Something interesting I have been noticing in American cities ever since gas prices spiked that I have never seen before are people actually rethinking using their cars. I have noticed Americans walking, carpooling, biking, using the metro, and reducing the times they drive alone to exclusively to commutes and running errands. This is similar to the way it has always been in other countries, but to see this represents a fundamental shift in a car-first country. Now, as gas prices are coming down, American's know it is ok not to use their cars, and many have learned how to navigate the public transportation systems and bike trails in their local cities. In summation, I think that energy companies shot themselves in the foot by teaching the biggest consumer it is OK not to use their product.

Where I live, we have always had a very high uptake in public transit and a lot of people ride their bikes here - but our love of the personal car hasn't changed much either - our traffic today, despite the highest fuel costs in North America, is worse today than it was pre-pandemic, but a lot of that has to do with people just wanting to get out after 2 years of restrictions.

Interestingly, I was just watching a little documentary on the differences between living in Germany and the US and how the differences in property zoning really plays a big part on how a city is more liveable in Germany than it is in the US and how that effects having to rely on a car or not.

As far as people ditching their cars because of high fuel prices, we see this every time there's a significant increase in prices, and when the price goes back down, people go back to their old ways until the next spike happens. Maybe this time things will change, but maybe not - just have to wait and see.

stl07 wrote:

Something interesting I have been noticing in American cities ever since gas prices spiked that I have never seen before are people actually rethinking using their cars. I have noticed Americans walking, carpooling, biking, using the metro, and reducing the times they drive alone to exclusively to commutes and running errands. This is similar to the way it has always been in other countries, but to see this represents a fundamental shift in a car-first country. Now, as gas prices are coming down, American's know it is ok not to use their cars, and many have learned how to navigate the public transportation systems and bike trails in their local cities. In summation, I think that energy companies shot themselves in the foot by teaching the biggest consumer it is OK not to use their product.

Don't read too much into it. The relatively small number of US cities that have viable, reliable, and wide-spread public transportation systems (light-rail/heavy-rail) reaching into the suburbs are more likely to be less car-friendly in normal times, let alone when gas prices are spiking, so those systems tend not to be unfamiliar to most commuters anyway. In most other cities and population centers, especially in the suburbs and beyond, automobiles are simply a necessity, and any shift of behavior (the cutting back of activities outside the home) would be temporary at best until they could afford to resume.

Having said that, an economics class and a basic study of the effects of supply and demand on price would be in your best interest, before laying your entire thesis on energy companies.

ACDC8 wrote:

Where I live, we have always had a very high uptake in public transit and a lot of people ride their bikes here - but our love of the personal car hasn't changed much either - our traffic today, despite the highest fuel costs in North America, is worse today than it was pre-pandemic, but a lot of that has to do with people just wanting to get out after 2 years of restrictions.

Interestingly, I was just watching a little documentary on the differences between living in Germany and the US and how the differences in property zoning really plays a big part on how a city is more liveable in Germany than it is in the US and how that effects having to rely on a car or not.

As far as people ditching their cars because of high fuel prices, we see this every time there's a significant increase in prices, and when the price goes back down, people go back to their old ways until the next spike happens. Maybe this time things will change, but maybe not - just have to wait and see.

Things will not change because fundamentally populated places in the US are car-centric by design. It is just a necessity to drive unless you live in a handful of places with options.

Aaron747 wrote:

Things will not change because fundamentally populated places in the US are car-centric by design. It is just a necessity to drive unless you live in a handful of places with options.

Thats kind of what I was getting at with the zoning comment. In the US, most people live in residential zones, which is exclusively for residing and nothing else. Go to Germany, its a "living zone" which allows commercial properties such as grocery stores, salons, restaurants, etc. amongst homes if they provide a service that enhances the living quality of the people who live in that area. Vancouver is using the same strategy now, all new high-rises now have to reserve the first floor or two for various commercial purposes such as grocery stores, medical/dental offices, gyms, restaurants, etc. while the remainder of the building is for homes. The goal here is to create mini-cities within the city itself (like in other parts of the world) so people no longer have to travel more than a few minutes to access necessary amenities. While the building I live in is much older, within a 10 minute walk, I have grocery stores, banks, medical, dental offices, salons, cafes, restaurants, gyms, bike shops - pretty much everything. Most of these businesses are newer with apartments on top.

ACDC8 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Things will not change because fundamentally populated places in the US are car-centric by design. It is just a necessity to drive unless you live in a handful of places with options.

Thats kind of what I was getting at with the zoning comment. In the US, most people live in residential zones, which is exclusively for residing and nothing else. Go to Germany, its a "living zone" which allows commercial properties such as grocery stores, salons, restaurants, etc. amongst homes if they provide a service that enhances the living quality of the people who live in that area. Vancouver is using the same strategy now, all new high-rises now have to reserve the first floor or two for various commercial purposes such as grocery stores, medical/dental offices, gyms, restaurants, etc. while the remainder of the building is for homes. The goal here is to create mini-cities within the city itself (like in other parts of the world) so people no longer have to travel more than a few minutes to access necessary amenities. While the building I live in is much older, within a 10 minute walk, I have grocery stores, banks, medical, dental offices, salons, cafes, restaurants, gyms, bike shops - pretty much everything. Most of these businesses are newer with apartments on top.

Yep - this is precisely what makes even a behemoth like Tokyo so livable as well. The major stations have over the top development, but every minor station in between on just about any rail or subway line has the mixed-use environment Vancouver is actively cultivating. It is highly unusual to need to go further than 5 minutes for most daily needs.

Aaron747 wrote:

Yep - this is precisely what makes even a behemoth like Tokyo so livable as well. The major stations have over the top development, but every minor station in between on just about any rail or subway line has the mixed-use environment Vancouver is actively cultivating. It is highly unusual to need to go further than 5 minutes for most daily needs.

Yup, and with the extensions of the Skytrain here, more and more of these developments are being planned and built. And if you look at a lot of the current developments at the major stations like Brighouse, Metrotown, Lougheed, Brentwood, Marine Gateway - its just absolutely awesome. Obviously, homes at these developments cost more but that's because everyone wants to live there.

stl07 wrote:

Something interesting I have been noticing in American cities ever since gas prices spiked that I have never seen before are people actually rethinking using their cars. I have noticed Americans walking, carpooling, biking, using the metro, and reducing the times they drive alone to exclusively to commutes and running errands. This is similar to the way it has always been in other countries, but to see this represents a fundamental shift in a car-first country. Now, as gas prices are coming down, American's know it is ok not to use their cars, and many have learned how to navigate the public transportation systems and bike trails in their local cities. In summation, I think that energy companies shot themselves in the foot by teaching the biggest consumer it is OK not to use their product.

Agreed. This is called the invisible hand. High prices increase the provision of the product, while decreasing people’s demand for it. Behold, new solutions. Telecommuting is a big reduction in miles traveled.

Rather tendentious thread title, oil companies cannot just “spike” prices, they can only react to rising or falling demand or their product. When oil futures collapsed into negative prices in 5/2020, no one was saying oil was crashing the prices.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

oil companies cannot just “spike” prices, they can only react to rising or falling demand or their product.

If that were the case then we should not have seen record gas prices to the point we saw.

True, oil companies have no control over the price of oil per se, but they do have control over its derivatives. As far as I can tell, there hasn't been any new technology to refine oil into gasoline so in theory it should cost the same to refine oil to gas whether at $40/bbl or $120/bbl. The main difference in price should be to recover the purchase of the oil. So I need to understand how was it that when oil in 2007-2008 reached nearly $140/bbl the national average gas price got to $4.11, yet this year oil almost touched $120 and gas skyrocketed past its 2007-2008 max, when oil was actually $20 more expensive.

There's a disconnect no matter how you look at this. And there are two main areas where companies can artificially raise prices without worrying about the cost of oil:
1. Drilling permits. Government data shows that a lot of permits have gone unused. Whether it's because the areas are not economically feasible, there's enough supply that they don't need to be drilled, or companies are artificially choking supply is unknown, but drilling areas are sitting idle.

2. Refineries. Keep enough refineries offline and you can raise the price of gas. Oil can drop to $40 and you can shut down many refineries, thereby reducing the supply of gas available while demand remains high or increases...instant price spike.

At this point, both items are likely culprits. Before the Russia-Ukraine war, oil was flirting with the $80-$90 range (supply was being kept low) but gas prices kept pace steadily (at around a national average of $3.50 or so). Oil spikes as a result of Russian oil not being considered for the market, thus increasing demand for oil but gas demand did not spike at the same time. Except now, the same number of refineries is apparently not able to "produce enough supply", thus gas also spikes far more than it should.

Sorry...but these companies have significant control over the derivatives and can be rightfully accused of "spiking" prices (a look at the earnings should confirm it).

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

When oil futures collapsed into negative prices in 5/2020, no one was saying oil was crashing the prices.

Oil prices crashed into the negatives for a single day: the close of a monthly oil contract when demand was at its lowest and producers could not find anyone to take delivery, because all storage facilities were at their max. The next trading day, the next month's contract was in effect and oil was at around $20/bbl and gas prices were reflecting this. No one would have expected gas prices to follow oil into negative territory or flatline at $0, especially since it still costs something to refine it.

Nice conspiracy theory, but refining capacity is operating at very high rates and not much off line.

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafH ... PUEUS2&f=M


Idle refinery capacity is as low as ever,

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/PET_PNP_UNC_DCU_NUS_M.htm

Aaron747 wrote:

ACDC8 wrote:

Where I live, we have always had a very high uptake in public transit and a lot of people ride their bikes here - but our love of the personal car hasn't changed much either - our traffic today, despite the highest fuel costs in North America, is worse today than it was pre-pandemic, but a lot of that has to do with people just wanting to get out after 2 years of restrictions.

Interestingly, I was just watching a little documentary on the differences between living in Germany and the US and how the differences in property zoning really plays a big part on how a city is more liveable in Germany than it is in the US and how that effects having to rely on a car or not.

As far as people ditching their cars because of high fuel prices, we see this every time there's a significant increase in prices, and when the price goes back down, people go back to their old ways until the next spike happens. Maybe this time things will change, but maybe not - just have to wait and see.

Things will not change because fundamentally populated places in the US are car-centric by design. It is just a necessity to drive unless you live in a handful of places with options.

This, and this design is not just becoming a flaw from the energy side of the equation. Energy tech could and one day probably will make commuting virtually free, or cost pennies. But that won't solve all the other issues of aging infrastructure, cannibalization of agricultural land, and the idea that people just don't want to commute for two or three hours a day no matter how cheap or convenient, even hands-free, it could be. The newer generations are not into that and so American urban centers will become rather obsolete I predict by around 2050.

einsteinboricua wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

oil companies cannot just “spike” prices, they can only react to rising or falling demand or their product.

If that were the case then we should not have seen record gas prices to the point we saw.

True, oil companies have no control over the price of oil per se, but they do have control over its derivatives. As far as I can tell, there hasn't been any new technology to refine oil into gasoline so in theory it should cost the same to refine oil to gas whether at $40/bbl or $120/bbl. The main difference in price should be to recover the purchase of the oil. So I need to understand how was it that when oil in 2007-2008 reached nearly $140/bbl the national average gas price got to $4.11, yet this year oil almost touched $120 and gas skyrocketed past its 2007-2008 max, when oil was actually $20 more expensive.

There's a disconnect no matter how you look at this. And there are two main areas where companies can artificially raise prices without worrying about the cost of oil:
1. Drilling permits. Government data shows that a lot of permits have gone unused. Whether it's because the areas are not economically feasible, there's enough supply that they don't need to be drilled, or companies are artificially choking supply is unknown, but drilling areas are sitting idle.

2. Refineries. Keep enough refineries offline and you can raise the price of gas. Oil can drop to $40 and you can shut down many refineries, thereby reducing the supply of gas available while demand remains high or increases...instant price spike.

At this point, both items are likely culprits. Before the Russia-Ukraine war, oil was flirting with the $80-$90 range (supply was being kept low) but gas prices kept pace steadily (at around a national average of $3.50 or so). Oil spikes as a result of Russian oil not being considered for the market, thus increasing demand for oil but gas demand did not spike at the same time. Except now, the same number of refineries is apparently not able to "produce enough supply", thus gas also spikes far more than it should.

Sorry...but these companies have significant control over the derivatives and can be rightfully accused of "spiking" prices (a look at the earnings should confirm it).

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

When oil futures collapsed into negative prices in 5/2020, no one was saying oil was crashing the prices.

Oil prices crashed into the negatives for a single day: the close of a monthly oil contract when demand was at its lowest and producers could not find anyone to take delivery, because all storage facilities were at their max. The next trading day, the next month's contract was in effect and oil was at around $20/bbl and gas prices were reflecting this. No one would have expected gas prices to follow oil into negative territory or flatline at $0, especially since it still costs something to refine it.

I think it was mostly unavoidable. 2020 caused a large bust. The made it impossible to fund further development, even if oil companies had wanted to.

2020 was a crazy situation and I am actually impressed that oil is only $95 right now, or about $80 adjusted for inflation. The supply chain has coped with a monumental shock very well. There was no chaos.

I am actually more worried about natural gas than oil. We will basically never run out of oil. But Americans take their convenient, local natural gas supply for granted. I don’t know how easy it will be to continue burning it at the rate we do, much less exporting it to heat Europe as well.

einsteinboricua wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

oil companies cannot just “spike” prices, they can only react to rising or falling demand or their product.

If that were the case then we should not have seen record gas prices to the point we saw.

True, oil companies have no control over the price of oil per se, but they do have control over its derivatives. As far as I can tell, there hasn't been any new technology to refine oil into gasoline so in theory it should cost the same to refine oil to gas whether at $40/bbl or $120/bbl. The main difference in price should be to recover the purchase of the oil. So I need to understand how was it that when oil in 2007-2008 reached nearly $140/bbl the national average gas price got to $4.11, yet this year oil almost touched $120 and gas skyrocketed past its 2007-2008 max, when oil was actually $20 more expensive.

are all other associated costs (ie labor, insurance, transportation, equipment, etc) the same as it was in 2007-2008?

$4.11 in 2008 when inflation adjusted is equal to approx $5.66 in today's dollars.

einsteinboricua wrote:

Sorry...but these companies have significant control over the derivatives and can be rightfully accused of "spiking" prices (a look at the earnings should confirm it).

are their margins as a percentage significantly higher? are the margins of gas stations, many of which are independently owned, significantly higher?

stl07 wrote:

Something interesting I have been noticing in American cities ever since gas prices spiked that I have never seen before are people actually rethinking using their cars. I have noticed Americans walking, carpooling, biking, using the metro, and reducing the times they drive alone to exclusively to commutes and running errands. This is similar to the way it has always been in other countries, but to see this represents a fundamental shift in a car-first country. Now, as gas prices are coming down, American's know it is ok not to use their cars, and many have learned how to navigate the public transportation systems and bike trails in their local cities. In summation, I think that energy companies shot themselves in the foot by teaching the biggest consumer it is OK not to use their product.

Then this work as intended ... Do you think there would be enough fuel for everyone if everyone were using exactly same amount of fuel as they did in the past?

Well there may be a gasoline price manipulation conspiracy after all -

"Dodgy Demand Data? The Oil Price Collapse Conspiracy"
Some oil pundits are now claiming that the Biden administration has been fabricating low gasoline demand data in order to drag prices lower. While Gasbuddy claims there was a 2% rise in gasoline demand last week, the EIA reported a 7.6% drop in demand.

"The collapse in oil prices has been so epic and unexpected that some oil pundits are now accusing the Biden administration of fabricating low gas demand data in a bid to hammer oil prices.

To wit, in late June the EIA shut down reporting for several weeks, ostensibly due to a server malfunction. "

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Prices/ ... iracy.html

hashtagconfused wrote:

are all other associated costs (ie labor, insurance, transportation, equipment, etc) the same as it was in 2007-2008?

Ostensibly labor costs are considerably lower given the major labor shortage that has afflicted the industry since massive layoffs in 2020-21.

https://realeconomy.rsmus.com/labor-sho ... 2-outlook/

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy ... 022-04-29/

https://www.energyintel.com/00000180-be ... f791910000

Refineries, pipelines and terminals are not really labor intensive. That being said these are very, very well paid positions think Chemical/Mechanical/Civil Engineers and skilled union trades.

Refineries need constant expensive maintenance. It's nothing for a 1000 craftsman working weeks round the clock to do a refinery turnaround.

The bottom line is that major oil companies have been trying for years to reduce their ownership of refineries and terminals. In normal times, they just aren't very profitable. There is a reason no one has built a new one (larger than say 60,000 bbbls a day) in decades. And that not due to some sort of monopoly - many new players outside of the oil majors own the bulk of the current refineries. Marathon is the largest US refiner and that company no longer owns any crude oil production.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Refineries, pipelines and terminals are not really labor intensive. That being said these are very, very well paid positions think Chemical/Mechanical/Civil Engineers and skilled union trades.

Refineries need constant expensive maintenance. It's nothing for a 1000 craftsman working weeks round the clock to do a refinery turnaround.

The bottom line is that major oil companies have been trying for years to reduce their ownership of refineries and terminals. In normal times, they just aren't very profitable. There is a reason no one has built a new one (larger than say 60,000 bbbls a day) in decades. And that not due to some sort of monopoly - many new players outside of the oil majors own the bulk of the current refineries. Marathon is the largest US refiner and that company no longer owns any crude oil production.

Yes, well aware of the union trade payscales. The issue, in part, is that during the initial phases of the pandemic, these companies saw demand lowering and trimmed labor accordingly. They did not anticipate the difficulty with rehiring when demand suddenly returned - hence the shortage.

Kiwirob wrote:

As the price increases due to demand the people who work in the stores, bars, cafes and restaurants around said developments are pushed further away and have a much longer commute from the areas which they can afford to where they work.

Don't know about other places, but here, most all live in Surrey as is, so their commute won't change much.

Aaron747 wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Refineries, pipelines and terminals are not really labor intensive. That being said these are very, very well paid positions think Chemical/Mechanical/Civil Engineers and skilled union trades.

Refineries need constant expensive maintenance. It's nothing for a 1000 craftsman working weeks round the clock to do a refinery turnaround.

The bottom line is that major oil companies have been trying for years to reduce their ownership of refineries and terminals. In normal times, they just aren't very profitable. There is a reason no one has built a new one (larger than say 60,000 bbbls a day) in decades. And that not due to some sort of monopoly - many new players outside of the oil majors own the bulk of the current refineries. Marathon is the largest US refiner and that company no longer owns any crude oil production.

Yes, well aware of the union trade payscales. The issue, in part, is that during the initial phases of the pandemic, these companies saw demand lowering and trimmed labor accordingly. They did not anticipate the difficulty with rehiring when demand suddenly returned - hence the shortage.

The cutbacks weren't in the refineries and terminals, they were in the oil fields.
I'm unaware of any refinery unable to run because of a shortage of personnel. In fact, until recently the refineries in North America were running full out at unheard of utilization rates.

The reason prices went up is Russian gasoline disappeared from the market. It only takes a small cut in supply for prices to rise a lot. There was no additional refinery capacity that could be brought back online. But there was plenty of crude oil because all the countries were releasing oil from their reserves. And now, a small cut in demand is driving prices down as supply and demand come into balance.

Unfortunately , you can't run refineries at 100% levels without the risk of disaster (e.g Philadelphia refinery that blew up in 2019). Many of the US and Asian refiners are now taking their refineries off line for maintenance.
"US' Marathon Petroleum to trim Q3 refinery runs as turnarounds increase"
https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsig ... s-increase

Wait until the media gets ahold of that.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Well there may be a gasoline price manipulation conspiracy after all -

"Dodgy Demand Data? The Oil Price Collapse Conspiracy"
Some oil pundits are now claiming that the Biden administration has been fabricating low gasoline demand data in order to drag prices lower. While Gasbuddy claims there was a 2% rise in gasoline demand last week, the EIA reported a 7.6% drop in demand.

"The collapse in oil prices has been so epic and unexpected that some oil pundits are now accusing the Biden administration of fabricating low gas demand data in a bid to hammer oil prices.

To wit, in late June the EIA shut down reporting for several weeks, ostensibly due to a server malfunction. "

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Prices/ ... iracy.html

These speculator "pro-free market" a$$clowns are really resorting to Alex Jones tactics? Seeing your refinery maintenance article and the fact we're entering the Atlantic hurricane season, I don't think they need to resort to this B.S. to continue reaping their huge returns.

Like all good conspiracy theories, the fact that the government shut down reporting sparked this one.
Nice to see the tables turned on energy speculators. If done on purpose, it was a good move by someone.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Like all good conspiracy theories, the fact that the government shut down reporting sparked this one.
Nice to see the tables turned on energy speculators. If done on purpose, it was a good move by someone.

Damaging marjet trust on such data would be a long term negative

Gas companies knew exactly what they were doing and it has nothing to do with public transit or moving jobs closer to people

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/29/busi ... %20percent.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/oil-compan ... n-chevron/
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/busine ... -rcna40622

Record profits every quarter since the start of the Russian invasion. They knew exactly what they were doing.

Gasoline is now $3.36 a gallon in Northeast Ohio. $0.56 of that is tax.

Which is the price of a Grande Iced Coffee at Starbucks.

Bad oil companies, bad.

It's all an evil plot to try to get people to buy EV's instead of Dino powered vehicles, which I would never do.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Gasoline is now $3.36 a gallon in Northeast Ohio. $0.56 of that is tax.

Which is the price of a Grande Iced Coffee at Starbucks.

Bad oil companies, bad.

Where can you get a grande iced coffee for $0.56?

mxaxai wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Gasoline is now $3.36 a gallon in Northeast Ohio. $0.56 of that is tax.

Which is the price of a Grande Iced Coffee at Starbucks.

Bad oil companies, bad.

Where can you get a grande iced coffee for $0.56?

And, again, it must be pointed out that, if that $0.56 per gallon were suspended, gas companies are under no obligation to lower prices at the pump by $0.56 per gallon.

mxaxai wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Gasoline is now $3.36 a gallon in Northeast Ohio. $0.56 of that is tax.

Which is the price of a Grande Iced Coffee at Starbucks.

Bad oil companies, bad.

Where can you get a grande iced coffee for $0.56?

Speedway here in the midwest?

The cost for a Grande Iced Coffee at Starbucks is around $2.80. And if you get it to go - no tax.