Pump this

.
First of all, the people who made the claim, "Iraq is all about oil", should now retract that statement as being bogus because, now that we "could" control all of that country's oil, it's obviously not the case. In addition, the oil-for-food program, it is now known, was used and abused, not by the USA, but by the United Nations, France, Russia, and Iraq itself. (No wonder they were against the war.)

Another popular misconception leads people to "blame" the Saudis in particular, or the middle east in general. This is misdirected blame. Did you know that the USA imports more oil from Canada and Mexico than from EVERY middle east country COMBINED, and that only 17 percent of USA oil imports come from Saudi Arabia? Almost 50 percent of all USA oil imports come from three countries, Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela.

See link:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/rankings/crudebycountry.htm )

In order to get a realistic answer to your question, one should avoid the normal clich?s, such as "it's all about greed", "those greedy oil companies", and so on. Don't fall into those traps. Those kinds of sentiments are planted only to entice hard feelings, for whatever reasons, among an unknowing and unsuspecting populace.

And there's no merit whatsoever to that Exxon and Mobile email thing that's circulating.

See this link:

http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/petition/gasout.htm

I think in order to find the accurate cause of any problem, and to pursue avenues to successfully solve the problem, a person should take all emotions out of the equation. Blaming the "greedy oil companies" is an emotional response, and it will only serve to cloud the issue and make the solution to a problem even more elusive.

Also, don't let "statistics" mislead you either. Consider these:

On one hand - The USA is the world's largest energy consumer.

On the other hand - The USA is the world's largest energy producer.

On one hand - The US is the world?s major oil consumer, with a per capita consumption of 28 barrels a year, as compared to only 2 barrels a year for each Chinese citizen.

On the other hand - China is now the world's second largest oil consumer, and is expected to consume over 5 million barrels a day in 2004.

On one hand - The United States is estimated to be consuming an average of about 19.9 MMBD (million barrels a day) of oil in 2003, up from 19.8 MMBD in 2002, an increase of less than one-half of one percent.

On the other hand - China has increased oil consumption by 20 percent since 2002. Moreover, China is expected to consume 12MMBD by 2025, an increase of well over 100 percent

(Keep in mind that the USA produces 8 MMBD of crude itself, so we import "only" 60 percent of what we use.)

Having said all that, the answer to your question is simply supply and demand. Why are they limiting the supply, you might ask? Well, they're not. Actually, the world's oil supply has risen over the past year. Demand, however, has risen at an even higher rate, and the increase in consumption by the USA is insignificant compared to other countries.

Some food for thought:

The refineries in the USA (converting from crude to gasoline) are operating at 100% capacity.

What determines the price of a gallon of gasoline?

43% - The price of crude oil.
32% - Federal, State, and local taxes.
13% - Distribution, marketing and retail dealer costs and profits.
12% - Refining costs and profits. (This component varies from region to region due to the different formulations required in different parts of the country.)

Historically, ever since 1985, March through May, we have always seen an increase in the price of gasoline. Many refineries shift from winter production, which includes the process of making gasoline cleaner burning for the winter months, to summer production. Additives are included in winter production to comply with cleaner burning regulations.

A simple way to answer the question, why are gasoline prices higher?

Because supply has increased, but demand has increased at an even higher rate, and expenses for the production have also increased.

What can we do about it? About all we can do (as consumers) is to consume less. This will, in theory, bring the price down and keep our individual total gasoline cost from rising, maybe breaking even, and maybe even bring it down.

As Max stated, the cost of energy has risen mainly because demand is out-pacing supply.

Further, the ONLY way to reduce the per unit cost of energy is for EVERYONE to use LESS!!!

As to boycotts, unless you can boycott ALL stations served by a specific refinery, all the boycott will do is hurt the independent retailer who operates the station.

Now, there are other factors at play here.

Over the past few years, most new power plants that have been built run on natural gas.
This has contributed to price increases for natural gas and some shift from natural gas to other fuels.

The general trend toward consolidation and energy trading also causes the price to rise.
(Max, name me 1 merger that has resulted in lower prices and higher employment)

Then, the energy producers have not been able to get all of the policy changes they expected when George W. Bush was elected President.

Restricting supply and raising prices will "soften" the American people and Congress to support the changes they want:

Reduce environmental impact rules for new refineries.

Reduce or eliminate ethanol based fuels.

Reduce or eliminate "regional" blends of gasoline.

Open more federal and off-shore areas for exploration. (think Alaska)

The oil in Iraq has not come into significant play yet as the infrastructure was in much worse shape than anticipated.
The recently announced OPEC production limits are based on the assumption that oil will start flowing out of Iraq.

It does not matter where the crude oil comes from. The cost is based on the world market price.

The "best" thing that individuals can do is to drive "smart"!
On my drive to work, I figure I use at least 25% less fuel than my fellow commuters.
How?
I don't race to the next red light. I pace myself so that I get to the line of traffic just after the light changes to green and traffic starts moving.

I arrive at work at an "off-peek" time so traffic and delays are at a minimum.

Next, I use different routes at different times of the day based on how much time I spend waiting for traffic. While my drive time is longer on the slower route, my fuel use is less than on the faster route since I am not setting for 2 light cycles at each traffic light.

Finally, I am getting back in shape so that I can use my bicycle as much as practical.

Chas

.
You asked, "Who controls the rate of crude oil prices?"

It depends on where it comes from, I suppose. But OPEC, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, certainly holds a lot of the aces in the hole (and oil in the ground). It was some very interesting research. Thanks for asking the question. Here's what I found:

Canada: Petro-Canada, created by the Canadian government as Canada's national oil company.

Saudi Arabia: The Saudi Royal Family.

Mexico: Mostly Pemex, the world's fifth-largest oil company, and, to a large degree, the government of Mexico. Nearly every peso of Pemex's profits goes to run the government of Mexico. The company, after paying taxes and royalties, actually lost $3.5 billion in 2001, and the company loses at least $1 billion a year to corruption.

Venezuela: Venezuela nationalized its oil industry in 1975-1976, creating Petroleos de Venezuela S.A. (PdVSA), the country's state-run oil and gas concern.

Nigeria: Nigeria is the most corrupt country on the face of the earth. (Or is it second behind Bangladesh?) So the answer is criminals.

Iraq: Iraq's top U.S. administrator right now is Paul Bremer. In June, when the transition hands the government over to Iraqis, who knows?

United Kingdom: I'm not sure how much, if any, government control is placed on oil production, but it's produced by independent oil companies including the major players, Pentex Oil and BP-Amoco.

Norway: Prior to 1999, the Norwegian government owned 100% of the country?s largest oil company, Statoil and a majority stake in the second largest oil company, Norsk Hydro. Statoil also managed the State Direct Financial Interest (SDFI), which represented the state's holdings in 150 offshore oil and natural gas fields, as well as about 40% of total. I suppose that would make it Norway's Minister for Petroleum and Energy, Einar Steensnaes.

Angola: Under Angolan law, oil revenues are to be deposited with the Angolan National Bank; KPMG determined that those revenues, were instead channeled directly through the State Oil Company, Sonangol or through the Presidency. By the way, in January 2004 Human Rights Watch Report alleged that between 1997 and 2002, nearly $4.22 billion of Angola's estimated $17.8 billion in oil revenues was "unaccounted" for by the Angolan government.

Colombia: The Colombian government owns the country's hydrocarbon reserves. Oil and natural gas development is regulated by state oil company Empresa Colombiana de Petroleos (Ecopetrol) and the Energy and Mines Ministry.

That's the top 10 oil importers to the USA. Combined, they provide 58% of the oil consumed by the USA.

We produce 42% of our own black gold, Texas tea, primarily concentrated in four states. Texas at 24%, Alaska at 22%, Louisiana at 20%, and California at 19%. The remaining 15% is spread out among several states including Pennsylvania, Kansas, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, et al.

Who controls oil production within the USA? The whacko environmentalists, I suppose, or else we'd open up more oil fields in Alaska and off-shore.

Rising demand, encouraged by SUVs and extra large houses, helps drive prices.

If you want to reduce costs, reduce your demand.

For example, consider using mass transit for at least part of your commute if your job allows such. If you do an eight to five job that doesn't involve hauling hardware around, or driving to clients, transit can help reduce direct energy costs.

You might also look into using an assortment of energy conservation and alternative energy techniques to handle climate control for housing. Even if you live in places like Minnesota, you can use solar to supplement heating.

Over here in Australia we are currently paying nearly $1.00 AU per liter which works out roughly to nearly $4.00AU per US gallon. Granted there is an 8 cent per liter State Government rebate but even still you are getting it far cheaper that we are and the point here is that other than "Light Sweet Crude" we produce most of our needs here to supply this market. While the companies are making the oil as cheap as possible our Federal Government whacks on a massive tax called "Import Parity Pricing" which means that they get to charge not the production cost but the calculated world cost for oil produced overseas and transported here. That means that in excess of 40 cents per liter is going into Government hands and you can be sure that very little of this is returned in better infrastructure that are of benefit to motorists.

Col

Could the increased demand in the U.S. be due to all the yuppie boomers driving (alone) in their SUVs that get what, 4 MPG at best?

And whatever the source of the oil, why does the price go waaaaaay up on holiday weekends? Coincidence or....shrewed businesspeople gouging the consumer?

Someone please explain why gas goes from $1.64 one day to $1.84 the next, then back down to $1.60-something the next, and then back up...

At McDonalds the price of the Big Mac stays the same pretty much for months or years at a time. So what's the dif' 'tween Big Macs and gallons of gas? (insert joke about Big Macs giving you gas here)

.
Instead of asking whether or not business mergers are good or bad (for whatever reason), one should ask whether or not the government should "decide" that any particular business merger is good or bad. First of all, good for whom, is certainly open to interpretation and perspective. And second of all, the government of the USA is not meant to control business. Free enterprise means enterprise free of government control. All one has to do is look at the business climate in countries where businesses are nationalized, many of which have been relegated to the trash heap of fail attempts, to see the inefficiencies and destructiveness of such systems. We just don't do that in the USA, and whether or not the outcome of a business merger is good or bad, by whoever's definition, is immaterial. Barring the violation of existing laws, such as various anti-trust or SEC legislation, it's not the government's place to interfere.

If you created and built "Out of the Box" Computer Company, and I created and built "World Computer Company", and we wanted to merge our companies into a leaner and meaner "Out of This World Computer Company", then we should have the right to do that free of any interference from the government. If we saw some merit in reducing overhead by combining our efforts by sharing manufacturing facilities, sharing bookkeeping functions, sharing marketing and research, and so on, should we not have the right to pursue that avenue of growth? Even if our "combined" workforce is reduced for the sake of generating higher profits (heaven forbid - that terrible word, profit), it's not the place of government to block it.

Companies, in order to remain viable, have to create a balance between what's good for the employees and what's good for the company, whether that company is privately held or publicly traded. Employees also have to create some balance between what's good for the company and what's good for them. Most of the time, we find that equitable trade-offs will ultimately result. Businesses and employees need each other, and even though change may create obvious examples of short term pain, history has shown that it's the long term gains that will benefit society as a whole. Has business growth in America been positive or negative over the past 25, 50, 100 years? The answer is an obvious positive, meaning that long term benefits of "free enterprise" will ultimately benefit us all.

To make a blanket statement that business mergers are bad and should somehow fall under the auspices of government control, just because they might result in fewer jobs and/or higher prices, or whatever reason, is to let your emotions win over reason, and is starting from a desired (emotion driven) outcome to find justification for the position. If one would instead start from a core set of principles, in this case the belief in a system of "free enterprise", and just let the chips fall where they may, not only will we maintain consistency in our actions, but we won't find ourselves behaving in a manner contrary to what this great experiment called America is all about.

Hey Chas, how 'bout that "new" company? With your brains and my......whatever......who knows?

.
Colin,

What did I do differently? Well, I didn't "intentionally" do anything differently. My guess is that something in the link that I posted triggered some HTML code to print the remaining text in bold.

And yes, I have noticed the shuffling of current discussions, the current ones no longer atop the list. However, something that is now working again will help us overcome that snafu. If I, for example, do a search for Maxwell Edison, I'll get a list of all my discussions sorted by date. (In your case, of course, you'll have to search for Col Luck.)

Change and tinkering - gotta' love it. (At least that annoying ad disappeared.)

.
I find it interesting that "the big oil companies" are usually the target for blame and complaints, OPEC is a close second, but taxes are never mentioned as too high. Out of the $2 per gallon price of gasoline, 26 cents goes to the retailer for costs and profits, 24 cents goes to the refinery for costs and profits, 86 cents covers the cost of crude, and 64 cents is taken for taxes. The taxes we pay, per gallon of gasoline, account for more than the retail and refinery costs COMBINED, but no one ever complains about it. Moreover, included in the expenses incurred by retailers, distributors, and refineries is also, you guessed it, taxes. Did you know that the "oil production tax" these companies pay (yep, there's such a thing) has increased 70 percent over the last twenty years? Do you think they just take it in the shorts, or do they pass it on to the consumer? They pass it on, of course.

I pay more for ONE gallon of tax, 64 cents, in 2004 than I paid for TWO gallons of gas, 58 cents (29 cents per gallon), when I started driving in 1969.

People complain about paying 2 bucks a gallon for gas, but they will then pay well over $10 a gallon for water. Soda also costs about $10 per gallon.

I have no conclusions, but I just thought these observations were interesting.

But over here most of the Fuel stations are owned by the Oil Companies and the staff are on a wage so they do not see any advantage or disadvantage of changes to the price but they are on a "Performance Bonus" so the more that they sell at the best price that they can get per unit is an increase to their bonus. Hence when the amount of Fuel being sold droops they get on the blower and get approval for a reduction in prices until volume starts to increase again and then the price is pumped back up again. As my work involves driving all over Brisbane and surrounding areas it is quite an eye opener to see the different fuel prices in different areas. The higher the standard of the suburb the higher the fuel prices are and the same applies to the poorer areas where there is a reduction in the cost of fuel. About the only thing that stays somewhat stable is Diesel at around 80 cents per liter but the petrol is all over the place and this is I think what makes a lot of people think they are being ripped off by the "Big Bad Fuel Companies" who in actual fact are discounting and cutting into their income to keep up the volume of sales going through each and every day. From my personal experience sometime around 3.00 am on a Tuesday morning is the cheapest time to buy fuel over here.

Col

Where the good Dr insisted that it was about time that man should not depend on the "Fossil" fuels but to switch to Hydrogen as it was easily made and non polluting.

Maybe there is something in it from all those years ago.

Col

I just got back from a week stint in Hawaii, there it was about $2.20 for their premium, I think there reg was around $1.98 - $2.06 or something like that. Here back in the land of reality (also known as Southern NJ) I paid $1.76 for regular just yesterday.

Talking about price hikes, for us fellow milk lovers (I love dairy products..its one of my downfalls..lol) nation wide milk prices will be hiked by 50 cents a gallon soon. I heard that on ABC news last night.

Talk about expensive times!

US citizens are lucky....

77.9p per litre here (non-premium unleaded)

?2.95 per Gallon
=
$5.41 per Gallon

How I wish........................

I can't believe that I just read this entire thread and absolutely NONE OF YOU suggested telecommuting as a solution to the never-ending energy "crisis"! What is wrong with this country -- and all the other countries represented here?

How many of you posters perform work that really must be performed at your employer's site? About five percent of you? The ones who physically install and repair hardware? Any construction equipment operators, plumbers, gardeners, or housecleaning services represented here?

I could do my job perfectly well at home with just a telephone, a webcam and two workstations (one for videoconferences). Yet I am required to schlep myself across the landscape twice a day -- wasting ONE EIGHTH of every weekday's waking hours -- in order to sit here, talk on the phone, use my workstation, and occasionally attend a live meeting that could be done just as well by video.

And it gets worse. My employer has to tie up a huge amount of capital in this giant building and the valuable piece of real estate it sits on. My tax dollars go down the sinkhole of freeway and subway construction whose actual capacity always lags ten years behind needed capacity. Housing prices within easy driving distance of any major city have become astronomical, and even fifteen miles further out townhouses sell for $300,000.

Some people never get to see their own children when they're awake, and the children are more fluent in the nanny's native language than English. America's workers live on a steady diet of convenience food while complaining about bad nutrition, and they spend an hour or two each day shoehorned into a car while they complain about lack of exercise.

This is the reason that petroleum prices are so high. If American managers would learn how to really manage people instead of just counting the hours they spend at their desks, we could all work at home and the nation would become self-sufficient in petroleum overnight. We could probably even steer our farmers into the renewable biofuel industry (replacing gasoline with sugar beet alcohol and diesel fuel with corn oil) for the day when the oil wells run dry.

Telecommuting is not just practical, it is absolutely mandatory, yet here's an entire forum of IT professionals who don't even have the word in their vocabulary!

Stop giving me the finger every time I suggest adopting the SEI CMM and Function Points, and turn software development and mainentance into a true engineering discipline instead of a medieval craft. We can manage our staff by measuring the quantity and quality of their output instead of the hours they spend in their cubicles, and we can stop making decisions about the economy and national security based upon their impact on the petroleum industry.

Since the popular response--by some people--to the high price of music CDs is to thumb the nose at the music companies and STEAL unauthorized copies off the Web, why aren't those same people who are just as upset about the high price of gas respond in the same way as they do with music, and just STEAL gasoline??

While I do not download music files, I do have teenage children and relatives.
(I have banned my children from downloading files on our home PCs.)

They do feel that ANYTHING that they can download from any source is "fair use" of the material.

My response to over-priced entertainment is to buy less.

Same for over-priced energy.
I will reduce my need for gasoline.
My house is nearly as efficient as possible for heating.
I may end up running my air conditioner less this summer.

On illegal activity in general, I believe that those inclined to commit crimes look at 2 factors before acting:
Will I gain from my action?
Will I be caught?

Any punishment is NOT part of the equation.
Criminals don't worry about potential punishment because they don't believe that they will be caught.
If they believe they will be caught, they usually move on to an easier target.

Chas

While the CAFE standards may have played a role in creating the SUV, I think their popularity is more basic.

The mini-van had pretty much eliminated the family station wagon long before the current crop of SUVs came into being.

The GMC Suburban has been around for ages. So have the Ford Bronco and Chevy Blazer.

Ford "civilized" the category when they came out with the Explorer. Instead of the utilitarian nature of the older 4WD passenger vehicles, you now had a stylish family vehicle.

Much as Chrysler changed the market with the introduction of the Dodge Caravan years ago.

As commonly used, what is an SUV?
It's a mini-van on steroids.

No longer does the family man need to feel ashamed when driving the family vehicle.

An SUV is rugged, tough and manly. It may not be a sports car. But an SUV is a lot more manly than a pastel colored mini-van.

People who live in climates like you and I love their 4WD SUV because they mistakenly believe that they do not need to slow down when the roads get slick in the winter.

Of course, the "active" family "needs" a SUV for that 1 week a year when they tow a boat or camper on vacation.

Chas

I have watched the price of gas fluctuate in a repetitive pattern over the past 10 years.

The pattern used to be:

Gas goes up on the Thursday before a holiday or travel weekend.
Gas goes down for up to 2 weeks before going up again on Thursday.

The peak price on Thursdays followed the general up or down trend for the period.

This week, things have changed a LOT!

As normal, the price of gas went up to $1.79 on Thursday.
On Sunday, the local station had dropped it's price by 2 cents.

Monday evening, the price dropped to $1.71 per gallon.

Today (Tuesday) the price shot up to $1.89 per gallon.

If this keeps up, I will need to get back in shape sooner than I had planned.

Be kind to bicyclists on the road. They are helping keep the cost of gas down.

Chas

Hi Julian,

SUV stands for Sport Utility Vehicle.

$2.50 for just over a 1/2 liter soft drink!

Sounds like the service stations rip you guys off on both ends.

My son thought he had to pay a lot in New York for a 2 liter bottle of soda. ($2.50 US)

Interestingly, there is much more profit in that 600mL soft drink than there was in a full tank of petrol.

Chas

Well I saw the ihghest yet about three weeks ago, $1.00L in Richmond.

Now from what I understand (correct me if I'm wrong) there are 3.78 Canadian litres in a US gallon.

$3.78(CDA)/Gallon! Now we do the currency conversion and find that it is $2.81(USD)/gallon.

Now the average price right now is $0.87 L or $3.28 (CDA) per US gallon, $2.44 (USD)/gal

Sure people sigh at the price here but it is rarely an issue of much focus other than "...A**holes, oh well."

To see people complaining about paying less than $2.00 USD is kinda funny really.

While touring the island with friends in the motorhome last week, I topped up for $80.00 then $71.00 then a couple of time at about $50'ish and finally another $60.00 to the ferry again, that's not filling my 2nd tank and just using the main.

It was worth every last cent though. Sure I'd like to pay $0.50L again but my clients would like to pay me $20.00/hr again too.

c'est la vie

Hi Julian, I was wondering, is there a reason you choose premium as opposed to regular unleaded gas ?

Not to make an example of you but I have seen MANY people buy the wrong gas and actually cause more ham by buying expensive high octane when the engine is designed for lower octane fuels.

Many people notice reduced ping, preignition and carbon build up by lowering octane levels. Most cars that aren't high performance or specialty emissions systems will run much beter on 87% as opposed to 98% fuels. The additives and detergents in SUPER fuels may cause gummy buildup in injectors and shorter gasket life.

It's the same as using synthetic based oil and trans fluids. MOBIL 1 for example (a true synthetic as opposed to Slick 50 additive) will in MANY cases cause the transmission's stator to wear by eroding the vane tips. It will also turn an older cars gaskets into Swiss Cheese overnight as it eats at the grime that has sealed them for the last 10 years.

Just a heads up, the octane market is for those who are unaware that MOST cars will run perfectly and last longer on regular unleaded 86% octane fuels. Don't buy it unless you car specifically recommends high octane gas, you may want to test it out with at least two full tanks of each grade until you find the best performance.

Is the Federal Governments encouragement of mixing "Ethanol" into the fuel to allegedly save "Fossil Fuel" but more likely to support the sugar industry. However high Bio content in our fuels adversely affects engines and intake systems no matter the type as the Bio component attacks the alloy of the induction system and can lead to catastrophic failure like fuel lines pulling out of the alloy that they are forced into and starting fires in the engine compartment.

In one case recently over here a guy filled up a new car in Sydney and attempted to drive it to Canberra, just as he was entering Cantbera it stopped and required towing to the nearest dealer who inspected it and took the opinion that because of the excessive amount of "BIO" additives in the fuel a new engine was required and it was at the owners expense. Now this would have been OK if he had chosen to use the Ethanol but in most cases it is mixed in without you knowing about it and voiding any warranty with new cars as well.

Luckily I've found a place which advertises no Ethanol and I always fill there no matter what although if I was driving the long distances between towns like I used to I would have a problem. As a Mech Engineer I'm suspicious of multi port fuel injection systems as I feel that the thermal changes in the cylinder head must affect the valve seat which should in time come out but so far with all of my Mercedes I haven't run across this problem but I've seen a lot of the Fords and GM products that need regular "Head Jobs" and you are never told exactly what was wrong but given a list of what was replaced which always includes valves, valve guides and seats.

Incidental the main by-product of combustion in unleaded fuel is H2SO2 which combines with to Oxygen atoms in the atmosphere and comes back down in the rain as H2SO4.

This has been a big problem in Europe with all of the "Acid Rain" that they have suffered but the powers that be thing a bit of Sulfuric Acid is better that a bit of Lead but personally I would prefer the lead as while it might be a long term killer the Sulfuric Acid is a short term killer so we might see in the near future a lot of people requiring lung transplants hopefully it will be the Government Members and other politicians who are affected first but it isn't likely!

You've just got to love this when I ran a spell checker over the above I came to Politicians and the first suggestion was "Pollutions" which is pretty accurate don't you think?

Col

You should see what MS word comes up with fo my short name.

As for fuel, ethanol treated fuel is actually advertised here as Gold or Premium fuel. The most popular gas is advertised as a natural WHEAT additive and contains NO ethanol, yet other suppliers sell against it.

One of the main issues of the SAE when I was taking my air care certs was the levels od CO emissions, which is the main cincern behind air care testing here, hydrocarbon limits are allowed to be quite high. New cars are CO tested at around .02 PPM, which is also the first reason for failure. As soon as the catalytic converter is dead you are buying a new one for $300+.

That and CO sensor sales are keeping the air care industry and shops alive. Cars need to be tested annually and the CO limits are constantly dropping.

It was all brought on by the California Air Care Act (1983 if I recall?). It was a big iddue in L.A and California cars were always selling like hotcakes here as they were more carefully maintained. A California VW is worth a mint in BC, twice that in Toronto.

So the air care focus here is on CO emissions as they had proven that too many city workers, policemen etc. were sufering from CarboxyHemogloben in some cases fatal.

So it's not just our beer that is different I see.