Home Heating Oil: the bell tolls for thee...

[woodgeek]

While the rest of you were sitting around complaining about oil and gas prices, I was investing in oil, and made quite a bit of money.

Me too!

 

[jharkin]

I was making (less) money in index funds... Dont know enough to play the market.

I make a decent enough living and drive few enough miles that gasoline is not a terribly consequential part of the family budget. Similarly the NG bill is peanuts relative to what we spend on food, insurance, etc..

My interest in the ups and downs of oil production is more about what kind of environment and non-renewable resource base are we leaving to our childrens generation.

 

[Seasoned Oak]

We can all thank FRACKING for these moderately stable oil prices.

 

[Frozen Canuck]

Keep your stock Joful…the trend is your friend. I am very pleased with number of times my Suncor stock has split. Not that Rosy at the moment but that is just a moment.

Cheap oil again..not likely at least not with current tech. Nothing grand on the horizon AFA new tech goes.

We are just finding out how quickly the bitumen can corrode pipelines. It's far faster than the old never to be seen again conventional oil that used to flow in those pipelines. The entire industry is going to have to radically adjust the lifespan of a pipeline downward & that will increase costs. To say nothing of increased spills & the cost for cleanup. Maybe saying no to a huge pipeline full of the stuff turns out to be a very good idea for America. From my shoes if we can't prove that we can keep the stuff in our own pipelines I see no logical reason for you to want it on your soil. Perhaps the best plan is to refine here limiting the need for pipelines carrying bitumen to our soil, then probably ship out diesel from here & have final upgrading done at arrival points.

For those few of you that still carry a flame for cheap oil….forget it. The next time the economy picks up globally & China & India start using huge supplies of oil…game over for anything even close to cheap oil..we will all remember those days when a gallon of gas was a mere $5. Currently costs me around $150 to fill any of the company trucks, that could easily double if Chindia takes off again. Even at that doubling we would be on par with current Euro prices.

All those considering an electric or a hybrid maybe onto something.

 

[BrotherBart]

Been buying Exxon stock steadily since 1982. Got the latest dividend check today.

 

[stoveguy2esw]

until someone figures out how to make plastics out of something else oil stocks will still be money makers, I think people forget just how much petro goes into making plastics (which 90% plus products produced worldwide contain)

 

[Seasoned Oak]

I used to have oil heat in about 12 properties. Now Im down to 4 and only cuz there is no NG line nearby.

 

[woodgeek]

Plastics are a small part of the overall oil stream. One easy way...ethanol to ethylene to polyethylene. Easy Peasy.

 

[stoveguy2esw]

Plastics are a small part of the overall oil stream. One easy way...ethanol to ethylene to polyethylene. Easy Peasy.

easy, but more expensive. why did we get away from glass? cost, right? making car bumpers and water bottles outta corn or sugar cane is going to cost a heck of a lot more than using raw petro. until this is flipped to where its cheaper to make "bioplastics" petro will still be a money maker

 

[TradEddie]

All I want to know from those of who think you can predict where oil is headed (and when) is, can you tell me when to sell my Exxon stock?

I can't predict when to sell it, but unless you need cash right now, you'd be mad to sell virtually any large cap stock unless you had specific information about an individual company in trouble. The big oil companies will be making good profits for decades, even with a carbon tax, and some inevitable middle east crisis. Individual companies may have trouble, but demand will persist. OTOH, if you want to retire earlier than planned, looking at oil company stocks won't get you there. Some "green" energy company with a breakthrough technology might make you rich quickly, but most won't, and if I knew one, I certainly wouldn't be telling.

TE

 

[woodgeek]

easy, but more expensive. why did we get away from glass? cost, right? making car bumpers and water bottles outta corn or sugar cane is going to cost a heck of a lot more than using raw petro. until this is flipped to where its cheaper to make "bioplastics" petro will still be a money maker

As I understand it, most of the bioplastic processes that we have nowadays ARE about the same price as FF plastics at the current oil price. No real $$ incentive to retool production facilities, though, customers down the supply chain would want expensive material validation after a change, and the bio feedstocks are not necessarily all that less carbon intensive than the FF feedstock (e.g. ethanol). As with most things in Chem E, there are half a dozen processes (FF and bio) to make the same stuff, and they all come out within 50% of the same cost. The one we use today is the one that was cheapest 10-20 years ago, when we built the plant we are still amortizing in our v low margin business.

Given the above, you mostly see bioplastic rolled out in new products at small scale, where 'greenwashing' is desirable. Compostable plastic packaging is hot right now, the kinks are still being worked out.

 

[woodgeek]

easy, but more expensive. why did we get away from glass? cost, right? making car bumpers and water bottles outta corn or sugar cane is going to cost a heck of a lot more than using raw petro. until this is flipped to where its cheaper to make "bioplastics" petro will still be a money maker

Do the following estimate.....How much oil did you personally buy last year? Time 7 lbs per gallon. How much plastic did you buy? What is the ratio? I would say in my family we buy ~15 gallons of gasoline per week. That's 100 lbs. I would be surprised if the plastic we bought adds up to 3 lbs total, mostly very flimsy packaging. Only a few % of the oil stream is plastic, and if oil 'went away' there is enough biomass to substitute, even w/o reycycling.

 

[DBNH22]

. . . . . .

Its sad really, that Fox News and the like have built this image of environmentalism as some liberal world domination conspiracy theory... because at its root true environmentalism is actually a very classicaly conservative idea - trying to preserve the natural world in its original state.

Since the 'can is closed my jedi powers sense a thread lock coming.....

Maybe we should make the distinction between environmentalism and militant environmentalism. When you're someone who considers global warming a major problem it's probably not a good idea to compare those who disagree with you to Holocaust deniers. I've always felt that the global warming debate consists of too much politics and too little objective, hard science. We're told by the global warming alarmist crowd that the oil companies and those that question global warming at all have ulterior motives which are usually profit related or ignorance yet we're not allowed to question people like Al Gore and others who stand to make hundreds of millions of dollars through carbon credits and other green measures. Personally I believe that the scientific truth with regard to global warming is severely obfuscated by the politics and special interests on both sides of the debate. In any event I've found that the "plan for the worst, hope for the best," mentality serves us all well when dealing the price of oil or anything else in life.

 

[jharkin]

Plastics are a small part of the overall oil stream. One easy way...ethanol to ethylene to polyethylene. Easy Peasy.

Great for polethelyne.... What about ABS, PVC, Lexan, Delrin, or any number of other very useful industrial plastics?

Im all for more bioplastics.. But Im also a big believer in moving away from oil use as a fuel as much as is reasonably possible to preserve the reserves for use as raw materials in manufacturing.

 

[jharkin]

Maybe we should make the distinction between environmentalism and militant environmentalism. When you're someone who considers global warming a major problem it's probably not a good idea to compare those who disagree with you to Holocaust deniers. I've always felt that the global warming debate consists of too much politics and too little objective, hard science. We're told by the global warming alarmist crowd that the oil companies and those that question global warming at all have ulterior motives which are usually profit related or ignorance yet we're not allowed to question people like Al Gore and others who stand to make hundreds of millions of dollars through carbon credits and other green measures. Personally I believe that the scientific truth with regard to global warming is severely obfuscated by the politics and special interests on both sides of the debate. In any event I've found that the "plan for the worst, hope for the best," mentality serves us all well when dealing the price of oil or anything else in life.

I dont see where I compared anyone to a holocaust denier (trying to invoke Godwin's law here? ) , but the member I was responding to was pretty clear that he considered anyone who had any environmental leaning at all a tinfoil hat crackpot, a group that he lumped in with "liberals" This sounds a lot like the FoxNews party line to me....

 

[Seasoned Oak]

Im not an enviromentalist, but i am a realist. There is no good reason to foul our own nest. The human species tends to do that a lot. Especially if someone else has to eat the dirt. This planet has survived a collision with another planet,it will survive us. Its US that may not survive ,not the planet. Im already doing my part. My passive solar is heating my house as i type this. No FF needed.

 

[DBNH22]

I dont see where I compared anyone to a holocaust denier (trying to invoke Godwin's law here? ) , but the member I was responding to was pretty clear that he considered anyone who had any environmental leaning at all a tinfoil hat crackpot, a group that he lumped in with "liberals" This sounds a lot like the FoxNews party line to me....

I didn't mean to imply that you had compared anyone to Holocaust Deniers. I recall some ardent global warming alarmist making the public claim that those who question or deny anything about global warming are akin to Holocaust Deniers. I don't recall exactly who it was but there have been other ridiculous things said by the global warming crowd about those who question them. The point is that there is nothing wrong with being an environmentalist but there are certainly some who call themselves environmentalists that would like to dictate every aspect of our lives based on how they see environmental issues and who do not wish to engage in any rational debate as to the reasons behind the rules, laws, regulations etc that they seek to impose on everyone.

 

[woodgeek]

Oy. I needed to digest that for a minute. Holocaust Denier? Oh, I see, if I call someone who disagrees with the science of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) an 'AGW denier' I am now also calling them a Nazi? Honestly haven't thought that or heard it before. So, I guess the words 'denial' and 'denier' are hate speech now not to be used in polite company and the 'enlightened AGW disagreers' (hows that?) are now victims? I'll try to remember....

With all due respect, Dana, you need to get out more. Some nice folks at Exxon were funding 'disagreer' groups several years ago, and I actually got to see the Exxon folks presentation on AGW (and its lack of reality) back then. The disagreer groups actually made some headway with public opinion, with the number of people thinking that 'AGW is real' going from a majority in the mid 2000s to a minority. The 'Climate-Gate' nonsense was around that time. FYI, this whole episode was a US phenomenon, the rest of the world has been on board with AGW, and taking at least halting steps forward, for 10+ years.

That was then, this is 2013. The AGW agreers are now a majority in the US again, Exxon renounced all ties/$$ for 'disagreer' groups years ago, and all the oil majors are redoing all their financial projections assuming a price of C added to their products. This is good practice, if a C-tax is levied, and Exxon isn't positioned and ready to make money in the new environment, someone in accounting didn't do their job. I think this is evidence that the oil majors either have AGW religion, or at least assume that the hoax will successfully overtake the entire global population imminently and into the foreseeable future.

 

[DBNH22]

Oy. I needed to digest that for a minute. Holocaust Denier? Oh, I see, if I call someone who disagrees with the science of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) an 'AGW denier' I am now also calling them a Nazi? Honestly haven't thought that or heard it before. So, I guess the words 'denial' and 'denier' are hate speech now not to be used in polite company and the 'enlightened AGW disagreers' (hows that?) are now victims? I'll try to remember....

I think you missed my point by a mile. I did not say nor was I implying that anyone who believes in AGW and uses the word "denier," is actually calling someone a NAZi when when referring to those that do not in believe in AGW. The point that I was trying to make is that there are individuals who've used their "environmentalism" to make ridiculous and totally irrelvant statements about others. Fact: There was a public figure who, in arguing a case for the existence of AGW, claimed that AGW deniers are the same as Holocaust deniers. I was referring to this person (I don't recall who it was but I'm sure a quick google search would reveal their identity) to illustrate the difference as I see it between environmentalism and militant environmentalism. I actually don't believe that most people who call themselves environmentalists and/or care about the environment would make such an inane crass correlation as this person did.

You made mention of Exxon funding disagreer groups. I don't think I've been overly sympathetic to the oil industry in my posts. In fact if you'd just scroll up you can re-read what what I actually wrote about both sides of the debate clouding the truth. Maybe you'd at least have the decency to admit that their are some prominent, public individiuals beating the AGW drum that are actually not the completely altruistic souls whose only concern is the planet that they'd have us believe they are. The oil companies aren't the only party that stands to make a boatload of cash with regard to this issue and if you think they are then might I suggest that it's you who needs to get out more.

 

[woodgeek]

Great for polethelyne.... What about ABS, PVC, Lexan, Delrin, or any number of other very useful industrial plastics?

Im all for more bioplastics.. But Im also a big believer in moving away from oil use as a fuel as much as is reasonably possible to preserve the reserves for use as raw materials in manufacturing.

In my (inexpert) opinion, I thought anything you can make from crude oil you can make from 'pyrolysis oil' formed by the partial combustion of pretty much any biomass.

My point is that IMO all this 'no plastic' stuff is a Peak Oil scaremongering story....'Imagine a world without plastic, its everywhere!'

In reality, we can make it all from biomass (after all, oil is just cooked biomass), and the numbers say that there is plenty of biomass available to make what we need (unlike the case for using biomass for fuel).

 

[woodgeek]

I think you missed my point by a mile. I did not say nor was I implying that anyone who believes in AGW and uses the word "denier," is actually calling someone a NAZi when when referring to those that do not in believe in AGW. The point that I was trying to make is that there are individuals who've used their "environmentalism" to make ridiculous and totally irrelvant statements about others. Fact: There was a public figure who, in arguing a case for the existence of AGW, claimed that AGW deniers are the same as Holocaust deniers. I was referring to this person (I don't recall who it was but I'm sure a quick google search would reveal their identity) to illustrate the difference as I see it between environmentalism and militant environmentalism. I actually don't believe that most people who call themselves environmentalists and/or care about the environment would make such an inane crass correlation as this person did.

You made mention of Exxon funding disagreer groups. I don't think I've been overly sympathetic to the oil industry in my posts. In fact if you'd just scroll up you can re-read what what I actually said about both sides of the debate clouding the truth. Maybe you'd at least have the decency to admit that their are some prominent, public individiuals beating the AGW drum that are actually not the completely altruistic souls whose only concern is the planet that they'd have us believe they are. The oil companies aren't the only party that stands to make a boatload of cash with regard to this issue and if you think they are then might I suggest that it's you who needs to get out more.

Thanks for the clarification.....really.

I don't think the oil cos are evil. I think they are capitalists, actually pretty good ones (that I invest in), and if you read upthread, you would have a hard time finding anyplace where I demonized them or put ol whippingboy Al on a pedestal. The oil majors have seen the light on AGW, if you don't believe in AGW (??) then you appear to be disagreeing with them.

Still, I am going to nitpick your rhetorical device of citing unnamed, uncited 'militant' extremists, who I have personally never experienced or seen. I remember hearing somebody say once (I could prob google it up) that all environmentalists were terrorists who should be rounded up into labor camps.

See how much fun it is?

 

[DBNH22]

Thanks for the clarification.....really.

I don't think the oil cos are evil. I think they are capitalists, actually pretty good ones (that I invest in), and if you read upthread, you would have a hard time finding anyplace where I demonized them or put ol whippingboy Al on a pedestal. They have seen the light on AGW, if you don't believe in AGW (??) then you appear to be disagreeing with them.

Still, I am going to nitpick your rhetorical device of citing unnamed, uncited 'militant' extremists, who I have personally never experienced or seen. I remember hearing somebody say once (I could prob google it up) that all environmentalists were terrorists who should be rounded up into labor camps.

See how much fun it is?

Well whomever said that is just as big an idiot as the person who made the remark about holocaust deniers.

 

[woodgeek]

Nice Public Opinion on AGW paper: http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/files/Six-Americas-September-2012.pdf

 

[DBoon]

Hi pruning@trunk, we value all opinions in this forum, but in general first post attacks are going to be met with some suspicion. Participate, be open-minded and contribute to a good discussion.

 

[billb3]

easy, but more expensive. why did we get away from glass? cost, right? making car bumpers and water bottles outta corn or sugar cane is going to cost a heck of a lot more than using raw petro. until this is flipped to where its cheaper to make "bioplastics" petro will still be a money maker

cost of disposal/re-use is becoming more and more of a factor - a biodegradable bioplastic can be theoretically ground up and become soil or even a marketable soil amendment
what the market doesn't respond to by consumer desire can also be nudged by regulations and other incentives