Old gas pumps can't handle ever-rising prices

[Here in Hollywood]

I had a dream about a month ago....gas was $1.19 a gallon.

Geez---it seems so long ago

[Bob Loblaw]

ADAM THE MACHO LIFEGUARD wrote:

SPEAKING OF OLD GAS PUMPS....I WONDER HOW FRANCESCA IS DOING? YOU ALL REMEMBER HER...SHE WAS THE OLD PUERTO RICAN BAG FROM SAN JUAN, WHO NOT ONCE....BUT TWICE....UNLEASHED COLON HECK FURY IN MY STAND ON 12TH STREET. SHE HAD MORE GAS THAN SUNOCO. SEA GULLS WHO FLOW OVER HEAD DURING THAT TIME FRAME OF CONTAMINATION, CRASHED INTO THE SEA. MY STAND REEKED LIKE A MORGUE FOR WEEKS.

Woooo! Go, people, GO! Keep on pumpin' the poison so you can get to Walmart for that jumbo pack of bottled water on sale for $5.99.

[Fed up]

Hey all you Bush lovers,thank's for you're vote.We told you so, but you did not listen.Shame on you.How do you like the great leader Bush now???

[FRANK FEILER]

AS A COLLECTOR OF ANTIQUE GAS PUMPS I WELCOME ALL OFFERS TO SELL THE OLD PUMPS...ANY SIZE.
EMAIL ME AT: [e-mail]

[Tim from Canada]

Wen wrote:

<quoted text>
Tim, what's that aboot, eh? A litre is 33.8 ounces, not 33; a U.S. quart is 32 oz., not 32.5. Take off, you hoser! Beauty, eh?
Just kidding you a bit, Tim. I like Canada just fine except for the cruel and inhumane baby seal hunt.

No baby seals in this part of the world I'm 50ish miles from Buffalo.And tell Thermos their conversion is off. Not saying you are wrong just that I read whats on the bottom of the jug.

[Matt]

Fed up wrote:

Hey all you Bush lovers,thank's for you're vote.We told you so, but you did not listen.Shame on you.How do you like the great leader Bush now???

I didn't vote for Bush nor am I a Bush apologist, but I also don't hold him responsible for all of the world's ills as many of you people do.

Please explain how Bush is responsible for high gas prices.(I assume that's what you mean by your rant.)

[ByronMoreno]

Matt wrote:

<quoted text>
You apparently missed the point of my original post. Here it is so you can try again:
""The concept of drilling domestically to reduce our dependency on foreign oil works ONLY IF you can convince the oil companies to sell the oil to ONLY the U.S., rather than selling it on the open market.""
Theoretically, we can do all the drilling we want in ANWR, the Gulf of Mexico, etc., but if the oil companies just dump that product on the open market it will have ZERO affect on reducing our dependency on foreign oil.

Again, oil is 100% fungible. This really isn't difficult. It doesn't matter where we sell it.

[Matt]

ByronMoreno wrote:

<quoted text>
Again, oil is 100% fungible. This really isn't difficult. It doesn't matter where we sell it.

Yes, oil is fungible. I get that. That's irrelevant to my point, though.

Many people claim that we can reduce our dependency on foreign oil if the oil companies are allowed to drill more in various domestic areas (ANWR, Gulf of Mexico, etc.)

My point is that this claim is incorrect, and that a big "only if" is required to make it correct.

If this domestically-sourced oil is sold on the world market, then it will have no effect on our foreign oil dependency.

If this domestically-sourced oil is kept in the U.S. and refined here, then it will reduce our need to purchase foreign oil.

I'm not sure how to make my point any clearer.

[ByronMoreno]

Matt wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, oil is fungible. I get that. That's irrelevant to my point, though.

It's crucial, because fungibility shows that "energy independence" is a myth.

Matt wrote:

Many people claim that we can reduce our dependency on foreign oil if the oil companies are allowed to drill more in various domestic areas (ANWR, Gulf of Mexico, etc.)
My point is that this claim is incorrect, and that a big "only if" is required to make it correct.
If this domestically-sourced oil is sold on the world market, then it will have no effect on our foreign oil dependency.

No! No! No!

Energy independence is typically meant as one of two things: security of supply and security of pricing.

Since oil is fungible, it is priced on a global market (and, yes, I realize that every type of crude has its own price and that Indonesia Minas 34º is not the same price as Brent Blend 38º). Therefore from a pricing standpoint, it makes no difference if ANWR oil is sold to us or overseas. The effect of supply is effectively the same.

The same framework holds for security of supply. There are two scenarios - a boycott of the US and a global supply restriction. In the first case, oil suppliers from the boycotters will now be going to our export markets, so we can divert our supply or trade with the recipients. In a global slowdown, we can divert supply.

Either way, where the oil is sold to is irrelevant. "Energy independence" is a myth, as basic oil economics shows.

Matt wrote:

If this domestically-sourced oil is kept in the U.S. and refined here, then it will reduce our need to purchase foreign oil.
I'm not sure how to make my point any clearer.

My point is that you get to the same exact point by exporting ours and buying other folks' oil.

[Sitting back]

[QUOTE who="ByronMoreno...My point is that you get to the same exact point by exporting ours and buying other folks' oil.[/QUOTE]

Except that it costs a bit to ship it. If the cost of shipping oil is negligible to the cost of the oil itself, then oil truly is 100% fungible as you say. A while back... I don't know if this is still true... the U.S. was selling oil from certain locations in Alaska to Japan (perhaps locations that were not near the Alaskan oil pipeline), since it was cheaper to transport it to Japan than it was to go through the Panama canal up to the refineries in the Gulf of Mexico (U.S. refineries, for those who are geographically illiterate).

[ByronMoreno]

Sitting back wrote:

<quoted text>
Except that it costs a bit to ship it. If the cost of shipping oil is negligible to the cost of the oil itself, then oil truly is 100% fungible as you say. A while back... I don't know if this is still true... the U.S. was selling oil from certain locations in Alaska to Japan (perhaps locations that were not near the Alaskan oil pipeline), since it was cheaper to transport it to Japan than it was to go through the Panama canal up to the refineries in the Gulf of Mexico (U.S. refineries, for those who are geographically illiterate).

Correct (about my point and selling to Japan). I was trying to simplify the matter a bit.

[Matt]

ByronMoreno wrote:

<quoted text>
It's crucial, because fungibility shows that "energy independence" is a myth.
<quoted text>
No! No! No!
Energy independence is typically meant as one of two things: security of supply and security of pricing.
Since oil is fungible, it is priced on a global market (and, yes, I realize that every type of crude has its own price and that Indonesia Minas 34º is not the same price as Brent Blend 38º). Therefore from a pricing standpoint, it makes no difference if ANWR oil is sold to us or overseas. The effect of supply is effectively the same.
The same framework holds for security of supply. There are two scenarios - a boycott of the US and a global supply restriction. In the first case, oil suppliers from the boycotters will now be going to our export markets, so we can divert our supply or trade with the recipients. In a global slowdown, we can divert supply.
Either way, where the oil is sold to is irrelevant. "Energy independence" is a myth, as basic oil economics shows.
<quoted text>
My point is that you get to the same exact point by exporting ours and buying other folks' oil.

I guess I'm a little slow because I still don't understand how your fungibility argument responds to my point about keeping U.S.-sourced oil in the U.S. to reduce our need to purchase foreign-sourced oil.

I didn't mention "energy independence" or price of oil. Maybe my argument is too simplistic and doesn't take into account enough about oil markets.

Still, I haven't heard anything to disabuse me of the notion that if we increase the U.S. oil supply by drilling in more domestic areas, and we keep this additional oil supply for U.S. consumption, then we'd reduce our need to buy foreign oil.

[RegularGuy]

Matt wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, oil is fungible. I get that. That's irrelevant to my point, though.

Give it up. Arguing with 'Moreno' is like trying to nail Jell-o to the wall.

He learned a new word, and the word is 'fungible' and he will delight us all with his new vocabulary.

[Tim from Canada]

Fungible,Isn't that what your feet become when you don't wear your shower shoes at the gym?

[ByronMoreno]

Matt wrote:

<quoted text>
I guess I'm a little slow because I still don't understand how your fungibility argument responds to my point about keeping U.S.-sourced oil in the U.S. to reduce our need to purchase foreign-sourced oil.

Oil economics is a very strange and counter-intuitive subject.

The point, at its most simple, is that a barrel of oil sold anywhere displaces another barrel. And that barrel will typically, barring outside interference, find its way back to where the original one came from.

Plus, prices are set globally, so even if we did not import a single barrel, our domestic prices would still reflect the global price.

But in terms of not buying foreign oil, think of it this way. We keep $2 worth of new oil. We buy $10 from Saudi Arabia. Japan buys $8.

Now, what happens if we sell the oil to Japan?

Japan buys $6 from SA and $2 from us. We buy $12 from SA.

Net outcome:
First case - SA sells $18
Second case - SA sells $18

Our $2 merely flows through the system.

Matt wrote:

I didn't mention "energy independence" or price of oil. Maybe my argument is too simplistic and doesn't take into account enough about oil markets.
Still, I haven't heard anything to disabuse me of the notion that if we increase the U.S. oil supply by drilling in more domestic areas, and we keep this additional oil supply for U.S. consumption, then we'd reduce our need to buy foreign oil.

The point is that it is irrelevant where our oil goes. The same amount of money will flow to prior producers. The same price swings will affect us. The same shortage issues will hit us.

[ByronMoreno]

RegularGuy wrote:

<quoted text>
Give it up. Arguing with 'Moreno' is like trying to nail Jell-o to the wall.
He learned a new word, and the word is 'fungible' and he will delight us all with his new vocabulary.

*yawn*

I see you can't add to the discussion.