After a bit of research I’ve come up with an answer. I’m no longer sure of the question, but I’ve got an answer.
One barrel of crude oil produces one barrel of “something”. This makes sense. However, it cannot make one barrel of gasoline or one barrel of heat oil or one barrel of jet fuel, etc.
There’s tons of data on the net. Much more so than I can filter through in a single evening. But according to the web, a “target refinement” of 60% gasoline, 18% distillates, 9% jet fuelm and 12% other can only be achieved from very “complex refineries”. (I’ve not been able to determine what a “good” yield of heating oil might be.)
In round numbers, 4.5% to 9.5% of the energy derived from a barrel of oil is used in the refining process. Approximately half is derived directly from refining and is fed back into the “system”, the other half is from other energy sources.
Does this get close to answering the question?
It sounds like you can’t refine a barrel of oil into JUST gasoline or JUST jet fuel. (Sorry that the above figures didn’t say what grade/class of crude oil was used – maybe the kind in the strategic reserve has a target refinement of 9% gasoline and 60% jet fuel.)
If the above-described target refinement levels can only be achieved by really really good refineries, what kinds of yields can we expect from an “average” refinery? 50%? And it sounds like this figure is before the 4.5%-9.5% long-term-average reduction for the energy cost of the refinement process, right?
There really is tons and tons of data out there. The few places I’m seeing information that present it in a format easily understood by a layman, I’m unfamiliar with the source.
According to one Texaco page, the example that they give yields about 41% gasoline from a barrel.
Go to Google and enter “yield crude oil”. It’ll keep you reading for days.
• NYMEX light sweet was $31.53/bbl at noon, down from this morning’s $31.57 open
• The EU will not as yet be dipping into strategic reserves
• OPEC meeting opened today
• My price link above is flawed, it should be http://www.oilnergy.com
So Al Gore, who wrote in his book ‘Earth in the Balance’ that he wants to look into phasing out the internal combustion engine, is now telling Clinton to tap into strategic reserves that are meant for war or other national emergencies, so that oil prices will be driven down long enough for him to get elected.
If he thinks cars and industry are causing global warming, what he is saying as loud as he can manage is
Gore is a big fat political whore
He does not really care about the environment, he was just saying that to get elected
He is as sure as he can be that the main Democratic voting blocks (gays/lesbians/environmentalists/union members/trial lawyers/blacks) are either too dumb to know or too hypocritical to care that he has no more principle than the lying, cheating sexual predator who is currently fouling the American political nest.
And the one the media supports is not the one who worked in the oil industry and understands it, but the one who is willing to connive against the strategic interests of the US for short term political gain.
Woe…Easy there! I agree with you that Al Gore is slimy on this latest oil stuff. I think he does know better. My belief is that the real thoughtful Al Gore is the one who wrote that book. (After all, it is not politically popular to advocate the death of the internal combustion engine…much to my dismay.) We are now seeing Al Gore, the politician who wants to placate the SUV crowd.
I’d still rather vote for someone who is willing to sacrifice his principles to get elected than someone who has no good principles on this oil issue and is in bed with the oil industry that has brought us to the present sorry state of affairs in this country as regards oil and all its negative consequences. Although, as I said in another post, Nader is looking better all the time.
By the way, what’s with this “the one the media supports…” stuff. If the media were really liberal…Hell, if they were just half intelligent…they would be educating Americans more about the externalities associated with oil and automobile use. And they would be talking more about all the stories noted in “Project Censored”.
I was referring to Clinton’s attempted rape of Kathleen Wiley, and his attack on Juanita Broderick.
jshore -
“I’d still rather vote for someone who is willing to sacrifice his principles to get elected than someone who has no good principles on this oil issue and is in bed with the oil industry that has brought us to the present sorry state of affairs in this country as regards oil and all its negative consequences.”
Why would you vote for someone who does not abide by his principles? Gore gave every indication that he agreed with you that oil consumption is a Bad Thing. Now we find that he is not prepared to do anything to reduce oil consumption because he wants to be elected. What will he do if he is elected? Will he reduce oil consumption? Not if he wants to be re-elected. How are you better off if we elect a liar and a hypocrite than if we elect someone who we can trust?
I cannot understand what you are saying, other than you are willing to vote for someone knowing he will not do what he says because you agree with the things he says he would do if he weren’t lying.
I for one have had enough of a liar in the White House over the last eight years. The sleaze of the the current administration has, I expect we would agree, distracted us as a nation from genuine problems. And Bush has stated publicly that he would not have released the oil from our strategic reserves. So if you are against trying to manipulate gas prices for short term political gain, or if you oppose hypocrisy, Bush is the man.
How we can have a reasonable public discussion with someone who cannot be trusted is beyond me.
• NYMEX light sweet was $31.75/bbl at noon, up from this morning’s $31.00 open
• No word from OPEC yet
jshore said:
Interesting sentence there, jshore. I’m curious as to how you think the oil industry that has brought us to the present sorry state of affairs. Could you explain? And, who is the oil industry?
Isn’t it obvious, beetle? The “oil industry” is a secret illuminati cabal whose only goal is to pollute the entire Earth, and only Captain Planet and the Planeteers can stop them.
We couldn’t possibly be using so much oil because its price-per-BTU is less than any other form of energy currently in use. Noooooooooo…
Shodan—A few things to further explain my position here. First, the sad fact in political life is that politicians often compromise on their principles to get elected. It is not like Al Gore and Bill Clinton were the first to do this. And, the fact that Al Gore was willing to make the controversal statements in his book at a time when he already had Presidential aspirations and that he was willing to say recently that he stands by every word of that book makes him better than many. Having said that, I repeat my point that I am quite disillusioned with this oil reserve release and that it is making Nader look more attractive to me. However, as for the choice between Bush and Gore, why would I choose someone who doesn’t even share my principles and values over someone who seems to share them even if he sometimes caves into pressure to compromise too much on them? I mean Bush doesn’t even want to wean America off of its oil dependence at all.
Second, on the subject of the current Administration, yes, I agree there have been some sleazy things…but is it really much sleazier than most? I mean our previous President, W’s father, claims to have been totally out-of-the-loop on the Iran-Contra thing (as does Reagan himself). How believable is this? And Iran-Contra wasn’t about sex and lying about it under oath; it was about clandestinely swarting the law of the land. I think much of Clinton’s problem is that he is such a poor liar…He often prevaricates too much (“well, it depends what the meaning of is is”) rather than just lying outright and baldface. This gets him in worse trouble but I’m not sure it makes him a worse person.
As for beatle’s question about my sentence about the oil industry…Okay, I admit that I vastly oversimplified the situation in my attempt at a sound-bite there. It is not all the oil industry’s fault. The auto industry shares some of the blame. (E.g., G.M. buying up the trolleys in L.A. and then shutting them down.) And, then most of the blame lies in our society as a whole and our failure to recognize that a “free market” does not price goods in any sense correctly when there are considerable externalities associated with their use! (This isn’t even a criticism from outside the theory of market economics…It is embedded in the very theory of market economics.) The Europeans are better at understanding this which is why gas there is taxed to raise the price up to $4 / gallon. (Admittedly, this has led to protests recently but I would rather have people protesting over a price of $4 / gallon than whining about $1.60 / gallon.)
Shodan, one more quick thought on your comment “…if you oppose hypocrisy, Bush is your man.” What??? To cite one example: This is a man who basically admits he used illegal drugs like cocaine and yet supports the current draconian drug laws that has sentenced people to long jail terms for crimes not dissimilar to ones he apparently committed! Of course, maybe he is not a hypocrite and actually believes you should get a second chance if you are rich and well-connected but not if you are poor and less well-connected. But, strangely, I don’t think I’ve heard him express this idea.
“First, the sad fact in political life is that politicians often compromise on their principles to get elected.”
Actually, the sad fact is that the American electorate is willing to let them get away with it. How else could Clinton have been re-elected?
“The fact that Al Gore was willing to make the controversal statements in his book at a time when he already had Presidential aspirations and that he was willing to say recently that he stands by every word of that book makes him better than many.”
No - saying one thing and doing something else makes him worse than most. Repeating a lie does not redeem it.
• NYMEX light sweet was $31.00/bbl at noon, down from this morning’s $31.46 open
• Another one to watch, NYMEX light sweet average futures ended yesterday at $30.03
• Nothing really tangible out of OPEC yet. Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud has announced that they are prepared to increase production if they feel the price of a barrel is damaging world economies. Venezulean President Hugo Chavez has repeated OPEC demands for stable oil prices, adding that the market should accept not only production costs but the true value of oil’s use. Apparently their not really in agreement with the maxed out countries being generally against production increases. Still watching.
Best of luck in your quest to find a Presidential candidate who has a chance of getting more than say 25% of the vote and cannot be accused of ever compromising his principles or being hypocritical! Please write when you find one…In the meantime, I will go back to pondering whether to vote my principles (Nader) or the evil of two lessers (Gore).
One more thing I should add in defense of Gore though: In one of the many places that reported on this oil release thing, it did very briefly mention that on the same day Gore also proposed a fairly hefty tax deduction for those who buy hybrid or electric vehicles.
Manhattan:
Thanks for setting me straight on the L.A. trolley thing. Mea culpa…I guess I had better bone up on my Straight Dope columns!
The New England and the NY region felt the oil price surge much worse than anywhere else in the nation. The continued overspeculation and the increasing costs of oil would have increase heating prices in the winter here over 50%, on top of the huge increases in electric bills. This runaway inflation that Clinton hopefully prevented would have totally wrecked the entire NE/NY economy.
