What is the ratio? I'm wondering if the price increases per gallon of gas are actually due to the increases in the price of a barrel of oil.

According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrel#Oil_barrel), one 42-gallon standard U.S. barrel of petroleum makes about 19.5 gallons of oil.

If the increase in the price of gas is not caused by the increase in the price of petroleum, then what else could it be due to? The government has not changed the rules for formulating gasoline, or raised the taxes, which are probably the second and third most common reason for price increases.

According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrel#Oil_barrel), one 42-gallon standard U.S. barrel of petroleum makes about 19.5 gallons of oil.

Too bad the citation is needed on that wiki quote.

If the increase in the price of gas is not caused by the increase in the price of petroleum, then what else could it be due to? The government has not changed the rules for formulating gasoline, or raised the taxes, which are probably the second and third most common reason for price increases.[/

Think elastic versus inelastic economics. If people need something you set the price and they pay it...

http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/whats_in_barrel_oil.html

51.4 percent of a barrel of oil winds up as gasoline and there are 42 gallons to the barrel (US Gallons). So roughly 21 gallons per barrel.

The semi-monopoly control of refining and other processing introduces many opportunities for price management that have nothing to do with the cost of the raw materials. That is part of the explanation for the odd circumstance that a sudden sharp boost in the cost of raw materials has not - as in a normal commercial enterprise - cut into the profits of the finished product, in the gasoline business.

Exxon did not make its recent planetary and historical record profits by selling crude oil at high prices, exactly.

This link has a description of some of the situation, without delving into the chicanery involved.

http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_10003036.shtml
A key paragraph: During the 1990's the role of independent refiners (those without significant production) has grown substantially, largely as the result of refinery purchases from integrated companies (the "majors") seeking to streamline and realign their positions. Furthermore, the independent refiners, like the majors, are in a period of consolidation; the mergers and acquisitions are having a significant impact on refinery ownership (although not overall refined product supply).

With additives that most gasoline manufacturers use in their gas they can get over 23 gallons per barrel. Then you have to take into consideration everything that is made from that 50 gallon of oil which then the value increases up to about 500.00 for fertilizer, plastics and medications plus many other things.

What really gets me is when you hear people say we need to drill in Anwar to solve the oil problem....they must think we are all idiots when they make that arguement. It is so unbelievably dumb!
As long as we export domestic oil production (which we do), and as long as we continue to import oil (which we do)we will be tied to OPEC oil prices. Suppose we drill in Anwar and bring online 5 million barrels of oil production per day. What is to stop OPEC from dropping oil production by 5 million barrels per day in order to maintain current pricing....absoutely nothing!
I am no tree hugger, the arguement for drilling in Anwar to solve our oil problems is just plain stupid!

According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrel#Oil_barrel), one 42-gallon standard U.S. barrel of petroleum makes about 19.5 gallons of oil.

If the increase in the price of gas is not caused by the increase in the price of petroleum, then what else could it be due to? The government has not changed the rules for formulating gasoline, or raised the taxes, which are probably the second and third most common reason for price increases.

They do it because they can. What other reason do they need?

This is one incredibly stupid argument:

Suppose we drill in Anwar and bring online 5 million barrels of oil production per day. What is to stop OPEC from dropping oil production by 5 million barrels per day in order to maintain current pricing....absoutely nothing!

Loss of revenue??? You clearly don't understand the economics of oiltrade and the situation what we are in....

Syzygys, I think it is you who do not clearly understand economics 101. As long as you are locked into a world market, you are going to pay world market prices. It just so happens world market prices are controlled by OPEC. They control global supply, as long as they continue to control supply, they control price...real simple. The only way out is to issolate ourselves from the world market. That means, no exporting and no importing of oil. I tried to keep it simple for you Syzygys. It is basic supply and demand curve stuff. I am sure they offer a econ 101 course in a junior college near you.

Yeah I will take it. In the maintime one advantage would be that all the profit would go to US companies instead of the Arabs...

See? How much I learnt already?? :)

What is the ratio? I'm wondering if the price increases per gallon of gas are actually due to the increases in the price of a barrel of oil.

Diesel or hi-test?

What really gets me is when you hear people say we need to drill in Anwar to solve the oil problem....they must think we are all idiots when they make that arguement. It is so unbelievably dumb!
As long as we export domestic oil production (which we do), and as long as we continue to import oil (which we do)we will be tied to OPEC oil prices. Suppose we drill in Anwar and bring online 5 million barrels of oil production per day. What is to stop OPEC from dropping oil production by 5 million barrels per day in order to maintain current pricing....absoutely nothing!
I am no tree hugger, the arguement for drilling in Anwar to solve our oil problems is just plain stupid!Why shouldn't the US get in on the 100+/barrel gravy train rather than sending all that cash to the middle east?

Hm, I actually agree with Anthony. This topic is actually matter of national security. They always bring up the caribu. I say fuck the caribu, if we have to kill (get killed) people for other's oil. It is better to kill the caribu...

Why shouldn't the US get in on the 100+/barrel gravy train rather than sending all that cash to the middle east?

Because there is no gravy train for the United States in the production and use of oil. Who owns and controls the Alaskan Oil, British Petroleum. Who gets a substancial portion of that oil, our good buds the Chinese. Are they paying 100+ dollars a barrel for it, no. They are paying substancially less than that for it.

As you know from previous posts, I am no tree hugger. I don't think drilling in Anwar is an environmental issue. But it really does nothing for us. BP exports a good percentage of Alaskan Oil. You might be suprised to know that in the United States we export about ten percent of our domestic oil production.

As you also know from my previous posts, I am a great advocate of free markets. The problem with capitalism is that it tends create conditions that cause restrictions in free markets...ie. age of the Robber Barons. Well the Robber Barrons are back. And it is the roll of government to break up these blockages so that markets remain competitive. That is not happening in the United States and has not for some time now.

What we should be doing is converting to oil alternatives like natural gas. We have huge reserves of natural gas, and could be energy independent if we converted to natural gas. Additionally, infrastructure changes would be very minimal. Most engines can with minor modifications be converted to burn natural gas. This is a known technology. It gets us off of our oil dependency. It also a cleaner burning fuel.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/reserves.html

What we should be doing is converting to oil alternatives like natural gas. We have huge reserves of natural gas, and could be energy independent if we converted to natural gas. Additionally, infrastructure changes would be very minimal. Most engines can with minor modifications be converted to burn natural gas. This is a known technology. It gets us off of our oil dependency. It also a cleaner burning fuel.People have a deep fear of natural gas. In my part of suburban Maryland it isn't even provided and people actually heat their houses with electricity.

The photos of San Francisco burning because of the gas lines ruptured by an earthquake--ninety years ago. The campground in Spain that was leveled by the domino effect of exploding propane tanks mounted on trailers. My father, a sensible man and a competent DIY-er, almost burned his arm off installing the first gas furnace in our neighborhood in Arizona. I'm not as sensible and not as competent as he was and I very nearly did the same thing just lighting the frelling pilot on a gas water heater.

These images are literally seared into our minds.

Hell, I drive a diesel car and I enjoy the extra peace of mind knowing that I'll never be trapped in a fire. No way I'll ever drive a car with an LP tank strapped to it!

I used to drive a gas powered vehicle...it was not a problem at all. People need to make a choice. I refilled it...it was a commercial set up. And no one ever got hurt using natural gas.

The US does not have large reserves of natural gas, countries like Russia and Iran on the other hand could power there small vehicles on natural gas and have decades or longer of reserve available.

And no one ever got hurt using natural gas.I beg to differ. My father was hospitalized and couldn't use his right arm for about three months.

From American Petroleum Institute (API) statistics an average barrel (42 gallons) will produce 46% gasoline, 22% diesel, 10% jet fuel, 5.5% heavy fuel oil, and the remaining 16.5% would be everything else including lubricants, asphalt, petrochemical feedstocks, etc.

I beg to differ. My father was hospitalized and couldn't use his right arm for about three months.


Fraggle, I did not mean to say that no one ever got hurt. I am sure people are hurt using gasoline as well. In my experience using natural gas in a commercial fleet of vehicles, we never had any injuries associated with using the natural gas. And since these were emergency vehicles, they occasionally were involved in some pretty good accidents. And the vehicles presented no special problems pre or post accident. They did not blow up.

It would be interesting to see what the safety rates are comaring natural gas to gasoline usage. I have to admit, using natural gas is different. And it may appear fearful to some folks. But then, how much are you willing to pay for that fear? For me, natural gas is just fine...especially when it is so much cheaper and much more eco friendly.

From American Petroleum Institute (API) statistics an average barrel (42 gallons) will produce 46% gasoline, 22% diesel, 10% jet fuel, 5.5% heavy fuel oil, and the remaining 16.5% would be everything else including lubricants, asphalt, petrochemical feedstocks, etc.

These numbers sound like they are not addjusted for additives. Additives add volume to the numbers.

These numbers sound like they are not addjusted for additives. Additives add volume to the numbers.These are percentages and they add up to 100%.

These are percentages and they add up to 100%.

That is what I thought. We will just let the additive discussion end here.