the other way, from an angered public upward. This is the case with the oil drilling and energy issue. Every time Americans gas up, they are reminded that the Democrats’ refusal to allow oil drilling virtually anyplace has caused the long-term escalation in oil prices in the United States. Democrats don’t say they oppose all drilling, but they do. You can drill, but not in Alaska, not off shore, not in the shale, etc.. McCain is benefiting and Obama suffering because of the drilling issue. It is most likely this issue which is driving the closing of the race. Rasmussen has the race tied for two days in a row in his tracking and Newsweek has the Obama lead collapsing from fifteen points to three. And it may be oil that is driving the difference.
Dick Morris is a former adviser to President Clinton. To get all his columns e-mailed to you, register for free at DickMorris.com.

Thursday, July 10, 2008

New posting at http://anti-strib.com

Biking didn't fit my work schedule well. I live less than a half mile from the light rail station so when I go downtown I tend to take a bike. It's 3.5 miles to downtown Minneapolis and I can do it low traffic on a bike until the Metrodome. I tend to use the a bike for short trips like to the video stroe or the neighborhood Riverview Theater. Mostly exercise and parking, the distances are short so I don't save a lot of gas. Trip consolidation actually saves more gas than bicycling. Bicycling is mostly for exercise but with the time it takes I don't drive as much and that saves gas.
Off subject but here is an interesting display on natural gas used for generating electricity by state. In the US this has doubled in the last decade so now more natural gas is used for electricity than for residential and smaller business use. Natural gas is expected to increase by more than half this winter so expect heating gas heating costs to increase by at least half. Fortunately Minnesota doesn't yet use much natural gas for electricity. Here is the link. http://www.americaspower.org/The-Facts

Wednesday, July 2, 2008

Natural gas takes a hike. Sticker shock awaits consumers as the price of another fuel quietly rises.

http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/19926699.html?location_refer=Lifestyle

By KAREN YOUSO, Star Tribune
Last update: June 15, 2008 - 2:28 PM

If you find gas prices at the pump a worry, get ready to wring your hands over natural gas, too. Like gasoline, its prices are going up -- way up.
Utilities are paying 57 percent more for natural gas than they did last year at this time, said Vincent Chavez with the Minnesota Office of Energy Security.

Monday, June 30, 2008

Star Tribune online poll with story on North Dakata oil drilliing.

http://www.startribune.com/nation/22707004.html

Instant poll: Do you support drilling for oil on domestic sites?
# of votes
% of votes
Yes
1136
92.6%

No
90
7.3%

Total Votes
1226

Sunday, June 29, 2008

On "Meet the Press" Sunday morning a guest commented that public utilties in Wyoming (Colorado) are filing for a 70% rate increase. It has to be either for heavily reliance on natural gas for electricity or expected natural gas increases.

Friday, June 27, 2008

Off subject but Colorado is busting gutter rainwater collection

http://www.groovygreen.com/groove/?p=3135#comment-123897

This is beyond stupid but of course Denver is requiring color coded local grown organic food from vendors at the upcoming Dem convention. With water there is usually a difference between "using" and "mining" a resource. In the case of water drilling would constitute "mining" and this might include a platted creek on a large piece of land. The roof barrels are just absurd. To give a personal example the roof "footprint" on my http://searshouse.com would be around 1200 square feet. My garage would be around 780 square feet, make it 800 for a grand total of 2,000 square foot. I won't try the math per inch of rain. Here in the Twin Cities, MN (home of the Republican Convention) they mandate storm water collection ponds on large new parking lots. The encourage these at home and also encourage roof gutter collection systems. You people are weird!

Thursday, June 26, 2008

Regarding: utility costs rising story. A story idea might be the potential for another round of foreclosures this winter. Natural Gas rates are expected to increase at least 50% this winter. I am starting to blog my ideas on this at my http://fourfiftygas.com
I don't want to personally be profiled on TV. I paid off my http://searshouse.com mortgage in under 20 years and it's fairly tight with a new high efficiency furnace. It's a one story bungalow. I sealed it up pretty well maybe fifteen years ago and added nearly waist deep insulation to the attic. A surprising effect is how it stays a lot cooler in the summer. I only use two 5,000 BTU window AC's and I haven't installed them yet (but probably will this weekend)
As close as I can figure, my $600 economic stimulus check will cover my raised energy cost for the next year. I drive 3K to 4K miles per year and my Ford Ranger gets 20+MPG in town. I might cut that by 25%. On short trips I try to use the bicycle and consolidate long trips. Yesterday, I got the oil changed in the burbs. The passenger side of the cramped Ranger cab has stuff from four stores. Trip consolidation.

I tried posting this but I don't think it took.

Utility Costs on the Rise Nationwide http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Consumer/story?id=5243717&page=1

An ABC news story on rising utility costs.

"My utility bills always have the actual meter reading. Mine also list estimates. If they seem high you can always red the meter yourself.
Her in Minneapolis, Minnesota we expect 50% higher natural gas prices next winter. That will lead to yet another round of mortgage defaults. If I get going I will try to blog this at my http://fourfiftygas.com

Summer should vary a lot depending on Air Conditioning and how much natural gas is used for electricity. Minnesota uses relatively little natural gas generating electricity but the US as a whole uses more natural gas for electrical generation than it uses for residential and small business use.

Saturday, June 21, 2008

Comment I posted on story about comutting distance and real estate

Latest must-have home feature: A short commute
In these days of $4-a-gallon gasoline, real estate agents see potential buyers turn their sights from the suburbs to the cities. http://www.startribune.com/business/20629604.html

My 2005 just turned over 13K miles
1986 I bought a nice home in the Longfellow neighborhood for $57K. It was 3.8 miles to my downtown Minneapolis job. The last couple of years I was riding the cho cho train downtown. It's a half mile to the station. with $4 gas I mostly try to consolidate trips and use the bicycle for some short trips. I try to be aware of gas costs. Last week I had to go out to Bloomington. That was a one gallon round trip. If I get frustrated I can always blog about it at my http://fourfiftygas.com/ I topped off the tank at $3.89 today. In my Longfellow neighborhood real estate prices seem to be holding up pretty well.

Monday, June 16, 2008

Welcome to the FourFiftyGas.com blog.

My place to comment and complain of the effects of high gas prices. Actually, I drive fewer than 3000 miles per year and my 2000 Ford Ranger four cylinder stick gets pretty good fuel economy. A consistent 22 MPG in town, maybe 20 MPG in the worst Minnesota cold and heat (AC). That said A lot of people I know are being badly hurt.

Mostly I drive slower, consolidate trips and use the bicycle for shorter trips. The bicycle is also exercise so that is good.