Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: viper215 on April 21, 2006, 11:57:17 PM
-
Being summer is almost here how hard has gas prices hit you???
Trying to see the difference in states.
Today on the gas station down the street (Mobil) 3.15for reg 3.25 for special and 3.35ish for super+. And a week ago it was all in the area of 2.90. Summers going to be hell for us. We own a boat and $$$ might be topping 4.50 perk gallon.
How hard has it hit you?
-
March 6, 2006 I paid $2.06/gallon for regular.
Now, $2.86 for the same gas.
Ridiculous.
-
Not sure lately, last time was around $25 for ~7 gallons though, with a 3 cent discount at Safeway!
-
May be pretty bad here too this summer, but we are used to high prices at the pumps. Analysts say it may reach 15NOK for a litre.
Hopefully that means fewer dillholes on the water, but they usually have more money than brains so that prolly wont keep em on dry land.
-
$2.92 is the cheapest for regular here at a mobil down the street
-
Just wait... 4th of July...$3.50 a gallon. You heard it here first.
-
You guys have nothing much to whine about... yet
Pump price in NZ is $1.73 a litre, which equates to $6.53 a US/gallon
The price is bloated because 41% of the pump price goes to our greedy bastage of a govt as tax.
Excel
-
ROFL! Why do these gas price whines always originate in the land-o-plenty - cheap gas and all that? When do you ever see me whine about the cost of road fuel? Hardly ever. And why's that then, given that road fuel here is the most expensive in the world? Hint - try driving vehicles that get sensible mileage, ie. 40+ mpg...
Storch - you should have your diesel truck by now - how's that working out for you? Doesn't look like your Monster will be worth much in the coming climate...
-
I get the feeling beet1e is definately anti american.........
whats your GPS coordinates beet1e?
-
Originally posted by Yeager
I get the feeling beet1e is definately anti american.........
Don't be ridiculous. I'd have said the same thing if this gas price whine thread had originated in Australia.
What I find is lamentable is that folks sometimes refuse to help themselves, but will whine on a BBS instead. I saw it in the game - people whining when "fluffs" duffed their radar or hangars. It would be wah-wah-wah on the GD forum. And we all know who the biggest whiner was. ;) It never occurrs to these people to do something about it themselves. The same thing goes for these gas whines. People drive 12mpg SUVs, and then wonder why they get whacked in the wallet at the gas pump. Sorry, but I have no sympathy. None.
I think I'll go to the Malvern Hills today - 220 mile round trip, maybe 22 litres of fuel. I think I can handle that! :D
-
I hear you beet1e, as soon as my subaru burns out Im buying a horse.
I wonder how long the 19 mile ride (to and from) work will take on a horse.....
****......
-
Originally posted by Yeager
I hear you beet1e, as soon as my subaru burns out Im buying a horse.
I wonder how long the 19 mile ride (to and from) work will take on a horse.....
****......
Hey, Mr. Toad said it could be done - in one of the gun threads he suggested that Britain could ban cars and everything would be peachy. :cool:
Viper215, what car do you drive, and what annual mileage?
-
What gets me is the fact that just less than 6 weeks ago I was paying 80 cents less for a gallon of gas and now they say that demand outstrips supply therefore price goes up? BS. It went from 2.06 to 2.45 two weeks later. Granted, yes I know that the price of a barrel of the black stuff is at an all-time high but so are the profit$ of the Big Earl companys. And it's not like I live that far away from some major refineries either.
-
DiabloTX, part of the problem is the instability in Iran, which is likely to cut production. Nigeria too. Both are members of OPEC. Here's a news story about it: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2006/04/22/cnoil22.xml
Here's another story: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/04/21/npetrol21.xml This one is about pump prices in Britain, which I read yesterday. In this story, there is a link to another story about the troubles in Nigeria: A Nigerian militia group behind a wave of kidnappings and attacks on oil facilities has warned British and American oil workers to pull out of their region, saying that they will treat them "as criminals and rapists".
Dressed in camouflage flak jackets and black balaclavas, the militia issued the warning to a group of foreign journalists in the middle of the Escravos River in the Niger delta, where most of Nigeria's crude is produced.
Ijaw militiamen
Ijaw militiamen return Macon Hawkins, a Shell subcontractor, who was kidnapped on Feb 18
The recent attacks by the newly emerged Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (Mend) have threatened global oil supplies and pushed prices up since January. A fifth of Nigeria's oil remains cut off by the attacks.
After Mend issued a statement on Wednesday saying it was planning "one huge crippling blow to the Nigerian oil industry", oil prices climbed 56 cents to $62.35 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange.
Opec member Nigeria is the world's eighth largest oil exporter and the fifth largest supplier of crude to America.
I think you get the picture. And everyone, don't say I didn't warn you about being so heavily dependent on OPEC oil. People on this board just love to crow about driving the biggest, thirstiest trucks they can get their hands on, in threads like this (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=175456). Indeed, one guy crowed thus: "I like me truck. It's big and gulps lots of gas." Those not so little numbers you see on your gas pumps are the result of this somewhat frivolous demand for oil products in the USA.
-
Heard on the news last night where an investigation had been implemented concerning the 4 major oil companys in the U.S. concerning price gouging.
We should have some sort of/kinda like decision sometime in the next 20 years if this goes like most of these goes. :)
Oil companies are saying that prices are set by the market, not them. (If you buy into this , I still have one bridge for sale left)
They were saying in the late `70s/early `80s there was an awfull shortage that started the price increase. The trend still seems to be going that way.
I ordered a custom `79 Pete conventional. Upon arrival I watched fuel prices (diesel) double and beyond at a very fast rate in a very short time.
The only problem with this was that I was going to the ports in Houston/Galveston/Corpus, etc. at the time on a regular basis. The tug boat crews had nearly changed from tugs to water taxis. Oil tankers were anchored offshore, just across the line. They were not allowed in to offload. The tugs would shuttle the tanker crews to shore and back on a rotational, skeleton crew, basis. Some had been at anchor for quite some time and not allowed to offload. We`re not talking a few here , but many.
Price gouging and market manipulation? Tis not rocket science.
At least Jesse James had the common decency to use a gun. :rolleyes:
-
Jackal, I don't deny that the oil companies are "opportunists", but your account is an oversimplification. If the only factor was oil company greed, and the events around the world had nothing to do with it, why would the oil companies wait until now to "price gouge", as you put it? They could have simply put up prices at any time. But no, it's happening now. And there are reasons as to why it's happening now.
Sure, there are times when the oil companies won't offload when they know the price is about to go up - that's not rocket science either, and you'd do the same thing if you were in the oil business. Back in the 1973 OPEC crisis, I even remember filling stations remaining closed here because they knew the fuel in their underground tanks would be worth much more in a couple of days after the price rise...
...but by the same token, the oil companies and filling stations have got to purchase their supplies at the new, higher price. If they sell all they have now at a price which meets your approval, how are they then going to restock once these OPEC countries have cut production and cranked up the prices? There would be a cash shortfall - where are the oil companies supposed to find that extra money to bridge the gap?
-
Well I also heard about how Russia and South America wanted to sell us umpteengagillion barrels of oil just waiting for shipment. To be honest, I ain't that worried about it anymore...pissed about yes but I'll still sleep tonight. I moved 52 miles closer to work, no more 110-mile round trips to work and back for me, and that was even with a car that got over 30 mpg on the highway. Remember back in the 70's with the gas prices and then in the mid '80s I remember paying around 58 cents a gallon. Never could understand how it went from being so "scarce" to so abundant and cheap so quickly.
<---always wanted to do that!!!
-
Congratulations
-
Originally posted by beet1e
why would the oil companies wait until now to "price gouge", as you put it?
ROFLMAO :rolleyes:
Where ya been the last 30 or 40 years? On another planet/
They haven`t waited "until now".
It`s the Ma Bell syndrome.
I find it hard to beleive that any human being can possibly be as gullible as you come off in your posts. ( I`m beginning to convert :) )
when you leave a wolf to guard the hen house, you better have plenty of chickens you are willing to give up. :)
Sure, there are times when the oil companies won't offload when they know the price is about to go up - that's not rocket science either
The prices at the time had no reason to "go up" other than the fact that a "shortage" was being created due to not allowing the tankers to offload. There was no shortage. It was manipulated into one.
Another little crazy fact was more recent . Katrina. Sure there was going to be a shortage after that, but not a long one. Also the west coast is not dependent on gulf oil. The prices went up just the same.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
ROFLMAO :rolleyes:
Where ya been the last 30 or 40 years? On another planet/
They haven`t waited "until now".
It`s the Ma Bell syndrome.
I find it hard to beleive that any human being can possibly be as gullible as you come off in your posts.
OK, Smart Man. So why has this thread appeared NOW?? Were there any gas price whine threads last month? February? If you can find any on this board, I'll read them.
So tell me, Mr Oil-Industry-Expert, what price do YOU think they should be charging for gas at the pump? What do YOU think is fair? And, if your situation is so grossly unfair and the costs so exorbitant, how do you explain that some people (see my earlier link) positively revel in driving huge trucks that get 12mpg on a good day? Also the west coast is not dependent on gulf oil.
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/bsflag.gif)
LOL - did you say... gullible? :rofl
-
Originally posted by beet1e
OK, Smart Man.
Thanks. Proud you are finaly seeing the light. :)
So why has this thread appeared NOW?? Were there any gas price whine threads last month? February? If you can find any on this board, I'll read them.
And this pertains to what?
Your question was........................
If the only factor was oil company greed, and the events around the world had nothing to do with it, why would the oil companies wait until now to "price gouge", as you put it? They could have simply put up prices at any time
So tell me, Mr Oil-Industry-Expert
:D A l`il touchy and prissy today?
how do you explain that some people (see my earlier link) positively revel in driving huge trucks that get 12mpg on a good day?
Other than envy, this pertains to you how again?
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/bsflag.gif)
Here is a clue......................... ....................
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/22_1145703329_gulf.jpg)
LOL - did you say... gullible?
Why, as a matter of fact, I did. :aok
-
Originally posted by beet1e
ROFL! Why do these gas price whines always originate in the land-o-plenty - cheap gas and all that? When do you ever see me whine about the cost of road fuel? Hardly ever. And why's that then, given that road fuel here is the most expensive in the world? Hint - try driving vehicles that get sensible mileage, ie. 40+ mpg...
Storch - you should have your diesel truck by now - how's that working out for you? Doesn't look like your Monster will be worth much in the coming climate...
I had to purchase an excavator unexpectedly so with the possibility of a paycut looming ( I pay myself last ) I decided to forego the personal obligation at this time. funny anecdote, I was filling the expedition for frau storch and a eurotouro in a rental asked me how much fuel the truck consumed. I responded that it consumed every cent I put in it. He thought the reply was funny, I was being serious. fuel expense and all I'm happy with the truck but thankful it's not the daily driver.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Other than envy, this pertains to you how again?
Envy? Are you saying that I would like a 12mpg truck but... "can't afford it"? I'm not going to discuss with you my personal financial portfolio, but rest assured I could buy any of those monsters shown in that other thread. I choose not to. I drive a vehicle that is suited to my own needs, rather than one that is designed to massage (someone else's) ego. Here is a clue......................... ....................
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/22_1145703329_gulf.jpg)
ROFL, Jackall! Priceless! You must be the only guy on this board who, in the context of a discussion about oil, thinks of "The Gulf" as the one past the beach in Texas! :lol I can't wait to tell Curval! :lol:lol But then again, the cap fits - perfectly! :rofl
Of course, I was talking about "The Gulf". And... America (east/west/middle) is heavily dependent on this Gulf region for its oil.
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/persiangulf.jpg)
-
Originally posted by beet1e
What I find is lamentable is that folks sometimes refuse to help themselves, but will whine on a BBS instead. I saw it in the game - people whining when "fluffs" duffed their radar or hangars. It would be wah-wah-wah on the GD forum. And we all know who the biggest whiner was. ;) It never occurrs to these people to do something about it themselves.
I've seen it all now...If my memory serves me correctly your entrance to this BBs was a whine about lack of co-operation, teamwork etc. here.
After having met you in the MA the night before, (and calling your six, talking with you etc.), I found this to be incredible and think I responed to your whines about.
Funny but I seem to remember you as Scrmbl I believe, in WBs and don't remember the vitriolic pomposity that now regularly spews from you. Sir.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Envy? Are you saying that I would like a 12mpg truck but... "can't afford it"?
Nope and don`t know where you get that from?
I'm not going to discuss with you my personal financial portfolio
Well, that`s a plus. :)
You must be the only guy on this board who, in the context of a discussion about oil, thinks of "The Gulf" as the one past the beach in Texas!
That is where you would be very wrong. Most here are from the U.S. You might want to remember that. :) Around these parts, when you speak of "the gulf", you are speaking of the G.O.M., not sandland. that`s your bag. When speaking of Katrina, I would think it would be quite clear to most everyone....well....maybe with the exception of you. Katrina hit the U.S. from the G.O.M. Remember the context? You can scroll up if you have to. Katrina/gulf oil. Getting clearer now?
Sheeesh!
I can't wait to tell Curval!
A perfect couple. :rofl
-
Originally posted by Yeager
I get the feeling beet1e is definately anti american.........
:rofl Ya think?
I wouldn`t worry about TV programming being interupted to show this as a late, breaking news falsh. :D
-
Pffft, Viper is too young to drive, he was talking about his families boat (yacht perhaps?). I drive 1996 Ford Probe, 4 cylinder, 5 speed manual. Fuel mileage is all dependant on how I drive. If i'm feeling the need to gobble some fuel i'll "drag race" or othwerwise accelerate hard at stop lights. Normally i'll open windows for cool air, AC is a waste of gas, usually. I'll use more gas accelerating to get on the highway then I wil driving 30 minutes to get home.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
That is where you would be very wrong. Most here are from the U.S. You might want to remember that. :) Around these parts, when you speak of "the gulf", you are speaking of the G.O.M., not sandland. that`s your bag.
The second sentence is correct. How can I ever forget. :rolleyes:
I wouldn't be too disparaging towards the Middle East. It's their oil, after all, that makes it possible to drive 12mpg SUVs, should you feel so inclined. And... I would say that in the context of the oil business, which is what this thread is about, anyone talking about supplies from the Gulf would be talking about the Middle East. Of course, if you've never left texas, YMMV.
-
why do you guys bother going over this again and again and again
-
beet... I don't think we will ever understand each other..... We simply do not think price gouging and taxation are right.
As a much needed resource becomes more scarce, it is natural that the price will increase... at a certain level even, oil that was not deemed "recoverable" because of cheaper middle east oil will suddenly become a viable source and prices should.... reflect what that source costs..
We are "whining" about the gouging and the taxes on fuel. No matter what the actual value... these things are wrong.
lazs
-
Originally posted by beet1e
The second sentence is correct. How can I ever forget.
Don`t worry. We are always here to remind you. :)
And... I would say that in the context of the oil business, which is what this thread is about, anyone talking about supplies from the Gulf would be talking about the Middle East.
I would say when discussing oil issues and Katrina and using the gulf you would have to be a moron to think that the hurricane hit sandland . :)
Of course, if you've never left texas [/B]
[/QUOTE]
But , as you know, I have, so that is irrelevant also.
Anymore BS you would like to throw around to try to cover your tracks?
-
Hi Lazs!
Originally posted by lazs2
As a much needed resource becomes more scarce, it is natural that the price will increase... at a certain level even, oil that was not deemed "recoverable" because of cheaper middle east oil will suddenly become a viable source and prices should.... reflect what that source costs..
No, I agree with this. And profiteering by oil companies during a crisis is a fact of life.
Where I disagree is that a high price is the result of profiteering, or price gouging as you put it, by default. Clearly there are other factors at work, ie. the situation in Iran and the crisis in Nigeria. Read my links. ^
But those people with closed minds refuse to accept these external factors. For them it's no, no, no - nothing to do with unstable supplies in the middle east, nothing to do with America's heavy dependence on OPEC oil, nothing to do with the natural laws of supply and demand. No, it's all because of some oil business "conspiracy". Again, I'm not saying that the oil companies are whiter than white and as pure as the driven snow, but I do believe that external factors such as the ones I've listed play a part. Of course, for anyone who doesn't realise that there's a whole planet beyond his state line, I can see why this would be difficult to understand, and I'm not talking about you when I say that.
:aok
But , as you know, I have [left texas], so that is irrelevant also.
I'm beginning to have my doubts about even that.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
I'm beginning to have my doubts about even that.
Since you evidently live in doubt and a peppermints and incense state of mind I don`t find that surprising.
Cover them tracks hoss. The thread will still be there, so the attempt is sort of lame.
You can rest assured that I spend many sleepless nights worrying and fretting over what you doubt/believe.
For the challenged......
-
Hi beet....
I got no problem with price increasing due to scarcity and even a little gouging... I feel that the market will take care of it.. Every voter who watches the democrats turn down exploration when fuel was cheaper is gonna sing a different tune when they figure it out..
ANWAR and off shore and shale oil and coal conversion along with the wussies driving prius and such... all these things will even out the cost at some level
I get a great deal of enjoyment out of the few extra bucks it takes to drive my Healey or el camino... I like putting my foot into it and the rush... Getting there is about 90% of the fun in most cases for me.
I know others enjoy going out to eat and paying $20-200 for a meal and wine for two that has about $1.50 worth of caloric value.
everyone has something that they "waste" money on.... music... DVD's whatever..
lazs
-
Did u all notice how gas went way down at christmas time??? Guess our goverment wanted to boost consumer confidence.....another goverment con job!!
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Around these parts, when you speak of "the gulf", you are speaking of the G.O.M., not sandland. that`s your bag.
And you would do well to remember that your country is heavily dependent on oil which does not come from "around these parts", but on oil that comes from "Sandland" as you put it. Of course, there IS oil in "these parts", but nowhere near enough to cater to America's insatiable demand. When demand exceeds supply, guess what? The price goes up! I don't expect you to grasp this at the first attempt, so I'll come back tomorrow.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
And you would do well to remember that your country is heavily dependent on oil which does not come from "around these parts", but on oil that comes from "Sandland" as you put it.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with Katrina, gulf oil and what was being discussed, but keep covering.
The thread will still be here.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
And you would do well to remember that your country is heavily dependent on oil which does not come from "around these parts", but on oil that comes from "Sandland" as you put it. Of course, there IS oil in "these parts", but nowhere near enough to cater to America's insatiable demand. When demand exceeds supply, guess what? The price goes up! I don't expect you to grasp this at the first attempt, so I'll come back tomorrow.
Don't go away mad, beet.
Just go away.
We can figure out the cause and effect of oil prices without yer worthless peanut gallery 'neeener, neeener, neeener' routine every time the subject comes up. And we are well aware that we've been living high up on the hawg with our societal insistance on vehicles that don't look and drive like paper mache boxes on roller skates.
For the Americans in this thread, and the thread starter that asked a simple question about how much the gas is where they live..
http://www.mapgasprices.com
In my Neighborhood; it's $3.56 a gallon. It's finally higher than the price of bottled water.
And to cover the fuel price increase I've given up patronizing prostitutes, titty bars, $6.00 beers and donations to the American Red Cross.
Instead, I'll hump the nympho downstairs, downlad porn, buy kegs and drop the chump change in the old duffers hat down by the train station.
That's not to say i'm not hugely pissed off by what I see as a forced corporate bend-over being perpetrated by Big Oil. But, as usual; what goes around will come around. The citizens will howl at congress, toss out the bastidges that snorted up the lobby oil money and implement a windfall profit tax that will be used to develop higher powered (nuclear) powerplants that will fit under the hood of an F-150.
Rest assured that americans will decide yet again that they don't like being shoehorned into paper mache chitboxes and figure out how to keep the Navigators and Suburbans rollin at 80mph on the interstates.
And if and wen we do get to $6.00 buck a gallon... beetle will be paying $12.00.
:D
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Thanks. Proud you are finaly seeing the light. :)
Here is a clue......................... ....................
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/22_1145703329_gulf.jpg)
:O
:rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Which has absolutely nothing to do with Katrina, gulf oil and what was being discussed, but keep covering.
In the original post, there is no mention of Katrina and no mention of gulf oil. Try again! :aok
LOL Hangtime! I had a good belly laugh at your post! We can figure out the cause and effect of oil prices without yer worthless peanut gallery 'neeener, neeener, neeener' routine every time the subject comes up. And we are well aware that we've been living high up on the hawg with our societal insistance on vehicles that don't look and drive like paper mache boxes on roller skates.
LOL - that description neatly sums up the watermelon boxes to be found on American roads c1980/81 after the Iranian Revolution (and subsequent oil crisis). Just remember where the best cars in the world come from, and it's not America. In that country, it's legal and quite normal to drive at 130mph or even much more, never mind a paltry 80mph. BTDT.
What you guys have also failed to take into account is the burgeoning demand for oil being made by China. There is even talk of the Chinese demand for oil exceeding the world supply, unless something is done. But hey, that's all outside America, so you need not concern yourselves with it. Just pretend the problem does not exist, or go and build an orphanage or something:cool:
In the next five years, oil could cost two or even three times what it costs now. Don't say I didn't warn you when that happens.
-
The oil companies own the oil they produce and sell it to the highest bidder. It is their oil and they decide when and where to sell it, or even not to sell it.
This is the concept of capitalism, why do Americans of all people have a problem with this? If you don't like the price don't buy the product. And if you’re dependant on their product, whose fault is that but your own?
-
Originally posted by beet1e
In the original post, there is no mention of Katrina and no mention of gulf oil.
There was also no mention of sandland, but it doesn`t matter due to the fact that "the original post" was not being discussed.
Here...I`ll help you out since your "back" function and "scroll" seems to be out of order.
We also wouldn`t want it to get lost under all the BS you are trying to cover it with.
Another little crazy fact was more recent . Katrina. Sure there was going to be a shortage after that, but not a long one. Also the west coast is not dependent on gulf oil. The prices went up just the same.
Nice try. Please deposit 25 cents worth of BS and try again. :rofl
-
Talk about scarcity...Years ago when the "Greenie weenies" bullied our government into forcing gas to be "Cleaner" they came up with this "Summer Blend"...well aparently when they switch over it's not just as easy as "fill the tanks with the summer stuff"
They actually completely drain the large storage tanks at the terminals.
Well,, due to that, and then some sort of mechanical failure at our local terminal(related to the changeover) in Newport News, maybe 1 gas station in 10 actually has any gas at any given time.
You can't even find gas anywhere sometimes!!!
It caused our prices to jump extremely quickly (not gouging just supply and demand).
And although we are just over 3.00 a gallon here..compared to the price it was last week. It's jumped over 20 cents in a week because of this.
The terminal's response "We should be back up to regualr capacity next month sometime"
I don't blame the oil terminal though.
I blame Environmentalists and the Govenrment. Different blends for different regions. on top of that, a different version of each for summer and winter.
I ludicrous..just plain stupid...They want cleaner gas, fine. But lets just run "summer blend" all the time..ans while they are at it make a national standard and make individual state standards null and void.
-
Originally posted by uvwpvW
The oil companies own the oil they produce and sell it to the highest bidder. It is their oil and they decide when and where to sell it, or even not to sell it. This is the concept of capitalism, why do Americans of all people have a problem with this? If you don't like the price don't buy the product. And if you’re dependant on their product, whose fault is that but your own?
Excellent post! And quite correct. The more the product (any product) is used, the higher will go the price. Whose fault is it when that happens? Is it the oil companies' fault that Americans have a "societal insistance on vehicles" (as Hangtime put it) that do 12mpg? There was also no mention of sandland, but it doesn`t matter due to the fact that "the original post" was not being discussed. - jackall
I didn't mention Sandland in my first post. We can figure out the cause and effect of oil prices without yer worthless peanut gallery 'neeener, neeener, neeener' routine every time the subject comes up.-HangTime
Hey, every country is affected by these oil price hikes - or did you think Britain was somehow exempt? You guys are the ones that go neener neener neener about what we have to pay for road fuel. Fine. But then you get all bent out of shape when you can't afford to run your vehicles that are "societally correct". And it cracks me up. :rofl
Like I said, the difference between the gas price whiners and me is not that I am exempt from paying a huge price for road fuel, but that I (unlike those who insist on driving 12mpg guzzlers, a.k.a. "societally correct" vehicles) choose to be the master of my own destiny and do something about the high cost of fuel instead of just whining.
ASTAC - the seasonal blending of fuels is to deal with temperature variations which would otherwise cause problems. Eg. winter diesel does, I believe, contain an anti-waxing agent, without which the fuel would freeze in colder regions. If it were added all year round, it would cost more, and then we'd have even more gas price whine threads!
-
Originally posted by beet1e
ROFL! Why do these gas price whines always originate in the land-o-plenty - cheap gas and all that? When do you ever see me whine about the cost of road fuel? Hardly ever.
No you whine about plenty of other stuff.
Did you know the price per gallon is the same if you drive a hybrid than if you drive an Excursion?
I commute on a bicycle, yet when I buy fuel for my pickup it still is getting close to topping $3.00.
-
Use an EMP weapon over parts of china, oil crisis over
-
Hey beet... our gas prices are still cheaper than yours.
and always will be.
NEENER, NEENER, NEENER!
-
Originally posted by beet1e
I didn't mention Sandland in my first post.
Bwahaahaaaaaaaa! Good God man, if you are having trouble keeping up, take a break. The "original post" whine was yours.
That`s the point..sandland was not being discussed. :rofl
-
...and anyone who drives a 12mpg "societally correct" vehicle in the US is still paying twice as much per mile for fuel as I'm paying.
NEENER, NEENER, NEENER!
-
Texas
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/22_1145726017_l.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/22_1145726094_h.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Oil tankers were anchored offshore, just across the line. They were not allowed in to offload. The tugs would shuttle the tanker crews to shore and back on a rotational, skeleton crew, basis. Some had been at anchor for quite some time and not allowed to offload. We`re not talking a few here , but many.
Price gouging and market manipulation? Tis not rocket science.
At least Jesse James had the common decency to use a gun. :rolleyes:
same thing happened in tampa bay, a news crew took a plane offshore and saw tankers anchored out in the gulf, and we had to wait in line for gas because there was a "shortage".
BTW the retiring CEO of EXXON is getting a $500 million retirement package.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
...and anyone who drives a 12mpg "societally correct" vehicle in the US is still paying twice as much per mile for fuel as I'm paying.
NEENER, NEENER, NEENER!
All dressed up in yer smart cars and mini's.. and no place to go on yer crappy little island.
...and beet.. over there, yer on the wrong side of the road (when it's actually wide enough to have 'sides'), yah measure fuel in litres and distance in kilometers.. all symptoms of 'little'.. as in the average size of yer tiny dicks, itty bitty cars, and midget people living in tiny 'flats' to accomodate the sub-molecular size of your *ahem* 'empire'.
;)
-
Lowest I've seen around my area over the past two days has been in the $2.95 range, many places in the $3.05-3.10 range.
And Beet, people don't drive SUVs or trucks because they're trying to fit in with society. They drive those things because they have boats (or other stuff) to tow, material to haul, 2-3 kids plus their luggage plus your own and the wife's for vacation, etc. Not to mention that at least here in the NE, winter's get rough and are made much easier & safe with 4wheel drive. Throw in that many carpenters/etc., get a "truck pay" from their work if they own one, and you've got a ton of reasons to own a gas guzzler.
Now if someone would actually produce an SUV or truck that still had good performance, but also great gas mileage (and, ideally, didn't look like a tool), of course everyone would buy one (you think we like paying an arm and a leg per tank???). But there really aren't that many options, and the blame for that goes a higher up the ladder than the American consumer.
-
Originally posted by viper215
Being summer is almost here how hard has gas prices hit you???
Trying to see the difference in states.
Today on the gas station down the street (Mobil) 3.15for reg 3.25 for special and 3.35ish for super+. And a week ago it was all in the area of 2.90. Summers going to be hell for us. We own a boat and $$$ might be topping 4.50 perk gallon.
How hard has it hit you?
went up .5c today
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
All dressed up in yer smart cars and mini's.. and no place to go on yer crappy little island.
...and beet.. over there, yer on the wrong side of the road (when it's actually wide enough to have 'sides'), yah measure fuel in litres and distance in kilometers.. all symptoms of 'little'.. as in the average size of yer tiny dicks, itty bitty cars, and midget people living in tiny 'flats' to accomodate the sub-molecular size of your *ahem* 'empire'.
LOL - my car is neither a Mini nor a "Smart" car, and I live in a house, not a flat, and I have only one dick. I think we've already established that I'm the same height as you, but not as fat. My car weighs over 2 tonnes and top speed is a relatively modest ~130mph. Which leads me on to the next point - distances in the UK are measured in miles, not kilometres, the correct spelling is "accommodate", and the UK is not just a single island but at least 200 islands. Other than that, your observations are basically correct - we measure fuel in litres.
:aok:p
-
A woman who wishes she bought a bigger, less efficeint car (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5154850666064814147&pl=true)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
beet... I don't think we will ever understand each other..... We simply do not think price gouging and taxation are right.
As a much needed resource becomes more scarce, it is natural that the price will increase... at a certain level even, oil that was not deemed "recoverable" because of cheaper middle east oil will suddenly become a viable source and prices should.... reflect what that source costs..
We are "whining" about the gouging and the taxes on fuel. No matter what the actual value... these things are wrong.
lazs
Lol Lazs... you know how awesome it is seeing you whine about capitalism?
Why.. I'd almost think you were a sissy little whining communist pinko-studmuffin, if I didn't know better.
It is your God, worship it.
-
LOL Urchin!!! Nice one! :rofl
-
"My car weighs over 2 tonnes and top speed is a relatively modest ~130mph. "
What are the vital stats of your engine, anyway? Is there a chart showing the power curve online anywhere? It's lugging around a car about as heavy as my Buick, with similar top end speed yet distinctly better fuel economy. As I recall, it's a turbo-diesel. Sadly, that type of engine is practically nonexistant in the US outside use in heavy commerical vehicles.
It'd be nice if some automaker would build a full-size car that managed to pull in 40+ miles per gallon. The tech obviously exists. That would mean building a good car though, which current automakers seem incapable of doing.
J_A_B
-
Sorry J_A_B, the figures are a bit confusing. The stats online are not the same as those given in the handbook, and I'm afraid my own figures were misleading. The "slightly over 2 tonnes" is actually the gross vehicle weight at 2030Kg. The unladen weight is given in the handbook as 1545Kg. As you know, a metric tonne is 1000Kg., which is almost the same as an imperial ton at 2240lbs. But I think that weight doesn't include oil/fuel/driver.
The tech spec for the engine can be found in here (http://www.audi.co.uk/newcars/specs.jsp?section=/models/a3/a3sportback&modcode=8PABL9++00).
-
I think this is a unique cultural problem for America. In Europe and Asia cars have great mileage even if they have powerful engines. Take the BMW M3 for instance: 343 bhp and 365 Nm, but still it gets 33.6 mpg. And that's a gasoline engine.
-
Beet1e--Your Audi is a LOT lighter than my Buick after all--1545 kg empty compared to the Buick's 1910 kg.
Interestingly enough, though, your Audi weighs virtually the same as my previous car (a '90 Cadillac Sedan DeVille), but the Audi gets nearly twice the fuel mileage and performs as well or better, too. I don't remember exactly what the Cadillac's empty weight was, but it was definately under 1600 kg (it was 34XX pounds, with the XX being digits I don't remember).
I really liked that Cadillac, and it's interesting to know that there's no reason it couldn't have been a 40 MPG vehicle.
Of course, starting in the early '90's, Cadillac took an entirely different design direction and began bloating up the weight of their cars a little more every year for little or no return in interior space. Unsurprisingly, their sales dropped like a rock. GM is so stupid.
J_A_B
-
"Take the BMW M3 for instance: 343 bhp and 365 Nm, but still it gets 33.6 mpg."
I think your source mixed up kilometers with miles. According to This (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/21723.shtml) site the M3 gets 24 MPG on the highway, which converts into exactly 33.6 kilometers.
J_A_B
-
Could be. I used this source:
http://www.ukintpress.com/engineoftheyear/winners/3_4.html
"But there is more to this M engine, which was named International Engine of the Year 2001, than just speed and raw power. 343bhp and 365Nm is impressive, but look beyond these numbers to find a wealth of technology. Witness the use of double VANOS variable valve timing, graphite-coated aluminium pistons and a bespoke engine management system, equipped with two 32bit microprocessors that can perform 25 million calculations a second. It also has anti-friction valve-drive followers with 30 per cent less mass than comparable cup tappets. Such technical know-how from the talented men at Munich helps the M3 record fuel consumption figures of 8.5L/100km (33.6mpg) on the EC extra-urban cycle."
-
Thanks for the link. Instead of confusing miles with kilometers, it looks like they're using UK gallons instead of US gallons. Using US gallons, 8.5 litres per 100 km works out to roughly 27.5 MPG (8.5 litres = roughly 2.25 US gallons). If they're using UK gallons, 8.5 litres works out to a bit less than 1.9 UK gallons, explaining their 30+ MPG figure. Yeah, that's it.
The US government mileage measurements are often a bit conservative, so if the US-sponsored site says the M3 makes 24 MPG, I have no trouble believing it could actually make 27-28 with a good driver.
J_A_B
-
Still 24-27 mpg is a lot better than 12 for what I assume are similarly powerful engines. I have no doubt American auto-makers has the technology and know-how to make similarly efficient engines, but I don't think that has been a priority to the same extent as in Europe and Asia. That will probably change soon though.
-
"Still 24-27 mpg is a lot better than 12 for what I assume are similarly powerful engines. "
The Corvette makes about that same mileage. It's rated for 26 MPG highway. The newer Northstar-powered Cadillacs also get in the mid/upper 20's on the highway. My Buick has a Chevy LT1 engine that gets similar mileage as well (stock LT1's in the Buicks have their top end power choked off by a device that restricts airflow to the engine to keep it quieter, but it's easily removed).
It's worth noting that the BMW engine is a small straight-6 while I'm comparing it to a bunch of V-8's. I bet the BMW engine gets somewhat better mileage in stop-and-go city driving, at the cost of developing a lot less low-end torque.
A friend of mine used to own a 1985 Buick LeSabre with a lousy 307 V-8 that was rated for ~140 HP and it got about 15 MPG. Those bad days are long past. Sadly, reputations don't change as rapidly as technology does.
Some SUV's make terrible fuel mileage, the Hummer H2 being an obvious example.
Instead of 350 HP 25 MPG cars, I'd like to see a 200 HP 40 MPG 2-ton car.
J_A_B
-
Still 24-27 mpg is a lot better than 12 for what I assume are similarly powerful engines.
BMW M3 6 cyl, 3.2 L auto tran is rated at 16/23
Caddilac STS AWD 8 cyl, 4.6 L, Auto Trans is rated at 16/23
epa fuel economy (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byclass.htm)
-
The Northstar V8 is an excellent engine. Won the 4-litre category a few years ago. Amazing durability and a 100.000 mile service interval.
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
Instead of 350 HP 25 MPG cars, I'd like to see a 200 HP 40 MPG 2-ton car.
J_A_B
The closest thing I can find is the BMW 520d. 1685 kg (1.7 tons), 2-litre diesel, 164 bhp, 135 mph top speed, 0-62 mph in 8.9 seconds, 58.9 mpg extra-urban (again UK gallons).
(http://www.bmw.co.uk/images/bmwuk/mid/prices/5_5TO_base_front.jpg)
-
Originally posted by john9001
BTW the retiring CEO of EXXON is getting a $500 million retirement package.
No wonder he's smiling
(http://dallaspenn.com/pics/albums/album01/leeraymond.sized.jpg)
Excel
-
From 1995 to 2001, American oil companies shut down 24 oil refineries along the West Coast. Gas prices in the mid-1990s were low -- too low for the likes of the oil companies. Refineries were operating efficiently, producing large quantities of gasoline and therefore cheapening the cost of gas at the pump.
According to a 2001 report by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), oil companies deliberately shut down refineries in the mid-1990s in order to increase the price of gasoline. Wyden based this conclusion on his acquisition of internal oil company documents written in 1996.
One Mar. 7, 1996 Internal Texaco document said: "As observed over the last few years and as projected well into the future, the most critical factor facing the refining industry on the West Coast is the surplus refining capacity, and the surplus gasoline production capacity. The same situation exists for the entire U.S. refining industry. Supply margins, and very poor refinery financial results. Significant events need to occur to assist in reducing supplies and or increasing the demand for gasoline."
A Nov. 20, 1996 Internal Chevron document said: "A senior energy analyst at the recent API (America Petroleum Institute) convention warned that if the U.S. petroleum industry doesn't reduce it's refining capacity, it will never see any substantial increase in refining margins...However, refining utilization has been rising, sustaining high levels of operations, thereby keeping prices low."
Source (http://soc.hfac.uh.edu/artman/publish/article_375.shtml)
-
I still can't wait for when the middle east oil reserves go dry and we find a huge tap of oil or start diggin in Alaska.
Ho boy will there be a war about that, I gurantee. Them Middle East guys would HATE to have to get oil from us U.S. Pigs.
-
There is a nice series on one of our tv stations going now about the life and work of some people on a Statoil platform and their shore based operations including the geologist searching for the oil and those that sell it. Last night you got an insight in how their trading "floor" works. Kinda small office for such a huge company, and 3-5 people were selling shiploads of oil before they were pumped out to avoid having to sail around with cargos at a cost of 53k USD a day.
Really cool to watch them as they rang around to oil companies trying to get the best price possible. They were often dealing in one cent +- a barrel and that would mean as much as a million USD per cargo. They "needed" to sell about 4 cargos a day, but sometimes they could go for up to a week before selling one due to only a couple of cents a barrel difference between asking and offering price.
Would have been nice to see what happened on the oposite side of the telepone line and how the buyers were gambeling on getting that one cent in their favor.
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
From 1995 to 2001, American oil companies shut down 24 oil refineries along the West Coast. Gas prices in the mid-1990s were low -- too low for the likes of the oil companies. Refineries were operating efficiently, producing large quantities of gasoline and therefore cheapening the cost of gas at the pump.
According to a 2001 report by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), oil companies deliberately shut down refineries in the mid-1990s in order to increase the price of gasoline. Wyden based this conclusion on his acquisition of internal oil company documents written in 1996.
One Mar. 7, 1996 Internal Texaco document said: "As observed over the last few years and as projected well into the future, the most critical factor facing the refining industry on the West Coast is the surplus refining capacity, and the surplus gasoline production capacity. The same situation exists for the entire U.S. refining industry. Supply margins, and very poor refinery financial results. Significant events need to occur to assist in reducing supplies and or increasing the demand for gasoline."
A Nov. 20, 1996 Internal Chevron document said: "A senior energy analyst at the recent API (America Petroleum Institute) convention warned that if the U.S. petroleum industry doesn't reduce it's refining capacity, it will never see any substantial increase in refining margins...However, refining utilization has been rising, sustaining high levels of operations, thereby keeping prices low."
Source (http://soc.hfac.uh.edu/artman/publish/article_375.shtml)
Yes, and how dare the oil companies act like any other company, and actually try to make a profit. :rolleyes: Why, the auto companies never shut down assembly plants when they build too many cars! It would be unthinkable for steel mills to shut down when there are ample stockpiles of steel. And, you know, my $5.49 case of Coke has been that price - well - FOREVER!
Ahem -
Sure, high gas prices stink. But it would be all the worse if gas was still $1 per gallon, yet no gas station had any gas to sell. This is all basic economics.
Getting rid of some of the stupid environmental regulations around formulations would help get rid of some of the volitility, but over the long haul I don't think it would make a huge difference in the overall price. Demand continues to grow, therefore price will continue to rise unless and until there is a dramatic increase in supply. The only way that will happen is if it is profitable for someone to build more capacity. Perhaps prices are finally getting to that point.
-
It's not the quest for profits that I have a problem with but the obvious need to "create" a market to get those profits. What is not being discussed is the fact that gas is more of a utility than a commodity. We all HAVE to have it and where else are we going to get it? Competition? They are all on the same page in the playbook, "Let's create a situation where they have to buy our products at a price WE dictate, no the market!" Or better yet, let's all MERGE! Pick your partner and dosey-do, ya'll.
I equate it to this; You buy a computer for whatever reason. Now, you need an operating system to run this computer. You really don't have much of a choice in this matter, you have Windows, Mac OS, or whatever open source OS you choose to put in it. Well, 90% of the population isn't going to use the latter so you're basically down to 2 choices. Ok, really only 1 but that's my point. You DON'T have much of a choice. If you need gas, pay up sucker, you ain't got no choice.
This country, and most if not all developed countries, have to have gas to maintain the majority of their respective economies. There is an inherent demand for this product, it's not like an entire country can just go, "Ok, you're price is too high, we refuse to buy your product until the price is fair." These people need the gas to eat, pay bills, put clothes on their backs. Ask any transportation driver or farmer or anyone that needs gasoline to make a living. There is no where else to turn to when the oil companies are obviously, ok well maybe NOT so obviously :rolleyes: , creating a market where they dictate the price of their product.
Capitalism = :aok
Price fixing = :furious
-
The Ma Bell syndrome I spoke of earlier. :)
-
DiabloTX - I agree with what you said immediately above ^ but let's expand the discussion a little to pull in the wider world instead of just the US.
Road fuel in Europe and other countries has always been vastly more expensive than it is in the USA, but our vehicles and lifestyles have evolved with that, and we have adapted to price spikes. Here, vehicles have always needed fuel efficient engines. There ARE a number of V8 powered cars available - eg Jaguar, Mercedes Benz, Aston Martin, BMW, Rolls Royce, Bentley - and even a few V12s. But the bread and butter end of the market has always been powered by relative small 4-cylinder engines with a capacity of around 1.6 litres. That's the way it's HAD to be. Europe has never fostered a culture of buying the biggest, baddest, thirstiest monster truck you can possibly find for no tangible benefits aside of bragging rights. And yet that is pretty much what I'm seeing in the truck thread (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=175456). Some of the posters in there actually BOAST about how much fuel their vehicles consume....
...which is all very well in the heady days of gas-aplenty, but as has been seen in this and other threads, there will be howls of anguish as these guys get caught with their pants down when pump prices double. In such austere times, people mysteriously discover that they don't actually need what HangTime might describe as "societally correct" vehicles (SCVs!) and find that their motoring needs can be met by a European or Japanese import.
Europe/Asia (apart from oil rich middle eastern states) have never been interested in gas guzzling monster trucks, and a much higher proportion of our fuel costs is tax. What this means is that when the price of crude rises sharply as it has done in the post Katrina period, the American pump price has doubled, whereas here in the UK the price I'm paying is up by about 30% in 2˝ years. Indeed, our chancellor and future PM Gordon Brown, who is currently visiting Washington, has declared that he will not increase fuel duty at a time when it would cause hardship in light of the crude oil price rises. This announcement has softened the blow considerably. As you can see, the shock factor in the US is much higher, especially with all those 12mpg vehicles, which is partly why gas price whine threads always originate in the US.
Like it or not, oil is obsolescent. It WILL become much more expensive in the years ahead, especially as China is about to become the largest economy in the world. Now, we can all do one of two things to offset the blow: - Continue driving 12mpg "societally correct" vehicles and whine at the cost of fuel, arguing against the "immoral" forces of capitalism that make it so expensive, and post gas price whine threads, or -
- Do something about it FFS! Drive a vehicle that is more fuel efficient - these days it doesn't have to be a slouch. Try for at least 35mpg and preferably more.
I've made my choice. I'm OK for now, but like everyone else, I firmly expect to be paying much more for fuel in the years ahead.
It's the end of oil. Time to get with the programme.
-
Yup beetle. Both businesses and people are used to high gas prices here and has ____probably___ been better at trimming their business logistics and lifestyles to that situation. This is one of the reasons that the negative effects of higher prices are not as severe here as it will be in the US and other places that are used to low prices.
Our government also has an option to trim the taxes to reflect higher prices. Yes, high taxes on fuel sux, but it also gives us plenty of room to manuver when prices skyrocket. I predict that economies in europe and elswere will be more competitive in the future because of this.
This also means that China will not be able to keep up the rapid growth for too much longer, and that is good news for the enviroment and prolly also for the US economy as China wont be able to keep up production at the low prices that it can now. When the Chinese economy gets even stronger, the demand for higher vages will also have an impact on them vs the rest of the world. A stronger China may actually be better for the rest of the worlds economies.
-
The thing is that with the smaller vehicles you just don't have the creature comforts we are accustomed to here. As an example we had to go pick up some equipment we need on monday and no shippers could get the part here on time from central Florida at a cost I was willing to pay. We made a trip of it. Loaded the family which is reduced to myself, frau storch and our 16yr old son, assorted beverages and some DVDs to watch on the TV for our 12 hour round trip. It was almost like a relaxing saturday at home with the added benefit of the flat Florida countryside to add to the trip. No more counting dead armadillos and racoons here. Cruising up and down US27 at 65mph while frau storch drives and storchito and I watch movies we usually don't get to watch at home. I forgot how funny "I'm gonna git U sucka" is. "layer cake" blows. The only thing that truck lacks is a head and perhaps my own fuel bowser in tow. 25gals just doesn't go far enough, it really needs a second 25 gal tank.
With regard to fuel prices, it affects us all much more than just at the pump. since everything in our economy is basically heavily petroleum dependent, it will drive inflation. This is bad overall but for me personally and people such as myself it's fine and we quickly adjust to it. when I receive an invitation to submit a quotation I now price the materials daily and add a fuel factor. the quote is only valid for seven days. I state that clearly on every proposal and many of my colleagues do the same. It has actually been good for my business.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
The second sentence is correct. How can I ever forget. :rolleyes:
I wouldn't be too disparaging towards the Middle East. It's their oil, after all, that makes it possible to drive 12mpg SUVs, should you feel so inclined. And... I would say that in the context of the oil business, which is what this thread is about, anyone talking about supplies from the Gulf would be talking about the Middle East. Of course, if you've never left texas, YMMV.
Well having worked for Gulf Oil as a young man I can tell you that all the oil in the middle east would STILL be under the sand had not the Brits and Americans formed ARAMCO and showed those nomads where it was and HOW to get it out of the ground. Now 40 years later it is THEIR oil and so it is, but THEY have been well paid for something THEY didn't know was there or HOW to get in the beginning.
Don't worry tho Americans have been through this type of thing before and when we are all driving gas guzzling cars that run on some bio fuel that we produce here I will wait to hear the world *****ing about what we do.
-
Yea, "the world" is gonna whine about what the U.S. is, has been or is going to do. That`s a given. Such as Beet in here whining in a thread about the evil U.S. in a thread about U.S. gas prices. Mostly envy I suspect.
The thing is, oil is not over as stated. Not by a long shot. There are fields that haven`t been tapped right here at home. There is new technology that hasn`t even been used yet. New ideas. New market balancing...right here in the U.S. that hasn`t even came to light yet. Hide behind a rock and watch.
I could give a rat`s patunia what someone on some fog ridden, dull, shades of gray place drives or does in general. We take care of home first. The rest can pee up a stump as far as I`m concerned. They are gonna whine one way or the other, so why bother. But one thing you also can rest assured of, when they get their butts in a crack, the U.S. is the first place they turn to for help. Go figure.
-
urchin... I am not "whining" about anything with perhaps the exception of taxation which is the god you worship.... you seem to have never met a government tax or worthless program you didn't like so long as it made some "rich" guy pay.
Price gouging and price setting is illegal. I have no problem with profits made legally. I think that prices need to rise to reflect demand and supply and that they will stabilize. I am not at all dissapointed with the system of supply and demand.
beet... the reason we make fun of you and your gas prices is because you are paying so much of your gas price in worthless and criminal socialism. The tax is what we are laughing about not the cost of the product.
And.... when you are saying that you are slimmer than hang... does that mean just overall weight for height or are we talking body fat % here? I mean.... how long has it been since you were able to look down and see your privates? Do you think you are stronger and in better shape than hang or do you judge shape by weight like women do?
lazs
-
Originally posted by viper215
Being summer is almost here how hard has gas prices hit you???
Trying to see the difference in states.
Today on the gas station down the street (Mobil) 3.15for reg 3.25 for special and 3.35ish for super+. And a week ago it was all in the area of 2.90. Summers going to be hell for us. We own a boat and $$$ might be topping 4.50 perk gallon.
How hard has it hit you?
Not bad ! I paied today, sunday 1.09 cad/L here in Toronto, that's 1.09 x 3.7 L/gal=4.03 CAD/gal=>divide with 1.14 (cad/usd)=====>3.53 USD/gal
And Canada is #1, source of oil import for U.S, but we pay always pay higer price for fuel than California:furious :furious
-
Originally posted by ghi
Canada is #1, source of oil import for U.S, but we pay always pay higer price for fuel than California:furious :furious
Talk to your tax collector
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
That`s a given. Such as Beet in here whining in a thread about the evil U.S. in a thread about U.S. gas prices. Mostly envy I suspect.
I'm not whining, I am laughing! :lol Even if road fuel here was as cheap as it is in the US, my total annual savings would be about $1200 - the sort of money that some guys have to pay to get more than one TV station (if you live in Concord,CA, for example). beet... the reason we make fun of you and your gas prices is because you are paying so much of your gas price in worthless and criminal socialism. The tax is what we are laughing about not the cost of the product. - lazs
- which explains why curval laughs at you!
-
Originally posted by lazs2
urchin... I am not "whining" about anything with perhaps the exception of taxation which is the god you worship.... you seem to have never met a government tax or worthless program you didn't like so long as it made some "rich" guy pay.
Price gouging and price setting is illegal. I have no problem with profits made legally. I think that prices need to rise to reflect demand and supply and that they will stabilize. I am not at all dissapointed with the system of supply and demand.
lazs
Lazs... I think you may be a closet communist.
Check your clothes for sickle's & hammers, on a red background.
Why is "price gouging" and "price setting" illegal?
Are you for a free market or no? Are you against government intervention or not?
You seem to be full of contradictions... maybe while you are checking for commie flags you should check for "sanitary products".. I hear vacillation is a womanly trait. Think I heard that from you, actually.
-
urchin... where have I vaccilated at all? I say that price fixing is illegal. I didn't say if I thought that it was a good law or not even.
I did say, and continue to say, that supply and demand work.
you are the big government socialist guy that thinks that more tax is the answer.
I say.... let the price of fuel be reflected by the price per barrel but take all the tax off it.
lazs
-
Originally posted by RTSigma
I still can't wait for when the middle east oil reserves go dry and we find a huge tap of oil or start diggin in Alaska.
Ho boy will there be a war about that, I gurantee. Them Middle East guys would HATE to have to get oil from us U.S. Pigs.
Cant wait for that day also.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
I'm not whining, I am laughing!
Sure you are Beet. We all can see what a jovial guy you are.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I say.... let the price of fuel be reflected by the price per barrel but take all the tax off it.
But I thought it was only socialist countries like Britain that committed the unspeakable act of levying taxes on road fuel? I thought that in your capitalist utopia, there was no such thing as tax. Besides, earlier it was all being blamed on oil company "price gouging". Why the sudden focus on tax?
-
beetle you're misinformed.
In the U.S. we don't have any taxes. On anything. I went to file my income taxes this year and was only able to send in a pay scale survey to the former IRS so they could work some per capita figures based on income. In fact the letterhead was changed to IRSS for Income Research Survey Service.
Darndest thing.
-
Originally posted by Golfer
beetle you're misinformed.
In the U.S. we don't have any taxes. On anything. I went to file my income taxes this year and was only able to send in a pay scale survey to the former IRS so they could work some per capita figures based on income. In fact the letterhead was changed to IRSS for Income Research Survey Service.
Darndest thing.
:D
Taxes is west of Arkcansaw and south of Okluhhomuh.
-
CAMARILLO, Calif. — Retail gas prices across the country jumped an average of nearly a quarter per gallon in the past two weeks, according to a survey released Sunday.
Self-serve regular averaged $2.91 a gallon, up from $2.67 two weeks ago, said Trilby Lundberg, who publishes the nationwide Lundberg Survey of 7,000 gas stations.
Also Sunday, OPEC President Edmund Maduabebe Daukoru predicted that oil prices would fall from their current high of just over $75 a barrel to stabilize in the "upper fifties to lower sixties."
Crude-oil prices hit a new record Friday, fueled by concerns about Iran's nuclear ambitions and tight U.S. gasoline supplies.
The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries president said the solution to high prices lies in a calmer international environment and boosting refining capacity — not increasing output which would only clog the market.
"If we do the right things by lowering international tensions, oil prices will definitely stabilize," said OPEC President Edmund Maduabebe Daukoru said in Doha, Qatar.
In the Lundberg Survey, mid-grade hit $3 a gallon, up from $2.76, while premium climbed to an average of $3.10, from $2.86 two weeks ago.
(Story continues below)
ADVERTISEMENTS
Advertise Here
The survey covered the period from April 7 through April 21.
Among the stations surveyed, the lowest average price in the country for regular unleaded was in Boise, Idaho, at $2.54 a gallon.
Drivers in San Diego were paying the most for gas, at an average of $3.12 a gallon for regular.
Now here is the truth of the matter......
Iran has to export it's crude oil to other countries to be refined , and then import it back, to storage tank farms and distribute it to gas stations to sell it . Gas in Iran is sold at way below cents a gallon !!! ( US cents) .
Now do you think that the Bush administration or this band of bastards running this country give a rats bellybutton ? .... Have a look at this , then see how you feel about our so called free enterprise system and deregulation of gas in the US.....
Cheap gas? Iraq or bust
"Iraqis Paying 5 Cents a Gallon for Gas" You heard it folks... straight from the AP. The current average price for a gallon of gas in Iraq is right around 5 cents. That means you could fill up your brand new Hummer H2 for about $2.20.
Now, I'm going to take sort of a long shot here and guess that you are standing on top of your chair screaming "WTF" well maybe not "WTF" probably more like "WHAT THE ****!". Well I can understand your frustration. Now let me take that frustration and build on that a bit.
You are probably a bit confused as to how Iraqis are able to get gas that cheap well heres how that works:
Although Iraq is a major petroleum producer, the country has little capacity to refine its own gasoline. So the U.S. government pays about $1.50 a gallon to buy fuel in neighboring countries and deliver it to Iraqi stations. A three-month supply costs American taxpayers more than $500 million, not including the cost of military escorts to fend off attacks by Iraqi insurgents. The arrangement keeps a fleet of 4,200 tank trucks constantly on the move, ferrying fuel to Iraq.
OK, so we are basically paying an obscene amount of money so that Iraqis can have cheap gas. Now heres something else that might just make the pot boil over:
The U.S. government paid even more last year for Iraqis' gasoline — between $1.59 and $1.70 per gallon — when the imports were contracted to Halliburton, the Texas oil services giant formerly headed by Vice President Dick Cheney
Haha, no way. I can't believe that someone would actually sit there and try to tell me that Halliburton is trying to cheat us out of millions of dollars. I just don't see how they expect us to believe that such a thing could happen, especially when we have Dick Cheney in charge/not in charge/formerly in charge of Halliburton. It just couldn't happen... ?
Well, at any rate, no matter how much cheap gas we provide for Iraq its not going to last forever and I think this quote pretty much sums it up:
"The U.S. taxpayer has a right to be indignant, and Iraqis have to be warned about the long-run damages of this," said Anthony Cordesman, an Iraq analyst with the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies. "The minute the aid goes out, the party is over. And there's going to be a hell of a hangover."
:mad:
-
This is funny... beet and some guy named upwwwpwwz whatever talking about cars.... you guys don't know anything about cars.
Corvette has 525 hp and get's 26 mpg my Lincoln town car is two tons and gets 24 mpg... allmost every SUV and pickup in the U.S. get's over 20 mpg brit cars are not at all good examples of cars that get good milage till you get down to the toy car versions.
Beet... you are allways saying how you-0-peean fuel has allways been expensive... no... it really hasn't... it is just taxed to death. That is what I don't want here.... I would rather the oil co make a profit than the same amount go to the government in tax.... no... I would rather the oil companies make 10 cents more in profit than the government make 2.
you talk about the evil SUV's that get 12 mpg when they really get over 20 mpg and... when they have the wife and 3 kids in em they are getting 4 times the milage per person of your audi... even if they spend half their life with one person only in the car... they are getting twice the lifetime average milage of your car.
Fuel prices will level out when demand drops and alternatives become better and more exploration yeilds fields and higher priced shale and coal become economicaly viable.
lazs
-
I love the 5/6 and 12mpg statements made over and over as if anyone is actualy buying it. :)
When I started the biker supply business I bought a Wells Cargo enclosed trailer. I started pulling it around the country with a `87 Ford P.U. (Still have it) 302 with a 5 speed. The trailer would be stacked front to back with biker apparel, custom parts, etc., etc. On top of the totes were stacked my canopy, many 2X8 sheets of 3/4" plywood, folding saw horses, lighting, electical cords...on and on. There was normaly about 3 inches left to the ceiling. The truck bed would normaly be partialy loaded also. I never got anywhere near as low mileage as that.
I also had a `68 Chevy shortbed P.U. as a toy. I ran 350s in it usualy. (I changed often ):D Various shades of "hog troughs" for carbs. Normal driving procedure for "Spot" was to have both feet flat on the floor as much as possible. Still beat the hell outa those figures milage wise.
-
http://www.gasbuddy.com/gb_gastemperaturemap.aspx
price map
-
Originally posted by beet1e
the sort of money that some guys have to pay to get more than one TV station (if you live in Concord,CA, for example).
We have to because the surrounding mountains block out the free stations.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
you talk about the evil SUV's that get 12 mpg when they really get over 20 mpg and... when they have the wife and 3 kids in em they are getting 4 times the milage per person of your audi... even if they spend half their life with one person only in the car... they are getting twice the lifetime average milage of your car.
I don't see any logic in that statement - probably because there isn't any. You assume that my Audi is a single seat vehicle. It isn't. It seats four in comfort, and I did indeed have four in it two weeks ago for the easter hols. I've just been and refuelled it - immediately after refuelling it told me I have enough fuel (55 litre tank) for 685 miles. :D You also need to bear in mind that when I flew down to Qatar, I wasn't the only passenger on the plane - there were at least 200 others.
As for 12mpg gas guzzlers, Ripsnort told me that his vehicle gets 8mpg, or 11mpg at best. But it's a moot point because most oil is used for industry and purposes other than road fuel. Originally posted by lazs2
Fuel prices will level out when demand drops and alternatives become better and more exploration yeilds fields and higher priced shale and coal become economicaly viable.
Doesn't look like happening any time soon. Even if Bush decides to plunder that Arctic Reserve, it's going to be 12 years before the oil comes on line. And someone is going to have to pay for the infrastructure for that to happen. That's either going to have to be the oil companies or the government (read taxpayers). Either way, gas prices are going to have to rise to pay for it. If it doesn't go ahead, you're still going to be importing 10 million barrels a day. And, with people continuing to buy monster trucks (see the truck thread) demand looks set to stay high. Let's revisit this thread in July - around the July 4 weekend (the 4th is a Tuesday this year) and see what the prices are then. If they're lower than they are now, I'll eat my hat, and post a picture of me doing it.
-
You really enjoy picking on that 8 to 12MPG truck, eh beet?
What about the following list? All available in America, but built elsewhere.
Aston Martin
DB9 Coupe 12/19 MPG
DB9 Manual 11/18 MPG
Volante 13/18 MPG
Volnte Manual 11/18 MPG
**V12 Vantage S 11/17 MPG
V8 Vantage 13/19 MPG
Bentley
**Arnage 10/14 MPG
**Arnage LWB 10/14 MPG
Continental Flying Spur 11/18 MPG
**Continental GT 12/19 MPG
Rolls Royce 12/19 MPG
** Worst gas mileage in its class
The combined worldwide sales from the above list far exceeds any truck sales, in the U.S., where the truck gets less gas mileage than the above.
-
You really enjoy picking on that 8 to 12MPG truck, eh beet?
What about the following list? All available in America, but built elsewhere.
Aston Martin
DB9 Coupe 12/19 MPG
DB9 Manual 11/18 MPG
Volante 13/18 MPG
Volnte Manual 11/18 MPG
**V12 Vantage S 11/17 MPG
V8 Vantage 13/19 MPG
Bentley
**Arnage 10/14 MPG
**Arnage LWB 10/14 MPG
Continental Flying Spur 11/18 MPG
**Continental GT 12/19 MPG
Rolls Royce 12/19 MPG
[/b]
Hehe Skuzzy, if you can afford those cars you're not going to complain about the price of petrol surely? :) None are British owned btw.
1 1/2 years ago I sold my car and I'm now relying on public transport (very realiable and always on time) or my bicycle. No doubt when I get round to buying a car again (when the public transport sucks) I'll have a huge shock about the price of fuel again.
The thing I find though is that oil companies will always find any excuse to put fuel up, whether it's legitimate or not. I just don't trust the robbing bastiges ;)
-
I thought it interesting those very high end vehicles sales exceed the sales of trucks/SUV's which get worse gas mileage, than the cars in the list.
-
Are you sure they do? Aston Martin make about 2,000 cars a year in total, Bentley make about 8,500.
-
Of the trucks, rated 1 ton or less, that get less gas mileage then those cars, yes, I am quite sure. Now I am only going by the 2005 sales. 2006 sales appear to have a larger gap, at the current pace.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
You really enjoy picking on that 8 to 12MPG truck, eh beet?
Yes, YES!! :D
And... somewhere else I mentioned all of those makes as producers of V8 powered cars that are available here. But - not many are sold. Check the prices and you'll see why.
However, the best selling vehicle in America for 20-odd years has been the Ford F150 pickup. I looked at the 4WD variants of this on http://www.fueleconomy.gov and found that city mileage is 14, highway 18.
However, also in the top 3 best selling vehicles in America (all of which are pickup trucks) is the Dodge Ram. As you can see from my chart its fuel consumption is wicked, and the CO2 output rating is piss-poor.
Look at the gas mileage of the last one in the list, and ask yourself when beet1e has ever been wrong about anything! :p
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/dodgeram.jpg)
-
The best selling Ford F150 gets 16/20 MPG.
You best check the unit sales of the 'last one in the list'.
Or I can twist things up as well to fit my argument. If you want to discuss facts taken out of context, it really is pointless.
I stand by what I said. You have not refuted it. Worldwide sales of the cars in the list I provided exceed the sales of the trucks which get worse gas mileage in the U.S.
EDIT: Actually Beet. No point at all in trying to have a rational discussion with you about this topic. My last word on it.
-
ban him. limey chit.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Let's revisit this thread in July - around the July 4 weekend (the 4th is a Tuesday this year) and see what the prices are then. If they're lower than they are now, I'll eat my hat, and post a picture of me doing it.
Skuzz , can we please have a giant version of the old rolleyes for this one.
The cutting edge. What a rebel. A real chance taker this one is.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/22_1145906322_rolleyes.gif)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
...and some guy named upwwwpwwz whatever ...
It's sort of a puzzle, avatar and location are hints. Solve it and you get a cookie! :aok
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
The best selling Ford F150 gets 16/20 MPG.
Are you sure?
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/fordf150.jpg)
-
giant rolleyeses for the guy that want to annoy the hyperopic
http://www.galeon.com/mikeln/img/rolleyes.gif
http://www.haxed.co.uk/cms/uploads/pics/giant_rolleyes.gif
-
beet.... noticed that you took 4 wheel drive versions of the vehicles and that 4 wheel drive get about 10-15% less milage and are a small portion of the SUV and pickup market.... but you knew that right?
wzxupzx whatever.... who cares what shades you are.... keep the cookies. you probly didn't know any more about cars in your last shades account either.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Debonair
giant rolleyeses for the guy that want to annoy the hyperopic
http://www.galeon.com/mikeln/img/rolleyes.gif
http://www.haxed.co.uk/cms/uploads/pics/giant_rolleyes.gif
Thanks. That fit in nicely. :aok
-
Lazs - really? You'd have a vehicle with that sort of power and slum it with 2WD?
-
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/22_1145906941_mileage.jpg)
:D
-
get a Smart, 40-50 mpg, and much cheaper than hybrid
Are soo cool to see them on the highway, they came here in Canada, last year, but i think in U.S didn't pass the safety standards
(http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a146/johny35/SmartCrossblade.jpg)
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Lazs - really? You'd have a vehicle with that sort of power and slum it with 2WD?
4WD is there for when you need it. Beautiful day cruising up the freeway on the way to work...you don't need it.
Wintertime ice and slush...you need it.
Off road...sometimes you need it.
Trucks don't drive as nice in 4WD as they do in 2WD. The steering is heavier and burns extra fuel you don't need. My truck gets nearly 20mpg on the freeway (book says 18-19 but for some reason...I'm almost to 20 on average) It's a 2000 model, 4 door LT. Lotsa power, slightly bigger than stock tires and a fiberglass lid. I think the lid helps with the mileage slightly but haven't confirmed this.
-
My commuter vehicle only has one wheel drive and gets infinite gas mileage.
(http://trekstl.com/site/images/library/site/trek_4300_300_05_p.jpg)
I only burn fuel on weekends.
I am even better than those who use public transportation! And so I laugh at you Beet1e!:lol :rofl and use all the other emoticon thingys! I fart in your general direction! I am superior to anyone who uses an Audi instead of a bicycle!
-
Originally posted by beet1e
People drive 12mpg SUVs, and then wonder why they get whacked in the wallet at the gas pump. Sorry, but I have no sympathy. None.
Arrogant. You ever think some of those people bought those when GAS wasn't higher than giraffe nuts? They didn't have a problem then. NOW gas is almost twice as high. And they just cant get out of it.
I have red where you say we are whining about gas prices and we are "So Rich"? Screw you !!!!! I know plenty of people that are feeling the crunch. Because 6.00-7.00 US is what you pay for gas and you find that "OK" doesn't mean we here in the US want to pay that.
So STHU and keep your british pompus *** opinions to yourself. You don't live here and know nothing about us other than a few times "Visiting here"
Diablo is right. SUpply was there a few weeks ago. Now it aint. Thats a load of horse crap.
I'm gonna book mark this thread along with a couple more and refer back to em when the gig is up and all these oil companies get caught gouging our AMERICAN butts.
-
Originally posted by ghi
get a Smart, 40-50 mpg, and much cheaper than hybrid
Are soo cool to see them on the highway, they came here in Canada, last year, but i think in U.S didn't pass the safety standards
(http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a146/johny35/SmartCrossblade.jpg)
Someone in marketing for this company needs to straighten out the pricing on these things. It` soooooooo confusing.
Every place I have looked at pricing for these things are quoted as a single.
It is quite obvious that they should be priced in pairs. One for each foot.
-
Originally posted by ghi
get a Smart, 40-50 mpg, and much cheaper than hybrid
Are soo cool to see them on the highway, they came here in Canada, last year, but i think in U.S didn't pass the safety standards
(http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a146/johny35/SmartCrossblade.jpg)
2 things:
1. Thank god for US safety standards.
2. A golf cart by any other name is still a golf cart.
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
2 things:
1. Thank god for US safety standards.
2. A golf cart by any other name is still a golf cart.
heh. ain't that teh truth.
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
2 things:
1. Thank god for US safety standards.
2. A golf cart by any other name is still a golf cart.
They are all over the place here, but two things.
No room for clubs,
and its not a safety standards issue, they would not be able to be sold in a few states cause they are only diesel, so they dont offer them in the US.
-
Smart cars use a motorbike petrol engine, not aware of any diesel ones?
-
Originally posted by RedTop
Arrogant. You ever think some of those people bought those when GAS wasn't higher than giraffe nuts? They didn't have a problem then. NOW gas is almost twice as high. And they just cant get out of it.
Oh no, someone else saying I'm pompous! I did live there for about three years on two separate occasions. Arrogant too. Yes, a few years ago (1991) I was instrumental in the marketing of a new brand of aftershave called Arrogance. Yes I know that gas prices have doubled over there - sorry, but the writing has been on the wall for quite some years. It should not have been the big surprise that it was.
$6 for road fuel is probably what I pay, but I never said it was "OK". It's too much tax, and especially for diesel fuel which in the UK costs more than petrol! It's much cheaper in the other European countries, which is why when I go to the continent, I'll go with an almost empty tank and fill up before coming back over - save about $25 that way, which pays for the initial journey from home down to the port. But the real point is that I "pay that" not because it's OK but because I have little choice. The one thing I can do is to choose a fuel efficient vehicle that still meets my needs, instead of simply buying a big V6 and whining about the costs. Sorry if you're feeling the crunch, but read my lips - it's going to get worse, much worse in the next 5-10 years. Maybe time to order a SmartCar? SUpply was there a few weeks ago. Now it aint. Thats a load of horse crap.
As other people in this thread have been at pains to point out, oil is not simply a US commodity but a world commodity. Its supply and price are dependent on factors around the world, not just in Texas and the Gulf of Mexico region. As Nashwan has shown, it would be unrealistic to cap gas prices to "what people would like". In his illustration, the oil companies would have to sell at a loss of $15/barrel in order to sell gas at a price which would meet your approval. They'd bankrupt themselves in the process and then you'd have no gas at all.
Trucks don't drive as nice in 4WD as they do in 2WD. The steering is heavier and burns extra fuel you don't need. - Golfer
My car has 4WD - I like it so much that I don't think I'd want to go back to 2WD. But it's not a truck, and the 4WD "Quattro" system is quite an ingenious set up. In normal conditions, 90% of the drive will be to the front wheels, 10% to the rear. But when accelerating hard, some or all of the drive will be transferred to the rear. The 4WD, the ABS and the ESP all work in unison - very clever. There's also a mechanism by which drive is balanced between diagonally opposite wheels, which means I can go hammering through an S-bend when other cars have to slow right down....
...which leads me on to driving conditions here - very different from what you're used to, perhaps. It rains quite often, and we get icy conditions in the winter, even black ice, leaves on the road in autumn etc., and many minor roads in remote regions are full of twists and turns, often with steep gradients thrown in. These are all reasons I appreciate the 4WD. It has power steering anyway, so the steering is never heavy.
I think when skuzzy said the "best selling F150", he didn't just mean the model but was talking about a particular variant - 2WD. But the US TV commercial I always remember for the Ford truck was the one where a deep voice proclaims "built Ford tough!", and there's the sound of a hammer striking an anvil. The ad shows the truck climbing what appears to be a large pile of building blocks at a 45° angle. It was this ad that made me think that 4WD would be the mainstay of trucks. I don't think that ad could have been made using a 2WD version.
-
it wasn't made with a 2 or 4 WD vehicle.
it was made with a camera tilted at a 45 degree angle.
-
hmmm - makes me wonder why the pile of blocks didn't just tumble then...
-
wondering about 20 year old foreign tv commercials?
u need a better hobby.
maybe its too old, a mystery lost to the ages, like how they built stone henge or what i had for lunch last thursday.
blockhead
(pwnd).
u--->(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b4/CharlieBrown.jpg)
-
Is it really 20 years old? The F150 has been top seller for 20+ years I suppose. I'd have to see it again and see how the loose blocks fell - can't remember them falling at a 45° angle though.
-
Bush Orders Probe Into Gas Price Cheating
Affiliated Press Writer 32 minutes ago
WASHINGTON -
President Bush, under pressure to do something about gasoline prices that are expected to stay high through the summer, has ordered an investigation into possible cheating in the markets.
During the last few days, Bush asked his Energy and Justice departments to open inquiries into whether the price of gasoline has been illegally manipulated, said White House press secretary Scott McClellan. Bush planned to announce the action Tuesday during a speech in Washington.
It's unclear what impact, if any, Bush's investigation would have on prices that are near $3 a gallon. Asked if Bush had any reason to suspect market manipulation, McClellan responded, "Well, gas prices are high right now, and that's why you want to make sure there's not."
Republicans who control Congress have become concerned that the high cost of filling up could become a problem for them in the November elections. Polls suggest that voters favor Democrats over Republicans on the issue, and Bush gets low marks for handling gasoline prices.
House Speaker
Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., urged Bush in a letter Monday to order a federal investigation into any gasoline price gouging or market speculation.
"There is no silver bullet," Frist said Tuesday on ABC's "Good Morning America," but "we need to make sure that any efforts at price-gouging be addressed and addressed aggressively." Meanwhile, Frist said, consumers should take steps to conserve gasoline — drive at slower speeds, tune up car engines for maximum efficiency and carpool.
McClellan said Bush had already ordered investigations into market pricing.
"We share a commitment with congressional leaders to make sure that we're acting to ensure that there is no price gouging," McClellan said.
Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada dispatched his own letter, calling for a multi-pronged approach to restrain gas prices. Among the steps were swift enactment of anti-price gouging legislation, an appeal to oil companies to refrain from further price increases, use of more alternative fuels and increased attention to existing fuel-saving laws and regulations.
Bush also planned to announce that his attorney general and Federal Trade Commission will send a letter to all 50 state attorneys general, who have primary authority over price gouging, to remind them to stay on top of the issue and offer federal help to do so. And he planned to call on energy companies to reinvest their profits into expanding refining capacity, developing new technologies and researching alternative energy sources, McClellan said.
"I think you'll hear the president say very clearly that he will not tolerate price gouging," McClellan said.
Bush has said consistently that gas prices are high because global demand is rising faster than global supply and that the problem cannot be solved overnight. McClellan said Bush planned to talk about how experts predict the price will increase this summer and how the switch to a summer fuel mix is contributing to the problem.
Bush's actions are part of a four-part plan to address gas prices in the short- and long-term, McClellan said. The steps are:
_Making sure consumers and taxpayers are treated fairly.
_Promoting greater fuel efficiency.
_Boosting gasoline supply at home.
_Aggressive long-term investment in alternative fuels.
:D
-
There is no price gouging. There is no problem with gas prices. There is no problems at all.
Everything is coming up roses.
Just ask the Exxon. 37 and ton of zeros after that. Nahhhh no worries at all.
And if CBS says so...then it is FACTS and TRUTH.
-
beet... 4 wd is not the same in trucks as it is in cars. What 4 wd trucks you have over there? Again... what you know about cars is pretty sad.
I don't like 4 wd myself...eats up power and is a needless complication and expense.. How many 4 wd drive race cars you see besides rally cars? More stuff to break and... I don't drive off road much and I don't drive in snow. wouldn't live where they had the stuff.
your car is 4 wd and you probly don't even know it except that they told you it was... it might not even be working and you wouldn't know it. It is probly broken or was never installed. I bet you couldn't get under a car or truck and tell us if it was two or four wheel drive.
Thing is... your tax is what is costing you so much money for fuel and so... no matter how much oil prices rise... we Americans will allways drive bigger cars than you guys will and you will allways whine that we pay to little.
And.. we will whine at how expensive it is no matter what... It is what we do before we fix stuff.
lazs
-
Originally posted by RedTop
There is no price gouging. There is no problem with gas prices. There is no problems at all.
Everything is coming up roses.
Just ask the Exxon. 37 and ton of zeros after that. Nahhhh no worries at all.
And if CBS says so...then it is FACTS and TRUTH.
Who exactly is doing the gouging?
Exxon makes 9 cents per gallon. The goverment taxes are 40 cents per gallon.
-
Lazs - I'm afraid there are a number of errors in your last post. Guess it's just a normal sort of day! I'll quickly go through them
beet... 4 wd is not the same in trucks as it is in cars. What 4 wd trucks you have over there? Again... what you know about cars is pretty sad.
I know. The 4WD in cars is better. :cool: Mine is variable between front and back. Trucks aren't as popular here as they are there. I have never wanted or been interested in a truck so admittedly I don't know a whole lot about them. The mainstay of 4WD vehicles in the UK has been the Land Rover, which entered production in 1949. 40 years later, more than half of them were still on the road.
After Land Rover came Range Rover, introduced in 1970 with that 3˝ litre Rover/Buick engine that you know about. It had permanent 4WD. There was also a diff lock control so that if negotiating a muddy field you wouldn't spin a wheel if the other wheel on the same axle got stuck. I'm not sure if the Land Rover had a diff lock - probably did when in LOW. I don't like 4 wd myself...eats up power and is a needless complication and expense.. How many 4 wd drive race cars you see besides rally cars? More stuff to break and... I don't drive off road much and I don't drive in snow. wouldn't live where they had the stuff.
Each to his own, and as I've said already, the driving conditions where you live are very different from the conditions where I live. I can't see what point you're trying to make by talking about racing cars. I'm talking about normal road use. I don't intend to race.your car is 4 wd and you probly don't even know it except that they told you it was...
You're quite wrong there. My V6 Golf (the second of three I've owned) had 4WD and it made all the difference. In the VR6 I had before that, the front wheels would spin at the slightest provocation, even in second gear. Never even came close to that with the 4WD version. With the diesel Golf (4WD not available), it was back to having the steering wheel try to wrest itself from my hands if accelerating out of an S-bend like through a roundabout. On loose or wet surfaces, the wheels would slip quite easily. Front wheel drive, remember. Admittedly, with rear wheel drive it wouldn't be so bad. The last rear wheel drive car I had was that Toyota Supra, and it would sometimes wag its tail if accelerating on a wet surface, even though it did have a limited slip diff. I take it you know what one of those is? it might not even be working and you wouldn't know it. It is probly broken or was never installed. I bet you couldn't get under a car or truck and tell us if it was two or four wheel drive.
Wrong again. Accelerating on a wet road or over a loose surface, the difference is immediately apparent. The wheel doesn't try to snatch itself out of your hands, and the wheels don't slip or spin. Cornering feels like a straight road - no sensation of the front outer wheel bearing the brunt of the load. And... looking at some of those old military vehicles, you can tell they have front wheel drive because the final drive unit is clearly visible without even having to get under the vehicle.
Thing is... your tax is what is costing you so much money for fuel and so... no matter how much oil prices rise... we Americans will allways drive bigger cars than you guys will and you will allways whine that we pay to little.
That could be changing, Lazs. You see no matter how much you whine to your government about your gas prices, more than half of your oil will have to be imported. You use so much of it that your domestic supply simply isn't nearly enough to make you self sufficient. Oil is a global commodity. If OPEC is asking for $75/bbl and America were to offer $60/bbl, in order to peg gas prices where you'd like them pegged, then OPEC would simply sell to China and India instead. What you don't seem to understand is that the USA does not control the world price of crude oil. So whine all you want - it won't make any difference to the oil price.
Also, the three best selling passenger cars in America are the Toyota Camry, the Honda Accord, and the Honda Civic - all of which are also available in the UK, so I don't know what your point was with "we Americans will allways drive bigger cars than you guys will" And.. we will whine at how expensive it is no matter what... It is what we do before we fix stuff.
Like I said, whining won't fix the price of crude oil. How long is it going to take you to realise that America does not "fix" the price of crude oil?
As to the cost of fuel here, what with our "evil socialist tax", I think you're getting it a little out of proportion. An average motorist spends around Ł1200 per annum on road fuel. If that same average motorist were to be paying the American price for his fuel, he'd be saving about Ł600 a year, which is about $1000. Hardly a King's ransom. :rolleyes:
-
If you are truly a geek and know your way around a spreadsheet, you could try and reduce your commute time and save gas.
I can tell this guy is a party animal :)
beating trraffic (http://www.omninerd.com/2006/04/21/articles/50)
I usually leave home at 8:00AM and work at 5:30PM, but a 30 minute delay of each looks like it would shave five minutes off the morning commute and about 2.5 minutes off the evening. Additional half-hour delays bring 2.5 minutes of commute time savings in the evening, but little to no savings in the morning. Slightly earlier departure times appear to result in commute time increases for both trips. Moving back past 4:30 in the evening brings slight improvement in the evening commute, but savings in the morning would most likely require leaving before 6:30AM.
Conclusions
Given the above data and analysis, what can be done to improve my commute times? Changing my morning or evening departure time looks promising. The best bet appears to be moving my schedule out a half-hour to 8:30AM and 6:00PM, bringing significant savings (about 7.5 minutes of commute time per day) without getting too far from normal business hours. Spread out over 50 work weeks, that results in a total savings of over 30 hours a year - the equivalent of about a 38% boost to my existing 80 hours of vacation.
-
which leads me on to driving conditions here - very different from what you're used to, perhaps. It rains quite often, and we get icy conditions in the winter, even black ice, leaves on the road in autumn etc., and many minor roads in remote regions are full of twists and turns, often with steep gradients thrown in. These are all reasons I appreciate the 4WD. It has power steering anyway, so the steering is never heavy.
What would someone who lives in Ohio/Pennsylvania know about ice. The damn foolishness of me.
I don't know what your assumption is but the truck I'm referring to (the one I drive) isn't a POS white toyota afghani special.
It's a 2000 Chevy Silverado. Z71 package and the 2WD/4WD/4LO is a selector button just left of the steering wheel. Driving around all day in 4WD is useless and wasteful if it's a beautiful day outside. The truck handles differently and is most noticed in turns with 4WD engaged. Because the front wheels are now producing power they have a tendency to right themselves straight and a slight amount of extra force is needed to overcome this.
The only time I need 4WD is wintertime in ice, snow drifts, off road. Even off road 2WD gets you anywhere you need to be and if you need 4WD you can sometimes wonder WTF you're doing there in the first place. The exception to that would be mud combined with hills or water of any substantial depth.
The 4WD will save the day when I really need it. Until then...I'll keep my 19+ MPG instead of taking it down to 15 or so with 4WD.
Oh...my truck could eat your car. One day I'm going to lose it on some poor schmuck driving a Ford Focus or neon and just run them over in traffic.
-
Yes, but Golfer - I don't have to worry it. The transition from FWD to AWD/RWD is automatic, and seamless. :D Most of the time, it will be 90% FWD and only 10% RWD. If it's a race you want, I can think of some roads up in Cumbria/Yorkshire Dales where your truck wouldn't stand a chance. :p
-
That seems crazy to have a car that wants to be in 4WD all the time. Or is your "FWD" "Front Wheel Drive" and you've got some odd misrepresentation going on.
I wouldn't live somewhere where my vehicle was required to be in 4WD 90% of the time. I might vacation and go skiing there...but sure as hell wouldn't live there.
Fine by me with your curvy windy roads. They don't have those in Eastern Ohio / Western Pennsylvania. At least not flat ones.
Then again, you couldn't turn off the asphalt either so while you're on your road...I'm on the trail.
-
Originally posted by Golfer
That seems crazy to have a car that wants to be in 4WD all the time. Or is your "FWD" "Front Wheel Drive" and you've got some odd misrepresentation going on.
I wouldn't live somewhere where my vehicle was required to be in 4WD 90% of the time.
No, in a normal cruise, 90% of the power goes to the front wheels, and only 10% to the back. When accelerating, a power shift can occur such that 100% of the power goes to the back wheels.
You'd love some of the roads here!
-
beet... let's just wait and see.... I don't know and neither do you how much oil we will import in the future.... neither of us have any idea of what demand may be...
I hear all the doom and gloom... I say fuel costs will not go much past normal inflation here for one reason or another... gloom and doom.... If we were to listen to u and the other doom and gloomers on this board we will be out of oil in 10-20 years anyway.... not to mention fried by global warming in a decade or so....
I have been listening to end of times scenarios all my life.... I am just too old to take any of em seriously anymore.
The amount less that I will drive my Hot Rods around when gas reaches $5 a gallon someday will be...... 0%. Just like you won't quit drinking wine if it quadruples in price or stop going out to eat if it doubles in price.... If airline tickets cost ten times as much because of fuel prices you will still fly....
All the while singing the old gloom and doom the sky is falling song.
I say it will all work out... there might be a period of adjustment but.... it won't take long to sort itself out.
lazs
-
LOL Lazs! You silly sausage... :cool::p
Originally posted by lazs2
beet... let's just wait and see.... I don't know and neither do you how much oil we will import in the future.... neither of us have any idea of what demand may be...
Well, the US daily demand is 20 million barrels a day and (according to Nashwan's figures, which I would not dispute) you import ~13m barrels a day. Even if Canada and Mexico sold you all their oil, you'd still need to import 10m barrels a day. And you'd have no control over the price of that 10m barrels. You're going to be competing with China.
I would hope that America grasps the nuclear nettle, and finds ways of overcoming issues such as nuclear waste. Right next door in Canada, there is an abundance of nuclear fuel - uranium. Natural gas (LNG) might give us a 20 year buffer before a more permanent fuel can be developed and deployed, but you and I will be dead by then.
-
"Natural gas (LNG) might give us a 20 year buffer before a more permanent fuel can be developed and deployed, but you and I will be dead by then."
Natural gas is obscenely expensive at the moment, far moreso than petrol. A lot of people around here had $300-$500 monthly heating bills over this past winter, when it's normally 1/3 that amount. It's disgusting what these companies are getting away with.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by lazs2
If we were to listen to u and the other doom and gloomers on this board we will be out of oil in 10-20 years anyway.... not to mention fried by global warming in a decade or so....
Maybe you should relax a little. The only person who has said the things you're fretting over is you. It's a good thing you're only joking and simply get a twisted charge from spinning people up with exaggeration because railing at self-created imaginary demons is psychotic behavior.
People who would like to see us start making the enormous investment necessary to develop and move alternate energy into the mainstream sooner, rather than later, are rational people. It's called "anticipation."
-
Originally posted by Rolex
People who would like to see us start making the enormous investment necessary to develop and move alternate energy into the mainstream sooner, rather than later, are rational people. It's called "anticipation."
I think Laz's oft voiced opinion that high gas prices are the ONLY thing that will move us to make the enormous investment necessary to develop and move alternate energy into the mainstream is correct.
He also routinely says it's better to use up all the oil now in order to increase the pressure to move on to the next thing.
Guess he's one of the rational ones, eh?
-
I have the same view as Lazs. Keep taxes on oil to a minimum and don't "conserve" fuel.
Fuel cannot be "saved". If I "conserve" fuel, someone else will just use it up. NO fuel is EVER "saved" by driving a high MPG vehicle. The oil will be used as fast as it can be pumped regardless what any one of us does to try to "conserve" it. Tell me I'm wrong.
-
An example of the folly of "saving" fuel is Beetle. He loves paying a high gas tax and driving around in a vehicle that gets 50 mpg.
What affect does Beetle have on the consumption of fuel in the world? ZERO. The Fuel that he "saves" gets us used up by guys like me..... or people in China and India, as fast as it can be pumped.
The only thing Beetle has accomplished is that he has paid a very high tax on fuel so his government can profit from his misery.
-
Hold on there, Toad...
This is the first significant price hike in history caused more by increased demand, than by a transient interruption of supply. It isn't going to go down a lot when refineries hit from Katrina and doing seasonal transition maintenance come back on line next month.
The faster we use it up, the faster the price goes up.
The faster the price rises, the more inflation stress on the global economy.
A significant driver of the global economy is American consumption, fueled by debt (I'll call it an inverted debt bubble) at levels there are no historical records of.
We're flying IFR without any Jepp charts.
One thing we do know is that 3 of the last 4 global recessions were triggered by high oil prices.
The faster the price rises, the greater the risk we have the mother of all recessions - a hyper-stagflation - without the resources to invest to get out of it, because the US and Japan are up to their eyeballs in debt.
Printing more money only increases the inflation, prolonging and deepening the stagnation.
Want to go back to 1979? 21.5% prime rate? Prices increasing 40% in 3 years? 17.5% mortgage rates so that a $200,000 mortgage costs $2,933 per month?
You, of all people, would be hit the hardest since you're on a fixed income.
I prefer conserving now to try to keep a lid on prices as investment is made over ten years.
Using it up as fast as we can is economic suicide.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
Hold on there, Toad...
This is the first significant price hike in history caused more by increased demand, than by a transient interruption of supply.
Ummm, what's the difference? Supply?
-
Jepp charts are overpriced anyway...
-
Originally posted by Mr Big
An example of the folly of "saving" fuel is Beetle. He loves paying a high gas tax and driving around in a vehicle that gets 50 mpg.
No, the reason I do it is so that I can have a good belly laugh whenever these gas price whine threads come up, hard on the heels of the "I love my truck - it gets 9mpg" threads!
:rofl
Guys like you are forever crying in your beer about how you're being "wronged" by your government or "wronged" by the oil companies, and it never occurs to you that the high prices for crude oil that are now being whined about are caused by America's insatiable demand. At 20m barrels a day, consumption is around 25% of the world total, in a country which has 5% of the world's population.
I'm not trying to "save the world" with my choice of vehicle so much as taking responsibility for my own finances so that when the oil shock comes (like now) I'm not caught out like all the usual gas price whiners. Too bad a few more people don't/can't/won't do that, but oh! - it's so much easier to whine on a BBS instead when you can no longer afford to refuel your vehicles, and blame the Arabs, blame the Chinese, blame the oil companies, blame the government, blame taxation - all the while stubbornly maintaining the "tradition" or "societal insistence", as HangTime puts it, of driving grotesquely large vehicles which in many cases return only a single digit mpg value. :rolleyes:
-
Beet1e has a point, IMHO.
-
There's nothing like low poll ratings with an election looming to give politicians the incentive to get their a-into-g on an issue.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=2&ObjectID=10378983
Bush tries to stem rise in fuel prices
26.04.06 8.00am
By Rupert Cornwell
WASHINGTON - As his approval ratings hit new all time lows, US President George Bush yesterday moved to try and stem the rise in petrol prices.
In a bid to boost supplies on the market ahead of the northern summer "driving season", Mr Bush is temporarily halting shipments to the national strategic petroleum reserve.
Hs is also taking steps to relax environmental standards on certain types of fuel, and launching a probe into possible price gouging by the big oil companies - whose record earnings and massive pay increases to top executives have only added to public anger.
Fuel prices have been rising worldwide following the hike in the price of oil on global markets and New Zealand motorists have seen significant rises this year.
"Our addiction to oil is a matter of national security concern," the president said in a speech to the Renewable Fuels Association, which advocates alternate energy sources like ethanol.
The country now imported 60 per cent of its oil, he noted, compared with only 25 per cent in the mid-1980s.
Bush was acting to combat prices that have soared above US$3 ($4.73) a gallon - equivalent to $1.25 a litre - in many parts of the country. Fuel prices are contributing to a new low of 32 per cent in his job approval rating, according to a CNN poll.
Bush, trying to stave off a potential election-year problem for Republicans trying to hang on to control of the US Congress, acknowledged that Americans are in for tough times during the summer.
"Energy experts predict gas prices are going to remain high throughout the summer. And that's going to be a continued strain on the American people," he said.
Bush said the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission had urged state attorneys general to vigorously enforce laws against price gouging that may have contributed to rising gasoline prices.
He also gave US oil companies more time to pay back emergency loans from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to put more oil on the market, saying the reserve was sufficiently large and delaying further deposits until fall.
A former Texas oil man who in recent months has advocated curing America of its addiction to oil, Bush was unusually blunt with oil companies enjoying record profits. Exxon had US$36 billion in profits last year and gave a US$400 million retirement package to ex-chief Lee Raymond.
He said they should use some of their largesse to invest in new refineries and researching alternative fuel sources. The fact that no new refineries have been built in 30 years is frequently cited as a reason contributing to soaring gas prices.
Bush called on Congress to take away from the oil companies about $2 billion in tax breaks over 10 years, such as subsidizing research into deepwater drilling.
Bush had signed the tax breaks into law as part of a comprehensive energy bill last year. He said the tax breaks are now unnecessary at a time of "record oil prices and large cash flows."
"Taxpayers don't need to be paying for certain of these expenses on behalf of the energy companies," Bush said.
The president did not, however, endorse a call from some members of Congress for consideration of a windfall profits tax on oil companies, and White House spokesman Scott McClellan said he opposed such a levy.
The "gas crisis" has helped propel Mr Bush's approval rating to the new low, plumbing depths reached among recent presidents only by Richard Nixon at the height of the Watergate scandal, by Jimmy Carter, and briefly by his own father in the months before his 1992 defeat.
Few presidents have tumbled as far as Mr Bush, whose popularity hit almost 90 per cent after the September 11 attacks, and stood at 70 per cent when the US invaded Iraq in March 2003.
Since then, it has been downhill all the way.
Almost a year and a half into his second term, this President Bush has fought his last election, and is thus beyond the direct reach of voters.
The fear in the White House and the Republican high command is that the public will vent their dislike on the next best target: the Republican party at November's mid-term elections.
Loss of control by the Republicans of either the Senate or the House of Representatives - let alone both - would not only kill off what legislative clout remains to this enfeebled White House, but also expose it finally to serious, hostile scrutiny by Congressional committees, on Iraq and other controversial issues.
In another poll this week, 69 per cent of Americans said rising petrol prices have "caused hardship" for their families - compared to just 28 per cent saying they have made no difference.
But as Mr Bush himself acknowledged, yesterday's measures will make little lasting difference - even though wholesale petrol prices dropped in New York by 8 cents a gallon immediately after the announcement.
As with Iraq, he is at the mercy of events beyond his control.
In the case of oil, these are soaring global demand, the row with Iran, and political instability in Nigeria, another major Opec producer.
But the general public, not to mention the Democratic opposition, have little time for such arguments.
Yesterday Harry Reid, Democratic minority leader in the Senate, lashed out at the White House for its failure to promote energy conservation.
Others berated the White House for handing out billions of dollars in exploration and other subsidies to oil companies already brimming with money.
Senator Charles Schumer of New York went even further, promising legislation to break up the biggest companies which, he said, operated an effective price cartel.
"To listen to the president, you'd think that it's the local gas station that's the problem. We all know it's the big oil companies who are causing these massive price increases,"
- INDEPENDENT, REUTERS
Excel
-
The next couple of months are going to be a show to behold.
Hide behind a rock and watch. :D
-
Winter always follows Autumn, Rolex.
Aren't we overdue for global recession? Isn't that the Darwinism of the marketplace?
Oil can never last forever. Research into alternatives is only driven by supply/demand/price of oil.
Laz just says "let's cut to the chase".
I'm not sure he's wrong.
-
rolex.... you crack me up... Unless it is doom for America or America should solve the worlds problems by going broke.... you don' t want to hear it.
Don't you live in japan? What is japan doing to save the world? They import all their oil... won't they go under before we do? as a japanesse you should be tweaking them not us.
"massive investment in alternative fuels"????? by who? you think the government? what has the government ever invented except maybe the A bomb? The government doesn't have any money...it is our money.. let the private companies meet demand.
Beet... if gas prices are that important to you... and you might have a point consicering how your socialist government is screwing you.... if they are that important then drive a diesel audi.... I don't want one tho.
If they get too bad here then I will buy whatever I need to..
Sorta like my big screen TV... It ain't HDTV.... when there it becomes useless I will throw it away and buy what I need to... meanwhile...getting maybe 10 years of use out of it and watching HDTV prices plumet from what they were when the doom and gloomers said that I had to have one bv last year or so.
Rolex thinks he is being proactive.. but he has no plan... anyone heard his plan?
Him and beet act like they know what will happen 20 years from now and what demand will be.... at least nashwan gives figures that are only for today and does not project...much..
Government interferance in solar (rebates for junk systems no one would otherwise buy) has slowed development and is costing us money.... Carter interfering in oil prices caused inflation and recession... Anyone want to go back to carter like price fixing and that economy?
lazs
-
Rolex is from Japan? Dang, by all means then we should follow Japanese path to a brighter future. How long has Japan economy been in bad situation, what, last 15 years or so?
-
I believe Rolex is a Yankee Doodle Dandy that is currently living in Japan.
In short, he's an Amreekan.
-
See Rule #4, #5, #2
-
heeh here is Ann's take on thiS:
IT'S HARD OUT HERE FOR A PUMP
April 26, 2006
I would be more interested in what the Democrats had to say about high gas prices if these were not the same people who refused to let us drill for oil in Alaska, imposed massive restrictions on building new refineries, and who shut down the development of nuclear power in this country decades ago.
But it's too much having to watch Democrats wail about the awful calamity to poor working families of having to pay high gas prices.
Imposing punitive taxation on gasoline to force people to ride bicycles has been one of the left's main policy goals for years.
For decades Democrats have been trying to raise the price of gasoline so that the working class will stop their infernal car-driving and start riding on buses where they belong, while liberals ride in Gulfstream jets.
The last time the Democrats controlled the House, the Senate and the presidency was in 1993. Immediately after trying to put gays in the military and socialize all health care, Clinton's next order of business was to propose an energy tax on all fuels, including a 26-cent tax on gas. I think the bill was called "putting people first in line at the bus station."
Al Gore defended the gas tax, vowing that it was "absolutely not coming out" of the energy bill regardless of "how much trouble it causes the entire package." The important thing was to force Americans to stop their infernal car-driving, no matter how much it cost.
And mind you, this was before we knew Gore was clinically insane. Back then we thought he was just a double-talking stuffed shirt who seemed kind of gay.
Democrats in Congress promptly introduced an "energy bill" that would put an additional 25-cent-a-gallon tax on gasoline to stop "global warming," an atmospheric phenomenon supposedly aggravated by frivolous human activities such as commerce, travel and food production. This is the Democratic Party. That's their program.
Democratic House Speaker Tom Foley endorsed the proposal on "Charlie Rose," saying: "I'd have a five-cent increase every year for five years. ... But that's not going to happen ... because we've got people who fret and worry that one- or two-tenths of a cent of a gasoline tax is going to cause some revolution at home." So in Tom Foley's universe, two-tenths of a cent is the same as a quarter — another testimonial to the American public educational system.
The Democrats' proposed gas tax did cause a revolution at home, and consequently the Democrats were able to sneak through only an additional 4.3-cent federal tax on gasoline. After tut-tutting the idea that voters would object if the Democrats attempted a huge gas tax increase, Speaker Tom Foley soon became former speaker, and indeed former Congressman Tom Foley.
Gary Hart, another whimsical demonstration of what Democrats think a president should be like, said at the time, "I certainly favor consumption taxes, particularly on energy." Then there's John Kerry, who favored a 50-cent increase in the gas tax in 1994. If he were a rap artist, Kerry's stage name would be "Fifty Cent a Gallon."
Last year, a couple of green "climatologists" at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign were back at it in the journal Science, wheeling out their proposal for a 25-cent-a-gallon tax on gasoline as an "insurance policy" against global warming.
Just two months ago, we were being confidently told — on the basis of a New York Times/CBS News poll, so it must be true — that "Americans might OK a gasoline tax hike if it reduced global warming or lessened U.S. dependence on foreign oil." (This poll was wedged in among the 29 polls claiming Americans think we're losing the war in Iraq.) Other results from the Times' "meaningless polls" section: Americans might "OK" a Dennis Kucinich presidency if it meant free ice cream every Tuesday.
How many times do Democrats have to tell us they want to raise the price of gas for the average American before the average American believes them? Is it more or less than the number of times Democrats tell us they want to surrender in the war on terrorism?
It's as if a switch goes off in people's brains telling them: The Democrats can't be saying they want to destroy the lives of people who drive cars because my father was a Democrat, and the Democrats can't be this stupid!
The Democrats' only objection to current gas prices is that the federal government's cut is a mere 18.4 cents a gallon. States like New York get another 44 cents per gallon in taxes. The Democratic brain processes the fact that "big oil companies" get nearly 9 cents a gallon and thinks: WE SHOULD HAVE ALL THAT MONEY!
When the free market does the exact thing liberals have been itching to do through taxation, they pretend to be appalled by high gas prices, hoping the public will forget that high gas prices are part of their agenda.
-
And mind you, this was before we knew Gore was clinically insane. Back then we thought he was just a double-talking stuffed shirt who seemed kind of gay.
meowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwrrrrrrrrr rrrr..
hhhhiiiiiiiiiissss!!!
;)
-
(http://arabam.com/fuar/2002/paris/peugeot_107_xx.jpg)
(http://www.opel.donetsk.ua/f/article/i/concept0204/opel_trixx.jpg)
(http://www.carenthusiast.com/renault/renault_bebopconcept2003_02.jpg)
(http://imgs.idnes.cz/autosalon/A030305_SID_FIAT_MARAKEESH_PLAKAT2_N.JPG)
I drove in Europe last summer again, after 7 years , and i was surprised, Is a huge diference comparing with North American roads, all kind of small cars, the parking spots are soo small and fuel more expensive
Europe has options for cheap transportation, low MPG ,lot of models to chose on the market, Here in North America, the market is very poor in fuel eficiet vehicles,
About 50% of the cars/SUVs/vans are powered by diesel engines, much more eficient. They are prepared for an oil crisis,
Here the biger means safer, Do we need 6-8 cilinders and 400+ HP, to take our lunchbox to work ?!
-
That would hold up great in an accident.
-
Originally posted by ghi
(http://www.carenthusiast.com/renault/renault_bebopconcept2003_02.jpg)
Anyone else find it ironic that the car ad blurs the background FOR THIS LITTLE PIECE OF **** CAR?
-
I dunno man, I have an Acura TSX which I get 30mpg city and highway by the way I drive it. And I just bought an 06 Civic LX for my wife which gets 40 Highway / 30 city. Owned a 93 Civic S that got 41 mpg. And an 01 Civic before the TSX. Fact is, I havn't owned a car that has gotten less then 30 mpg. But even with this fact, my nuts are squeezed and there are guys who are 10 times worse off them myself. Only saving grace is i'm 100 yards from work so I cut out the driving 95 %.
Wolf
-
I skipped pages 2-4, so if this was posted already you have my sincere apologies.
As to Katrina related shortages. Oil is a global market, but the local markets are tied together. When one area is short, it pulls from another, creating a higher demand and higher prices. I read recently that about 80% of pre-Katrina GOM production has been restored as of 4-1-06.
Move to oil refined to gasoline. There has been a reconfiguring of refineries to produce ethanol based fuels for the mid-Atlantic states. Those refineries lost production while gearing up to produce this fuel. Our already stretched-to-the-limit refinery output was diminished by this loss of production. There was no decrease in demand. This equals....higher prices.
More on refineries. Each and every state has its own mandated oil 'recipe'. This is a result of, in part, the Clean Air Act of, I think, 1992. Instead of being able to produce one type of gasoline and ship it everywhere in the US, refineries have to specialize production and shipping to meet each state's laws. This adds a tremendous burden to the capacities of our refineries, driving up costs.
These three facts alone are causing pump prices to be much higher than neccessary. Not to mention the huge portion of the Alaskan Reserve that was set aside for oil production that we aren't using. Not to mention the reduction of national refinery production by about 50% from the early 80's. Not to mention the huge increase in global demand for crude oil. Not to mention the current level of tension in the major oil producing regions of the world. Not to mention the $.45 per gallon average tax on gasoline.
-
Hey Toad,
"And then we get Spring again." - Chance from "Being There." Good movie and very apropos for today.
I know that I'm not smart, like lazs, so I understand. You could always run the theory that pushing oil up to $100-$120/bbl quickly will help spur investment past some other folks? Let me know how that works out? ;)
I think I said to you about a year ago that we'd be in for more of same for about a year, then some converging trends would change the outlook. I'm pretty sure I also said that gas would be $2.50+/gal. I'm such a "doom and gloomer."
There you go again, lazs.
You know very little about me, so stop guessing. I live in two countries. Doom and gloom? haha, you're funny. You know more about guns and hot rods than I do. No question about that and I respect your knowledge there.
Everything else? Well, your supreme confidence in your flawed conclusions only means you're ignorant of your own ignorance.
------
Hey there, BigGun. Yup, things are just awful in Japan. Let's take a look, shall we?
Let's say that 3 years ago we both invested $100,000. I invested $100,000 in the Nikkei, and you invested $100,000 in the NYSE.
Today, you would have $155,000.
I would have $222,000.
Here's something else you won't hear about in the US media. The US is no longer the number 1 country for investment for the people with the most money in the world (the global super rich who have the best financial advice in the world and are no dummies). The US is down to #3 and dropping like a rock.
Want to guess what the #1 country is?
-
See Rule #2, #5
-
Rolex, do you think there'd be more investment in finding a reliable source of alternative fuel if the price was $40 a barrel?
-
Originally posted by ghi
[BI drove in Europe last summer again, after 7 years , and i was surprised, Is a huge diference comparing with North American roads, all kind of small cars, the parking spots are soo small and fuel more expensive
[/B]
And they are getting smaller Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060425/ap_on_sc/britain_green_car)
-
No. Even less than now, Toad. The investment into alternative fuels is miniscule now, compared to my liking.
I understand your point, Toad. And yes, I understand lazs' point, but I think better solutions to the myriad of issues that are involved in just starting a transition in the complete economic and transportation infrastructure are needed than simply hiking up oil prices.
It's regressive, Toad. I don't think the average and below average income family barely making ends meet now should have bear more of the burden. An neither should all the retiring baby boomers on a fixed income. That would just create more misguided animosity and grandstanding by politicians.
Also, it affects everything negatively since everything in our world is on a truck one time or other in its existance - as raw material, component or finished good.
Investment costs money. Investment is borrowed money, from stockholders or banks, and there is a cost for it. If the interest cost of investing becomes too high, it doesn't matter how competitive the final price of the product is. It can exceed any gain from the final prodct. See what I mean?
I'd like to see less inflationary ways of creating incentive than simple across-the-board increases at the pump to reduce the cost of investing over the long haul.
There is a whole basket of things that need to be done beyond synthfuels. Bringing them all together into a comprehensive plan is a massive project because there are other pure transportation of goods issues that need to be included.
Something that really irks me is people like lazs who twist my position into something simple, opposite and extreme. I have said that it is my opinion that we need to start making a concerted effort over the next ten years. Ten years from now will be 2016, so I am hardly being a doom and gloomer if you think about what the cost of oil may be then.
I also believe that those who simply blame oil companies for the price of oil are doing a great disservice to their nation and to the question of what to do, as a whole. They don't understand the market and the factors affecting it, but are just looking for someone to blame.
Oil companies merged, consolidated and accomplished tremendous vertical integration after the 2000 election. They now control almost everything from the pumphead to the gas pump, and each part, operating as separate, but joined elements, take a profit from their added value.
Anyway, I considered starting a mother-of-all oil thread to answer some of FAQs in concise, bite-size pieces, pointing out where there are disagreements, and pointing out where there is concensus - including describing some of those myriad of things that are affected and some of the plans out there that bring them all together. But, I'm afraid it will just degrade into another slugfest of people making uninformed comments. There are some smart and informed people here, but the too vocal, uninformed ones drown them out. ;)
-
Ok rolex... I know more about Hot Rods and guns and you know more about japs and investment...
That doesn't make either of us scientists or inventors... although... I would say that maybe gun owners and Hot Rod guys know a little about making things work.
You say I don't know what I am talking about and that history will not repeat and that I have no insight on human nature. You think human nature is japs and investment... I say both are an aberation.
You are mad because I am not buying into your doom and gloom scenario....fine.... I will grant that things might get tougher before they get better.... I have told you what I think... to leave it alone and not go into a panic based on junk science and let crisis make things happen..
with all your pontificating and superiority complex.... I have heard not ONE solution from you....japan has to import all it's oil... maybe you are simply afraid your investments will go into the crapper if you don't get Americans to "do something"?
and... back to that.... why are you afraid to say what you want us to do? Could it be that what you want us to do is to be taxed and punished and to have our government have more and more power? could it be that you want us to be like some socialist people... like the ants you are around?
I think Ann Coulter has the best take on it. We can't build refineries because of liberal socialists.... We can't explore for oil or use the oil we know exists because of liberal socialists...we have high tax on gas because of liberal socialists... and you want us to turn the thing over to..... liberal socialists?
Simple question..... what do you want us to do?
What would you have us do and how much will that help?
lazs
-
lol bpwn.
-
2nd best joke i heard today:
Going a Short Way to Make a Point
By Dana Milbank
Thursday, April 27, 2006; A02
Ladies and gentlemen, start your engines.
Gas prices have gone above $3 a gallon again, and that means it's time for another round of congressional finger-pointing.
"Since George Bush and Dick Cheney took over as president and vice president, gas prices have doubled!" charged Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), standing at an Exxon station on Capitol Hill where regular unleaded hit $3.10. "They are too cozy with the oil industry."
She then hopped in a waiting Chrysler LHS (18 mpg) -- even though her Senate office was only a block away.
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) used a Hyundai Elantra to take the one-block journey to and from the gas-station news conference. He posed in front of the fuel prices and gave them a thumbs-down. "Get tough on big oil!" he demanded of the Bush administration.
By comparison, Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) was a model of conservation. She told a staffer idling in a Jetta to leave without her, then ducked into a sushi restaurant for lunch before making the journey back to work.
At about the same time, House Republicans were meeting in the Capitol for their weekly caucus (Topic A: gas). The House driveway was jammed with cars, many idling, including eight Chevrolet Suburbans (14 mpg).
America may be addicted to oil, as President Bush puts it. But America is in the denial phase of this addiction -- as evidenced by the behavior of its lawmakers. They have proposed all kinds of solutions to high gas prices: taxes on oil companies, domestic oil drilling and releasing petroleum reserves. But they ignore the obvious: that Americans drive too much in too-big cars.
Senators were debating a war spending bill yesterday, but the subject invariably turned to gas prices. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) engaged his deputy, Dick Durbin (Ill.), in a riveting colloquy. "Is the senator aware that the L.A. Times headline reads today, 'Bush's Proposals Viewed as a Drop in the Bucket'?"
"I'm aware of that," Durbin replied.
Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) responded with an economics lesson. "Oil is worth what people pay for it," he argued.
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) sounded the alarms. "We are one accident or one terrorist attack away from oil at $100 a barrel!"
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) made a plea for conservation. "We have to move quickly to increase our fuel efficiency," she urged.
But not too quickly. After lunchtime votes, senators emerged from the Capitol for the drive across the street to their offices.
Sen. John Sununu (R-N.H.) hopped in a GMC Yukon (14 mpg). Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) climbed aboard a Nissan Pathfinder (15). Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) stepped into an eight-cylinder Ford Explorer (14). Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) disappeared into a Lincoln Town Car (17). Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) met up with an idling Chrysler minivan (18).
Next came Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), greeted by a Ford Explorer XLT. On the Senate floor Tuesday, Menendez had complained that Bush "remains opposed to higher fuel-efficiency standards."
Also waiting: three Suburbans, a Nissan Armada V8, two Cadillacs and a Lexus. The greenest senator was Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), who was picked up by his hybrid Toyota Prius (60 mpg), at quadruple the fuel efficiency of his Indiana counterpart Evan Bayh (D), who was met by a Dodge Durango V8 (14).
As a political matter, Democrats clearly sense that they have the advantage on the high gas prices, judging from the number of speeches and news conferences. "The cost of Republican corruption when it comes to energy is hitting home very clearly for America's middle class," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) exulted yesterday morning.
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) introduced an amendment to repeal oil-company tax breaks and distribute $500 tax rebates to consumers. It was quickly ruled out of order.
But Republicans were clearly feeling defensive. "We passed an energy bill last year, last July," House Speaker Dennis Hastert (Ill.) pleaded at a morning news conference. "It changes CAFE [corporate average fuel economy] standards. It changes some of the things that we can do -- I'm sorry, changes not the CAFE standards, but changes some of the supply issues, boutique fuels, all these things."
Only Sen. Mark Dayton (D-Minn.), who can speak freely because he is retiring, was willing to note the disconnect between rhetoric and action. "People say, understandably, 'Solve our energy problems right now, but don't make us do anything differently,' " he said on the Senate floor.
If the politics of gasoline favor Democrats at the moment, the insincerity is universal. A surreptitious look at the cars in the senators-only spots inside and outside the Senate office buildings found an Escort and a Sentra (super-rich Wisconsin Democrat Herb Kohl's spot had a Chevy Lumina), but far more Jaguars, Cadillacs and Lexuses and a fleet of SUVs made by Ford, Honda, BMW and Lexus.
A sampling of senators' and staff cars parked along Delaware Avenue NE found that those displaying Democratic campaign bumper stickers had a somewhat higher average fuel economy (23 mpg) than those displaying GOP stickers (18 mpg). A fuel-efficiency rating could not be found for the 1970s-era Volkswagen "Thing" owned by Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.).
Maybe, lawmakers are starting to learn. When GOP senators had a lunch Tuesday a couple of blocks from the Capitol, many took cars. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) emerged from the lunch looking for his ride when he spied The Washington Post's Shailagh Murray. Reconsidering, he set out on foot. "I need the exercise," he reasoned.
the best joke was by bloodninja
-
Originally posted by Rolex
I'd like to see less inflationary ways of creating incentive than simple across-the-board increases at the pump to reduce the cost of investing over the long haul.
There is a whole basket of things that need to be done beyond synthfuels. Bringing them all together into a comprehensive plan is a massive project because there are other pure transportation of goods issues that need to be included.
Ah, but what we'd like to see is essentially immaterial.
What we do see and are going to see is across-the-board increases at the pump in accordance with basic supply and demand.
The idea that somehow, someway a comprehensive plan to address the entire energy problem will be generated by our government is too fanciful for me to even contemplate.
Neither the Bush admin, nor the one after it or even the one after it will be able to come up with any sort of comprehensive, effective plan. The parties will fight and most likely we'll get bandaids at best.
Again, I think Laz is right here. What has the government done in a similar area that actually works well? What comprehensive government plan to address a problem works?
-
Originally posted by Rolex
No. Even less than now, Toad. The investment into alternative fuels is miniscule now, compared to my liking.
I understand your point, Toad. And yes, I understand lazs' point, but I think better solutions to the myriad of issues that are involved in just starting a transition in the complete economic and transportation infrastructure are needed than simply hiking up oil prices.
It's regressive, Toad. I don't think the average and below average income family barely making ends meet now should have bear more of the burden. An neither should all the retiring baby boomers on a fixed income. That would just create more misguided animosity and grandstanding by politicians.
Also, it affects everything negatively since everything in our world is on a truck one time or other in its existance - as raw material, component or finished good.
Investment costs money. Investment is borrowed money, from stockholders or banks, and there is a cost for it. If the interest cost of investing becomes too high, it doesn't matter how competitive the final price of the product is. It can exceed any gain from the final prodct. See what I mean?
I'd like to see less inflationary ways of creating incentive than simple across-the-board increases at the pump to reduce the cost of investing over the long haul.
There is a whole basket of things that need to be done beyond synthfuels. Bringing them all together into a comprehensive plan is a massive project because there are other pure transportation of goods issues that need to be included.
Something that really irks me is people like lazs who twist my position into something simple, opposite and extreme. I have said that it is my opinion that we need to start making a concerted effort over the next ten years. Ten years from now will be 2016, so I am hardly being a doom and gloomer if you think about what the cost of oil may be then.
I also believe that those who simply blame oil companies for the price of oil are doing a great disservice to their nation and to the question of what to do, as a whole. They don't understand the market and the factors affecting it, but are just looking for someone to blame.
Oil companies merged, consolidated and accomplished tremendous vertical integration after the 2000 election. They now control almost everything from the pumphead to the gas pump, and each part, operating as separate, but joined elements, take a profit from their added value.
Anyway, I considered starting a mother-of-all oil thread to answer some of FAQs in concise, bite-size pieces, pointing out where there are disagreements, and pointing out where there is concensus - including describing some of those myriad of things that are affected and some of the plans out there that bring them all together. But, I'm afraid it will just degrade into another slugfest of people making uninformed comments. There are some smart and informed people here, but the too vocal, uninformed ones drown them out. ;)
Your problem for me Rolex is that I worked for a Major Oil Company, and so know for a fact that much of your schmoozing of the oil companies is hooey, your position probably comes from the fact they you are heavly invested in same.
When a company calls together its employees and tells them in no uncertain terms that the company serves ONE flag and that flag is the flag of the company doesn't indicate to me they care one whit about the world condition at all just profit.
-
NO, not schmoozing, box. Honest. Stay tuned.
Oil reserve "re-stating" had a big effect on prices recently. You are getting this info in the US news, right?
Kuwait's "known reserves" were downgraded by more than 50% and that included "proven and unproven" reserves.
The problem with reserves is that no one really knows. The numbers are all fudged upwards since OPEC oil production is tied to reserves. You can only ship x% of reserves, so everyone has been inflating reserve statistics.
-
Well, I guess we're just doomed then if you have such a low regard for your government. :)
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." -- Albert Einstein
Doing nothing is the problem, not the solution.
The problem I see with the "doing nothing" approach is that profits only increase for the oil industry as prices rise, due to their vertical integration. The oil industry is like Microsoft. Look to that to see the result of doing nothing. They are going to continue doing everything within their power to maintain overwhelming dominance by squashing any competition rather than changing their business to suit the needs of consumers. Alternative fuels research and investment will be like Linux or any other OS trying to compete today - desparate and weak acceptance. Americans are hard-headed and will accept the price rises just as they continue to use Windows.
All the theory about free market forces, supply and demand, go out the window when monopolies or extraordinary dominance is present.
As supplies become tighter from global demand, the traditional approach of military aquisition and security of supply will continue. Iraq was always about securing oil. It was never about Iraqis or terrorism or Saddam Hussein or WMD. We all know that the decision to invade Iraq was made before 9/11, so let's not fool each other about that, okay? You're worldly enough to accept and talk about it, Toad.
It won't be as easy in the future as it was in the past. The great lesson of Iraq is that it didn't work out like planned. $50 billion given to 150 US companies to reconstruct the infrastructure to get the oil flowing into the market, and it didn't get done. Three years gone and the money is gone with still no stable electricity, water, sewage and less oil out than when Saddam was there. Iraqis rebuilt everything after the first war in less than 3 months. They screwed the pooch on the 2nd largest supply in the world, which confirms your point about government incompetence. Or is it just the recent governments incompetence?
The Apollo Program accomplished its stated 10-year goal. All it took was inspirational leadership to set and sell the policy. A successful strategy of how to achieve something is easier when the policy and goal is clear and not devious.
"Policy" and "Strategy to achieve it" are different. Leaders with the ability to form coherent sentences can set a policy and badger or inspire representatives into supporting it by inspiring the people who elect the representatives.
Sweden has a national goal and plan to be oil independent in 20 years using every way of generating power it can find, and creating derivative fuels. Will they get there? I don't know, but it doesn't hurt to look at what they're doing. Take a look at it.
Japan has actually reduced demand for oil over the last 30 years, while building world-beating industries.
The US is neither of these countries, but there are some ideas there that can scale up to at least significantly reduce oil dependence.
Heat, light and transportation.
- At least 40% of all the heat and light should be generated by nuclear power in 25 years.
- At least 30% should be generated by oil-alternative means.
The US no longer has the know-how or number of people to build and operate the facilities, so any high school student with the scholastic ability should be given a 100% scholarship to study Nuclear Engineering, Nuclear Physics and all related engineering disciplines (mechanical, electrical...) No repayment of scholarship if they work in the industry for 5 years.
Free technical-school training for non-professional workers with the same caveats.
Would you support your tax money being used for that? I would hope so. It's child's play for any politician worth his salt to sell that to the American taxpayer and voter, don't you think?
More later. Busy.
-
Rolex, what % chance do you think there is of the US Government actually doing any of that in the next 10 years?
-
Originally posted by Rolex
Iraq was always about securing oil. It was never about Iraqis or terrorism or Saddam Hussein or WMD. We all know that the decision to invade Iraq was made before 9/11, so let's not fool each other about that, okay?
What oil have we secured in Iraq since the first gulf war? And at what cost?
Wouldn't it have been a lot easier and less costly to just invade Saudi Arabia and "secure" their oil?
If Iraq had never invaded Kuwait, the US would never be in Iraq today. To say that "everybody knows" the "true" reasons for invading Iraq, is being arrogant and ignorant all at the same time.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Rolex, what % chance do you think there is of the US Government actually doing any of that in the next 10 years?
It must be awful to feel so helpless and powerless. All of the life is drained out of you. Cheer up, man! You need a dose of optimism.
Good thing you weren't around in 1776. :)
You've got time on your hands. You just going to barbeque and sit around waiting to die? Go visit your Congressman and Senators. Ask them what they're going to do about it. You're like a bulldog when you make up your mind about something.
Run for Congress.
What the hell are you waiting for? Your next life?
-
Originally posted by Rolex
It must be awful to feel so helpless and powerless. All of the life is drained out of you. Cheer up, man! You need a dose of optimism.
Good thing you weren't around in 1776. :)
You've got time on your hands. You just going to barbeque and sit around waiting to die? Go visit your Congressman and Senators. Ask them what they're going to do about it. You're like a bulldog when you make up your mind about something.
Run for Congress.
What the hell are you waiting for? Your next life?
......says the American living in Japan, doing nothing other than telling us that the "sky is falling"
-
That's not an answer. ;)
I suspect you come up with the same answer I do. Slim to none and we both know that's pretty accurate. That's realism, not optimism.
As for poor wittle ole me... not to worry.
I stay a bit busier than I really want to be; I have more hobbies than I can pursue adequately and I'm a far cry from spending my last shekel of silver.
Oh... and I can't run for Congress. My parents were married (still are, 63 years and going strong).
-
The newest addition to one of my hobbies, Chestlehurst Emma.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/875_1144774486_webchestlehurstemmasmall.jpg)
Busy, busy, busy all the time. :) Damn but they are cute and fund. This one is going to be really good; the apple does not fall far from the tree and the parents are stellar.
-
Nice!
-
Originally posted by Rolex
It must be awful to feel so helpless and powerless. All of the life is drained out of you. Cheer up, man! You need a dose of optimism.
Good thing you weren't around in 1776. :)
Wow. Learn some history. 1776 was all about removing the hand of a tyrannical government from the people, not relying on a government. And oh, by the way, they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. It was a bunch of businessmen who threw off the yoke and designed a government of the people, by the people, for the people -- with a constitution that was supposed to restrict the power of the government, not the people.
And now you say government is the answer and imply that is what 1776 was all about?? Shameful.
Toad is exactly right. Government is not going to "solve" anything. The best thing they can do is GET THE H E L L OUT OF THE WAY and let the businessmen and entrepreneurs do what they do best -- see a need and fill it.
-
Understand what Rolex was saying. He thinks I'd have given up in despair in 1776.
He's not comparing the American Revolution to the price of oil/need for alternatives.
As for me giving up in 1776.... back then you could shoot your governmental tormentors. In fact, there was a lot of shooting of government minions.
The announcement that "we're from the Government and we're here to help" would likely bring a volley of musketfire.
Now if we could get away with something like that today, I'd be a whole lot more involved in bringing about change. ;)
-
If you are saying I read too much into his posts, well . . . maybe.
But I was overdue for my "monthly tirade against something."
I'm feeling MUUUCH better now!:aok
-
1. Great looking dog there!
2. Shut up, Nuke! (how ya doin' by the way? ;) )
3. Relax a little numbers guy. You don't have to scream. I'm not the evil boogey man. We're not serious here. We just like to act like we know what we're talking about.
-
And you know the chances of the US government doing much of anything in the next 10 years, much less an all-out commitment like Sweden's, is slim to none.
That's what we were talking about. ;)
Yep, Emma's a beauty. Smart, stylish and fun to work.
-
My wife wants a dog. If she saw that she'd melt. I like dogs, but we have two cats. I don't want to mess up the dynamic we have. Not to mention having to take it out for walks.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
Iraq was always about securing oil. It was never about Iraqis or terrorism or Saddam Hussein or WMD. We all know that the decision to invade Iraq was made before 9/11, so let's not fool each other about that, okay?
If that was the only goal, we could have snagged Venezuela a LOT more easily, and got rid of that salamander Chavez as a bonus;) , + it is in Eastern time zone, I believe, making it a LOT easier to follow the war!
-
One things for sure, gas keeps goin this way there goin to be alot more bikes here in the city.
-
LOL.... so rolex suggests that we (the government) start up nuke plants... and explore alternative sources and educate students?
LOL... it is the government (mostly democrats) who are stopping all nuke plants and exploration and.... by rebate...stopping all meaningful research into solar... the greatest breakthrough in solar wil come from a private engineer who has been hampered by rebates and the lazy get rich off the government solar scam artists with their 3% efficient panels that the government sponsors with stupid rebates!!!
As for education.... this is beyond funny... the government controls all education with an iron fist.... the democrats again...
How would letting the government have even more control of education help anyone but the teachers union?
Nope.... johnny who can't read in the 12th grade from government interferance in education will not be able to find his way to the nuke plant after four years of government education...
A solution to education is vouchers and competition... a solution to alternative energy is to get the government out of it..
let private companies explore and build.. let private schools teach...
Our "government" has spent countless billions on education and subsidies and rebates for alternative fuels and on making sure that there is enough red tape to tie up a whole nation of people willing to do something.
rolex.... your solution is to give even more power to the people who are holding us back. Amazing.... we aren't japs or swedes You probly forgot that we are Americans or what that means.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Our "government" has spent countless billions on education and subsidies and rebates for alternative fuels and on making sure that there is enough red tape to tie up a whole nation of people willing to do something.
rolex.... your solution is to give even more power to the people who are holding us back. Amazing.... we aren't japs or swedes You probly forgot that we are Americans or what that means.
lazs
I freakin love Lazs.
Don't know if this will offend you Lazs, but to me you make sense in a Ross Perot kind of way.
-
uh... thanks for the sentiment but... I never liked much about perot. and.... I have a girlfriend but... I will take application in case there is an opening.
I think perot was more big government... he just wanted it to be HIS kind of big government.
I just get a little fed up with all the doom and gloomers here who don't even live here. I am really really fed up with those who cry big crocadile tears about how mean and powerfull the booooosh republicans are when in reality....
They want an even more powerfull all encompassing governmet but THEIR kind of powerful one.... They want to be in charge of the government suppression... they want to supress and ban the things they don't like or care about. They want to bleed even more money from us to payu for their worthless government programs...
I just see us all fighting to get a bigger and bigger government and the politicians laughing their butt off at us....
"so you want less freedom? We can do that but it will cost ya.."
mushheads...
lazs
-
Rolex is a man of action. He tells Toad to get active in American government to try to change something that Rolex is concerned about.
Meanwhile, Rolex resides in Japan and whines.
I hear ya Lazs
-
Everything depends on when "peak oil" occurs or occured. Some say it happend the end of last year and others say it is 20 years out. All individual fields of oil have the same characteristic - when peak oil occurs, the drop off in production is steep and not flat or a shallow curve. And so will be the cumulative drop off.
If it happened last year or happens within the next ten years, we're economically screwed.
If we do now what we should have done in the 70's, we'd be that much further ahead. Ten years of substantive conservation, research and commercialization of alternate fuels and power generation before peak oil is the about the minimum time required to avoid being completely screwed.
A tiny 6% windfall tax on Exxon profits this year only, if applied to solar research, would be 10x the money spent today.
Acting too early doesn't pose any risk. Acting too late will be be a global economic disaster. I am not fear mongering, it could be as severe as the Great Depression.
The problem is that we won't really know if we've hit peak oil until we're over the edge of the curve.
You are basing your do 'nothing' attitude from the conditions that were in effect 30 years ago. Today is not 30 years ago and the conditions are not the same. We were nowhere near peak oil, global consumption was not ramping up from China and India growing at double digit rates and the US was still manufacturing goods instead of importing without the massive debt racked up.
You just want to gamble that you can make through your little pathetic lifetime without feeling the effects.
I think you're the one who has forgotten what it means to be an American.
You never served the country in uniform. I'm a Vietnam veteran.
You admit that you were a criminal. I was never a criminal.
Your're a tax-sucking government worker who whines about the government.
I am the engineer who designed and built the electrical distribution equipment that has powered the Prudhoe Bay oil facility in Alaska for the last 25 years, the Washington DC subway system and the Marta rail system, hired more people and contributed magnitudes more to the country than you ever have by helping major Japanese companies, such as Panasonic, build manufacturing plants in America 15 years ago that provide the employment for thousands of Americans.
Stuff it, you anarchist whiner.
Added: One more thing, I'm done with you, so don't bother whining to me anymore. This board has a great feature - Ignore. Your nonsense is invisible to me now.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
If we do now what we should have done in the 70's, we'd be that much further ahead. Ten years of substantive conservation, research and commercialization of alternate fuels and power generation before peak oil is the about the minimum time required to avoid being completely screwed.
A tiny 6% windfall tax on Exxon profits this year only, if applied to solar research, would be 10x the money spent today.
Acting too early doesn't pose any risk. Acting too late will be be a global economic disaster. I am not fear mongering, it could be as severe as the Great Depression.
I don't disagree with your reasoning or even with most of your projections.
The realist (note: not the pessimist or the optimist) in me just doesn't see the US Government doing, or causing its citizens to do, any one of the things you suggest .
The Government is reactionary crisis management. Remember your Apollo example? It was a reaction to the Russian sputnik, not a proaction to explore the moon.
Would I like to see the things you suggest start happening? Sure.
Do either you or I actually believe the US government with either party in power will take those steps in a well thought out program?
I don't. Do you?
-
Rolex, why get so upset?
-
Toad, the first step is to move to Japan then tell Americans to run for office and fix everything.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
Everything depends on when "peak oil" occurs or occured. Some say it happend the end of last year and others say it is 20 years out. All individual fields of oil have the same characteristic - when peak oil occurs, the drop off in production is steep and not flat or a shallow curve. And so will be the cumulative drop off.
If it happened last year or happens within the next ten years, we're economically screwed.
Who's "we"?
-
Nuke, FWIW, I think Rolex is one of the more intelligent and "even" posters on the board.
In short, I like reading his stuff and pondering his points.
I think you are selling him very short if that is your response to what he offers us here.
-
Toad, he's a smart guy. Just giving him a little crap. Just thought it was funny when he gave you advice, from Japan.
-
rolex... I still don't see your solutions. You like to predict doom but your only solutions that you have suggested is to tax the oil companies and give the money to the government to slow research.
If you work dillegently to give the government more money and power then the lowest criminal is of more service to this country than all the things you have accomplished. It matters not how well meaning you are... the fact that you are good at it (according to you) means that you are hurting us all the more.
This is not the first go round on the government interfering with research. you claim we (the government) should have been doing something in the 70's
for a vietnam vet you have a short memory... the govenment subsidized solar and a host of other things like electric cars and they also dropped the national speed limit to 55 and created an end to solar research (why improve if you can suck off the government tit for any trash you can throw on someones roof RIGHT NOW?) the 55 limit wasted more gas than it saved in decreased productivity and cars not suited for those speeds...
Government allways screws it up. You want to relive the 70's cause you can't remember em.... I don't cause I can.
you think the government does a good job of educating yet... proof is that they are doing a worse job every year and the more money you give em the worse it gets.
An engineer I know isn't helping panasonic buy America... he is working on 80% efficient solar panels they will probly be on sale long before your doom scenario... the only thing slowing progress is the government rebates on the trash that the sleazebags are putting on peoples roofs right now.
Just attacking me doesn't suddenly give you credence. You get credence by saying credible things and not haveing hissy fits. You get credence by offering solutions not doomsday....
So far as I can see you got nothing but more tax and spend. So go ahead... put me on ignore. I have never put anyone on ignore.
lazs
-
Just a short remark: 80% efficient solar panels? Not in 20 years.
You're probably talking solar water heaters. Their efficiency is around 80% nowadays. In laboratory environments photovoltaic solar panels have recently hit the 35% efficiency mark. The ones available on the market today have around 10-16% efficiency ratings.
does that make a doom and gloomer too?
-
At any rate, corporations don't PAY taxes, something liberals in this country will never grasp. If you slap a big nasty tax on Citgo or Exxon, WE pay that through even higher gas prices.
-
no... I am talking about 80% efficient solar phot volteaic panels that are being developed right now.. they use conical mirrors to focus sunlight... I will see if I can get more info on em... I think they might be as little as a few years out... Imagine... an entire home run on two or three 4'x8' panels.
I think it is much better to be optomistic and let the crisis solve the problem than to throw hard earned tax money at the clumsy and inefient beast that is government.
I see a things getting interesting. I remember a few years before cell phones how eeveryone said that practical ones were 20 years off.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I see a things getting interesting. I remember a few years before cell phones how eeveryone said that practical ones were 20 years off.
lazs
I'm hoping so.. I'm very disenchanted with government funded research and control of university labs. Your earlier points on government involvement in education and science being dead on the mark in my view. They strangle both.. and twist it to their corporate paymasters advantage.
-
yep hang.. look at the scam artist solar hot water heater guys from the 70's.. only the real junk got put on roofs (now trash and gone) because...
The government gave the same rebate no matter what you put on your roof... just get something up there.... the gold rush was on...
Rolex wants to create another gold rush.... get a bunch of sleazes sucking away "research" money and rebate money from the clumsy and stupid government.... Plus...
It appears that he wants to throw the teachers union a bone and get em more involved in advanced government schools.... maybe 16 years of worthless schooling (at our expense) instead of 12.... the extra four years might be good enough to allow graduates to know how to march in protestest or fill in rebate coupons maybe... certainly not do math..
my answer? vouchers for school to get some real education competition and...
A billion dollar contest for the company that comes up with the cheapest working model of say..... an 80% efficent solar panel or... 500 mil for the company who can make a city energy self sufficent using solar or whatever...
Tax free for coal into oil plants for a certain time limit....
prizes for every aspect. tax free status on any new wells drilled and producing oil for the next ten years...
How does that compare to rolexes big government ideas?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
I'm hoping so.. I'm very disenchanted with government funded research and control of university labs. Your earlier points on government involvement in education and science being dead on the mark in my view. They strangle both.. and twist it to their corporate paymasters advantage.
Back in the 50's and 60's the place with the highest concentration of Nobel Laureates and the place to be was Bell Labs. Put the profit motive behind research and watch it take off.
-
exactly guys... but that doesn't suit the socialists who have a vested interest in creating wide spread panic that only "big government" can solve.
I find it disgusting.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Back in the 50's and 60's the place with the highest concentration of Nobel Laureates and the place to be was Bell Labs. Put the profit motive behind research and watch it take off.
Back in the 50's and 60's businesses could write-off far more R&D expense than they can now. When that tax law changed, most businesses cut R&D to the bone.
Of course, it was cut as many businesses were abusing it.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Back in the 50's and 60's businesses could write-off far more R&D expense than they can now. When that tax law changed, most businesses cut R&D to the bone.
Of course, it was cut as many businesses were abusing it.
They threw the baby out with the bathwater.
Too bad we can't cut the corruption of government by changing tax law.
-
Lazs,
There are two things I notice about you throughout this thread.
One is that anyone who does not agree with you more than about 80% is castigated as a "socialist".
The other is that you're always looking for ways to manipulate the current oil crisis in such a way as to justify your quest of using up the world's remaining oil stocks in as short a time as possible. As Rolex has pointed out, it would be economic suicide to do that.
You also have a propensity to turn these debates into a pissing contest about cars. It's not about cars, it's about fuel.
I don't think there will be a scenario whereby one day we're awash with oil, running gas guzzling cars and trucks, and then suddenly the next day there's no oil at all. I believe oil will peak, as the oil industry experts say (and I don't claim to be one myself) and there will be a gradual process in which the price rises in such a way that all the arguments about what is the right or wrong thing to do in the current climate, as seen in these debates, will be swept aside and new technologies will emerge, driven by the high cost of oil.
When the pump price of gasoline passes the $10 mark and the end of oil is in the public eye, I don't think we'll be seeing people in here demanding cars based on any erstwhile "societal insistence" on what they should have. By then, even BoxBoy will have realised that the price of gas in the US is never going to be $2 again, even with a change of government. In fact the transition is already in progress, with the three best selling passenger cars in the US being relatively fuel efficient Japanese imports - the sort of cars you despise.
As I have said all along, the transition to alternative fuels will be driven by one thing and one thing only. The price of oil.
-
i dont think it could ever reach $10 a gallon. If it reached that high in nyc gas station owners would be hung from traffic lights and the cops would prob be giving us the rope. Another thing is the performance of cars. Cars in gerneral are becomein more powerful. I went to the nyc auto show and alot of cars have 300+ horsepower:aok . This ethanol stuff is supposed to run without hurtin horse power. Oil companys noe that there number r up and r goin to try to make all they can aswell as the middle east(OVER PRICEING). I mean the zo6 corvette has 500 horse and that monster chevy avalanch can run on ethanol so i dont think there should be nothin wrong with it. Those hydrogen cells are alot to mass produce and the eletric cars lack performance. Ethanol is just another combustable fuel so it looks like thats the winner(plus us performance guys can use it). And they got cars out there that can run on it alone or run on a mixture of the 2. Here in nyc there mixin 10% ethanol in with the regular gas. I dont noe but since its a combustable fuel u figure that u can just change ur fuel filter or just make some adjustment to ur old rid and just be able to run it on ethanol. I think we are already producein it here in american and some other country in south american is producein it as well. We still have some places to drill but alot of those tree hugger organizations wont let us. Even if they started drillin right now it will take awhile to set up shop.
Somebody get some info about that ethanol stuff. If it works like its supposed to they can just mass produce the hell out of it. They got a mustang gt500, hopefully a camaro, hopefully a challenger comin out and i would love to pay a buck and a half for a gallon of ethanol so i can actually go for a sunday drive.
-
Bandit - just last week I saw a news item about a racing car (not F1) that ran on oil extracted from wheat! It was no slouch... But these technologies are their infancy. As the oil price rises, they will become more and more worthwhile.
-
Thats amazing. What ever it is that replaces gas looks like it will keep my camaro on the street. I guess the alterative that will take over is the one that will be cheapest to produce. Those hydro and pure electric cars dont do it for me, i mean u cant just junk all of the older cars. I drive a 86 and i couldnt get a new car if my life depended on it. I would love to see how that race car performed, wonder if it was better or worst. They need to do somethin and go it quick so at least by next spring people arent feelin the sting of gas prices.
500 horse power all day long, give it to me with a fuel that costs a buck or a buck and a half gallon. give me another muscle car era. If u can get a link to that story about that race car i would love to read it.
-
beet.... if demand stays low... say everyone conserves and drives crappy little cars and allows their government to enforce more and more regulations...
What do you think the emerging nations are gonna do? They are gonna buy the oil... If the price is based on demand... everything will work out... conserving is a fools game... oil fired factories and electric plants will take up the slack... china will take up the slack... you can't win the conservation game... there is too much demand.
All about cars? you are the one who keeps bringing up the non existent 12 mpg flood of U.S. Suv's I tell you that the cars don't matter.. I say... drive what you want and let demand rule.
Socialist? well.... by defenition.... if you want a bigger government to solve the problem you are acting like...... a socialist.
rolex wants huge government research (I use research loosely here) and..... wait for it.... more government schools!!! LOL... more like we have allready?
nope.... have a contest with our tax money going to the winner and you will get ten times more results.... if you want smarter people to do the research then throw out the shameful teachers union and give vouchers to parents so they can get decent educations for their children.
I only disagree with you because your solutions are either nonexistent.... worthless... or socialist or all three.
come up with something that makes sense and we will discuss it.
lazs
-
Bandit - I found a story about the race - Link (.PDF document) (http://www.trymysport.co.uk/sports_news/touring_car_racing_news/2005/july05/BTCC%20Newsletter%2018.pdf) - contains pictures of some of the cars. The driver's name was Fiona Legatte.
Lazs, I don't think it's correct to say that conserving is a fool's game. The higher the demand, the higher will be the price, and that in itself will have the effect of steering people away from 12mpg gas guzzlers. I know I'm right because Storch reported that when he bought the Ford Monster for Mrs. Storch, the dealer had about 60 similar unsold models on his lot. And when the manufacturers realise that the heavy discounting needed to sell such models has eroded their profit margins to the bone, perhaps they'll stop making them and make something else...
-
Originally posted by beet1e
The higher the demand, the higher will be the price, and that in itself will have the effect of steering people away from 12mpg gas guzzlers. /QUOTE]
What 12mpg gas guzzlers would that be?
-
now you are starting to get it beet. The problem will resolve itself. If there is no demand.... say... no jet planes or now oil fired electric plants... say a lot of people go the hybrid route.. say we find a huge stash of oil... say free electricity makes hydrogen cars viable... say whatever....
If that happens and demand stays low... price will be low and anyone who likes or wants gassoline powered vehicles will still drive em...
if none of the things happen and demand goes up.... people will just walk into the dealer and buy any number of 30-50 mpg cars available right now and.... more will be built.
conserving (vehicle wise) does nothing on a world scale.
lazs
-
U.S. gasoline consumption of 320,500,000 gallons per day (March 2005), from the gibson report.
Put a 10 cent a gallon tax on gasoline, throw all the money into an award program. $3,205,000 a day going into the awards. $1,169,825,000 a year. Make it a 5 year tax; ~$6 billion.
Set the required standards up front, the qualifications the winner's solutions will have to satisfy.
Give 33% of the take to the first company to produce a marketable 75% efficient solar power cell.
Give 33% of the take to the first company to produce a workable "bio waste to fuel" process. Something like the Changing World Technologies synfuel plant or Iogen's bacteria that breaks down agricultural waste into sugars that can be made into ethanol.
Give 33% to the first company that can figure out how to produce a barrel of oil from oil shale or coal for a delivered price of $50/barrel.
You'll make a hell of a lot more progress a hell of a lot faster than having the Feds try to do it.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Socialist? well.... by defenition.... if you want a bigger government to solve the problem you are acting like...... a socialist.
Correct by your personnal definition.
But wrong using the usual definition : it's a system where the economic means of production are owned and controlled collectively by the people.
Your definitition is something like socialist = some one who promote a "welfare state".
-
Originally posted by lazs2
now you are starting to get it beet.
Cheeky monkey! Whaddya mean, starting to get it? I've been using the Mrs. Storchmobile (and the unsold storchmonsters) as an example in these gas threads for months now. Maybe you're just... *starting* to pay attention? I don't see the world-wide demand for oil "staying low" or even becoming low in the next 20 years. China is going to suck the world dry in that time.
Jackal - I'm not going to type it all out again. Go to http://www.fueleconomy.gov In 2006 models look up Dodge Ram, which is (according to forbes.com) one of the three best selling vehicles in the USA. In 2WD you will see one variant that gets 12 city/15 hwy, and another which gets 9 city/12 hwy. Apparently the Mrs. Storchmobile has been discontinued. Do you think the price of gas might have had something to do with it?
Straffo - the definition of "socialist" has been expanded in the 2006 Oxford Dictionary to include anyone who disagrees with Lazs. ;)
-
Beet..how come you often characterize US as country that drives 12mpg cars. Sure some do, most don't. You try to come of saying that most US drive 12mpg cars. Some do out of need. Then on the other hand you have pointed out that top US selling cars are honda and others which get good gas mileage. This implies that US does have large portion of driving public buying fuel efficient cars. Funny how you alwayss use the 12mpg characterization when it fits your need, but disregard the other contradicting statement.
One this is apparent from reading bbs, you never back away from pov, even if wrong. Appears you just like to argue for arguements sake.
-
BigGun - the three best selling passenger cars are indeed Japanese imports, but these are outsold by three trucks - Ford F150, Dodge Ram and Chevy Silverado. In other words, the three best selling cars rank 4th, 5th and 6th in terms of total vehicle sales volumes. So yes, the US has a large portion of fuel efficient japanese cars, but it also has an even larger proportion of not so fuel efficient American trucks, and some variants are indeed gas guzzlers that don't even make 12mpg on the highway. Review my sources, and if you can find anything wrong with what I said, I'll consider making a correction.
-
You are saying a significant number of trucks are on the roads, but you are only comparing it to unit sales for *each* model of car.
Total up the unit sales of all the cars sold in this country, versus the units sales of light trucks. Then you will find trucks are indeed a fairly low percentage (*low* being in the eye of the beholder) of the overall unit sales in the U.S.
Allow me to spell it out. Say you have 10,000 light truck sales (arbitrary numbers) and the next vehicle is a car which only has 8,000 unit sales, but the next is another car, which has 7,000 unit sales and so on and so forth.
If it went:
10,000 trucks
8,000 car
7,000 car
6,000 car
5,000 car
4,000 car
3,000 car
2,000 car
1,000 car
9,00 car
Let's stop there. 10,000 truck sales versus 33,900 car sales. Get it? Just because a truck is number one in unit sales, does not make it a significant portion of all vehicle sales in this country.
-
Yes, skuzzy. But that doesn't make any difference to what I was saying, which was that sales of 12mpg guzzlers are going to be the hardest hit by rising gas prices, in the mpg spectrum. BG seemed to be saying that such vehicles are in a minority, which they probably are. All I'm saying is that some variants of the three best selling models are indeed 12mpg gas guzzlers.
-
Just because a truck is number one in unit sales, does not make it a significant portion of all vehicle sales in this country.
Light trucks (SUVs, pickups and minivans) actually outsell cars in the US.
In the first 3 months of 2006, for example:
Car: 1,838,976
Truck: 2,095,907
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/sales-of-suvs-minivans-and-pickups-surpass-cars-for-first-time.html
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8GOQM383.htm?campaign_id=apn_asia_up&chan=gb
-
Sure, when you toss in SUV's and minivans. They are by far and away the most popular. Can't drive 100 feet without seeing a SUV or minivan around here.
But those are far from the 12mpg vehicle beet likes to lament about. The 12mpg vehicle has never been a dominant sales unit and yet it is always beet's focus.
-
Of coarse 12mpg vehicle is going to be harder hit than a 20mpg vehichle with higher gas prices. But you imply with often used 12mpg number that is the majority of what is driving around.
-
BG - just think of my hypothetical "12mpg gas guzzler" as a euphemism for any OTT gas hog.
-
beet... now you lost me... in another thread you had suggested that we artificialy raise the price of fuel with taxes... now you appear to be saying the same thing that I am.... to let the price depend on demand.
Also... you would be hard pressed to find any American vehicle or one sold her that got an average of 12 mpg unless it was a brit or itallian car.
Toad... yep... give the awards but we don't need to tax anything to come up with a few paltry billion....
straffo... I think that the current defenition of socialism and socialistic programs is not merely mine.... Any division of wealth based on need rather than worth is socialism. Taking from those who earn to give to those who do little or nothing..
Beet... your own mrs thatcher said it... "the problem with socialism is that eventualy you run out of other peoples money." Apparently she subscribes to the same dictionary as I do.
But.... maybe I have wronged you.... maybe you don't really think the government should grow and tax to pay for thinks like research into alternative fuels and halting global warming....
What were your solutions again?
lazs
-
I don't think I ever suggested an additional tax on road fuel. Indeed, I believe that diesel tax in Britain should be cut to levels seen in other EU countries, which is why only about 34% of cars in the UK are fuel efficient diesels, as compared with 60% in Austria and Italy. I do however agree with Rolex in believing that the profligate waste of oil would be a very bad thing economically, and I also maintain that the high cost of road fuel in European countries has meant that we've never fostered a gas guzzling culture. Admittedly, there are some high performance European cars like Aston Martin, Ferrari and Porsche which consume huge amounts of fuel, but because these cars are very expensive, relatively few of them are sold.
now you appear to be saying the same thing that I am.... to let the price depend on demand.
hehe, I think it will be the other way round - demand will depend on price. But it's a chicken/egg situation. The difference is that we KNOW demand is going to be high because of China. I wouldn't be surprised if you saw gas at $4/gallon in July.
I am fully aware of M. Thatcher's beliefs. I voted for her three times, remember - in 1979, 1983 and 1987. And I've never been ashamed of that, and would do the same thing again under the same circumstances.
And Lazs... if I could just "solve" the world energy crisis at a stroke, or "just like that" as Tommy Cooper used to say, I'd be very rich. I could even afford a 12mpg Aston Martin! The high price of oil is going to mean that other fuels are developed - bio fuels from renewable sources are a good example, especially as growth of the source eg. wheat would reduce CO2 and global warming. Our own government (which is currently in meltdown - LOL) has mandated that by next year (I think) 5% of fuel sold on a garage forecourt must come from a renewable resource. That proportion will increase as time goes by. And... I think we're going to be taking another look at Nukes. I think we should do what Finland has done and increase our proportion of nuclear generated electricity, instead of burning fossil fuels to generate it.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Jackal - I'm not going to type it all out again. Go to http://www.fueleconomy.gov In 2006 models look up Dodge Ram, which is (according to forbes.com) one of the three best selling vehicles in the USA. In 2WD you will see one variant that gets 12 city/15 hwy, and another which gets 9 city/12 hwy.
One variant. :rofl
Here`s a hint. Yes, the Dodge Ram in all "variants" are pretty popular. The kicker is the majority of these trucks are used for work. A tool, in other words. Sometimes they serve double duty. So, exctly what is your point?
but these are outsold by three trucks - Ford F150, Dodge Ram and Chevy Silverado. In other words, the three best selling cars rank 4th, 5th and 6th in terms of total vehicle sales volumes. So yes, the US has a large portion of fuel efficient japanese cars, but it also has an even larger proportion of not so fuel efficient American trucks, and some variants are indeed gas guzzlers that don't even make 12mpg on the highway.
LOL Three days ago I had a new F150, four wheel drive sitting in my driveway. I asked out of curousity what actual fuel mileage they were getting. 22 to 24 mpg. Go figure. :aok
You have to know that fuel ratings in the U.S. are placed on the conservative side.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
One variant. :rofl
Here`s a hint. Yes, the Dodge Ram in all "variants" are pretty popular. The kicker is the majority of these trucks are used for work. A tool, in other words. Sometimes they serve double duty. So, exctly what is your point?
If you'd done as I asked, and actually gone to check my source, you'd see that not one, but four variants of Dodge Ram have city/highway gas mileages that span the 12mpg mark. But I guess it's asking too much to expect you to show any interest in the facts. :rolleyes:
And I'm fairly confident that sales of the 8.3 litre V10 version will soon be in decline. :D
-
Beetle, I LOVE big trucks.
Right now my company has:
1. 2003 F350 4 door 4x4, V-10 ( The one I drive)
2. 2006 Chevy 3500, dualy flatbed, big V-8
3. 2006 F350 4 door King Ranch 4x4 p/u, turbo Diesel
4. 2006 F450 4 door dualy flatbed, turbo diesel
5. 2002 F250 crew cab p/u, v-8
All of these trucks except the '02 F250 hall dump trailers with a gross trailer loads of about 14,000 pounds each, plus 3-4 man crews and up to 1.5 tons on the trucks. Not much else I can buy is going to get that done everyday.
Granted, 4x4's are not needed (most of the time). Also, I wish my truck had the turbo diesel rather than the V-10. The lift and big tires/wheels are just to give it character, like me!
A lot of people around here buy these big trucks because they actually need them.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
If you'd done as I asked, and actually gone to check my source, you'd see that not one, but four variants of Dodge Ram have city/highway gas mileages that span the 12mpg mark. But I guess it's asking too much to expect you to show any interest in the facts.
Like I have said before if all your links were followed the intardnet would slow to a grinding halt. Google has a brown out every time you log on. :)
If you had actualy read what was posted instead of going on another Google the Evil U.S. Empire crusade it was explained to you that the majority of these trucks are used in work. A tool. Some serve double purpose.
Also I think you would find that most of the owners of these trucks would tell you they get waaaay better mileage than the rating. Of course you don`t wish to hear that.
Now, back to your Googledom.
-
Almost forgot. Guess who pays for 100% of the gas in all of these/my trucks? ;)
-
Ill i want to noe is that i can drive my camaro with out havein to turn to crime to feed it.
Trucks are nice but a number of the new dodges arent used for work here. I seen alot of them all fully detailed just cruzin the streets, not yet have i seen one towing or with anything in the bed. BUt hey....... i dont care its a nice truck, i like them and with the right exhuast they sound great. I see alot more of the smaller trucks with 6s doin alot of the work unless its a big load but what ever is towin will be a 2000 or so, nothin new or as nice as that dodge. I friend of mine saw that a dodge(the one with the viper engine :aok ) racing on the park way, he told me it was reallllllll fast.
Somethin needs to be done, a new fuel has to come out or thing. If not transportation in general is goin to suffer.
-
Get a rope. :D
-
See Rule #5
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Godzilla! Er, crumb, er - oh you know who I mean... Glad you like your gas guzzling trucks. What I want to know is why the USA seems to be the only country (apart from oil rich OPEC countries) that operates these grandiose petrol powered vehicles? How does the rest of the world get by without them? :confused:
Not sure how the rest of the world is. Here in Arizona, my trucks need to be able to hall 4 men and a gross load of around 22,000 pounds ( truck and trailer)
What else should I be doing to hall these loads? My customers pay for the gas.
-
anyone know how much ethanol it produced from whatever unit (bushel, ton, etc.) of corn?
i looked all over teh 'tardnet last night when i was wondering about it but came up dry. I did learn so stuff, though...
-
Last I read up on ethanol, it took more oil to make a gallon of it, than to make a gallon of gas. Or more natural gas to make it, or more coal to make it.
Basically, to produce ethanol in quantities to be useful, depends on fossil energies.
Then there is the lack of a distrbution system for it.
-
See Rule #5
-
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA. I hate when posts are edited. Ill sit here now just wondering what he could have said.
Beetle pm me ur last post, i need to noe.
-
oooooooooooo beetle is from europe. Sorry buddy but i hate those little cars. U would get more power if u took the engine out and stuffed myself in the engine bay. I bet ill smoke the tires:lol IF i get in a car and lean to one side and it flips over its not for me.
So why is gm tryin to push this ethanol so hard. There is either somethin we dont noe or there full of it. I noe its supposed to peform just as good or alittle better then gas. I noe that we started developing it here since last year. Ill see if i can dig somethin up if i but some time.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Last I read up on ethanol, it took more oil to make a gallon of it, than to make a gallon of gas. Or more natural gas to make it, or more coal to make it.
Basically, to produce ethanol in quantities to be useful, depends on fossil energies.
Then there is the lack of a distrbution system for it.
Yeah, i read that last night when i was googling around for the information i was looking for.
Some enthusiasts say its not true.
One thing i read that was interesting is that ethanol = 113 octane.
Another interesting thing i noticed was that google was a pain in the neck when it came to digging up the info i was after, so i went to wiki instead.
I've been doing this more & more lately.
Could be soon that wiki begins to replace google as the top 'tardnet portal.
-
Originally posted by bkbandit
oooooooooooo beetle is from europe. Sorry buddy but i hate those little cars. U would get more power if u took the engine out and stuffed myself in the engine bay.
I invite you to come over to Europe, and we'll go for a little drive, for example the A9 between Frankfurt and Munich in Germany. It's 190 miles, but you will come to realise why I call it a "little" drive. I think you'll find it... interesting. After that, we'll see what you have to say about European cars not having any power.
:aok:cool:
-
Originally posted by Debonair
anyone know how much ethanol it produced from whatever unit (bushel, ton, etc.) of corn?
Its all according to how cured the hardwood is that is used to fire the sti......no wait.
If you double the number of coils in the copper tubing, double the sugar...............ummmm........nevermind..w rong process. :D
-
very similar process.
-
I always wondered how much fuel say...NASCAR uses in a season. These figures available?
-
beet... we are getting closer.. are you saying that you do not think there should be any additional taxes or fees(a fee is a tax) on American fuel and that we should let supply and demand set price?
You seem to be saying that we let price set demand while I am saying to let supply and demand set price... those can be very different.
Now you are saying that the more scarce oil becomes the more that we will dvelop new tech which is exactly what I have been saying all along.
Do you now agree that the sooner supply dwindles the sooner new tech will be developed?
sooo... anyone driving a car that conserves fuel is part of the problem while Americans are the biggest part of the solution as usual?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
beet... we are getting closer..
Awwwww.... :o:) are you saying that you do not think there should be any additional taxes or fees(a fee is a tax) on American fuel and that we should let supply and demand set price?
Not for me to dictate American fuel price policy. If there were to be a small additional tax, demand might be less, but as 69% of people questioned (in excel's report) said that the current price of gas is causing them financial hardship, it might not be a good time to be increasing fuel taxes. Even our own chancellor, Gordon Brown, has backpedalled on tax rises on fuel, and for him not to tax something you know it must be serious. I think he's still smarting from the memory of the 2000 fuel tax revolt!:eek: As for whether a gasoline tax would be good or bad, I think there is merit in Mr. Toad's suggestions further up ^ in which a proportion of the price of a gallon of gas goes to organisations who can develop and deploy a renewable fuel source such is biodiesel or fuel from wheat etc. Apparently, ~40% of road fuel used in Brazil comes from these renewable fuel sources. (More on it in that Fiona Legatte link ^) You seem to be saying that we let price set demand while I am saying to let supply and demand set price... those can be very different.
I'm saying that world-wide demand is going to be high regardless of American consumption, because of China's industrialisation. The price of crude is likely to stay where it is or rise higher - much higher if everyone follows your lead to use up the world's remaining oil in the shortest possible time. Thus the price will stay high, and will govern (ie. suppress) demand in the USA. Now you are saying that the more scarce oil becomes the more that we will dvelop new tech which is exactly what I have been saying all along.
I've been saying that all along myself. Clearly there is no way (concerns about global warming notwithstanding) that billions of $$ are going to be spent developing a new source of energy if there were to be 250 years worth of oil sitting in the ground waiting to be tapped. Do you now agree that the sooner supply dwindles the sooner new tech will be developed?
Supply will dwindle quite fast enough, without any concerted effort to use up the oil as fast as we can! Besides which, if your whole country were to do what you'd like them to do, and drive hotrods that get (dare I say it) 12mpg., the extra demand for crude oil would push up the price, and that would depress demand, and people would switch to fuel efficient Japanese imports. Oh wait, they already have. So as you can see, the rate of consumption will find its own level, and will be governed by one thing, and one thing only: Price. sooo... anyone driving a car that conserves fuel is part of the problem while Americans are the biggest part of the solution as usual?
The higher the demand for crude oil, the greater will be its price. If demand could be reduced, the reduction in price might even leave some spare cash for the development of alternatives. But by driving ridiculous gas guzzlers that get... er, (no! I can't say it twice in the same post LOL) you're just playing into the hands of OPEC and doing exactly what they want you to do.
The big problem for America is that it is dependent on ~13m barrels of imported oil daily. In an oil sellers' market, which is what we have right now and may have for years to come, you're going to be at the mercy of OPEC. That's bad enough, but is made worse by the fact that quite a number of OPEC member states are not sympathetic to American interests.
-
Just looked at the price of petrol here. It's a whooping 1.6 USD per litre.
Diesel is a tad lower.
Wonder what your ride you'd pick in the US if the prices were like that :D
(Just returned from town...on a bike)
-
Originally posted by Angus
Just looked at the price of petrol here. It's a whooping 1.6 USD per litre.
Diesel is a tad lower.
Wonder what your ride you'd pick in the US if the prices were like that :D
(Just returned from town...on a bike)
Me personally? Gas prices wouldn't affect me personally until it hit about $10/gallon. Then I might only go on 4 fishing trips a year, rather than 5. :D
-
ok beet... I guess we will just have to agree that we don't have the faintest idea of what the other person is saying.
We do not need to do anything with our gas prices except to reduce the tax on them. We may or may not run short of oil... new tech may or may not reduce demand... Tax and fees are not the answer. new oil supplies that exceed what we have used all the way up to today may be discovered.... or not... If not... price will reach a point where converting coal or plants or recovering shale oil or whatever will be practical and that will be the leveling off point...
We may reduce demand by not using oil for anything but manufacturing of products and for some or most of our vehicles... who knows?
I say we are doing it right... we are letting the supply and demand set price.... you think a tax or fee would help... I disagreed with toad and you on this.... we could offer rewards easily without additional fees. a few billion is a drop in the bucket... we spend ten times that much on stupid grants for stem cell research in one state here for instance.
price rising by supply and demand are self leveling and self healing solutions....why mess with it?
The latest "solution" is to do away with or reduce the price gouging sales tax (one of about 4 taxes on fuel)... this seems pretty good to me.
lazs
-
per USA Today, today . . . the country in which i live has the lowest gas prices in the nation. :huh
hap
oh, paid 2.35 for last fill up
-
dam hap 2.75 here in Boston
-
Since last Saturday, From San Antonio to Austin I've seen prices bounce back and forth from $2.73 (Lackland AFB) to $2.77 (San Marcos) and $2.88 (South Austin) to $2.75 (North Austin)
-
sorry to hear that rusty. it's bad all over. i'm 3 miles from work, fat and summers coming. think i'll walk some :cool:
hap
-
lol me 3 hap
-
Got u beat. 100 yards from work, fill up twice a month at most. But regular is $3.36.
Wolf
-
henh.
gotcha all beat. my morning commute runs from the bedroom to the crapper to the kitchen to the welder.
10 steps total.
daily trip to the postoffice.. 2 short blocks. 824 yards.
Used to go through a tank a week.. runnin around; runnin around.
Been 8 days since i gassed up. Needle is still on 'Full'.
I'm gonna beat this addiction.
**** foregin oil.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
henh.
gotcha all beat. my morning commute runs from the bedroom to the crapper to the kitchen to the welder.
10 steps total.
daily trip to the postoffice.. 2 short blocks. 824 yards.
Used to go through a tank a week.. runnin around; runnin around.
Been 8 days since i gassed up. Needle is still on 'Full'.
I'm gonna beat this addiction.
**** foregin oil.
I owe u a drink.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
We do not need to do anything with our gas prices except to reduce the tax on them.
What difference is that going to make? The federal tax is what - 18 cents/gallon? Not going to make a huge dent in the price, Lazs. All that would happen is that people would drive more, buy more gas, and the increased demand would push the price back up. You'd be right back to square one. I say we are doing it right... we are letting the supply and demand set price.... you think a tax or fee would help... I disagreed with toad and you on this.... we could offer rewards easily without additional fees. a few billion is a drop in the bucket... we spend ten times that much on stupid grants for stem cell research in one state here for instance.
I think Toad's point was that a small fee or tax of 10 cents/gallon (in his example) could be used to fund development of new fuel technologies. America's long term goal should be to wean itself off imported oil, and certainly OPEC oil. You're probably one of those people who think of the Carter energy policies as bad, and the Reagonomics of pulling the plug on CAFE as a good thing. As I recall this was done to stimulate the US oil business. People came to think of the Carter years as "bad", and with relaxation of CAFE came the SUV era. Whey-hey! Party time! Big-block V8 engines are back in vogue!
Ask yourself - do you think this policy increased or decreased America's dependence on foreign oil? The next question is - do you think this was a good thing or a bad thing?
You've had your gas party - now it's hangover time.new oil supplies that exceed what we have used all the way up to today may be discovered....
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/flypig.gif)
-
Originally posted by Wolfala
Got u beat. 100 yards from work, fill up twice a month at most. But regular is $3.36.
Wolf
You use a CAR to drive 100 yards? Do you look at paraplegics in wheelchair with envy?
-
Originally posted by deSelys
You use a CAR to drive 100 yards? Do you look at paraplegics in wheelchair with envy?
It appears he is talking about the distance the gas station is from his work place, and not how far the drive is. I could be wrong as it could be interpreted either way.
-
Originally posted by aztec
I always wondered how much fuel say...NASCAR uses in a season. These figures available?
Yes. It's called "a drop in the bucket". Use of cars, trucks, RV's, motorcycles, and light aircraft, for strictly pleasure purposes, far exceed motorsports for consumption of petroleum from what I've seen published.
-
beet... there you go again... all taxes (there are about 4) on gassoline come out to abut 50 cents a gallon not 18. some states only have the federal tho... one or two I think.
Yes.... I think that carters energy policies were ill concieved and hurt the economy and the consumer and stifled all research, exploration and development. I think Regans deregulation was a great thing and gave us all the good things we have today.
We drive the most luxurious cars and trucks the world has ever seen and they get better milage than any other time in history. More oil has been discovered since carter put a finite number on it than was thought possible.... the "peak" oil date has been shoved ahead at least 40 years from the doom and gloom carter days...
The only thing slowing more refineries and exploration and... pumping the stuff is the regulations and red tape by democrats like carter... the only thing stopping nuke plants is democrats like carter.
While dropping the price 50 cents a gallon by getting rid of taxes will only delay things..... Isn't that what you want??? you want to do stop gap things to delay the invetiable increase in price caused by demand too.
If the price dropped 50 cents and the economy could cook along for another couple years while exploration and alternatives are explored.... isnt that a solution?
And..... why do you need to tax gas to fund a lousy couple of billion dollars in rewards for alternative ideas? it is a pittance.... and... once the government gets a tax source... they never let it go... even when/after the original need is moot.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I think Regans deregulation was a great thing and gave us all the good things we have today.
...and dependency on 13m barrels of imported oil every day.
The federal tax is 18 cents a gallon, IIRC. I don't know about state and local taxes for every state.
Like I said, cutting the price would only drive up demand, which itself would drive up the price of crude oil. You'd be right back where you started.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
It appears he is talking about the distance the gas station is from his work place, and not how far the drive is. I could be wrong as it could be interpreted either way.
Actually both are true. But I just walk now that the weather is warmer. Work is 100 yards from home. Gas is 100 yards from home.
-
beet... how did deregulation cause the problem? What caused the problem was the regulations and red tape impossed by democrats and the EPA on exploration and refineries and nuke plants.
As for eventually being right back where we started..... So what? All you can do is buy time till tech catchs up or some guy finds a spot that has more oil than we can use or electricity is virtualy free.... All those things will probly happen... why put yourself in pain till then?
If an American wants to have a car that gets 40-50 mpg he can just go buy one right now... we have every option that you do except that we don't have to pay twice as much at the pump to pay for a strong liberal socialist government to lean on us.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
If the price dropped 50 cents and the economy could cook along for another couple years while exploration and alternatives are explored.... isnt that a solution?
Oh, OK. So what you're saying is that a 50 cents reduction in the price of gas would make you feel better? For every $60 you're spending on gas, you wish you were spending only $50? Well there is an answer, but it's not likely to be the one you want. Have you ever considered........... consuming less? A somewhat radical concept in America perhaps, but worth considering all the same. why put yourself in pain till then?
That's precisely what you have done by allowing a situation to develop whereby you are dependent on ~13m barrels of imported oil every day, mostly from OPEC. The discontent this is now causing is evidenced by the financial hardship being caused to 69% of Americans (according to excel's report) and by the plethora of gas price whine threads on this very board, all of which originate from America. If an American wants to have a car that gets 40-50 mpg he can just go buy one right now...
And plenty of Americans are doing that, with the Honda Civic now being one of the three best selling cars as well as Motor Trend Car of the Year for 2006. we don't have to pay twice as much at the pump
True, but the advantage is lost if your vehicle uses twice as much fuel.
-
well.... choice is allways better. paying less is better. I can't see why you would think paying more when there is no reason would be a good idea.
If you remove the useless tax you would pay less... in the case of sales tax... it has increased with the price.
It is never a good idea to get the tax junkies addicted to money. The government is worse than any junkie... once they mainline some tax money they never want to give it up.
Take the tax on smokes.... presumably to educate and eradicate smoking.... they are addicted to it.... if everyone quit smoking the governmment would go on a colosal jones.
lazs
-
is there any relief in site. Im i goin to have to park my car for the summer?
-
Well Lazs, I don't think there's much more we can say in this thread, but...
Originally posted by lazs2
It is never a good idea to get the tax junkies addicted to money.
Was it such a good idea to let the gas junkies get addicted to foreign oil?
Please do me one last favour and answer these two questions. Then we can let this thing go. - Do you think that Reagan's relaxation of the CAFE requirements and subsequent SUV generation led to an increase or a decrease of America's dependence on imported oil?
- Do you think this was a good thing or a bad thing, in light of the situation today?
Just answer I or D for the first question, G or B for the second. No embellishments required...
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Just answer I or D for the first question, G or B for the second.
Can you print those directions out and put them in a manual ? :rofl
-
Beet....yes I think it was a good thing... we have luxurious cars that get far better millage than we had in carters day. They are better in every concievable way.... without our market you would probly not even be able to drive the car you do.
your questions were ludicrous in that they were a false premise (that Reagans deregulation led to an entire nation driving SUV's wich got less fuel economy than during carters day)
It is obvious that we enjoyed a very prosperous time and that it is not over yet..... may never be.
I see no way that giving the government more of our money would make things any better.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
your questions were ludicrous in that they were a false premise (that Reagans deregulation led to an entire nation driving SUV's wich got less fuel economy than during carters day)
I didn't say that Reagan's policies "led to an entire nation driving SUVs". I said that Reagan relaxed the CAFE standards, and that subsequently there was an SUV generation. Subsequent merely means following at a later point in time, not necessarily caused by what went before, so no false premise. Are you saying that SUV's did not gain popularity from about ~1990? Is dependence of OPEC oil a good thing?
-
If there werent SUV's, there would still be big, ugly station wagons (which ALSO get poor mileage)
-
Originally posted by bj229r
If there werent SUV's, there would still be big, ugly station wagons (which ALSO get poor mileage)
Bring back the Nomad. :D
-
beet... you are making some real flighty connections here.... you claim that deregulation led to cheap oil prices which led to SUV's which led to the world running out of oil.
silly stuff... currrent SUV's get better milage than the cars before deregulation.... current cars get better milage at 70mph than carter cars got at 55 mph.
regulation stiffled development. Cars today are light years from the carter days. Choice is abundant... from boring cars that get 60 mpg to 200 mph vettes that get 26 mpg.
How was this all a bad thing? How do you think it will all turn out? How could it turn out better?
lazs
-
beet.. I guess I am saying.... you guys have paid twice as much for "petrol" for half a century... what has it gotten you? you paid this untold billions for... for what?
you drive a german car. jag is owned by Ford... you still don't have a decent dentist in the whole country and you don't even have free TV on the airwaves.
You won't be in any better shape than us when the oil runs out... probly worse. Why is the way you have done it so much better?
lazs
-
Lazs - one question. A yes/no answer will suffice: Do you think that dependence on OPEC oil is a good thing?
-
Beetle, what percent of the world's oil does the US use again?
Was is something like 30%? I forget.
-
Originally posted by Mr Big
Beetle, what percent of the world's oil does the US use again?
Was is something like 30%? I forget.
China and India are catching up REAL quick--THERE is where all this comes from-- OPEC is producing at near capacity, and it is only barely enough
-
Originally posted by bj229r
China and India are catching up REAL quick--THERE is where all this comes from-- OPEC is producing at near capacity, and it is only barely enough
you had to ruin it for me! :mad:
I was going to correlate America's energy use with it's contribution to the world's economy for all these years.
Beet says that American's are 1% ( or whataver) of the world's population, yet we use 30 % ( or whatever) of the world's engery.
Well, for 1% of the world's population, we ALSO are responsible for over 30% of the world's economy. My figures may be a little off, just going from memory.
-
I'll be back later. I'm off to go drive around the desert in my monster truck and take some pictures of stuff.
I'm sure I could go into the desert with a smaller, more efficient vehicle, but then I wouldn't be as stylish nor as cool looking.
-
a piston powered chopper will get you there faster & use more (better & also leaded) gas
-
beetle... "dependance" on anything is less than ideal but sometimes better than the alternatives of which..... you have none.
lazs
-
Lazs
Actually, Britain was self sufficient in oil, until very recently.
-
I was saying that you had no alternatives for the U.S.
and.. it matters not where your supply comes from.. you have allways paid twice as much at the pump as us.
lazs
-
True, but there is a bright side - we're not dependent on ~13m barrels of imported every day, and we're not at the mercy of OPEC.
Solutions for the US? Well, you could try consuming less, but somehow I don't think that's what you want to hear.
-
My gas guzzling, Ozone ruining, pollution giving land yacht (Jeep Grand Cherokee) took $60 worth last weekend.... I even shed a tear while drivin down I-25 doin 95 in a 65 knowing I was getting 19 MPGs :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by lazs2
you have allways paid twice as much at the pump as us.
yes, but you have to change your oil five times more frequently!
:aok
-
Originally posted by beet1e
True, but there is a bright side - we're not dependent on ~13m barrels of imported every day, and we're not at the mercy of OPEC.
Solutions for the US? Well, you could try consuming less, but somehow I don't think that's what you want to hear.
one this the US can do better than any other country is outspend it.
we'll have bejing back to riding bikes again in a few years.
all their new pipelines will end in tankers bound for the US.
-
beet... we could try consuming less. How would you suggest we do that? What have you done in england? seems that we can buy any car that you can and that we can buy cars that use as little of less than you... certainly the cars you do make get pretty bad milage.
Sooo... how can we consume less? My thinking is that we fire up some nuke plants for electricity.
What would you suggest? How else could we consume less?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Debonair
one this the US can do better than any other country is outspend it.
we'll have bejing back to riding bikes again in a few years.
Twixt here and there lay a good many gas price whine threads! :lol Sooo... how can we consume less? My thinking is that we fire up some nuke plants for electricity. - Lazs
Yes, that would be a good start. The nuclear "waste" issue needs work, but I think we need more nukes so that 1) we burn less oil - become less dependent on OPEC and the evil forces of Capitalism (LOL) and 2) We cut CO2 emissions and global warming.
-
300!
-
Mister Chinese Gorbachev
(http://www.puzzlehouse.com/images/webpage/greatwallofchina500clem.jpeg)
tear down this wall!