Check out the redesigned ADG Explore

Today's Paper Latest stories Obits Email newsletters Weather Traffic Restaurant inspections Puzzles + games
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

The price of gasoline in Arkansas has jumped 14 cents in the past month, and motorists will see little relief on average this summer when prices are expected to soften only slightly, according to a monthly government report released Tuesday.

This story is only available from the Arkansas Online archives. Stories can be purchased individually for $2.95. Click here to search for this story in the archives.

Front Section, Pages 1 on 04/09/2014

Print Headline: Higher gas prices likely for summer

Comments

You must be signed in to post comments
  • Dontcallmenames
    April 9, 2014 at 8:34 a.m.

    If people who really care about our country and its citizens would make the Keystone pipeline happen, we wouldn't have to worry about the Ukraine and Libya.

  • maelstrom
    April 9, 2014 at 9:17 a.m.

    This is no longer news anyway. It's like saying 'Summer expected to bring warmer temperatures'. There will ALWAYS be a reason for gas prices to rise in the summer.

  • JakeTidmore
    April 9, 2014 at 9:21 a.m.

    Bloomberg Business Week:

    This argument is tenuous at best—one that relies on some broad assumptions that, even if they do come to pass, are years down the road. At worst, it’s a politically motivated simplification of a complex issue that will have next-to-no impact on the fortunes of Russia or Europe. In other words, it’s wrong.
    ....
    For every barrel of Canadian crude that Keystone would bring to the U.S. Gulf Coast, that is one more barrel of crude displaced on the world oil market. Would that lower oil prices? Not necessarily. For one, Keystone would move only 830,000 barrels of oil a day. The world uses about 92 million barrels a day. Increasing the supply by less than 1 percent isn’t going to do much to prices.
    ....
    The idea that any of that new Canadian crude would make its way to Europe is a non-starter: the U.S. is banned from exporting crude oil. Approving Keystone doesn’t change that. So might Keystone cause U.S. refiners in the Gulf to export more refined fuel to Europe? Perhaps, but they’re doing that already. As of December 2013, the amount of refined petroleum products exported by the U.S. to France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the U.K. had increased by more than 400 percent vs. 12 months prior.

    Finally, even if President Obama were to approve Keystone tomorrow, construction wouldn’t be completed until about 2016. That’s no solution for the current situation we face in Ukraine.

    Instead of focusing on Keystone, Palin and pro-energy conservatives should be talking about the U.S. exporting natural gas. Europe gets 40 percent of its natural gas from Russia, almost all of which flows through Ukraine. There’s a very good case to be made for the U.S. to use its new-found natural gas abundance as a way to blunt Russia’s control over Europe’s (and Asia’s) natural gas supply.
    ....
    There are lot of reasons to approve Keystone, (and plenty more not to) but to argue that going ahead would help save Europe from Russia’s grasp isn’t close to being one of them.

  • JakeTidmore
    April 9, 2014 at 9:30 a.m.

    Two part entry:
    (Part 1)
    Is oil from tar sands different from other oil sources?
    Very different. Because tar sands -- also called oil sands -- aren't in liquid form, they can't be pumped out of the ground like other sources of oil. Instead, tar sands are mined using open-pit or strip-mining techniques. Getting the oil out of the tar sands is a more complex process, too, requiring extensive extraction, separation and refining before it can even be moved through a pipeline. All this extra processing means that tar sands oil is more expensive to deliver and has a bigger environmental impact, with greenhouse gas emissions that are estimated to be about 20 percent greater than other oil sources.
    Is that the only problem with the Keystone pipeline?
    That's just one problem. A larger and thornier issue is the proposed route of the new Keystone XL pipeline, which travels directly over the Ogallala Aquifer, an enormous -- and enormously important -- underground lake of water that extends from South Dakota to Texas. The Ogallala Aquifer provides drinking water for millions of people and irrigates a whopping 20 percent of America's agricultural harvest. An oil leak into the Ogallala would have devastating effects on residents, businesses and farmland in the Great Plains. (This NRDC report has a map of the Ogallala Aquifer and the Keystone pipeline network.)
    But the Keystone pipeline would provide jobs, right?
    Some jobs would certainly be created by the Keystone XL pipeline. How many jobs, and how long-lasting they would be, is the subject of an ongoing debate. TransCanada, the Canadian developer of the pipeline, estimates that the project would "create more than 20,000 high-wage manufacturing jobs and construction jobs in 2011-2012." The U.S. State Department, which is directly involved in the Keystone XL pipeline since it crosses an international border, places the number of jobs created much lower, in the neighborhood of 5,000 to 6,000 jobs.
    Critics of the project, however, note that most of the jobs created are temporary jobs that would not last beyond the construction phase; the number of permanent jobs created is not expected to be more than 200 or 300 positions at most. And an analysis by the Washington Post finds that many of the jobs being hyped by supporters of the Keystone pipeline project include jobs like dancers, bartenders and hairdressers, which makes all these optimistic job estimates seem more than a little specious.

  • JakeTidmore
    April 9, 2014 at 9:32 a.m.

    Part 2

    But America desperately needs to develop new sources of energy.
    That's a fact that virtually everyone agrees upon. But TransCanada estimates that, if completed, the Keystone XL pipeline would provide just five percent of U.S. oil needs. That doesn't really give America a great deal of energy security, doesn't reduce our dependence on foreign oil (remember, Canada is a foreign country with its own government and its own priorities), and the Keystone pipeline won't lower prices at the pump in any meaningful way, if at all.
    Critics of the project -- and there are millions of them -- note that the Keystone pipeline network will do little more than enable America's crippling addiction to oil, and further delay our development of less-polluting renewable sources of energy.

    There has to be some way to address the environmental concerns.
    Some efforts have been made to minimize the impact: The Republican governor of Nebraska, Dave Heineman -- whose state is almost completely underlain by the Ogallala Aquifer and is utterly dependent on its water -- has insisted that the Keystone XL pipeline be rerouted to minimize the risk to Nebraska's land and water.
    Even if it is rerouted, the oil industry has a miserable track record on health, safety and environmental issues. The State Department has found that the existing Keystone pipeline has already failed 14 times since it began operations in 2010 -- one of those leaks dumped 21,000 gallons of crude oil -- and the new Keystone XL pipeline could be reasonably expected to fail about two times a year each year of operation.

    From the mining wastes created by strip mines and open-pit mines, to the water quality problems caused by oil leaks and pipeline failures, to the air pollution problems caused by an increase in greenhouse gases and toxic fumes, the Keystone pipeline network is fraught with real environmental hazards, both immediate and long-term.

    SOURCE: Marc Lallanilla, who is a science, health and environmental journalist. A member of the Society of Environmental Journalists, Marc has decades of experience as an environmental consultant, a writer and an editor.

    Experience:

    Marc has spent many years as an environmental consultant and natural resource planner for private companies and governmental agencies, including Unocal, the City of Austin, Texas and the California Department of Water Resources. Additionally, he has worked as a writer and editor covering topics as diverse as prefab housing, war and the environment, green-collar jobs and sustainable design. His work has appeared in print and online publications like the Los Angeles Times, ABCNews(dot)com and elsewhere.

  • outinthesticks
    April 9, 2014 at 10:33 a.m.

    I agree with maelstrom, gas ALWAYS goes up in the spring, just before spring break if you will notice...you can set your watch by it. Enough of the excuses of: switch from winter to summer blends; refineries down for maintenance; political turmoil somewhere; etc. etc.

    -

    However, will someone tell me what is NOT GOING UP under this goober administration? I snicker every time I hear the monthly CPI reports. My bank account is a much more accurate measure of the cost of living, and I see where it is going.

  • JakeTidmore
    April 9, 2014 at 1:32 p.m.

    Recommend online article:
    Historical Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) Data byTim McMahon on March 18, 2014

    The chart provided breaks down the CPI numbers by year & by month. When comparing the yearly numbers, one finds that the CPI change is very consistent over 4 to 8 year spans (which I used to check how various presidential administration performed). The current administration is on a trend to be slightly better than some of the recent presidential terms, provided similar average rate changes continue in the next 3 years.

    But, be warned that a low CPI change gives a very incomplete picture. Citing an article by McMahon in 2009:
    ....
    The Historical Inflation Rates show that even when we have had price deflation (falling prices) the country has been prosperous if the reason for the falling prices is that goods are being produced so economically that prices can fall and producers can still make a profit. This generally occurs after major productivity enhancements like the invention of the assembly line or the completion of the transcontinental railroad.

    Disinflationary pressures in the late 1990s and early 2000s were most likely the result of cheap productive capacity in China and other former communist countries coupled with the deflationary forces of the 9/11 attack and the stock market crash.

    The deflationary period that began in late 2008 was the direct result of a collapsing stock market which destroyed trillions of dollars of paper “wealth”. This caused millions of people to cut back on expenditures and banks to refuse to loan to questionable borrowers. This type of deflation is not the same as a productivity induced deflation.
    ....
    The CPI change from 2008 to 2009 saw the following: comparing January numbers from both years, Jan 09 was 0.063 higher; comparing December numbers likewise, Dec 09 was 0.676 lower. Yet, as noted by McMahon, the low CPI came during a major economic slump and crisis.
    The key to CPI is simple: low but stable inflation. Stability is the main key for market forces -- that's what they react to. Uncertainty is anathema to the market.

  • Packman
    April 9, 2014 at 1:41 p.m.

    Yet, Barack Obama is more worried about some fairy tale about gender wage disparity than crippling gasoline prices. Worst POTUS ever. Jimmy Carter thanks God every night for Barack Huessien Obama.

  • JakeTidmore
    April 9, 2014 at 6:28 p.m.

    If you have noticed Stupordude's notice you will have noticed that his notice is not worth noticing.

    But never fear, somewhere Jessica Simpson is thanking the Allmighty Whitey for S-dupe.

    And, nothing describes L'Stupe better than the immortal words of former Prez GW Bushmeister: "They misunderestimated me."

  • WSJ
    June 16, 2014 at 2:35 p.m.

    It was Roger Clemens in a senate hearing about using HGH and other PEds when he said "you missunderestimated me" not President George W.Bush.

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT