Avgas availability

"Ross" wrote in message
...
Matt Barrow wrote:


BTW, regarding that 2 million bbls/day of expanded capacity (we use,
what, 10 million a day?), two studies several years ago (late 70's early
80s') calculated we could save over 10% annually on gas usage by merely
coordinating traffic signals better. Of course, that would mean
localities would possibly have to give up $$billions in reveune from
fines. It also means that those self-same localities would have to get
off their asses and do the work of setting them correctly. Fat chance:
the built-in congestion is now FAR worse, with traffic cams and the like.
NO, it's so much easier to pontificate "Public Service" BS like "share
a ride", "ride your bike"... It's nice to have the advertising budget,
too.



I am on a commuter bus for 35 miles one way. Very convienent. My company
pays one half the cost. With gas at $2.97 this week, that is very nice.

How nice.

If we all moved to bigger cities, we could all take commuter buses.

Recall the point about the exception disproving the rule.

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 16, 6:18 am, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:
"kontiki" wrote in message

...

Matt Whiting wrote:

Anyone seeing any avgas shortages? I just learned that a local
airport
(7N1) is out of gas. The FBO has a 10,000 gallon tank and ordered
fuel
back in February and still hasn't received it. He ran out
yesterday...

Matt

No, but I've been hearing reports that supply is very tight. The
reasons
of course are this country's complete failure to improve infastructure
or explore for more supply of an important commodity.

Oh, they know where it is (Continental shelf, ANWR, etc.), so exploration
is
rather worthless.

Thus supply is
very short, demand is up and so are prices. Its economics 101.

Right now, two of the biggest refineries are shut down for maintenance,
and
one had to be shut down for unexpected repairs. Petro industry people
warned
about this for years and Katrina wasn't the wakeup call that cementheads
needed.

As most every one knows, we've not built a refinery in the US in 32
years,
and during that time



When supply is tight, fule suppliers with do what they call
"allocating". Customers that are not branded (and just shop
around for the lowest prices when they need fuel) can be left
without fuel in favore of allocated customers. It happened
for a while when Katrina hit.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArti...63601990515635

/quote
Our refineries are doing more than ever, but their numbers are dwindling
and
no new ones are being built. The reason is not greed, but cost and
regulations. From 1994 to 2003, the refining industry spent $47.4
billion,
not to build new refineries, but to bring existing ones into compliance
with
ever new and stringent environmental rules. That's where those allegedly
excessive profits go.

In 2006, the blending of ethanol into gasoline reached a new high of more
than five billion gallons and production if new clean-burning ultra
low-sulfur diesel fuel topped a record 2.6 million barrels a day at the
end
of last year.

The fact is that U.S. refining capacity has been growing at about 1% a
year
for the past decade - the equivalent of adding a mid-size refinery every
year. Since 1996, U.S. refiners have expanded capacity by more than 2
million barrels a day This is a remarkable achievement in the face of
environmental mandates setting new ethanol usage and low-sulfur
requirements.

But the last major refinery built in the U.S. was in Garyville, La., in
1976
and the ones we have are getting older, no matter how well they're
maintained. Fifty out of 194 refineries were shut down from 1990 to 2004.
There is no slack in the system. Like the cars they fuel, periodic
maintenance us required.

/end

BTW, regarding that 2 million bbls/day of expanded capacity (we use,
what,
10 million a day?), two studies several years ago (late 70's early 80s')
calculated we could save over 10% annually on gas usage by merely
coordinating traffic signals better. Of course, that would mean
localities
would possibly have to give up $$billions in reveune from fines. It also
means that those self-same localities would have to get off their asses
and
do the work of setting them correctly. Fat chance: the built-in
congestion
is now FAR worse, with traffic cams and the like. NO, it's so much easier
to
pontificate "Public Service" BS like "share a ride", "ride your
bike"...
It's nice to have the advertising budget, too.

--
Matt Barrow (14 years in the road design/building business)
Performace Homes, LLC.
Colorado Springs, CO

All very true. However, lack of capacity does not result in shortages
as the OP suggests.

Really? Shortages (capacity) do not cause other shortages (output)? Great
logic...mind 'splaining that one?

In a free market lack of capacity or supply
results in higher prices.

Isn't that what the OP stated?

Now, if the democrats try to cap prices or
increase the tax on gas the restricted capacity would result in
shortages.

Nothin' gets past you! :~)

"Jim Carter" wrote in message
...
It depends entirely on where the tax is applicable. If the tax is on
income and revenue (windfall profits revisited?) then it might curtail
production because of less capital to reinvest and less incentive to run
at capacity. If the tax is an excise and attached at the pump, then the
industry producers will see little impact to their revenue, but you and I
will pick up the load. That might result in a reduced demand for fuel,
which might increase availability but that cause and effect often alludes
the population.


??? Tax??

(Talking to yourself??)

"John Galban" wrote in message
s.com...
On May 16, 6:18 am, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:
NO, it's so much easier to
pontificate "Public Service" BS like "share a ride", "ride your
bike"...
It's nice to have the advertising budget, too.


Well, actually doing those things makes a significant difference
too.

How much? During the late 70's, it's been estimated that conservation saved
about 3-5% and the economic slowdown did the rest.

Those of us who keep track of oil production and consumption
figures know that people will cut consumption drastically if the price
hurts enough.

Really? What an insight! You have inside information on the law of supply
and demand? :~)


This was demonstrated quite handily after the Katrina
related spike two years ago. People started riding busses, sharing
rides and using more fuel efficient transportation. Consumption
numbers dropped around 10% and the street price of a gallon of gas
dipped below $2 shortly thereafter.

And the ecomomic slowdown did...what, to the numbers? BTW, I'm certainly not
saying conservation isn't a good idea. But, like alternative sources of
power, they're insignificant. And yes, gunning a 3/4 ton pickup truck away
from a green light is STOOPID.


Of course, with the price below $2/gal, people went right back to
their old ways and consumption (and prices) went right back up.

Prices went down when the production facilities came back online; they went
back up only after the world market price went up and a couple of our
way-too-few facilities had to be brought down for service.

Geez... UpChuck Schumer and his crackheaded cohorts must love people that
came come up with such fluff.

It's
quite evident that we can cut back sigificantly when we have to. We
just don't want to.

BTW - If gas prices get you down, invest in the oil sector. It'll
make you feel better.

I'd rather get FAT ASSED GOVERNMENT TYPES TO QUIT SITTING ON THEIR BRAINS.
I'd also want them to quit f*ck*ng with traffic light to garner revenue and
also to quit KILLING PEOPLE in doing so.

Maybe some people would rather just kiss the government peepee.

--
Matt Barrow
Performace Homes, LLC.
Colorado Springs, CO

Nope - responding to Bob Fry's post immediately preceding mine.

--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas
"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Jim Carter" wrote in message
...
It depends entirely on where the tax is applicable. If the tax is on
income and revenue (windfall profits revisited?) then it might curtail
production because of less capital to reinvest and less incentive to run
at capacity. If the tax is an excise and attached at the pump, then the
industry producers will see little impact to their revenue, but you and I
will pick up the load. That might result in a reduced demand for fuel,
which might increase availability but that cause and effect often alludes
the population.


??? Tax??

(Talking to yourself??)

"Matt Barrow" wrote:
"kontiki" wrote in message
...
Matt Whiting wrote:


Anyone seeing any avgas shortages? I just learned that a local airport
(7N1) is out of gas. The FBO has a 10,000 gallon tank and ordered fuel
back in February and still hasn't received it. He ran out yesterday...

Matt

No, but I've been hearing reports that supply is very tight. The reasons
of course are this country's complete failure to improve infastructure
or explore for more supply of an important commodity.

Oh, they know where it is (Continental shelf, ANWR, etc.), so exploration is
rather worthless.

Do you know what the know proven reserves in ANWR are?
ZERO barrels. None, nada, zip.

And consider this scenario... ANWR is east of Prudhoe
Bay while the National Petroleum Reserve -- Alaska
(NPR-A) is to the west, and both are estimated by the
USGS to have about the same amount of oil, in about the
same type and size of reservoirs. Hmmm... what
significance does that have, you say?

First, there has been exactly 1 exploratory well drilled
in ANWR, in 1985. The results are secret.

Second, exploration wells have been being drilled in
NPR-A since the late 1940's. There are several known
reserves, none of which are large enough to warrant
production. A typical example is that a hole was
drilled about 50 miles southeast of Barrow this spring,
and it produced oil. It was not flow tested adequately,
but they estimate 300-400 million barrels. It is 150
miles or so to the nearest pipeline, so it will not be
produced.

Experience in NPR-A suggests that it might take 40-50
years of exploration in ANWR before even a single drop
of oil would be pumped out for sale.

Thus supply is
very short, demand is up and so are prices. Its economics 101.

Right now, two of the biggest refineries are shut down for maintenance, and
one had to be shut down for unexpected repairs. Petro industry people warned
about this for years and Katrina wasn't the wakeup call that cementheads
needed.

As most every one knows, we've not built a refinery in the US in 32 years,
and during that time

A totally bogus statement. The industry has been
rebuilding refineries as needed. Every time they rebuild
one, and increase its output, they *close* others....

Why would anyone build a new refinery??? All it would do is
add *excess* capacity. They wouldn't be able to sell the product
without lowering the price of products from other refineries.

Oil companies are not stupid!

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArti...63601990515635

/quote
Our refineries are doing more than ever, but their numbers are dwindling and
no new ones are being built. The reason is not greed, but cost and
regulations. From 1994 to 2003, the refining industry spent $47.4 billion,
not to build new refineries, but to bring existing ones into compliance with
ever new and stringent environmental rules. That's where those allegedly
excessive profits go.

Money spent on increasing the size and rebuilding
refineries is *not* profit.

That is also not some huge expense "to bring existing
ones into compliance". It is done to upgrade to more
efficient equipment, which is more profitable. The
total capacity is adjusted to *eliminate* unused
capacity! In other words, they do not have any
intention of building excess capacity which would cut
into profits. Oil companies are not stupid!

The fine line between just enough capacity and too much
or too little is drawn by the oil companies, and they
most certainly are not inclined to make sure there is
enough excess capacity to prevent price increases!

Claiming that no refineries have been built is
disingenuous, and simply insignificant. A great deal of
new capacity has been built, and there has been a huge
amount of capacity purposely shut down to maintain
higher prices.

The fact is that U.S. refining capacity has been growing at about 1% a year
for the past decade - the equivalent of adding a mid-size refinery every
year. Since 1996, U.S. refiners have expanded capacity by more than 2
million barrels a day This is a remarkable achievement in the face of
environmental mandates setting new ethanol usage and low-sulfur
requirements.

It is remarkably naive to believe that last sentence is
appropriate.

But the last major refinery built in the U.S. was in Garyville, La., in 1976
and the ones we have are getting older, no matter how well they're
maintained.

That is obviously not true, given the above statements
about rebuilding refineries.

Fifty out of 194 refineries were shut down from 1990 to 2004.
There is no slack in the system. Like the cars they fuel, periodic
maintenance us required.

And obviously oil companies *are*, and have been for
decades, fine tuning the refinery industry for maximum
profit.

/end



--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On May 16, 4:08 pm, Bob Fry wrote:
"RG" == Robert M Gary writes:

RG In a free market lack of
RG capacity or supply results in higher prices. Now, if the
RG democrats try to cap prices or increase the tax on gas the
RG restricted capacity would result in shortages.

An increased tax would result in a higher retail price...how would
that create a shortage again? Wouldn't it tend to reduce consumption
thereby alleviating the shortage?

If the tax is on marginal profit (i.e. "wind fall tax") the fuel
companies may not be able to produce more than a fix amount of gas
because the cost to provide it (including the new tax) may be not
allow the market to meet the price. I.e. if supplier and demander
can't agree on any price there is no supply.

-Robert

On May 16, 5:52 pm, Matt Whiting wrote:
Robert M. Gary wrote:
All very true. However, lack of capacity does not result in shortages
as the OP suggests. In a free market lack of capacity or supply
results in higher prices. Now, if the democrats try to cap prices or
increase the tax on gas the restricted capacity would result in
shortages.

It absolutely does result in shortages. Capacity can't be added in zero
time even if it is economically viable to do so. And prices have to
stay high enough, long enough to attract new investment. In the mean
time, shortages will occur ever more frequently even as the prices rise
dramatically.

Matt

I'm not sure how it is where you live but here gas prices can chance
twice a day. Prices can change very quickly to reflect supply.

-robert

On May 16, 8:05 pm, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in ooglegroups.com...





On May 16, 6:18 am, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:
"kontiki" wrote in message

...

Matt Whiting wrote:

Anyone seeing any avgas shortages? I just learned that a local
airport
(7N1) is out of gas. The FBO has a 10,000 gallon tank and ordered
fuel
back in February and still hasn't received it. He ran out
yesterday...

Matt

No, but I've been hearing reports that supply is very tight. The
reasons
of course are this country's complete failure to improve infastructure
or explore for more supply of an important commodity.

Oh, they know where it is (Continental shelf, ANWR, etc.), so exploration
is
rather worthless.

Thus supply is
very short, demand is up and so are prices. Its economics 101.

Right now, two of the biggest refineries are shut down for maintenance,
and
one had to be shut down for unexpected repairs. Petro industry people
warned
about this for years and Katrina wasn't the wakeup call that cementheads
needed.

As most every one knows, we've not built a refinery in the US in 32
years,
and during that time

When supply is tight, fule suppliers with do what they call
"allocating". Customers that are not branded (and just shop
around for the lowest prices when they need fuel) can be left
without fuel in favore of allocated customers. It happened
for a while when Katrina hit.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArti...63601990515635

/quote
Our refineries are doing more than ever, but their numbers are dwindling
and
no new ones are being built. The reason is not greed, but cost and
regulations. From 1994 to 2003, the refining industry spent $47.4
billion,
not to build new refineries, but to bring existing ones into compliance
with
ever new and stringent environmental rules. That's where those allegedly
excessive profits go.

In 2006, the blending of ethanol into gasoline reached a new high of more
than five billion gallons and production if new clean-burning ultra
low-sulfur diesel fuel topped a record 2.6 million barrels a day at the
end
of last year.

The fact is that U.S. refining capacity has been growing at about 1% a
year
for the past decade - the equivalent of adding a mid-size refinery every
year. Since 1996, U.S. refiners have expanded capacity by more than 2
million barrels a day This is a remarkable achievement in the face of
environmental mandates setting new ethanol usage and low-sulfur
requirements.

But the last major refinery built in the U.S. was in Garyville, La., in
1976
and the ones we have are getting older, no matter how well they're
maintained. Fifty out of 194 refineries were shut down from 1990 to 2004.
There is no slack in the system. Like the cars they fuel, periodic
maintenance us required.

/end

BTW, regarding that 2 million bbls/day of expanded capacity (we use,
what,
10 million a day?), two studies several years ago (late 70's early 80s')
calculated we could save over 10% annually on gas usage by merely
coordinating traffic signals better. Of course, that would mean
localities
would possibly have to give up $$billions in reveune from fines. It also
means that those self-same localities would have to get off their asses
and
do the work of setting them correctly. Fat chance: the built-in
congestion
is now FAR worse, with traffic cams and the like. NO, it's so much easier
to
pontificate "Public Service" BS like "share a ride", "ride your
bike"...
It's nice to have the advertising budget, too.

--
Matt Barrow (14 years in the road design/building business)
Performace Homes, LLC.
Colorado Springs, CO

All very true. However, lack of capacity does not result in shortages
as the OP suggests.

Really? Shortages (capacity) do not cause other shortages (output)? Great
logic...mind 'splaining that one?

I'm not sure teaching an entire economics class is possible within
this forum but the short answer is, if the gov't stays out of it
prices will quickly adjust to adjust to output levels. In the stock
market supply of available stock changes by the second, as do
commondities, exchange rates, etc, in all these cases prices adjust
such that everyone can buy a share of stock, the only question is the
price. In retail fuel, prices often change more than once per day.

-Robert, MBA

On May 16, 4:08 pm, John Galban wrote:
On May 16, 6:18 am, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:
NO, it's so much easier to

pontificate "Public Service" BS like "share a ride", "ride your bike"...
It's nice to have the advertising budget, too.

Well, actually doing those things makes a significant difference
too. Those of us who keep track of oil production and consumption
figures know that people will cut consumption drastically if the price
hurts enough. This was demonstrated quite handily after the Katrina
related spike two years ago. People started riding busses, sharing
rides and using more fuel efficient transportation. Consumption
numbers dropped around 10% and the street price of a gallon of gas
dipped below $2 shortly thereafter.

Today the elasticity of auto gas is very, very inelastic. Many suggest
that that would not change until we top $5/gal for unleaded.

-Robert