[Tanada]

BAHA please try and stay on thread topic.

Meanwhile around these parts if you want ethanol free gas about the only place to get it is the Marina's. Boaters pay premium prices to get 'pure' gasoline because the ethanol blends suck up the humidity if the boat is stored weekdays and only used on weekends robbing you of performance.

[Outcast_Searcher]

All to line the pockets of GW Bush's Big Oil/Big Ag buddies. GW Bush sold the American people a bill of goods. GW Bush sold the Ethanol Mandate for . . . now get this . . . Energy Independence. What a lie. GW sold this ethanol scam to the people. And we are still living with it. And still ignoring the Monster in the Closet . . . PEAK OIL

For those too thick to get it . . . corn ethanol requires more energy, more oil, more fertilizer than is actually returned in the ethanol fuel. Ethanol has a negative EROEI.

Way to falsely pretend this is only a GOP issue.

1). The much beloved on the left HRC during her 2016 campaign:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... /88268530/

WASHINGTON — Hillary Clinton’s campaign fought back Thursday against a report the Democratic presidential nominee might make significant changes to the mandate requiring ethanol be blended into the fuel supply.

Clinton’s campaign confirmed Thursday that an aide with her office met with a California official recently to discuss the federal ethanol mandate known as the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) and the state’s low-carbon fuel standard, among other topics. Reuters reported the meeting was a sign that Clinton, if elected, would look to adjust the RFS.

But Tyrone Gayle, a Clinton spokesperson, said Clinton does not support replacing the existing RFS with one that requires lower-carbon fuels.

2). And, let's add the supposedly oh so green, Bernie Sanders:

"Iowa is one of the leaders in the country in wind and biofuels. So, I support the Renewable Fuel Standard, I think we got to put more emphasis on cellulosic ethanol, which is a more efficient form of biofuel than we currently have."

https://www.mnbiofuels.org/media-mba/bl ... -democrats

I'm forever amused with how the Dems love to claim the GOP is a pack of liars, while their politicians vote the SAME WAY FOR THE SAME STUFF, as long as it buys votes.

But nice try, and thanks for playing the political blame game. Complete fail on that one.

[careinke]

Keeping with the thread topic. Regular is now $3.45 here in Washington.

[vtsnowedin]

Keeping with the thread topic. Regular is now $3.45 here in Washington.

I paid $3.04 on the highway in New Hampshire Thursday. With WTI over $70 the price will keep going up.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Keeping with the thread topic. Regular is now $3.45 here in Washington.

I paid $3.04 on the highway in New Hampshire Thursday. With WTI over $70 the price will keep going up.

Just hit $3.00 in, south, and east of Lexington, KY yesterday (I happened to be on the road). KY tends to have pretty moderate gas prices over time, so I'd say that's a good sign that $3 gas is a reality for the summer in much of the US, unless oil prices start to fall meaningfully.

[vtsnowedin]

The slope of that line from 3/18 on is where the worry lies. Project a best fit line on it out a full year and we could be at $6.00 gas by next May.

[ROCKMAN]

vt – A bit of a tangent but a while back the Rockman explained how WTI prices (and in particular the amount actually produced) was not the center of global oil production. No surprise there. But it also was not the center of actual US production nor prices. And obviously not the center of what US refineries buy or the price they pay for their oil. It is, of course, the center of the world for those investing in WTI futures contracts.

I think I forget to point out that the WTI benchmark price isn’t the center of the Rockman’s world either. The Rockman has not sold a single bbl of his Texas oil production based on WTI for at least 9 years. He continues to sell 100% of his production based on the LLS benchmark price (Louisiana Light Sweet)…not WTI. On Friday when the WT benchmark closed at $71.37/bbl the LLS closed at $76.47/bbl.

Not an insignificant difference.

[Outcast_Searcher]

35% in less than a year. Up up and away

No problem. The FED will fix everything and beside people don't need gas for the their gigantic SUV's. Have you not heard? Ford will only sell F350's from now on! Let's flip cars! Let's flip houses. It's all FUN to be an Amurican-not

Let's pretend that THIS time around, the fundamentals of economics won't operate. That producers won't be incented to increase production if WTI passes $100 a barrel, for example.

Let's pretend that people can't possibly drive less or start buying far more fuel efficient cars or car pool or work at home, etc. in response to higher fuel prices.

Let's pretend that exploration won't be incented, helping to potentially reverse the recent trend of low oil finds, due to lack of economic incentive.

Let's pretend that if gasoline gets expensive enough, it won't be a terrific boon to HEV, PHEV, and BEV production economics.

Because things couldn't possibly trend that way, even though they have in general, every single time, since that's how economics works.

....

Meanwhile, "up, up, and away" doesn't exactly conform to the ETP "people can't afford oil based products" horse you've been backing there pstarr. The price couldn't keep rising without sufficient demand.

So what's the underlying reality re oil demand THIS WEEK, in your view?

[Outcast_Searcher]

35% in less than a year. Up up and away

No problem. The FED will fix everything and beside people don't need gas for the their gigantic SUV's. Have you not heard? Ford will only sell F350's from now on! Let's flip cars! Let's flip houses. It's all FUN to be an Amurican-not

For the folks who can't think far enough ahead to not buy an F-x50 type truck or giant SUV, when the price of gasoline is critical to them -- it shouldn't be "fun" until they learn to think ahead and adapt a little. If it takes repeated self inflicted economic pain to learn the obvious lesson, so be it.

[Darian S]

Hasn't discovery of new oil been going down since like the 60s when it peaked? Doesn't the world use more oil than what it discovers to replace its consumption? No amount of money is going to change that. Maybe I'm misrecalling, but even during high price I think companies like Exxon started cutting exploration costs and instead have been buying back stock, they know what's up.

Four in 10 Americans can't cover a $400 emergency expense, Fed finds-theguardian

I know single individuals that spend like 200$ in gas, double that price, and the emergency suddenly becomes a 200$ emergency.

If they have two cars with 200$ consumption, a doubling in price and all of a sudden that's your emergency right there.

As for people cutting driving, besides work related travel, most people don't drive around randomly in their spare time. If they drive around it usually is to go somewhere, where they tend to spend money. If they cut that economic activity cuts down, sales fall, and the economy is affected.

Besides that is demand destruction when it comes to gasoline. IF you use less gasoline you buy less gasoline, demand for gasoline is destroyed.

Prices can't go or get much high, if they will result in significant demand destruction.

Unemployment in the UK is now so low it's in danger of exposing the lie used to create the numbers
[similar methodology used to calculate unemployment in the U.S]
In the UK and the US, technical "full employment" has, as a rule of thumb, historically been placed at an unemployment rate of 5% to 6%. When unemployment gets that low it generally means that anyone who wants a job can have one.

Importantly, it also suggests that wages will start to rise. It becomes more difficult for crappy employers to keep their workers when those workers know they can move to nicer jobs.

http://www.businessinsider.com/unemploy ... ers-2017-7

The reality is when you know of people who own fast food joints and get dozens upon dozens of applicants upon putting a recruitment ad. People fighting over each other even for minimum wage part time. You know there's no hope of salaries rising or things getting better.

There's the under-employment phenomena. We've all heard of the Ph.d starbucks barista. Things are grim out there, cooking numbers doesn't change reality. People eventually give up on looking for jobs, after submitting hundreds upon hundreds of applications and going months upon months or even years without finding employment.

[Outcast_Searcher]

The reality is when you know of people who own fast food joints and get dozens upon dozens of applicants upon putting a recruitment ad. People fighting over each other even for minimum wage part time. You know there's no hope of salaries rising or things getting better.

I know you believe that, but are offering NO evidence.

Or, in the real world, it can be hard for such employers to find willing workers.

I was just talking to a guy I know Monday night. He can't find the help he needs at his Mexican restaurant because "nobody wants to work" (his words). He says several folks he's talked to in the same business are having the same problem.

I commented that perhaps the (in the REAL world) very low unemployment rate was a factor and perhaps higher wages would be required (good for workers).

...

It's easy to find a Cassandra blog and repeat the always wrong messages of imminent doom. Harder to square such messages with economic reality, like the numbers reported every month by the government and the MSM.

So what's next. Back to the conspiracy theories that the numbers are all wrong since they're not what fast crash doomers want to hear?

[Darian S]

The reality is when you know of people who own fast food joints and get dozens upon dozens of applicants upon putting a recruitment ad. People fighting over each other even for minimum wage part time. You know there's no hope of salaries rising or things getting better.

I know you believe that, but are offering NO evidence.

Or, in the real world, it can be hard for such employers to find willing workers.

I was just talking to a guy I know Monday night. He can't find the help he needs at his Mexican restaurant because "nobody wants to work" (his words). He says several folks he's talked to in the same business are having the same problem.

I commented that perhaps the (in the REAL world) very low unemployment rate was a factor and perhaps higher wages would be required (good for workers).

...

It's easy to find a Cassandra blog and repeat the always wrong messages of imminent doom. Harder to square such messages with economic reality, like the numbers reported every month by the government and the MSM.

So what's next. Back to the conspiracy theories that the numbers are all wrong since they're not what fast crash doomers want to hear?

It is anecdotal, true. I agree that many people do not want to work. What usually happens is high turn over rate of workers. Doesn't change that there's an oversupply of workers which is depressing wages. The article I linked in this or the other thread, suggested that the true unemployment rate at least in the UK is about 1 in 4 or 25~%.

[dolanbaker]

With the recent crude oil price rises, the cost of petrol has reached €1.50 a litre the highest since 2009 and is almost at the all time high of €1.55 a litre seen around that time.

Strange thing is, is that there is very little talk about the price reaching such a milestone.

[KaiserJeep]

$4.20/US Gallon all around Nantucket Island. I am told that "Summer prices" are a thing of the past, there is perhaps a dime variation by mid-Winter.

Yeah, I know, it's an island.

[Tanada]

Toledo, OH is running at $2.909 today, the highest in quite a long time.

[Revi]

Seems like it went down a little today. I saw $2.68 cash price. Is that cheaper than the past few weeks? What happened?