Fuel Freedom Staff

Saudis might actually increase oil output

/in , /by

Saudi Arabia isn’t cutting production anytime soon, despite lobbying from some of the 12-nation cartel’s members to try to stem falling oil prices. In fact, the Saudis might actually boost output to gain new customers.

Reuters reported that Saudi Arabia’s oil minister, Ali al-Naimi, said it’s not in OPEC’s interest to cut production quotas no matter how far prices fall:

After a weekend of comments from several Gulf OPEC members reiterating their intent not to intervene in oil markets, despite oil prices that have halved since June, Ali al-Naimi told the Middle East Economic Survey it was “not in the interest of OPEC producers to cut their production, whatever the price is” — his starkest comments yet.

Naimi also said the Saudis might boost output instead to grow their market share and that oil “may not” trade at $100 again. “The best thing for everybody is to let the most efficient producers produce,” he told a conference in Abu Dhabi at the weekend.

Olivier Jakob, an oil analyst at Petromatrix OIl in Switzerland, commented in an earlier version of the Reuters story:

“We are going down because you have some OPEC ministers who come every day making statements trying to drive the market down. … They come every day to convey the message that they are not doing anything to restrict supplies and that they basically want oil prices to move lower to reduce production in the U.S.”

Brent crude dropped $1.33, to $60.05.

Fuel Freedom Staff

Ben Casselman: The conventional wisdom on oil is always wrong

/in , /by

This is something we knew already: Oil prices fluctuate. Like all commodities, prices go up, and then they go down, and few experts know exactly why, or how far, or for how long trends will endure.

But FiveThirtyEight.com’s Ben Casselman, who used to cover the oil patch for The Wall Street Journal, outlines (in typical well-executed FiveThirtyEight style), all the ways that people have gotten oil predictions so horribly wrong this year.

Here’s one of the many instructive passages from his piece:

It isn’t just that experts didn’t see the shale boom coming. It’s that they underestimated its impact at virtually every turn. First, they didn’t think natural gas could be produced from shale (it could). Then they thought production would fall quickly if natural gas prices dropped (they did, and it didn’t). They thought the techniques that worked for gas couldn’t be applied to oil (they could). They thought shale couldn’t reverse the overall decline in U.S. oil production (it did). And they thought rising U.S. oil production wouldn’t be enough to affect global oil prices (it was).

Now, oil prices are cratering, falling below $55 a barrel from more than $100 earlier this year. And so, the usual lineup of experts — the same ones, in many cases, who’ve been wrong so many times in the past — are offering predictions for what plunging prices will mean for the U.S. oil boom. Here’s my prediction: They’ll be wrong this time, too.

Among the many reasons why pundits’ crystal balls are so often murky: various factors go into the makeup of prices; and the economics of oil-field drilling are complicated, which is why even “break-even” declarations about when oil-shale drilling in Texas or North Dakota might become unprofitable can be off base as well.

As to the first point — all the factors that comprise the fluctuating price of oil — Cassleman writes:

In July 2008, my Journal colleague Neil King asked a wide range of energy journalists, economists and other experts to anonymously predict what the price of oil would be at the end of the year. The nearly two dozen responses ranged from $70 a barrel at the low end to $167.50 at the high end. The actual answer: $44.60.

It isn’t surprising that experts aren’t good at predicting prices. Global oil markets are a function of countless variables — geopolitics, economics, technology, geology — each with its own inherent uncertainty. And even if you get those estimates right, you never know when a war in the Middle East or an oil boom in North Dakota will suddenly turn the whole formula on its head.

But none of that stops television pundits from making confident predictions about where oil prices will head in the coming months, and then using those predictions as the basis for production forecasts. Based on their track record, you should ignore them.

Fuel Freedom Staff

Oil prices surge after taking a hit this week

/in , /by

We’ve heard a lot about psychology in oil prices lately.

Some stories mention the “psychological” threshold of $60 a barrel. Well, many psyches were put on edge this week, as Brent crude closed below that mark on Tuesday and Thursday, territory it hadn’t seen since May 2009. But it surged $2.11 to $61.38 Friday, a gain of 3.4 percent.

U.S. crude (WTI, or West Texas Intermediate) rose $2.41, to $56.52, up 4.5 percent.

Has oil started to climb back up again after hitting the ceiling? According to Reuters:

While some traders may be betting that $60 a barrel Brent represents a likely floor for the market, others remain unconvinced. With uncertainty high, demand for options has surged this week, with the CBOE crude oil volatility index soaring to its highest since 2011.

“This is a surprisingly forceful run up as fundamentally nothing’s changed in this market in terms of supply-demand,” said Gene McGillian, senior analyst at Tradition Energy in Stamford, Connecticut.

“I think the switch in WTI’s front-month and the second short-covering act for the week kind of got overblown.”

 

Landon Hall

Meet the PUMP players: John Brackett, on a mission to convert gas-guzzling cars

/1 Comment/in , , /by

John Brackett is one of the stars of the Fuel Freedom-produced documentary PUMP, but he’s more than just a pretty mutton-chopped face.

Brackett, an automotive engineer in Colorado who goes by the Twitter handle @Fuelverine, has spent a great deal of time promoting the film, which is now available for pre-order on iTunes.

Brackett specializes in tinkering with gasoline-powered engines — any kind, including vehicles and generators — to make them run on multiple types of fuel. But he’s also on a mission to educate the general public, as well as regulators. Converting one’s car to run on alternative fuels is technically not legal, as is using any fuel not specifically listed in the owner’s manual.

But once the public finds out that replacement fuels like ethanol, methanol and natural gas are not only cheaper but burn cleaner than gasoline, they’ll demand them in the marketplace. And they’ll want to learn how to convert their own cars. As Fuelverine says in PUMP: “That’s the best part about being an American: We don’t like it, we’ll change it.”

Fuel Freedom: Why aren’t all the vehicles rolling off the assembly lines labeled as flex-fuel?

John Brackett: The only reason they were ever flex-fuel in the first place was CAFÉ standards (Corporate Average Fleet Economy). And basically what they said is that, ‘Hey, your 6 miles per gallon Tahoe, since it only burns 15 percent gasoline [running on E85], is a 66 mpg vehicle!’ So your overall average for your fleet went up, and that’s why we only have flex-fuel in the giant V-8s and the V-6s. They very rarely went into the four-cylinders, and when they did, they canceled the model within 1-2 years, or even worse, they made it so you could only buy it if you were a commercial or rental fleet company. The [Chevy] Malibu is my favorite example: They made flex-fuel in 2010 for ’em, but it was only for the commercial or the rental fleets, and you couldn’t buy that four-cylinder from your local dealer. So there was never any incentive for them to actually make it mass-produced, they’re just doing it to hit the CAFÉ credits.

FF: Is it a case of companies only doing something because they have a financial incentive to?

JB: Exactly. I’m not usually a mandate-type person, but the Open Fuel Standard is the right type of mandate to allow competition right now. We just don’t have any options.

FF: What are you most interested in right now?

JB: My main thrust is actually making any engine run off of any fuel. I’ve built generators, I’ve gotten cars running on fuels, I’ve done hydrogen, ethane, methane, propane, butane, ethanol, methanol and gasoline. So my personal interest is being able to tell the computer what to change to run off those other fuels. What blew my mind was that the GM cars, and from what we’re told from several tuners, all the Ford cars since 2005, already have the algorithm in there. They literally turned it off. It’s in there.

FF: Is it possible for a car running on ethanol to get better mileage than gasoline?

JB: Basically, E85 has about 25 to 27 percent less energy in the same volume. So when you drive on the fuel, you would expect to lose that much gas mileage. What we found was that if you were driving on the stock flex-fuel from GM, you lost 25 to 30 percent, exactly what you would expect. When I started doing my tuning, and I would change the spark timing just a little bit – I varied it very small, and I did a lot of runs –and  when I treated the fuel as gasoline or with slight advancement in timing, we only lost 5 to 15 percent of our fuel mileage.

Let’s go to what GM has already done: GM has a 2.0-liter, 4-cylinder, turbocharged engine out for the Buick Regal. That engine makes 5 to 15 percent more power on E85 than regular gasoline, while still getting the same fuel mileage. They have obviously tuned that car, so they have no problems doing it. Now, if we go to what is called direct-injection engines, which are definitely in the future … you can get even more efficiency out of it. You get another 15 to 20 percent efficiency increase by going to direct injection.

FF: If you look at prices of E85 around the country, there’s a big disparity [for example, it’s $2.09 in Iowa and $2.59 in Arizona, according to E85prices.com]. What will it take to get more consistency?

JB: If you have a bad original flex-fuel tune from a factory, you’re going to lose 30-40 percent [in mileage compared with gasoline]. Nobody wants to do that when it’s only 10 to 20 percent cheaper fuel. That’s one of the big reasons we try to use methanol as a big one, because it is so much cheaper, especially on a dollar-per-mile basis. But the ethanol fight, we just need more cars that have it as an option. Until we have that, you’re not going to have that market saturation. So if you think about where the cars are vs. the market, the numbers don’t add up. And that’s why we need every car to have the option to run a flex-fuel — on gasoline or ethanol or methanol, or any combination of them in the same tank.

FF: A constant refrain among the anti-ethanol crowd is that it damages engines.

JB: The biggest thing I like to tell people is, if you start with the first cars: They were all flex-fuel. They stopped being flex-fuel because of Prohibition. We have the materials, we know how to do this, we’ve been doing this for 30 years. Every car made since 2001 or ’02 has E10-compliant components. All the fuel lines, everything. And if you look at the corrosive nature of ethanol, it happens most between E10 and E30, so it’s actually very small blends of ethanol that cause the worst corrosion. But all the cars should already come to the factory with parts that work for it. There shouldn’t be any problem with it.

FF: Tell me about this conversion kit you’re using, by Flex Fuel U.S.

JB: They have the only E85-approved conversion system right now in the United States. What is different about their unit is it plugs into the oxygen sensor, so it reads the exact feedback from the oxygen system. So if it is lean [too much oxygen and not enough fuel], it should adjust. It plugs in line with the injectors as well, the difference being it doesn’t increase the injector pulse for the stock injectors; they add a whole new injector somewhere in the intake system, and flood the system that way. So they’re actually adding additional injectors to it. I’ve talked to the guy several times. Basically, he has to sell the kits for $1,100 to $1,500 right now, because it cost him $4 million to go through the EPA certification process. And that was only for 8 to 10 models. It’s absolutely ridiculous, the hindrance to competition. But he could easily, at mass scale, sell these for $300 to $500.

… We are now at the point where EPA is stopping us from getting clean air. They’re just making things more expensive.

(Photo: John Brackett dropping some knowledge to the assembled in Times Square, September 2014.)

Fuel Freedom Staff

Here’s why air fares aren’t going down, despite cheap fuel

/in , /by

Drivers are loving life whenever they fill up at the gas station. According to AAA’s Daily Fuel Gauge Report, the national average Thursday was $2.477 for regular 87-octane gas. That’s down 23 percent from the same time last year, when the average was $3.216.

So why haven’t air travelers seen similar savings on airline tickets? After all, fuel accounts for between one-third and one-half of the entire cost of running an airline, and the jet-fuel prices have fallen at the same pace as automotive gasoline, down 32 percent over the last year.

And yet not only are airlines not discounting fares, they’re counting their winnings after years of economic struggles: Slate’s Josh Vorhees reports that airlines in North America expect their profits to grow from $11.9 billion in 2014 to $13.2 billion in 2015. The trade group Airlines for America said in a statement that its members are re-investing in 317 new planes, better amenities for passengers, dividends for shareholders and employee benefits. The group added that:

Air travel remains one of the best consumer bargains, given its superior speed and price compared with other modes of transportation. From 2000-2013, U.S. Consumer Price Index rose 35 percent, whereas average domestic airfare rose 15 percent. Thus, adjusted for inflation, the average round-trip domestic fare fell 15 percent.

When the airline industry is financially healthy, everyone wins. Airlines should be treated like every other business. When the price of coffee beans falls, no one asks Starbucks why his or her latte does not cost less. …

Here are three big reasons why airline customers aren’t seeing cheaper fares:

  • Many airlines buy fuel ahead of time, locking in a fixed price for six months or longer. It’s called “hedging,” and although not every airline does it (American doesn’t, and it’s reaping a windfall), it explains why some travelers are still being hit with fuel surcharges. Sen. Chuck Schumer wants the federal government to investigate the industry: “Ticket prices should not shoot up like a rocket and come down like a feather,” he said.
  • Supply and demand. Where’s the incentive for airlines to reduce fares when their North American planes are filled to 85.1 percent capacity? As The New York Times notes in an editorial, “a series of megamergers has significantly reduced competition in the industry. The four biggest airlines in the United States — Delta, Southwest, United and American — control about 80 percent of airline capacity, down from 11 companies as recently as 2005. For most travelers, that has meant higher prices and jam-packed planes.”

It’s impossible to predict where fuel prices will be in the new year, and airline executives might be reluctant to reduce fares now, only to have to hike them again in a few months. Alexandre de Juniac, head of Air France-KLM, told The New York Times that oil might be between $70 and $80 a barrel next year (it’s below $60 now). But he added: “Obviously, no one really knows.”

Fuel Freedom Staff

New York state bans fracking, citing health concerns

/in , /by

New York state has banned hydraulic fracturing, the drilling technique known as fracking, citing risks to the state’s air and water, as well as other potential harmful effects on people’s health.

The decision was announced by the administration of Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who had sent mixed signals previously about his intentions.

The New York Times reported:

The question of whether to allow fracking has been one of the most divisive public policy debates in New York in years, pitting environmentalists against others who saw it as a critical way to bring jobs to economically stagnant portions of upstate.

Mr. Cuomo, a Democrat who has prided himself on taking swift and decisive action on other contentious issues like gun control, took the opposite approach on fracking. He repeatedly put off making a decision on how to proceed, most recently citing a continuing — and seemingly never-ending — study by state health officials.

On Wednesday, six weeks after Mr. Cuomo won re-election to a second term, the long-awaited health study finally materialized.

According to ThinkProgress:

… state Department of Environmental Conservation commissioner Joseph Marten said he would issue a “legally binding findings statement” seeking prohibition of the controversial process.

Fracking involves injecting water and chemicals into shale rock to free trapped oil and natural gas. The practice has been in limbo in the state for the past five years, but in June a state appeals court ruled in favor of local governments seeking to ban fracking on their own. In light of that decision, along with proposed bans on fracking near aquifers and in state parks, according to ThinkProgress:

… Marten said that 7.5 million acres, or 63 percent of Marcellus shale [a formation that lies beneath large sections of New York, Pennsylvania and other states], would already be off limits to fracking. Activists say that 170 towns and cities in New York have already passed fracking bans or moratoria.

The acting state health commissioner, Dr. Howard A. Zucker, said the state’s investigation had found “significant public health risks” associated with fracking. The NYT goes on:

Holding up scientific studies to animate his arguments, Dr. Zucker listed concerns about water contamination and air pollution, and said there was insufficient scientific evidence to affirm the long-term safety of fracking.

Dr. Zucker said his review boiled down to a simple question: Would he want to live in a community that allowed fracking?

He said the answer was no.

“We cannot afford to make a mistake,” he said. “The potential risks are too great. In fact, they are not even fully known.”

 

Fuel Freedom Staff

More problems for Tesla: Analyst cuts sales forecast

/in , /by

Morgan Stanley auto analyst Adam Jonas has been bullish on Tesla Motors. But he added to the company’s woes Wednesday when he slashed its sales outlook in the face of falling oil prices.

Jonas predicts that the luxury electric-car maker will only be able to sell 300,000 vehicles by 2020.

Cheap gas prices could be partly responsible, since the narrative at the start of this month was that plunging prices had contributed to consumers returning to their SUV- and pickup-loving habits. (Electric vehicles didn’t sell badly in November either, particularly the Nissan Leaf.)

But this segment in CNN Money’s story presents an other interesting angle:

The biggest drag on Tesla sales will be the lower-priced, mass market Model 3 expected in showrooms in about three years.

Jonas’ doubts that Tesla will be able to price the Model 3 in the $35,000 range as many have been expecting. He’s now thinking the price could be closer to $60,000.

Tesla’s philosophy is that it won’t put out a vehicle that doesn’t meet its own, and founder Elon Musk’s, high expectations. See this post from November, about how the company wasn’t bothered about delaying production of the crossover-utility vehicle Model X, which is now expected in showrooms until the third quarter of 2015.

Tesla’s stock has fallen precipitously since Sept. 4, when it was $286.04. It closed at $197.81 on Tuesday.

Fuel Freedom Staff

WaPo: Falling oil prices aid Obama on foreign policy

/in /by

The Washington Post has a story about what falling oil prices has achieved for President Obama’s foreign-policy goals:

The precipitous fall in oil prices, which is hammering countries heavily dependent upon oil exports, could prod Russia into abiding by a ceasefire in Ukraine, make Iran more pliable in talks over its nuclear program, undercut Venezuela’s influence in the Caribbean, and weaken the finances of the Islamic State.

There’s another side to the coin, however:

… other parts of Obama’s foreign policy agenda could become more difficult, including efforts to open up Mexico’s oil industry to foreign companies, promote oil-fueled development in poor nations in Africa, and reduce global fossil fuel use to limit climate change. Brazil, already grappling with a corruption scandal linked to its state-owned oil company, is now uncertain about long-anticipated revenues from ultra-deepwater oil prospects.

The plunge in oil — and the subsequent hit to Russia’s economy — has achieved what sanctions could not: Humble Russia, which is “suddenly finds itself fighting a rear guard action on its own economy.”

But some analysts worry that the Obama administration hasn’t considered all the consequences.

“The ruble is in real trouble, the Russian economy is in real trouble,” said Bruce Jones, deputy director of the foreign policy program at the Brookings Institution. But, he adds, “do we understand what happens if we really break the back of the Russian economy? I’m not sure we’ve thought that through.”

Arctic Leaf

Will falling gas prices hurt alternative vehicles?

/in , , /by

Everyone is saying that falling gas prices will ruin the market for alternative fuels and vehicles. But it isn’t time to give up on them now.
Ethanol and methanol are still two liquid fuels that will easily substitute for gasoline in our current infrastructure. Ethanol is making headway, particularly in the Midwest, where it is still cheaper than gasoline and has a lot of support in the farm economy. The big decision will come when the EPA finally sets the quota for ethanol consumption for 2015 – if the agency ever gets around to making a decision. (The decision has been postponed since last spring.) A high number should guarantee the sale of ethanol no matter what the price of gasoline.

That leaves methanol, the fuel that has the most potential to replace gasoline and would it fit right into our present infrastructure but must still run the gamut of EPA approval and would require a change in habits among motorists. Methanol is still relatively unknown among car owners and is hindered by people’s reluctance to try new things. But the six methanol plants that the Chinese are building in the Texas and Louisiana region could break the ice on methanol. The Chinese have 100,000 methanol cars on the road now and are shooting for 500,000 by 2015. Some of that methanol might end up in American engines as well.

Another alternative that is still in play is the electric car. In theory, electric cars should not be affected much by gas prices because that is an entirely different infrastructure. The appeal is not based on price so such as the idea of freeing yourself from the oil companies completely and relying on a source of energy.

The Nissan Leaf has not been badly hit by oil prices. Tesla’s cars, of course, have not gone mass market yet, but the company is relying on a new breed of consumer who does not worry too much about the price and will appreciate the car for its style and performance. Elon Musk has shown no indication of backing down on his great Gigafactory, and Tesla is still aiming to have the Model III (its third-generation vehicle, which will come at a much lower expected price point of $35,000) ready by 2017.

This leaves natural-gas-powered vehicles as the only group that might be hurt by falling gas prices, and here the news is not too good. Sales of vehicles that have compressed natural gas as their fuel declined 7.2 percent in November. As David Whiston, an analyst at Morningstar, told the Houston Chronicle’s Ryan Holeywell: “I hear all the time from dealers: As soon as gas starts to go down, people look at light trucks.”

CNG’s appeal has always been that it will be cheaper than regular gasoline, so plunging gas prices make it lose much of its appeal. It costs $5,000 to install a tank for CNG fuel, and that is not likely to attract a lot of takers with oil prices low. For a gas-electric hybrid, there is similar math. For the Toyota Corolla, the electric portion adds another $7,000 to the price. That’s why the CNG-based solutions never caught up with the light-duty vehicle. They are still attractive for high-mileage vehicles like buses and garbage trucks. “For the consumers doing the math, if gas goes below $3 per gallon, the payback period goes out a number of years,” Whiston told Holeywell. “And the break-even point makes sense for fewer people.”

The collapse in gas prices is not the end of the road for alternative fuels. In a couple of months, the price may be up again, and all those people who have rushed out to buy light trucks will be stuck with them. The changeover to alternative fuels is a slow process, fraught with false starts and misleading signals. But in the end, it will be well worth it to reduce our dependence on imported oil and achieve some kind of energy independence. Car buyers have very short memories and an inability to look very far into the future. Remember, it’s always a passing parade. Consequently, their reaction has been only short-term. But once people buy those trucks, they’re stuck with them for the next 5 to 10 years. If the price of gas goes up again, they may live to regret it.

Fuel Freedom Staff

Alaska’s Bristol Bay placed off-limits from oil, gas drilling

/in , /by

President Obama on Tuesday pulled Alaska’s Bristol Bay from consideration for federal oil and gas leases.

As AP reported:

The decision announced Tuesday under the federal Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act means no leases will be sold for petroleum drilling in the area. The bay provides 40 percent of America’s wild seafood and supports up to $2 billion in commercial fishing every year.

Obama said: “These waters are too special and too valuable to auction off to the highest bidder.”

Watch the video the president made announcing the decision.

The area, west of the Alaskan peninsula near the start of the Aleutian Islands, has been the subject of a tug-of-war for drilling for years. President Clinton issued a moratorium on drilling in the bay in 1995, and Congress and the executive branch have wrangled over the region ever since. This site has more on the battle.