Under $2 Gas: Enjoy It While You Can!

[nsaspook]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-03/first-u-s-gas-station-drops-below-2-a-gallon.html

http://www.gasbuddy.com/GB_Map_Gas_Prices.aspx

I know it won't last long but loving it while it does.

 

[edward]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-03/first-u-s-gas-station-drops-below-2-a-gallon.html

http://www.gasbuddy.com/GB_Map_Gas_Prices.aspx

I know it won't last long but loving it while it does.

The price is low because there is no money to be made in speculation when so many drivers don't the have money to spend.

On the other hand look at the price of generic drugs.

One half of generic medicines went up in price between last summer and this summer; about 10 percent more than doubled in cost in that time, with some common medicines rising by over 500 percent, new data released in connection with a Congressional hearing found. These include thyroid replacement hormone, the antibiotic doxycycline, the heart pill digoxin and the asthma pill albuterol.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/25/u...-relief-for-rising-cost-of-generic-drugs.html

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

$2.50-2.70 in my city. Under $2 would be amazing.

There have been some interesting articles about shale oil vs opec
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102234051#.

 

[phinds]

Whenever the price of gas goes down like this I always wonder, of all the people who vehemently curse those greedy gas companies for raising the price, how many of them are now saying, oh those wonderful gas companies, lowering the price for us ?

 

[mheslep]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-03/first-u-s-gas-station-drops-below-2-a-gallon.html

http://www.gasbuddy.com/GB_Map_Gas_Prices.aspx

I know it won't last long but loving it while it does.

I don't know how long under $2/gallon, but I don't see anything anywhere near the horizon of a couple years at least that could push US gasoline back over $3/gallon, not with the kind of domestic production show below, which is nothing short of a revolution.

 

[Danger]

I always have mixed feelings about this subject. As an Albertan, most of my comforts and medical requirements are paid for by oil revenues. On the other hand, as an ex-driver with a large house to heat, the lower prices are nice. I do miss what it was like when I started driving; gas was 35 cents/gallon (Imperial gallon, so about 1.2 US).

 

[mheslep]

a large house to heat

Oil heat?

 

[Danger]

Oil heat?

Natural gas. Same for my water heater and stove (but I almost never use that).
A lot of farms still use bunker oil, as far as I know, but I haven't lived on one since '65.

 

[edward]

Here is an interesting clip (If it works)

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/popout/mBlxW2RXQsKSvE4cQpOrCw/146.41/

Ok so this is different, it doesn't work until it is over then click the arrow.

 

[edward]

Natural gas. Same for my water heater and stove (but I almost never use that).
A lot of farms still use bunker oil, as far as I know, but I haven't lived on one since '65.

AS of 2011 8% of US homes still used heating oil and most were in the NE. I can image those folks are happy with the recent oil prices.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/oil-versus-natural-gas-home-heating/

 

[mheslep]

Probably much lower now even since 2011. Share of oil heat has been falling fast. Almost nonexistent in new residences, and the old oil burners are fading away. Wood burning is has been on increase especially in the NE.

 

[Psinter]

The premium is $3.21-$3.32. (Warning, probably ignorant comment ahead) I don't even know why regular exists. Most cars's instructions say you have to use premium (including the one I use). Never seen a car saying it can use regular (though that doesn't mean there doesn't exist one). But pay no heed to my comment, I don't really know the difference, I just follow instructions and use premium.

I love as well that it has lowered down.

 

[Danger]

I don't really know the difference

I have no idea what it means now. When it first came out, "premium" was what used to be just "gas". "Regular" had a lower octane rating and so was cheaper. Much later, when they came out with hardened valve seats for engines, regular became "unleaded". Then they dropped lead from all of it, but dropped the octane on both until "premium" became what used to be "regular" and "regular" became swamp water. All I know for sure is that after 1980 I had to add two cans of octane boost to each tank of "premium" gas to make my 440 work, and that premium had to be Mohawk because they had lithium or something added into their ethanol/gasoline blend in place of lead, and the only other gas available by then was unleaded. That would have killed my car dead within weeks, because lead was what lubricated the valves. Cars built after about '76 or so are made to run on unleaded.

 

[jtbell]

Most cars's instructions say you have to use premium (including the one I use). Never seen a car saying it can use regular (though that doesn't mean there doesn't exist one).

Both of our cars use regular (87 octane) gasoline: a Chevy Sonic and a Chevy Spark. Both are 2013 models.

 

[russ_watters]

(Warning, probably ignorant comment ahead) I don't even know why regular exists. Most cars's instructions say you have to use premium (including the one I use). Never seen a car saying it can use regular (though that doesn't mean there doesn't exist one).

Yeah, I really don't know where you are getting that. The vast majority still say to use regular -- that's why it is still sold! What determines which you should use is the compression ratio: higher compression ratio cars need premium.

My current car is a Kia Optima turbo and my last was a Mazda 6 and both took regular.

Much of what drives premium gas sales is marketing hype (the name, "premium"!), not actual need. This is a bit out of date, but as of about 1990, the market share of premium gas was 30% while the actual need for premium gas was about 20%:
http://www.uctc.net/papers/457.pdf

More up to date with lists of cars, but no stats:
http://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/to-save-money-on-gas-stop-buying-premium.html

 

[Medicol]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-03/first-u-s-gas-station-drops-below-2-a-gallon.html

http://www.gasbuddy.com/GB_Map_Gas_Prices.aspx

I know it won't last long but loving it while it does.

It'll last forever. I hope so.

 

[phinds]

The premium is $3.21-$3.32. (Warning, probably ignorant comment ahead) I don't even know why regular exists. Most cars's instructions say you have to use premium (including the one I use). Never seen a car saying it can use regular (though that doesn't mean there doesn't exist one). But pay no heed to my comment, I don't really know the difference, I just follow instructions and use premium.

I love as well that it has lowered down.

Neither my wife nor I have ever owned a car that took anything other than regular. I have no idea where you get your "facts" but they are wrong.

 

[nsaspook]

No need for premium for anything I currently drive (sold my last 3/4 ton 4x4 a few years ago) but I do like 'pure' gas in the car as I see no long term economic or environmental benefit from corn ethanol.
http://pure-gas.org/index.jsp?stateprov=OR

 

[Nikitin]

I don't know how long under $2/gallon, but I don't see anything anywhere near the horizon of a couple years at least that could push US gasoline back over $3/gallon, not with the kind of domestic production show below, which is nothing short of a revolution.

OPEC + Friends flooding the US market with cheap oil would (in the long term).

 

[russ_watters]

I see this as OPEC's death rattle. They are approaching their production limits and will soon start to decline. Since the amount of oil they have left is fixed, selling more at a lower price today instead of the same at a higher price later is going to hurt them a lot in the long run.

The shale oil revolution can be slowed, but it can't be stopped or reversed: they don't have enough oil to do that.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I see this as OPEC's death rattle

This could make for an interesting discussion on what happens to the middle east and north africa. If it's bad now, what happens when they don't have any money.

 

[nitsuj]

I understand this is going to be a new norm, and if diesel continues to follow suite (and the sulfur removal process improved / and fixed amount long term) is great news for consumers / employees. I'd guess it'll be long term as in 5yrs.

It's a crappy situation for West Canada oil sands, hopefully US starts buying more CND goods/services again. but good on America; this is the proper route. (lots of oil production = powerful dollar. and wonder of the US "in camera" politicking with respect to OPEC, if any, in other words I'm curious if the US had direct influence on OPEC's determination.

Oh and get out of <5yr gold, if the run hasn't already started lol; as US is getting it's shine back.

 

[russ_watters]

This could make for an interesting discussion on what happens to the middle east and north africa. If it's bad now, what happens when they don't have any money.

Yes. I've been thinking about that for a while. The next 10-20 years may see a major shift in geopolitics.

 

[nikkkom]

This could make for an interesting discussion on what happens to the middle east and north africa. If it's bad now, what happens when they don't have any money.

It probably will get *better* - they will have fewer $$$ for buying arms.

 

[russ_watters]

...in other words I'm curious if the US had direct influence on OPEC's determination.

You mean on OPEC's output choices? Yes, from what i understand, OPEC fairly explicitly stated that this is an anti-US shale price war. Obama (correctly IMO) responded: "yawn".

 

[russ_watters]

Here's an article from October that correctly predicted the price war and argues that even if OPEC "wins" in the short term, they still lose in the long term...and that they overestimate their odds/power.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/can-saudis-beat-north-dakota-in-an-oil-price-war-2014-10-08

And here is an update from a few days ago from the same source that says more forcefully, no, they can't.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/opec-is-wrong-to-think-it-can-outlast-us-on-oil-prices-2014-12-02

Either way, the next few months will be an interesting experiment in the elasticity of both sides of the market.

 

[nitsuj]

You mean on OPEC's output choices? Obama (correctly IMO) responded: "yawn".

You are far more informed than me with economics, how come Obama's response was "Yawn" and not a celebratory "YA!". Is that a poker face? In other words the only negative I see is the impact on US oil companies and though I don't know about trade agreements, isn't the US allowed to subsidize / tariff oil trade favorably for domestic oil companies?

 

[russ_watters]

You are far more informed than me with economics, how come Obama's response was "Yawn" and not a celebratory "YA!". Is that a poker face? In other words the only negative I see is the impact on US oil companies and though I don't know about trade agreements, isn't the US allowed to subsidize / tariff oil trade favorably for domestic oil companies?

It's a double-edged sword for liberals. They like that lower prices grease the economy and hurt our oil companies, but dislike that they goose consumption (SUV sales) and hurt alternate energy. Inwardly, he hasn't really expressed an opinion that I've seen; the only response I saw was to OPEC; 'no, we won't fight back by stockpiling - we don't care if prices drop" (paraphrase).

(Edit) For subsidies/trade, the biggest issues I know of are the current restrictions on federal drilling areas and a ban on crude exports, neither of which are budging.

 

[nitsuj]

Good stuff, being on the light side of the income scale I am happy for this scenario.

Hopefully Saudi continues to invest in addressing their domestic "social concerns" (don't need another group of haters/ idle hands/unemployment) , though it seems unlikely. It seems to me that would be the first thing on the budget to cut. meanwhile in Dubai...

 

[BobG]

The premium is $3.21-$3.32. (Warning, probably ignorant comment ahead) I don't even know why regular exists. Most cars's instructions say you have to use premium (including the one I use). Never seen a car saying it can use regular (though that doesn't mean there doesn't exist one). But pay no heed to my comment, I don't really know the difference, I just follow instructions and use premium.

I love as well that it has lowered down.

Most cars use regular. The main difference between premium and regular is the octane level. Higher octane prevents pre-ignition (which causes knocking when your cylinder fires at the wrong time). Most engines aren't such high performance machines that they require premium.

Lower oxygen levels also reduce pre-ignition problems. Regular usually has a an octane level of 87. Where I live (high altitude), regular has an octane level of 85 and most cars work fine. In fact, a lot of owner's manuals will even mention that your car can run on lower octane at high elevations. None the less, there's an awful lot of owners that don't read their owner's manuals very closely and pay extra for the 87 octane gas even though they don't need it.

Theoretically, you should use the lowest octane level that doesn't result in knocking and be okay. In practice, I'd probably follow the manufacturer's instructions for a car I spent a lot of money on.

 

[BobG]

It probably will get *better* - they will have fewer $$$ for buying arms.

This could make for an interesting discussion on what happens to the middle east and north africa. If it's bad now, what happens when they don't have any money.

Actually, I think the result will be different in each country.

Some of your smaller Middle East countries (UAE, etc) have always seen oil money as a very volatile resource (they're at the mercy of the big oil producers like Saudi Arabia when it comes to controlling oil prices). They've used their oil money to move into other areas and have actually invested in their people. They have very modern cities, a more Westernized culture, and would probably survive a crash in oil prices. (I've always felt that if one wanted to spread democracy to the Middle East for some reason, they should start with the smaller, more westernized countries - not a country like Iraq.)

Your big oil producers have tended towards maintaining their "traditional" culture, but with increased wealth. Part of that is obviously that significant change would result in a change in leadership - and what leader wants that? I think the larger producers that have tried to play it both ways - Iran with a very closed social culture while trying to keep up technologically, for example - will have it the worst. In countries where leaders kept as much oil money for themselves, your leaders will be less wealthy, but the average person won't see a huge difference - hence little turmoil.

In other words, the extremes do okay. The countries in the middle have serious problems. Which is kind of interesting. Usually being on the extremes is a bad thing.

At least there would be less reason to invade a neighbor for a resource that was worth less? Or enough desperation to invade a neighbor to compensate for having to sell for less? I don't really know how that would play out.

 

[Nikitin]

Are there any petroleum engineers here who can comment on how much mature the shale tech is? IMO the US shale oil vs OPEC battle will entirely depends on how much further down in cost the fracking can go. As far as I know, right now the average marginal price for a barrel lies at $60+ for shale and $10 for Saudi oil, so those small companies neck deep in debt won't stand a chance in this price war. Long term, who knows?

Also I wouldn't count on OPEC running out of oil any time soon - SA for example has enough oil to keep production up for at least 60 years. And by then oil might not even be that big of a deal anyway, especially not if it gets too expensive. So yeah thinking OPEC are "wasting their resources too early" is just wishful thinking.

 

[nitsuj]

Imo the states that have significant % of GDP generated from oil will have it worse, and those with expensive oil even more so (Canada). In particular those that use said monies to support their citizens. If the FY budget doesn't balance, it's likely that social policies get nicked first, risking unrest. Think Saudi and all the social benefits it's citizens receive via oil revenues, start cutting that off and they may "rebel".

Whats more to consider is Saudi infrastructure investment and the jobs that creates...and not the labor jobs (mostly immigrants), but the domestic management ones.

What kinda of war chest does Saudi have?? Read an analyst suggesting 80$ USD / Barrel is required for Saudi to have a balanced budget as of recently.

This is one "war" I think the US will decisively "win", as in regardless of what OPEC does. Has the US recently acquired any large foreign assets from the Oil Industry? Perhaps possible to direct said monies to Shall oil development? Perhaps to help alleviate some of the cycle costs. (land acquisition / oil rig construction)

Maybe there is a loop hole where the US Govern', can use BP fine proceeds towards indirectly "subsidizing" Shall oil.

 

[nitsuj]

Are there any petroleum engineers here who can comment on how much mature the shale tech is? IMO the US shale oil vs OPEC battle will entirely depends on how much further down in cost the fracking can go. As far as I know, right now the average marginal price for a barrel lies at $60+ for shale and $10 for Saudi oil, so those small companies neck deep in debt won't stand a chance in this price war. Long term, who knows?

Also I wouldn't count on OPEC running out of oil any time soon - SA for example has enough oil to keep production up for at least 60 years. And by then oil might not even be that big of a deal anyway, especially not if it gets too expensive. So yeah thinking OPEC are "wasting their resources too early" is just wishful thinking.

apparently it depends from which point one begins to consider the input cost. I think the terminology is "Cycle" with a full cycle being start-to-finish production. Of which land / oil Rig construction is a very significant part, as much as half of the cost of a barrel i.e. about 60$ I had seen also, and 30$ for "Current operating rigs".

What can legislation, gov intervention do to alleviate the "start-up" cost of shall oil production. Is BP fine monies available to put towards the industry development? Is the US sitting on or close to a significant Tech advancement that reduces the cost/risk of Shall oil?

 

[lisab]

It's a crappy situation for West Canada oil sands, hopefully US starts buying more CND goods/services again. but good on America; this is the proper route. (lots of oil production = powerful dollar. and wonder of the US "in camera" politicking with respect to OPEC, if any, in other words I'm curious if the US had direct influence on OPEC's determination.

A strong dollar isn't good for exporters, though.

 

[mheslep]

This could make for an interesting discussion on what happens to the middle east and north africa. If it's bad now, what happens when they don't have any money.

Off the top of my head, I suspect running out of spare cash would make it hard to operate rogue WMD programs, arm terror armies, or invade the neighbors.

 

[Danger]

Off the top of my head, I suspect running out of spare cash would make it hard to operate rogue WMD programs, arm terror armies, or invade the neighbors.

Of course; that's why the US is so money-hungry.

 

[nikkkom]

Of course; that's why the US is so money-hungry.

What this even means?

 

[Jobrag]

A good time for you Americans to introduce a Federal petrol (gas) tax, either cut the deficit or go all out for a manned Mars mission.

 

[leroyjenkens]

I've never bought premium. I don't know what premium is and I don't really care. It's more expensive, so I get the regular. And most people get regular. I know this because the button for regular is always dirty and scratched up and worn while the premium button is always spotless.

I don't really mind when the price of gas is high, because I drive a fuel efficient car and only have to pay like $20 a week for gas, and I drive a lot. About 15k miles a year.
But when the price is high, I get satisfaction from all these rednecks and meatheads with huge trucks, or worst of all, hummers, who have to put their whole paycheck in the gas tank.

 

[nsaspook]

A good time for you Americans to introduce a Federal petrol (gas) tax

We already have one and state taxes on top of that. WIKI

The United States federal excise tax on gasoline is 18.4 cents per gallon and 24.4 cents per gallon for diesel fuel.[1][2] On average, as of April 2014, state and local taxes add 31.5 cents to gasoline and 31.0 cents to diesel, for a total US average fuel tax of 49.9 cents per gallon for gas and 55.4 cents per gallon for diesel.[3]

 

[edward]

This is definitely a waiting game with OPEC. We have thousands of new wells producing enough to significantly lower the price of oil. On the other hand the shale oil business is top heavy with debt. The shale oil wells pump 60 to 70 percent of their available oil in one year. Will those investors stick around while we have to keep up the pace of drilling new wells and building new infrastructure?

There will, of course, be losers (see article). Oil-producing countries whose budgets depend on high prices are in particular trouble. The rouble tumbled this week as Russia’s prospects darkened further. Nigeria has been forced to raise interest rates and devalue the naira. Venezuela looks ever closer to defaulting on its debt. The spectre of defaults and the speed and scale of the price plunge have unnerved financial markets. But the overall economic effect of cheaper oil is clearly positive.

Just how positive will depend on how long the price stays low. That is the subject of a continuing tussle between OPEC and the shale-drillers. Several members of the cartel want it to cut its output, in the hope of pushing the price back up again. But Saudi Arabia, in particular, seems mindful of the experience of the 1970s, when a big leap in the price prompted huge investments in new fields, leading to a decade-long glut. Instead, the Saudis seem to be pushing a different tactic: let the price fall and put high-cost producers out of business. That should soon crimp supply, causing prices to rise.

http://www.economist.com/news/leade...d-some-businesses-will-go-bust-market-will-be

But much of the burden of adjustment will fall on America’s shale industry. It has been a big swing factor in supply, with output rising from 0.5% of the global total in 2008 to 3.7% today. That has required hefty spending: shale accounted for at least 20% of global investment in oil production last year. Saudi Arabia, the leading member of OPEC, has made clear it will tolerate lower prices in order to do to shale firms’ finances what fracking does to rocks.

Two generalisations can still be made. First, in the very near term, the industry’s economics are good at almost any price. Wells that are producing oil or gas are extraordinarily profitable, because most of the costs are sunk. Taking a sample of eight big independent firms, average operating costs in 2013 were $10-20 per barrel of oil (or equivalent unit of gas) produced—so no shale firm will curtail current production. But the output of shale wells declines rapidly, by 60-70% in their first year, so within a couple of years this oil will stop flowing.

If debt markets dry up and profits fall owing to cheaper oil, the funding gap could be up to $70 billion a year. Were firms to plug this by cutting their investment budgets, investment would drop by 50%. In 2013 more than a quarter of all shale investment was done by firms with dodgy balance sheets (defined as debt of more than three times gross operating profits). Quite a few may go bust. Bonds in some smaller firms trade at less than 70 cents on the dollar.

All this suggests looming investment cuts that within a year will slow growth in American shale production to a crawl and perhaps even lead to slight declines. A few firms have trimmed their budgets already. More are expected to announce cuts in January. “Frontier” projects—on the fringes of existing basins or in places where little commercial production has taken place—are vulnerable, including Oklahoma. Most firms will hunker down in the Bakken, the Eagle Ford and the Permian Basin, where they have scale and infrastructure. Even in the Bakken, applications for drilling permits fell by almost 40% in November.

http://www.economist.com/news/finan...ling-oil-prices-curb-americas-shale-boom-bind

When it comes to losing money or putting the economy in jeopardy big money always seems to do the latter. We need to get through this and stay on top of the game with OPEC.

 

[JonDE]

I don't understand how OPEC expects to win. Even if they keep prices really low for an extended period of time, forcing us to stop drilling new wells, as soon as price goes back up, we will begin drilling again. Their only option seems to be to permanently keep prices low, which is not to their benefit.

 

[mheslep]

OPEC is not acting monolithically at his time. Rather, the Saudis are acting to stop loss of market share even if at a lower price. If along the way they can force some of the more expensive producers to go bust, then replacements will be very slow to re-enter production and the Saudis should be able to allow the price back up a little.

 

[nsaspook]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/01/world/russian-money-suspected-behind-fracking-protests.html?_r=0

This belief that Russia is fueling the protests, shared by officials in Lithuania, where Chevron also ran into a wave of unusually fervent protests and then decided to pull out, has not yet been backed up by any clear proof. And Gazprom has denied accusations that it has bankrolled anti-fracking protests. But circumstantial evidence, plus large dollops of Cold War-style suspicion, have added to mounting alarm over covert Russian meddling to block threats to its energy stranglehold on Europe.

 

[mheslep]

Apparently Russia has been doing agitprop on EU domestic production for some time.

The head of one of the world’s leading groups of democratic nations has accused Russia of undermining projects using hydraulic fracturing technology in Europe.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen, secretary-general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato), and former premier of Denmark, told the Chatham House thinktank in London on Thursday that Vladimir Putin’s government was behind attempts to discredit fracking, according to reports.

Rasmussen said: “I have met allies who can report that Russia, as part of their sophisticated information and disinformation operations, engaged actively with so-called non-governmental organisations - environmental organisations working against shale gas - to maintain European dependence on imported Russian gas.”

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ing-with-environmentalists-to-oppose-fracking

 

[nikkkom]

I don't understand how OPEC expects to win. Even if they keep prices really low for an extended period of time, forcing us to stop drilling new wells, as soon as price goes back up, we will begin drilling again. Their only option seems to be to permanently keep prices low, which is not to their benefit.

You are forgetting that OPEC is making money even at $50 per barrel. Just not as much as they used to.

 

[mheslep]

Apparently the US shale drillers can still make money down to the mid-$60s in the major shale-oil fields. link

The major U.S. shale fields—the Bakken regional formation in North Dakota, the Eagle Ford in south Texas, the Permian basin in west Texas and southeast New Mexico—“still yield positive economic returns” with oil at $70 or even in the mid-$60s, Mr. Papa says.

 

[nsaspook]

http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/15/news/economy/2-dollar-gas/index.html?iid=TL_Popular

With OPEC so far unwilling to cut production in order to prop up prices, some forecast that oil could fall to near $40 a barrel at some point in 2015. That would drive gas prices down even more and make gas for under $2 a gallon common at stations across the country.

 

[Naomi]

Semi random: I just filled up my gas tank for $1.99 a gallon. That's insane. But pleasant at the same time.