E15 gasoline incoming...

Back when I worked as a corporate editor instead of a dirtbag poet, I worked on the transcript from this woman's talk. Here's a blog that hits the high points: https://blogs.cfainstitute.org/investor/2013/08/20/real-energy-independence-making-oil-no-longer-strategic/

Her basic argument is that gasoline enjoys a monopoly and does not act like other commodities because people HAVE TO buy it to run their cars. She suggests pushing to (1) adapt current engines so they can take methanol (if I recall, she cited a $500 upfront cost to the owner, and suggested a govt tax benefit therefrom?) and (2) adapt gas stations so they can sell methanol (by making it economically viable for them to spend the money).

She argues that these steps will allow consumers to choose between whichever fuel is cheaper right at the pump, which will in turn drive the cost of gasoline down because it will ACTUALLY have to compete with another fuel.

Worth adding to the conversation.

Interesting web site. But possibly already out of date.

I've been watching some YouTube videos of talks by Peter Zeihan, strategic analyst and author of the two books: THE ACCIDENTAL SUPERPOWER, and THE ABSENT SUPERPOWER.

He maintains that thanks to a technology revolution in shale oil, we've ALREADY obtained energy independence and no longer need to import ANY foreign oil. And the cost per barrel of shale is already competitive with OPEC's price and is still dropping.

At this point, a major war in the middle east between Iran and Saudi Arabia, cutting off the flow of oil from the region, wouldn't affect us at all, it would just wreck the rest of the world. We would still have all the energy we need and all the food we need.

Oh, and according to him, the reason we flare off so much natural gas is because we just don't have the infrastructure to DO anything with it.

Yep, the numbers definitely indicate that the US is extremely close to being energy independent. We get the enormous majority of our oil domestically and from Canada. A quick glance shows that we only import about 25% of our oil, and only about 10% of those imports come from Saudi Arabia; Saudi Arabia isn't the entirety of OPEC, but I can't imagine the OPEC numbers accounting for anything more than 5% of our total oil supply.

On top of that (and I'm sure Zeihan covers it), shale oil production in the US is limited only by demand. Entire shale oil operations shut down or start up with oil price fluctuations; the only barrier to more US oil production is whether it's profitable for the companies to turn the lights on that month.

West Texas Intermediate, North Slope, and minor amounts from California and elsewhere are now coveted because of their asphalt (pavement and shingles) content. We swap Mexico two for one so they get our light fracked oil which unburdens old decrepit refineries in Mexico.

The 3-walnut shells and a pea huckster game played by oil companies exists SOLELY as an excuse to tie finished product prices to crude oil that makes up less than 2% of all crude refined in the USA. When I EXPERIENCED seeing supertankers swinging at anchor in San Pablo Bay, their plimsoll marks all but buried in seawater and the Shell Oil refinery in Martinez cut back to 40% of capacity it took the bloom off the rose for me. I ended my association in 1974

If pressure is brought to bear on domestic oil companies, suddenly a rash of REFINERY UPSETS bears the blame for why a refinery is coasting at 40% of capacity and retail prices go up. I heard with my own ears the Manager Refineries (meaning all) roar "So they want to play games with the Oil Depletion Allowance!" which was a huge tax break taken away "Well I have news for them!" Shortly thereafter the great oil shortage and price hikes of the 1970's began.

Newer processes like Delayed Coking and catalyst sulfur extraction makes heavy crude refining possible meaning refineries can blow through heavy crude at a high profit.

Louie-the-louse grade speculation is driving the markets ever higher. The problem is PHANTOM PRICING skews reality. Inflation increases and sooner or later giant "market corrections" are the rule.

My protest is personally-tailored to my lifestyle. Sept 10 to Oct 10 I consumed 5.8 gallons of gasoline. Before you start squealing re-read the personally-tailored part again.

Straylight wrote:
Yep, the numbers definitely indicate that the US is extremely close to being energy independent.

And of course, the main point here is that the whole RATIONALE for ethanol in gasoline - independence from foreign oil - has disappeared.

We're still mixing ethanol into our gas for purely political reasons.

I'm not sure about PURELY political---while ethanol gas has well-documented drawbacks in re: maintenance of small engines and health of old engines, it also has well-documented benefits in re: oxygenation and octane boost without MTBE, and on top of that, a valid and apolitical argument can be made that allowing a renewable resource to shoulder 10% of the demand for gasoline is a decent idea.

That being said, the EXTENT of certain policies is certainly political. Ted Cruz doesn't give a **** about the health of your engine, and Lindsey Graham doesn't give a **** about lowering MTBE levels; when they lobby the President to side with gasoline (Ted) or ethanol (Lindsey), they are entirely concerned with protecting the moneybag industries in their respective states (Texas and Iowa).

Straylight wrote:
...it also has well-documented benefits in re: oxygenation and octane boost without MTBE, and on top of that, a valid and apolitical argument can be made that allowing a renewable resource to shoulder 10% of the demand for gasoline is a decent idea.

Theres some serious flaws with that notion.

Those ‘well-documented benefits’ are laboratory derived. Not very many people drive their vehicles in a laboratory, they drive them up and down the roads. In the ‘real world’ moisture and all sorts of other issues appear. That usually more than negates the benefits because now the vehicle isn’t running at peak performance either.

As for ‘shouldering’ anything, just look at Mex’s earlier post about genuine 1st person results. A 10% drop in mileage running E10 means you are burning every bit as much gasoline is you ever did plus an additional 10% of ethanol. The Ethanol is IN ADDITION to the gasoline, it’s shouldering ZERO.

The other dirty little secret nobody likes to talk about is the quantum of ethanol itself. If you look at the total amount of ethanol produced and compare it to the quantity of gasoline sold, amount exported, and the other uses you will see the numbers don’t jive.

The retail petroleum industry is rife with rumours and speculation surrounding the ‘spiking’ or ‘doping’ of gasoline, with the skinny margins in retail it’s awfully tempting to add a few extra gallons of cheap Ethanol to the in ground tanks, especially if you’re pocketing all the various taxes as well as the cost difference.

I do not understand how or why because some gas station tanks had leaks in them MTBE polluted ground water. And straight additive laced gasoline went through the same cracks and holes and somehow did not poison the groundwater?
O.K. then double wall tanks were introduced but the ether compound remains verboten?

Ether versus alcohol is in my most humble opinion like comparing couvoussier to ripple. Ether raises octane numbers, provides better fuel economy per lb.

As far as alcohol being nice I invite anyone in love with alcohol to attend a racing event that has alcohol or do as I did stand on a street corner in Sao Paulo, Brazil and choke on those clean air fumes. I look forward to November to April when Mexico adds ether to the fuel.

Straylight wrote:
Back when I worked as a corporate editor instead of a dirtbag poet, I worked on the transcript from this woman's talk. Here's a blog that hits the high points: https://blogs.cfainstitute.org/investor/2013/08/20/real-energy-independence-making-oil-no-longer-strategic/

Her basic argument is that gasoline enjoys a monopoly and does not act like other commodities because people HAVE TO buy it to run their cars. She suggests pushing to (1) adapt current engines so they can take methanol (if I recall, she cited a $500 upfront cost to the owner, and suggested a govt tax benefit therefrom?) and (2) adapt gas stations so they can sell methanol (by making it economically viable for them to spend the money).

She argues that these steps will allow consumers to choose between whichever fuel is cheaper right at the pump, which will in turn drive the cost of gasoline down because it will ACTUALLY have to compete with another fuel.

Worth adding to the conversation.

We already have had bi-fuel gasoline/CNG engines for 20 years (or close to it), but CNG popularity has not taken off. I did have such a truck for a year or two.

ok i will say this again. Alcohol does not have the "Punch" of gasoline that is less energy is contained in a gallon of ETOH than Gasoline.

So you do loose MPG and thus E-10 does not result in a 10% savings. it might result in SOME savings but clearly not 10%.

Then you have the cost of producing the ETOH. (Alcohol) this includes the fertilizer for the farmer's field. (Petrolum based in many cases) the fuel for his tractor to plough plant clutivate and harvest, fuel for the trucks that haul the corn to the still. fuel for the still and more.. The result. per several studies is an INCREASE in oil consumption.

All we are doing is "Spreading it around" from the city to the country. but we are still burning it, and burning more of it.

That said. I'd rather see the booze in the tank than the driver