Gas Prices

[mookie2001]

i have a 350 cubic inch 5.7 liter V8
i am enraged
my chode has exploded and my driving habits changed at $1.80
how high do gas prices have to get before peoples chodes explode?
or before it changes peoples driving habits?

[The Ressurrected One]

i have a 350 cubic inch 5.7 liter V8
i am enraged
my chode has exploded and my driving habits changed at $1.80
how high do gas prices have to get before peoples chodes explode?
or before it changes peoples driving habits?
$4.00. (That's how high.)

[JoeChalupa]

I've always bought vehicles with good gas mileage.

[The Ressurrected One]

I've always bought vehicles with good gas mileage.
Yep. That's the secret.

[JoeChalupa]

works for me.

[mookie2001]

youre still spending much much much more on gas now

[Spurminator]

I'm amazed at how much Americans get their panties in a wad over gas prices. A 25 cent change per gallon amounts to about 5 bucks' difference per fill up. If you're having to fill up enough for that to break your bank, I would suggest trying public transportation or relocation.

[mookie2001]

dam man you must be doing alright financially, as your post so smoothly let us know

and its not a 25 cent increase, it's a shitload more
its basic economics, if any other bill was increasing 40% a year would you still scoff

if you dont give a shit, then,
like i said
how high does it have to get?

[Nbadan]

I'm amazed at how much Americans get their panties in a wad over gas prices. A 25 cent change per gallon amounts to about 5 bucks' difference per fill up. If you're having to fill up enough for that to break your bank, I would suggest trying public transportation or relocation.

When people spend more on gas they spend less on other things. Those in sales are the first to feel the real effects of higher gas prices, but soon price creep starts effecting the costs of production and transportation of retailers for durable and non-durable goods, and it won't be just gas that we will all be paying more - its inflationary.

[Spurminator]

dam man you must be doing alright financially, as your post so smoothly let us know

I'm still three years out of college and my salary is about what you'd expect from someone with a Bachelors in Advertising. So I wouldn't say I'm retiring anytime soon.

And it's not that I don't give a shit, I just don't think it's the national crisis it's made out to be. Mainly because, unlike other bills that may increase, you have alternatives like public transportation, carpooling riding a bike, etc. I realize those options aren't realistic for everybody, but I also realize that one of those options would probably be realistic for most people, many of the people who complain the loudest about gas prices.

[Clandestino]

gas barely has gone up if you take inflation into account...

[MannyIsGod]

You're insane. Gas has doubled in the past couple of years, inflation hasn't done that.

[2pac]

You're insane. Gas has doubled in the past couple of years, inflation hasn't done that.

Look at long term. Like before you were born. Gas prices are in line. Its just jumped heavily in the last couple years.

[SpursWoman]

Anyway you slice it, though...these gas prices make me very glad I no longer work in New Braunfels and have that commute everyday.

And about $160/mo in gas for that kind of commute (as it would have been for me right now) is quite a bite in most normal people's budget, when now I'm at about $70/mo.

:fro

[Clandestino]

http://img169.echo.cx/img169/6782/gasprice8cz.png (http://www.imageshack.us)

[mookie2001]

eehhh
i usually just buy regular unleaded
and i've only been driving for 6 or 7 years

[Spurminator]

That chart could easily feed US-Involvement-in-9/11 conspiracy theorists...

:drunk

[Hook Dem]

I'm amazed at how much Americans get their panties in a wad over gas prices. A 25 cent change per gallon amounts to about 5 bucks' difference per fill up. If you're having to fill up enough for that to break your bank, I would suggest trying public transportation or relocation.
While no one likes increases, Spurminator puts it into perspective! Quit driving so much and you won't feel the pain so much. It's okay to tax smokers out of existance but not hold the general population's feet to the fire? Maybe you will finally feel what the smokers feel.....Injustice!

[MannyIsGod]

Hey man, I'm all for taxing gas use more. Something has to pay for the military presence in the gulf that is a direct result of the dependency on oil. The chances of that happening? Well, I have a better chance of winning the lotto.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

all i know is when i was a teenager i could use 7 bucks of gas for like 2 weeks in my 1999 Mercury Tracer Sport

now 7 bucks makes my chode explode

[Cant_Be_Faded]

I don't know what it is...but...

when gas prices rise

it costs more money!

[2pac]

While no one likes increases, Spurminator puts it into perspective! Quit driving so much and you won't feel the pain so much. It's okay to tax smokers out of existance but not hold the general population's feet to the fire? Maybe you will finally feel what the smokers feel.....Injustice!

What if you have no choice but to drive a lot. Maybe driving a lot is your job. As a consultant, I drive from client to client and can spend $600 on gas a month. Is it ok to tax me and millions of other people out of a job?


Hey man, I'm all for taxing gas use more. Something has to pay for the military presence in the gulf that is a direct result of the dependency on oil. The chances of that happening? Well, I have a better chance of winning the lotto.
That's because you arent smart.

Show me a direct correlation between military presence and oil dependance.

The military has no bearing on us being dependant on oil - we are dependant because everyone has a car - some people multiple cars. This website is basically devoted to a group of men who exemplify that excess.

[mookie2001]

I don't know what it is...but...

when gas prices rise

it costs more money!


i couldnt have said it better myself


and mannys pretty sharp 2pac

[Clandestino]

i remember living in california in 1995 and paying 1.50-1.60.. 10 years later paying 2.10 is not that bad...

[mookie2001]

i remember 88 cents during the 1997 summer price wars on Bandera, in SAN ANTONIO TX

[Cant_Be_Faded]

one time, the ghetto heb was having a price war with a diamond shamrock across the street and i swear it went as low as 79 cents just for one day and there were cars lining up around the corner of the street

[2pac]

i couldnt have said it better myself


and mannys pretty sharp 2pac

I've known manny a few years. Just ribbin on him.

[MannyIsGod]

That's because you arent smart.


Or because you didn't understand what I wrote?



Show me a direct correlation between military presence and oil dependance.

The military has no bearing on us being dependant on oil - we are dependant because everyone has a car - some people multiple cars. This website is basically devoted to a group of men who exemplify that excess.


What I was saying was we have to patrol the Persian Gulf region because of our dependence on oil. That dependence is due in large part to the American love affair with the car. People will drive all over the place without a second thought because of the cheapness of gas. However, the security of the oil that is used to make that gas is very expensive. The people that drive the most and should carry a larger burden of paying for the security of the resource they are using.

It's not a concept that is unfair in the least, but it never has a chance of hell of being put into effect. No, talk about raising gas prices and you are assuring yourself of losing votes faster than if you start a bad war.

[Clandestino]

you use products that are trucked in manny... so, whether you drive or not, you are also part of the problem you speak of..

[Guru of Nothing]

you use products that are trucked in manny... so, whether you drive or not, you are also part of the problem you speak of..

If the Minutemen started shooting truckers on the southernmost stretch of I-35 ....


nevermind, bad thought

[MannyIsGod]

you use products that are trucked in manny... so, whether you drive or not, you are also part of the problem you speak of..
Well no shit. But you miss two points.

First, if there was a higher gas tax, the price of shipping those goods would go up, and in turn the price of the good. That would in turn appply the appropriate funding for the military in the gulf. The theory still holds.

Secondly, there is a big difference in being part of the cycle in an efficent manner and an unessecary wasteful manner. We all use oil in many ways each day, but you're going to tell me that the person who uses public transportation or drives a fuel efficent vehicle carries as much burden as someone who drives a Hummer with one passenger?

I'd love to see you justify that.

[MannyIsGod]

Oh, and before you give me crap about the economic impact of a gas tax that would be used to fund the military in the gulf that supports it....

Think about how much of the income tax currently goes torwards that same function,and think how much we would be able to scale it back.

However, politicians aren't going to start holding people accountable the way they should now are they?

[3rdCoast]

I drive a lot. I spend between $80-$120 in gas a week.

[Nbadan]

We are well on our way to the $4 per gallon I predicted a year ago

http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/05/193_gas.jpg

[iminlakerland]

i remember living in california in 1995 and paying 1.50-1.60.. 10 years later paying 2.10 is not that bad...


Actually in the mid 90's in the san fernando valley my mom was paying on average maybe $1.15 for unleaded gas. Now the cheapest you will find is $2.48 it has more than doubled in 10 years. Not sure what part of Cali you lived in but those gas prices are inflated.

[Nbadan]

Now let's take a look at what some of those Republicans had to say in 2000, when gas was around a full dollar cheaper per gallon than it is today:

Rep. Terry Everett: "The Clinton Administration has failed in its duty to develop a policy to deal with our national energy supply and is therefore directly accountable for the higher prices Americans are now paying at the gas pumps."

Dennis Hastert: "House Speaker Dennis Hastert accused the Clinton administration Friday of misleading members of Congress about the causes of skyrocketing gas prices in the Midwest."

Rep. Wally Herger: "Congressman Wally Herger recently denounced the Clinton-Gore Administration's complacency during the current gas price crisis. 'Northern Californians are being held hostage at the gas pump,' Herger said. 'The Clinton-Gore Administration has demonstrated a complete and total lack of leadership in preventing this problem. It is a clear failure of domestic and foreign policy.'"

Larry Kudlow: "The Clinton-Gore administration’s hapless and incoherent management of foreign policy is nowhere as evident as in their bungling on OPEC’s oil-price hike. ... While crude oil prices could drop to $25 per barrel, they will stay well above the average $20 real price of oil registered over the past ten years. And way above the $10 worldwide average marginal cost of producing new oil. Meanwhile gas prices at the pump are likely to be upwards of $2 per gallon well into the summer."

Glenn Spencer: "In recent weeks, gas prices have surged to their highest level in a decade. Prices for home heating oil and natural gas are expected to rise by about 30 percent this winter. ... With the Clinton-Gore administration's policies largely to blame for the pain being felt by consumers, Vice President Gore's camp has pulled out all the stops to shift blame away from his own administration."

Various Repubs: "Representatives Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Menomonee Falls), Tom Petri (R-Fond du Lac), Paul Ryan (R-Janesville), and Mark Green (R-Green Bay) today blasted Energy Secretary Bill Richardson and the Clinton-Gore Administration for their failure to implement a comprehensive energy policy to deal with staggering gas prices Wisconsin consumers continue to face at the pumps."

So, gas is about 60-75% per gallon more at the pump and oil is about 100% more per barrel than it was when these moaning minnies were whining about how much Bill Clinton and Al Gore sucked, but now George W. Bush is the president - why, his shit don't stink. Perhaps they're still waiting for him to "jawbone" OPEC? Either that or they don't care about gas prices now that he's, y'know, got the gays on the run.

[2pac]

Is it possible that the action or lack of action years ago is what is coming to bite us in the butt now?

[Spurminator]

We are well on our way to the $4 per gallon I predicted a year ago

Don't start patting yourself on the back, Dan... we all remember you predicted a $4 gallon by the end of 2004. ;)

[Clandestino]

Actually in the mid 90's in the san fernando valley my mom was paying on average maybe $1.15 for unleaded gas. Now the cheapest you will find is $2.48 it has more than doubled in 10 years. Not sure what part of Cali you lived in but those gas prices are inflated.

i was living in monterrey california...

[Clandestino]

Well no shit. But you miss two points.

First, if there was a higher gas tax, the price of shipping those goods would go up, and in turn the price of the good. That would in turn appply the appropriate funding for the military in the gulf. The theory still holds.

Secondly, there is a big difference in being part of the cycle in an efficent manner and an unessecary wasteful manner. We all use oil in many ways each day, but you're going to tell me that the person who uses public transportation or drives a fuel efficent vehicle carries as much burden as someone who drives a Hummer with one passenger?

I'd love to see you justify that.

just because you can't afford a car don't try to act like you are being mr. fuel efficient...

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

Remember when you complained about personal insults coming from me?

So whats the deal this time? I post something that you can't argue against, so you have to drop that?

I can afford a car (I'd be careful about talking about things you really don't know much about like that. Then again, that would really limit would you would be able to talk about, wouldn't it?), and even if I couldn't, I've never owned a car thats gotten less than 30 mpg. I've also been very enviromentaly conscious for a long time.

Anyhow, back to the what I said. No holes in it, are there?

[Opinionater]

IMHO, hybrid cars are the way to go.

[Clandestino]

Well no shit. But you miss two points.

First, if there was a higher gas tax, the price of shipping those goods would go up, and in turn the price of the good. That would in turn appply the appropriate funding for the military in the gulf. The theory still holds.

Secondly, there is a big difference in being part of the cycle in an efficent manner and an unessecary wasteful manner. We all use oil in many ways each day, but you're going to tell me that the person who uses public transportation or drives a fuel efficent vehicle carries as much burden as someone who drives a Hummer with one passenger?

I'd love to see you justify that.

who knows where the money would be used... you are guessing the gas tax would be used for the military... just a guess though...

as far as the second point.. that man that drives the hummer probably adds more to the economy than the guy driving the honda civic... also, if gas is taxed for the military then the hummer driver would do more for the economy bc he will be generating additional revenue by guzzling more gas.. therefore, there would not be an incentive to drive fuel efficient cars.

[Ishta]

I for one am very fortunate.. I don't drive to work.. My commute is down the stairs and across a small parking lot. Most of my driving involves taking kids to school, picking up, and errands... So I can't bitch too much. Now my husband on the other hand just filled his work truck up for 75.00 OUCH!!

[MannyIsGod]

who knows where the money would be used... you are guessing the gas tax would be used for the military... just a guess though...

Even if it went to pay for something else, that free's up funds form an income tax, and taxes users of a service which is obviously costing us tax dollars. It really doesn't matter what you spend hte money on, because the new money being generated can free up income tax money either way. I simply use the military as a reference because there is a direct cost from an our oil usage.

Nobody is proposing it, and it's not going to happen, but the theory is sound.



as far as the second point.. that man that drives the hummer probably adds more to the economy than the guy driving the honda civic...


On what grounds?



also, if gas is taxed for the military then the hummer driver would do more for the economy bc he will be generating additional revenue by guzzling more gas.. therefore, there would not be an incentive to drive fuel efficient cars.
Uh, wtf? Only in a world where the largest motivator is the general economy over your own personal costs. Are you trying to say, that a consumer is going to spend more money on gas because he feels he's helping the economy?

RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT. Higher costs push development torwards other atlernatives because higher costs are unwanted.

[Clandestino]

On what grounds? the purchase of a hummer alone brings in thousands more in taxes than does the purchase of a civic.. also, if a guy is able to buy a hummer he most likely purchases other high end products and services...



Uh, wtf? Only in a world where the largest motivator is the general economy over your own personal costs. Are you trying to say, that a consumer is going to spend more money on gas because he feels he's helping the economy?

RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT. Higher costs push development torwards other atlernatives because higher costs are unwanted.

if you tax gas for the military and then people stop driving, then what? how do we fund the military?

[tsb2000]

soon price creep starts effecting the costs of production and transportation of retailers for durable and non-durable goods, and it won't be just gas that we will all be paying more - its inflationary.

This is a fact. The cost of oil affects everything in the supply chain, regardless of industry.

Also, the largest reason for the increase is the (permanent) shift in the global demand curve caused by a rapidly developing China. No single solution is going to solve the problem of gas prices in neither the near nor long term.

[Useruser666]

Amen!

[mookie2001]

if a guy is able to buy a hummer he most likely purchases other high end products and services...


dam we should all get hummers
people who drive hummers are better americans than you and me

[Useruser666]

dam we should all get hummers
people who drive hummers are better americans than you and me

If they buy the H1s. The H2s are complete wastes.

[mookie2001]

no if they have onstar* that only comes on the h2
then its like theyre giving big brother oral sex

[Useruser666]

You can get H1s with diesel though. Plus they are really meant to go offroad. IE - They don't have running boards.

[MannyIsGod]

H2's are nothing but super SUV's for people that have to have them. There is nothing you "need" an H2 for. NOTHING.

If you really want something to go offroad, or use on a ranch, the last thing you are going to get is a fucking H2.


India and China have driven up the cost of oil, but not all that much. Especialy when you consider that they are much more coal based than they are oil based economies.

[MannyIsGod]

the purchase of a hummer alone brings in thousands more in taxes than does the purchase of a civic.. also, if a guy is able to buy a hummer he most likely purchases other high end products and services...

Ok, he also places a higher burden on the economy with his inefficent vehicle that drives up gas prices. Also, the taxes are on the state and local level, not federal, therefor have no positive impact on federal budget items, such as the military



if you tax gas for the military and then people stop driving, then what? how do we fund the military?
In other ways, but we'll have no reason to be in the Persian Gulf and thereby reducing the need for patrols in the area, and thereby cutting military costs.

[cherylsteele]

I personally think it is price gouging by the oil companies.....I never hear of the big oil companies have financial difficulties......if they were to keep the prices down around $1.50 they still would make money......instead of $2-3 billion, they would only make $1-2 billion...pity they may go broke.......not in my lifetime......I own a Hyundai Accent....decent mileage....keep up regular maintainance.

[MannyIsGod]

It's not price gouging. The demand worldwide simply continues to go up, even here in the United States. More drivers are on the road now than ever before, and the collective efficency of vehicles is actually sliding DOWN, not rising.

In otherwords, we're becoming much more inefficent with a supply that is not growing. That only serves to drive up demand.

[Useruser666]

China has increased the demand for oil bigtime.

And on a side note:

http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm


Middle East Supply Interruptions

Yom Kippur War - Arab Oil Embargo
In 1972 the price of crude oil was about $3.00 per barrel and by the end of 1974 the price of oil had quadrupled to over $12.00. The Yom Kippur War started with an attack on Israel by Syria and Egypt on October 5, 1973. The United States and many countries in the western world showed strong support for Israel. As a result of this support several Arab exporting nations imposed an embargo on the countries supporting Israel. Arab nations curtailed production by 5 million barrels per day (MMBPD) about 1 MMBPD was made up by increased production in other countries. The net loss of 4 MMBPD extended through March of 1974 and represented 7 percent of the free world production.

If there was any doubt that the ability to control crude oil prices had passed from the United States to OPEC it was removed during the Arab Oil Embargo. The extreme sensitivity of prices to supply shortages became all too apparent when prices increased 400 percent in six short months.

From 1974 to 1978 world crude oil prices were relatively flat ranging from $12.21 per barrel to $13.55 per barrel. When adjusted for inflation the prices were constant over this period of time.

Crises in Iran and Iraq
Events in Iran and Iraq led to another round of crude oil price increases in 1979 and 1980. The Iranian revolution resulted in the loss of 2 to 2.5 million barrels of oil per day between November of 1978 and June of 1979. In 1980 as a result of the Iran/Iraq War, Iraq's crude oil production fell 2.7 MMBPD and Iran's production fell 600,000 barrels per day. The combination of these two events resulted in crude oil prices more than doubling from $14 in 1978 to $35 per barrel in 1981.
U.S. and World Events and Oil Prices 1973-1981
Middle East, OPEC and Crude Oil Prices 1947-1973
Click on graph for larger view
US Oil Price Controls - Bad Policy?
The rapid increase in crude prices in this period would have been much less were it not for United States energy policy during the post Embargo period. The US imposed price controls on domestically produced oil in an attempt to lessen the impact of the 1973-74 price increase. The obvious result of the price controls was that U.S. consumers of crude oil paid 48 percent more for imports than domestic production. Of course U.S producers received less.

Did the policy achieve its goal? In the short term the recession induced by the 1973-1974 crude oil price rise was less. However, it had other effects as well. In the absence of price controls U.S. exploration and production would certainly have been significantly greater. The higher prices faced by consumers would have resulted in lower rates of consumption: automobiles would have had higher mileage sooner, homes and commercial buildings would have been better insulated and improvements in industrial energy efficiency would have been greater than they were during this period. As a consequence, the United States would have been less dependent on imports in 1979-1980 and the price increase in response to Iranian and Iraqi supply interruptions would have been significantly less.

US Oil Price Controls 1973-1981
US Price Controls 1973-1981 Refiners Aquisition Cost of Crude Oil
Click on graph for larger view
OPEC's Failure to Control Crude Oil Prices
OPEC has seldom been effective at controlling prices. While often referred to as one OPEC does not satisfy the definition of a cartel. One of the primary requirements is a mechanism to enforce member quotas. During the 1979-1980 period of rapidly increasing prices, Saudi Arabia's oil minister Ahmed Yamani repeatedly warned other members of OPEC that high prices would lead to a reduction in demand. His warnings fell on deaf ears. The rapid price increases caused several reactions among consumers: better insulation in new homes, increased insulation in many older homes, more energy efficiency in industrial processes, and automobiles with higher mileage.
These factors along with a global recession caused a reduction in demand which led to falling crude prices. Unfortunately for OPEC only the global recession was temporary. Nobody rushed to remove insulation from their homes or to replace energy efficient plants and equipment -- much of the reaction to the oil price increase of the end of the decade was permanent and would not respond to lower prices with increased demand for oil.

From 1982 to 1985 OPEC attempted to set production quotas low enough to stabilize prices. These attempts met with repeated failure as various members of OPEC would produce beyond their quotas. During most of this period Saudi Arabia acted as the swing producer cutting its production to stem the free falling prices. In August of 1985, the Saudis tired of this roll. They linked their oil prices to the spot market for crude and by early 1986 increased production from 2 MMBPD to 5 MMBPD. Crude oil prices plummeted below $10 per barrel by mid year.

A December 1986 OPEC price accord set to target $18 per barrel was already breaking down by January of 1987. Prices remained weak. The price of crude oil spiked in 1990 with the uncertainty associated Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and the ensuing Gulf War, but following the war crude oil prices entered a steady decline until in 1994 inflation adjusted prices attained their lowest level since 1973.


World Events and Crude Oil Prices 1981-1998
World Events and Crude Oil Prices 1981-1998
Click on graph for larger view
The price cycle then turned up. The United States economy was strong and the Asian Pacific region was booming. From 1990 to 1997 world oil consumption increased 6.2 million barrels per day. Asian consumption accounted for all but 300,000 barrels per day of that gain and contributed to the price recovery that extended into 1997.

The price increases came to a rapid end when the impact of the economic crisis in Asia was either ignored or severely underestimated by OPEC. In December, 1997 OPEC increased its quota 2.5 million barrels per day (10 percent) to 27.5 MMBPD effective January 1, 1998. The rapid growth in Asian economies had come to a halt and in 1998 Asain Pacific oil consumption declined for the first time since 1982. The combination of lower consumption and higher OPEC production sent prices into a downward spiral In response OPEC cut quotas by 1.25 million b/d in April and 1.335 million in July. Price continued down through December 1998. Prices began to recover in early 1999 as OPEC reduced prices another 1.719 million barels in April 1999.

[MannyIsGod]

Have any figures on China?

Besides, when talking about demand with gas prices, it's important to focus on the gas and not oil. There is plenty of oil, but the companies can't refine it fast enough which is what is really lowering the supply for gas and thereby driving up the cost.

In other words, even if China has driven up the cost of oil, it's not making the prices rise as much as higher demand and lower supply of actual gasoline.

[Useruser666]

Uh, if oil goes up gas goes up. Sure there is problems with limited refining, but has the demand for gasoline gone up 25-35% in the last year? But has the price of oil gone up? See the correlation?

[Useruser666]

I haven't verfied the China numbers. It's what I have been hearing from industry sources.

[Clandestino]

oil and gas prices are related as much as manny would like argue otherwise... if you have 2 barrels of oil and one costs $25 and the other $58.. the second barrel of oil is going to produce a gas that is more expensive...

and china has a lot to do with the price of oil...

[mookie2001]

anyway i'm saving up to buy one of those civic hybrids
all i need is like, however much they cost, more

[MannyIsGod]

Uh, if oil goes up gas goes up. Sure there is problems with limited refining, but has the demand for gasoline gone up 25-35% in the last year? But has the price of oil gone up? See the correlation?
Chris and Clandestino, seriously, reading comprehension is a beautiful thing.



Besides, when talking about demand with gas prices, it's important to focus on the gas and not oil. There is plenty of oil, but the companies can't refine it fast enough which is what is really lowering the supply for gas and thereby driving up the cost.

In other words, even if China has driven up the cost of oil, it's not making the prices rise as much as higher demand and lower supply of actual gasoline.

Yes, as the price of oil goes up, so does the price of gas because you need to purchase oil to make gas. But there is the added variable of how fast you can actualy make the gas. Right now, the gas supply is not meeting the demand because of the fact that companies can't refine the oil fast enough.

So while yes, the record oil prices are driving up gas prices, a much larger factor in driving up those gas prices is the supply shortage because of refining capacity.

Are you following?

[MannyIsGod]

oil and gas prices are related as much as manny would like argue otherwise... if you have 2 barrels of oil and one costs $25 and the other $58.. the second barrel of oil is going to produce a gas that is more expensive...

and china has a lot to do with the price of oil...

It's frustrating when I type something out in plain English, and you read something I never said. Find me where I said that an increase in oil prices would not cause an increase in gas prices.

[Clandestino]

and why is one of the reasons there is an oil or gas shortage??? INCREASED DEMAND IN MOTHERFUCKING CHINA has played a part!

[MannyIsGod]

Gas shortage does not equal oil shortage. You aren't seperating the 2. There are shortages of both, but there is a larger shortage of gas when compared to the corresponding oil shortage.

To make it simpler, if we had a larger refining capacity we'd be able to drop the price of gas even if the supply of oil didn't change.

I acknowledged that China has played a part, but it's not as large as the lack of refinnig ability.

[The Ressurrected One]

Gas shortage does not equal oil shortage. You aren't seperating the 2. There are shortages of both, but there is a larger shortage of gas when compared to the corresponding oil shortage.

To make it simpler, if we had a larger refining capacity we'd be able to drop the price of gas even if the supply of oil didn't change.

I acknowledged that China has played a part, but it's not as large as the lack of refinnig ability.
You're partly right however, if the environmentalists would get off industry's back, we'd have plenty of refining capability.

[Clandestino]

Gas shortage does not equal oil shortage. You aren't seperating the 2. There are shortages of both, but there is a larger shortage of gas when compared to the corresponding oil shortage.

so, you're telling me that even if oil was at $25 a gallon, gas prices in the us would still be at 2 bux now? I say bull-fucking-shit...


To make it simpler, if we had a larger refining capacity we'd be able to drop the price of gas even if the supply of oil didn't change.

I acknowledged that China has played a part, but it's not as large as the lack of refinnig ability.

oh, so if we had the refining capacity, but no oil to even refine gas would be cheaper? stfu!!! where do you come up with this logic?

[MannyIsGod]

You're partly right however, if the environmentalists would get off industry's back, we'd have plenty of refining capability.
Yeah, but then there would probably be a lot more pollution as well. I'm not one to trust the industry to police itself, it doesn't have a great trackrecord.

Also, I don't think the longterm solution is in oil to begin with, so increased refining is an expensive short term solution. I think that refiners realize this, or else with refinine margins what they are today, Valero and the like would have at least built a new refinery or 2.

[MannyIsGod]

so, you're telling me that even if oil was at $25 a gallon, gas prices in the us would still be at 2 bux now? I say bull-fucking-shit...

No, thats not what I said. If the price of oil dropped, there would be a gas price drop.

Exactly what part of me saying there is a direct corolation between the price of oil and gas do you not understand?



oh, so if we had the refining capacity, but no oil to even refine gas would be cheaper? stfu!!! where do you come up with this logic?
There is more oil avaible than can be refined right now. The words oil shortage are misleading. There is a lower supply and a higher demand, but it is not a shortage in the sense of that you can't get oil.

There is more oil avaiable than can be refined at the moment. So, once again, if the refinnig capacity were to increase there would be oil there to accomadate that which would increase the supply of gasoline. By increasing the supply of gas, you'd drop the price.

Seriously, it's not that complex.

[Clandestino]

Gas shortage does not equal oil shortage. You aren't seperating the 2. There are shortages of both, but there is a larger shortage of gas when compared to the corresponding oil shortage.


you said it yourself.. there are SHORTAGES OF BOTH! so, regardless of the refining capacity there is STILL A SHORTAGE OF OIL!!!

[SpursWoman]

In case no one in this thread mentioned it, oil is a major ingredient in PLASTIC.


Raise your hand if you or anyone you know use anything made out of that stuff, or know what it can be used in/for.

It's not just transporation. Many plastic injection molders in the country, for example, folded and sent their jobs overseas, where the cheaper labor made up for the hike in the cost of oil...which drastically increased the cost of manufacturing the plastic resin. I was one of those people. :(

It's not just a matter of your daily commute.

[mookie2001]

plastic is found in quattro razors

[SpursWoman]

I {heart} Quatro razors.


:lmao :lmao :lmao

[The Ressurrected One]

Yeah, but then there would probably be a lot more pollution as well. I'm not one to trust the industry to police itself, it doesn't have a great trackrecord.

Also, I don't think the longterm solution is in oil to begin with, so increased refining is an expensive short term solution. I think that refiners realize this, or else with refinine margins what they are today, Valero and the like would have at least built a new refinery or 2.
Then you gets what you gets.

And, I disagree with your second statement. Environmental concerns have choked the incentive out of new refining capacity. They've damn near made it impossible to maintain existing refining capacity.


In case no one in this thread mentioned it, oil is a major ingredient in PLASTIC.

Raise your hand if you or anyone you know use anything made out of that stuff, or know what it can be used in/for.

It's not just transporation. Many plastic injection molders in the country, for example, folded and sent their jobs overseas, where the cheaper labor made up for the hike in the cost of oil...which drastically increased the cost of manufacturing the plastic resin. I was one of those people.

It's not just a matter of your daily commute.
Point taken and a good illustration of just how embedded we are in a petroleum-based economy and why it is in our national and security interests to insure a continued supply of oil.

[MannyIsGod]

you said it yourself.. there are SHORTAGES OF BOTH! so, regardless of the refining capacity there is STILL A SHORTAGE OF OIL!!!
:lmao

God, I don't know how else to explain it to you. I give up.

[Clandestino]

In case no one in this thread mentioned it, oil is a major component in PLASTIC.


Raise your hand if you or anyone you know use anything made out of that stuff, or know what it can be used in/for.

It's not just transporation. Many plastic injection molders in the country, for example, folded and sent their jobs overseas, where the cheaper labor made up for the hike in the cost of oil...which drastically increased the cost of manufacturing the plastic resin. I was one of those people. :(

It's not just a matter of your daily commute.

ohhhh...nice one... and all those polyester shirts manny wears too are made from petroleum products!

[MannyIsGod]

In case no one in this thread mentioned it, oil is a major ingredient in PLASTIC.


Raise your hand if you or anyone you know use anything made out of that stuff, or know what it can be used in/for.

It's not just transporation. Many plastic injection molders in the country, for example, folded and sent their jobs overseas, where the cheaper labor made up for the hike in the cost of oil...which drastically increased the cost of manufacturing the plastic resin. I was one of those people. :(

It's not just a matter of your daily commute.
That is rather interesting. It's my understanding that oil refined into gas is the largest percentage of what is done with the oil in our economy. Thats why the the figures having to do with mpg and the importation of forgein oil.

I'll look for some raw data later on tonight, I'm sure it's readily available.

[The Ressurrected One]

ohhhh...nice one... and all those polyester shirts manny wears too are made from petroleum products!
Don't forget pocket protectors and slide rules.

...and condoms.

[MannyIsGod]

ohhhh...nice one... and all those polyester shirts manny wears too are made from petroleum products!
:lmao I support cotten farmers more often than not thank you very much.

[Clandestino]

Petroleum Products Yielded from
One Barrel of Crude, 2000
Product Gallons
Finished Motor Gasoline 19.69

Distillate Fuel Oil 9.70
Kero-Type Jet Fuel 3.99
Residual Fuel Oil 1.76
Still Gas 1.89
Petroleum Coke 2.14
Liquefied Refinery Gas 1.76
Asphalt and Road Oil 1.34
Naptha for Feedstocks 0.63
Other Oils for Feedstocks 0.50
Lubricants 0.46
Special Naphthas 0.13
Kerosene 0.17
Miscellaneous Products 0.17
Finished Aviation Gasoline 0.04
Waxes 0.04

Total 44.41

[Clandestino]

:lmao I support cotten farmers more often than not thank you very much.

sheepskin condoms too i presume?!!! :lol

[MannyIsGod]

So about 40 of the oil we bring in is used for gasoline?

[mookie2001]

quattro razors 0.0001

[Clandestino]

One barrel of crude oil, when refined, produces 19.9 gallons of finished motor gasoline, as well as other petroleum products. Most of the petroleum products are used to produce energy. For instance, many people across the United States use propane to heat their homes and fuel their cars. Other products made from petroleum include: ink, crayons, bubble gum, dishwashing liquids, deodorant, eyeglasses, records, tires, ammonia, and heart valves.

[SpursWoman]

That is rather interesting. It's my understanding that oil refined into gas is the largest percentage of what is done with the oil in our economy. Thats why the the figures having to do with mpg and the importation of forgein oil.

I'll look for some raw data later on tonight, I'm sure it's readily available.


I'm not sure what percentage of a barrel of crude is specifically designated for plastics manufacturing, but I do know the percentage increase in resin cost is directly proportional to the increase cost per barrel. We told Dell we'd have to increase the price on monitor covers, etc. to compensate for the increase cost of resin, and they said, "Okay, now GTFO. We're moving our molding to our plant in Malaysia."

:)

[MannyIsGod]

One barrel of crude oil, when refined, produces 19.9 gallons of finished motor gasoline, as well as other petroleum products. Most of the petroleum products are used to produce energy. For instance, many people across the United States use propane to heat their homes and fuel their cars. Other products made from petroleum include: ink, crayons, bubble gum, dishwashing liquids, deodorant, eyeglasses, records, tires, ammonia, and heart valves. And a barrel is 44 gallons. So 19/44 is over 40%.

So the largest use for imported oil (by far) would be gasoline. Therefore, cutting back gasoline usage would be the easiest, fastest, and most efficent way to reduce dependency on oil, especialy forgien oil.

Edit - it's 43%

[MannyIsGod]

I'm not sure what percentage of a barrel of crude is specifically designated for plastics manufacturing, but I do know the percentage increase in resin cost is directly proportional to the increase cost per barrel. We told Dell we'd have to increase the price on monitor covers, etc. to compensate for the increase cost of resin, and they said, "Okay, now GTFO. We're moving our molding to our plant in Malaysia."

:) Yeah, that makes sense. The cost of the end product would be directly porportional to the cost of the starting product.

What I was trying to explain to Clandestino was that even though that is the case there may be other factors in the product manufacturing (the refining in gasolines example) that can have a greater impact on a price increase.

Man, actualy, the example you gave is also a great parallel. Maylasia has to pay the same for oil, but because of cheaper abor, thereby allowing them to produce a cheaper petroleum based product.

[hunter-thereckoning]

Gas Is Expensive Man

[SpursWoman]

Yeah, that makes sense. The cost of the end product would be directly porportional to the cost of the starting product.

What I was trying to explain to Clandestino was that even though that is the case there may be other factors in the product manufacturing (the refining in gasolines example) that can have a greater impact on a price increase.

Man, actualy, the example you gave is also a great parallel. Maylasia has to pay the same for oil, but because of cheaper abor, thereby allowing them to produce a cheaper petroleum based product.


But plastic can be recycled, too. Another way to be environmentally friendly and help (even to a miniscule degree) cut back on oil demand.

:)

[Nbadan]

You're partly right however, if the environmentalists would get off industry's back, we'd have plenty of refining capability

While we do have a refining problem, as ANWAR has proven, I think the environment is the last thing that will ever come into consideration for politicians and private businesses in the U.S. if we didn't have these protections. Besides, why can't we subsidize our refining needs to other countries like Mexico that have less enviromental regulations like we out-source our jobs?

[Nbadan]

The real reason that no one is building more refineries, by the way, isn't only because its costs prohibitive, or because of environmental protections as many here have contended, but also because we are past Peak Oil - the point where the world is running out of cheap oil.

[Nbadan]

US Appears to Have Fought War for Oil and Lost It
By Ian Rutledge
The Financial Times
Monday 11 April 2005

From Dr. Ian Rutledge.


Sir, Your recent report that oil prices have reached an all-time nominal high and that Goldman Sachs has suggested the possibility of a "super spike" in prices to as high as $105 per barrel ("Crude at all-time high despite Opec's efforts", April 5) should be of no surprise to anyone who has studied the informed opinions of US energy experts in the period leading up to the invasion of Iraq. Nor, for that matter, to anyone who has seen my own observations on future world oil prices in my recent book Addicted to Oil.

In a crucial report to President George W. Bush by the US Council on Foreign Relations in April 2001, the president was warned that: "As the 21st century opens, the energy sector is in a critical condition. A crisis could erupt at any time . . . Theworld is currently close to utilising all of its available global oil production capacity, raising the chances of an oil supply crisis with more substantial consequences than seen in three decades."

With US oil consumption in 2001 at an all-time high (19.7m b/d), import penetration at 53 per cent, and dependence on Arabian Gulf oil also at an all-time record (14.1 per cent of total US domestic and foreign supplies), the council stated that it was absolutely imperative that "political factors do not block the development of new oil fields in the Gulf" and that "the Department of State, together with the National Security Council" should "develop a strategic plan to encourage reopening to foreign investment in the important states of the Middle East".

But while the council argued that "there is no question that this investment is vitally important to US interests" it also acknowledged that "there is strong opposition to any such opening among key segments of the Saudi and Kuwaiti populations".

However, there was an alternative. In the words of ESA Inc (Boston), the US's leading energy security analysts: "One of the best things for our supply security would be liberate Iraq"; words echoed by William Kristol, the Republican party ideologist, in testimony to the House Subcommittee on the Middle East on May 22 2002 that as far as oil was concerned, "Iraq is more important than Saudi Arabia".

So when, according to the former head of ExxonMobil's Gulf operations, "Iraqi exiles approached us saying, you can have our oil if we can get back in there", the Bush administration decided to use its overwhelming military might to create a pliant - and dependable - oil protectorate in the Middle East and achieve that essential "opening" of the Gulf oilfields.

But in the words of another US oil company executive, "it all turned out a lot more complicated than anyone had expected". Instead of the anticipated post-invasion rapid expansion of Iraqi production (an expectation of an additional 2m b/d entering the world market by now), the continuing violence of the insurgency has prevented Iraqi exports from even recovering to pre-invasion levels.

In short, the US appears to have fought a war for oil in the Middle East, and lost it. The consequences of that defeat are now plain for all to see.

News.FT.com (http://news.ft.com/cms/s/a0bb7970-aa25-11d9-aa38-00000e2511c8.html)

[MannyIsGod]

Gas prices seen peaking in May
Drivers hit by surging crude prices, strong demand

Fueled by strong demand and surging crude oil prices, the average price of gasoline price in the U.S. is expected to rise to $2.35 in May and then ease, according to the government's annual forecast for the summer driving season.
American drivers will burn through an average 9.3 million barrels per day of gasoline this summer -- up 1.8 percent from last year, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. That would be higher than the five-year average, the agency said.

"Refiner output increases are not expected to keep up with demand growth due to limited growth in refinery capacity," the report said.

Imports will have to make up the difference, rising 4.7 percent from last year. About 10 percent of U.S. gasoline demandis currently met by imports.

But those foreign supplies "may be harder to obtain than in previous summers and are expected to be costly," the EIA warned.

getCSS("3088867");

Predicting a summer rise in gasoline prices is a little like forecasting a heat wave in August. While it’s almost certain to happen, it’s all but impossible to know just when and how bad it will be. Last year at this time,the government forecast summer gas prices would hit $1.81 before backing down. In fact, summer prices eventually peaked at just over $2 a gallon.

Pump prices on the West Coast have already hit an average of $2.40 a gallon (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/wrgp/mogas_home_page.html). (Prices of refined products are generally higher west of the Rockies because of added transportation costs; there aren't enough refineries locally to meet demand.) Prices are lowest in Texas, home of the biggest concentration of refineries, where gas is still selling for just under $2 a gallon. [Correction: As of the week of April 4, the lowest gas price recorded by EIA was in Houston, at $2.08 a gallon]

Nationwide, the national average price of unleaded regular this week hit $2.22 a gallon, up from $1.78 a year ago, according to EIA. And some analysts are already forecasting price will move higher than the EIA's summer forecast.

“Barring a reversal (of the run-up in crude prices), a jump in the retail pump price to $2.45 a gallon by Memorial Day — the traditional start of the summer driving season and the traditional seasonal peak for gasoline prices — now seems likely,” Morgan Stanley chief economist Richard Berner wrote in a report this week.

Motorists and businesses aren't the only ones who are feeling the squeeze from higher pump prices. The relentless rise in energy costs is beginning to put pressure on Congress and the White House. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, on Capitol Hill Tuesday to meet with legislators about the administration's long-stalled energy bill, said the White House is working to speed construction of new refineries and spur investment in alternate energy sources.

The Bush administration plans to allow oil companies to drill in areas off the Florida coast (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7407615/) that are currently off-limits beginning in 2007. Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., on Wednesday proposed legislation that would give governors the power to open some or all of their states’ offshore lands restricted by federal moratoria.

But Bodman said there is little Congress or the White House can do to ease higher energy prices in the short term.

“There is nothing of which I’m aware,” he told CNBC.

Usual suspects
The rise in gasoline prices can be traced to most of the usual suspects, especially the surging price of crude oil, which recently hit $58 a barrel before backing a few dollars by Tuesday’s close.

“Around this time last year we were at about $35 a barrel, so you’re looking at a $20 difference in oil prices year over year,” said Jacques Rousseau, an analyst who follows the oil refining industry at Friedman, Billings, Ramsey in Houston. “So about 50 cents of today’s gas price represent the increase in crude prices since last year.”

Oil consumption typically dips this time of year between the peak demands of winter heating and summer driving in the northern hemisphere. But with global demand closer than ever to production capacity, U.S. oil prices have surged by more than 30 percent this year. A Goldman Sachs analyst last week predicted prices could spike above $100 a barrel.

Revving up demand
To help meet the peak demand for gasoline during the summer driving season, refiners typically begin building up inventories this time of year to head off summer shortages. Those stockpiles are currently higher than last year, but so is demand. Adjusted for that increased consumption, refiners have stockpiled just 24.5 days worth of demand, just slightly ahead of the five-year low of 23.8 days for this time of year, which was hit last spring, according to Rousseau.

“It’s not like anybody is holding back production,” said Rousseau. “(Refiners) are operating at 90-plus utilization rates and producing as much product as they can.

With refiners running near maximum capacity, any production cutbacks for maintenance or accidents would likely further tighten supplies. An explosion last month at a Texas BP refinery (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7286426/), the nation’s third largest, killed 15 people and severely damaged some refining equipment. But company officials have said production cuts will be less than 5 percent.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7407519/

[Useruser666]

And a barrel is 44 gallons. So 19/44 is over 40%.

So the largest use for imported oil (by far) would be gasoline. Therefore, cutting back gasoline usage would be the easiest, fastest, and most efficent way to reduce dependency on oil, especialy forgien oil.

Edit - it's 43%

Uh, problem with your math. The number of gallons in a barrel of oil are not equal
to the number of gallons of gas refined from that barrel.

A rough example:

A 44 gallon drum of oil may produce:

19 gallons of gas
11 gallons of heating oil
8 gallons of aviation fuel
5 gallons of lubricant oil
3 gallons of road oil
2 gallon of naptha
1 gallon of acetone

Notice that equals 49? The end products are a ratio of volume to the oil depending on their densities. Like in mining. It takes so many tons of ore to yield a lesser amount of iron.

[MannyIsGod]

Ok, but unless you're talking a bigger difference than that, the fact that gasoline is by far the largest percentage of a refined petroleum product stands. Even if you produce 19/49, thats still 40%

[Useruser666]

I don't believe those numbers take into account plastics.

[MannyIsGod]

Chris, so you really don't believe that Gasoline is by far the largest reason we import oil? We're about to import refined gasoline itself! Are you really disputing that?

[MannyIsGod]

PRODUCT SUPPLIED
Finished Motor Gasoline 9,069 9,075 9,095 9,089
Kerosene-Type Jet Fuel 1,737 1,712 1,530 1,535
Distillate Fuel Oil 4,415 4,234 4,233 4,248
Residual Fuel Oil 889 806 777 653
Propane/Propylene 1,450 1,173 1,189 1,160
Other Oils 3,291 3,326 3,389 3,510
Total Product Supplied 20,851 20,325 20,213 20,195

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/info_glance/gasoline.html

Thats over the past few weeks by thousands of barrels, and it breaks down everything from importation to distrobution and production across the country. And actualy, the gasoline being used in this country is more than the amount being produced each month because we are having to import it as well.

[Clandestino]

RE-FUCKING-GARDLESS, the rising price of oil plays a huge factor in our gas prices.. manny, wants to say it is only bc of the lack of refining capabilities...

[The Ressurrected One]

I don't believe those numbers take into account plastics.
:lmao

[MannyIsGod]

RE-FUCKING-GARDLESS, the rising price of oil plays a huge factor in our gas prices.. manny, wants to say it is only bc of the lack of refining capabilities...

http://www.thinkgeek.com/images/products/front/B-MAKEI_solo.gif



Yes, as the price of oil goes up, so does the price of gas because you need to purchase oil to make gas. But there is the added variable of how fast you can actualy make the gas. Right now, the gas supply is not meeting the demand because of the fact that companies can't refine the oil fast enough.

So while yes, the record oil prices are driving up gas prices, a much larger factor in driving up those gas prices is the supply shortage because of refining capacity.

Are you following?


No, thats not what I said. If the price of oil dropped, there would be a gas price drop.

Exactly what part of me saying there is a direct corolation between the price of oil and gas do you not understand?

Yeah, that makes sense. The cost of the end product would be directly porportional to the cost of the starting product.

What I was trying to explain to Clandestino was that even though that is the case there may be other factors in the product manufacturing (the refining in gasolines example) that can have a greater impact on a price increase.

Man, actualy, the example you gave is also a great parallel. Maylasia has to pay the same for oil, but because of cheaper abor, thereby allowing them to produce a cheaper petroleum based product.

You decide: Does Clandestino have the ability to read English?

[Useruser666]

:lmao

?

[The Ressurrected One]

?
It just struck me as funny...after the couple of posts from yesterday regarding the importance of petroleum products in plastics productions.

Sorry...no offense intended.

[Useruser666]

So while yes, the record oil prices are driving up gas prices, a much larger factor in driving up those gas prices is the supply shortage because of refining capacity.

I believe that is wrong Manny. I would say lack of refining capability is a factor, but it is not the driving force behind this latest price spike.

Oil has gone up sharply in price and so gas pricing has paralleled that. Unless you can point out a reason why demand has grown by such a large amount in the last few months, or why the refining capabilities have suddenly been reduced to warrant the price increase, you don't have a case.

The refining abilities have been exceeded, but it's a gradual increase in price until new production sources are put online. The price of oil is directly connected with the price of gas.

[Useruser666]

It just struck me as funny...after the couple of posts from yesterday regarding the importance of petroleum products in plastics productions.

Sorry...no offense intended.

I said they were important in regards to plastics, but I couldn't find where in any of the numbers given, what percentage of the oil demand was directed at finished plastic (petro based) goods.

[MannyIsGod]

I believe that is wrong Manny. I would say lack of refining capability is a factor, but it is not the driving force behind this latest price spike.

Oil has gone up sharply in price and so gas pricing has paralleled that. Unless you can point out a reason why demand has grown by such a large amount in the last few months, or why the refining capabilities have suddenly been reduced to warrant the price increase, you don't have a case.

The refining abilities have been exceeded, but it's a gradual increase in price until new production sources are put online. The price of oil is directly connected with the price of gas.
Refining abilities were exceed years ago. Much of the price increases over the past few years have ties with that.

Also, demand is contining to climb rapidly for a few reasons. First, we have more cars on the road now than ever. Secondly, the fuel efficency is droping. So, you have a larger consumer base, which is using more oil, while the supply isn't changing. Demand is what is driving up the cost of both gas and oil, in the same but also different ways.

As you said, China and others are driving up the cost of oil because they need more, which in turn drives up the price of gas. But then also because of a lack of refining capacity, and the increase in demand, we dont' have enough gas which drives up the price. When gas is imported because of demand, you raise the price even more because you add transportation and other costs.

In retrospect, I worded it badly however. Oil is the main driving factor in the price. However, while it is a larger part of the price, if you take the gasoline price increase and look at the causes, I think you will see that refining capacity has played a larger role in that increase than the rise in the cost of oil.

[MannyIsGod]

I said they were important in regards to plastics, but I couldn't find where in any of the numbers given, what percentage of the oil demand was directed at finished plastic (petro based) goods.
Thats probably because it's an insignifficant amount when compared to the other finished products.

[The Ressurrected One]

Well, I don't think we're gonna hit the "catastrophic" $4.00/gallon mark this time...whew!

Oil Hits 7-Week Low as Inventories Build (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050413/bs_nm/markets_oil_dc_7)

[MannyIsGod]

We're a long way from 4.00 gas, especialy when you consider how large the percentage of gas price is not even related to gas/oil. Ie, taxes.

[The Ressurrected One]

We're a long way from 4.00 gas, especialy when you consider how large the percentage of gas price is not even related to gas/oil. Ie, taxes.
I knew that...I was mocking the "Chicken Littles."

Adjusting for inflation, we'd have to have $10.00/gallon gasoline before we ever approached what I paid at the pump during the last years of that dark period known as the Carter administration.

I exaggerated, it's actually $4.68/gallon in 2005 dollars that is equivalent to the $1.45/gallon paid in 1980.

[Useruser666]

Check this site out. It has lots of info.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/gasprices/FAQ.shtml

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/gasprices/EIApump.gif

[Useruser666]

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/oil_market_basics/images/gas%20pump%2000.gif

Gasoline Prices: An Example

On a pre-tax basis, crude oil prices are the most important determinant of petroleum product prices, and often the most important factor in price changes as well. Crude oil prices reflect an overall market balance -- when crude oil prices are low, reflecting an oversupply, product prices will also be low; when crude oil prices are high, reflecting undersupply or high demand, product prices will also be high. When the price of crude oil moves up or down on a sustained basis, the change will be reflected in product markets, all other things being equal. The crude oil price increase was solely responsible for the increase in pump prices between the driving season of 1998 and the driving season of 1999, as shown in the illustration. (The illustration also demonstrates that in the low price environment of July 1998, the gasoline and other excise taxes accounted for the largest share of the price of gasoline at the pump. Taxes are discussed in a separate section.) Crude oil prices were again the largest factor in the increase between July 1999 and July 2000, accounting for about two-thirds of the increase in the pump price. In contrast, the gross retail margin -- the difference between a retail dealer's cost to purchase the gasoline and the price at which the dealer can sell the gasoline -- actually dropped by one-third between mid-1998 and mid-1999, righting itself again between mid-1999 and mid-2000. The gross refining and distribution margin stayed unchanged between mid-1998 and mid-1999, but increased between mid-1999 and mid-2000. Thus, it is useful to repeat that the price of petroleum products to consumers reflects costs plus market conditions, and those market conditions may augment or prevent a penny-for-penny passthrough of cost increases at any stage of the market.

[Useruser666]

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/oil_market_basics/images/petflow.jpg

[Useruser666]

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/oil_market_basics/images/ussectorcons.gif

Transportation does account for the largest portion of crude oil based products. But the increase in pricing is at a steady growth rate.

[Clandestino]

MOTHERFUCKER!!! millions of graphs.. i will have to check this out later!!! this is worse than school! haha

[MannyIsGod]

Good graphs, Chris. I wish they had some more up to date, but I guess If the data is out there I can find it later.

[SpursWoman]

PRODUCT SUPPLIED
Finished Motor Gasoline 9,069 9,075 9,095 9,089
Kerosene-Type Jet Fuel 1,737 1,712 1,530 1,535
Distillate Fuel Oil 4,415 4,234 4,233 4,248
Residual Fuel Oil 889 806 777 653
Propane/Propylene 1,450 1,173 1,189 1,160
Other Oils 3,291 3,326 3,389 3,510
Total Product Supplied 20,851 20,325 20,213 20,195


That's a lot of condoms. :cooldevil

[mookie2001]

QUATTRO RAZOR PRODUCT SUPPLIED
Finished Razor Motor 9,069 9,075 9,095 9,089
Kerosene-Type Quattro Fuel 1,737 1,712 1,530 1,535
Distillate Razor 4,415 4,234 4,233 4,248
Residual Quattro 889 806 777 653
Propane/Propylene/Free Promotion 1,450 1,173 1,189 1,160
Online Razor Other Oils 3,291 3,326 3,389 3,510
Total Quattro Supplied 20,851 20,325 20,213 20,195

[Useruser666]

That's a lot of condoms. :cooldevil

Or one big one.

[Useruser666]

If you would say that owning a vehicle that is not very fuel efficient is wasteful then I think several other assumptions should be made as well.

Should people use jet ski's for recreational use?

How about any boats with gas engines?

What about ATVs?

How about motor homes?

Should gas lawn mowers or other yard equipment be sold?

What about cruises on ships?

Snow mobiles?

Personal jets?

Where does one draw the line? I know some of those examples may seem extreme to some of you, but your qualifications may seem just as extreme to others.

[MannyIsGod]

Lots of those are wasteful. But none have nearly the same effect as inefficent vehicles do. It's not even debateable. The governments own reports cite dropping gas efficency.

There are plenty of things that use gas, and do so wastefully, but none come anywhere near the level of cars.

I've said it before, and the figures are out there. Bring up the MPG average of the country and you eliminate the need for forgien oil.

[MannyIsGod]

Oh, and a gas tax effects everyone equaly. You buy a gallon of gas, you pay the tax on that gallon. So someone who "wastes" more gas, would in turn pay for it.

[Useruser666]

Oh, and a gas tax effects everyone equaly. You buy a gallon of gas, you pay the tax on that gallon. So someone who "wastes" more gas, would in turn pay for it.

So then you don't need any special taxing for more wasteful vehicles right?

So it's ok to waste a little gas on something totally not needed, but if you don't use the most efficient way to drive to work, that's wrong?

[MannyIsGod]

So then you don't need any special taxing for more wasteful vehicles right?

So it's ok to waste a little gas on something totally not needed, but if you don't use the most efficient way to drive to work, that's wrong?
What are you trying to get at? Are you trying to find contradictions in what I'm saying?

I think there is a big ass difference in driving an H2 which uses 4 times as much gas as average car and using maybe 10 gallons in a year to mow your yard.

We have a military pressence in the PG which is in place to protect the supply of oil. If we didn't need that oil, we woudln't be there. Those operations (and im' not talking about Afghanistan and Iraq, I'm talking a general US preassence in the region, although the first 2 are indirectly extensions the same thing) are paid for using federal money, which comes mostly from income taxes.

So that means, Joe blow who drives a fuel efficent vehicle, is having his tax dollars go to pay for military operations that he is not as responsible for as Joe Schmoe who drives an H2.

All things being equal, if Joe Blow uses 1,000 gallons of gas in a year and Joe Schmoe uses 5,000 gallons a year, they will both pay the exact same amount torwards those operations. However, because Joe Blow only used a fifth as many gallons as Schmoe, why should he pay as much?

A higher gas tax would apply the burden appropriatly to those who use the most gas, allow reduction of income taxes, and spur development away from gasoline at a faster pace.

[Useruser666]

What are you trying to get at? Are you trying to find contradictions in what I'm saying?

I think there is a big ass difference in driving an H2 which uses 4 times as much gas as average car and using maybe 10 gallons in a year to mow your yard.

I'm not against better fuel efficiency. But who is to say what is acceptable?

We have a military pressence in the PG which is in place to protect the supply of oil. If we didn't need that oil, we woudln't be there. Those operations (and im' not talking about Afghanistan and Iraq, I'm talking a general US preassence in the region, although the first 2 are indirectly extensions the same thing) are paid for using federal money, which comes mostly from income taxes.

So that means, Joe blow who drives a fuel efficent vehicle, is having his tax dollars go to pay for military operations that he is not as responsible for as Joe Schmoe who drives an H2.

So, people who are wellfare are taking other peoples money who won't ever use it. This is a shared cost of society. If people invade Hawaii, I'm not sure I really care, but the costs to defend it are part of my resposibility. The US would still have to have a presence in the Middle East, no matter if we all would drive Insights.

All things being equal, if Joe Blow uses 1,000 gallons of gas in a year and Joe Schmoe uses 5,000 gallons a year, they will both pay the exact same amount torwards those operations. However, because Joe Blow only used a fifth as many gallons as Schmoe, why should he pay as much?

Huh? How can they pay the same amount if they are paying a tax based on the amount of gas they use? The one who uses more pays more in taxes. Joe Blow pays 1/5 the amount of Joe Schmoe, he used 1/5 the gas.


A higher gas tax would apply the burden appropriatly to those who use the most gas, allow reduction of income taxes, and spur development away from gasoline at a faster pace.

If you would look at the charts I posted again, you will see just how much we are already taxed on gas. The system is already in place to promote more fuel effiecent vehicles, there is just not a lot of choices availible to the consumer at this time.

One thing that you over look when you say current vehicles are less fuel efficient than before. Today's vehicles are much less poluting than previous generations. With more and more regulations and new types of fuels, vehicles today pollute much less than before.


Source: DOE (1997) and Intellichoice (1997)

Fuel efficiency is usually not an option

Automobile purchasing is a multi-attribute process, and there are 3 choices that consumers almost always make at an early stage:

* vehicle class
* price range
* transmission type

In other words, few buyers explicitly choose between a Suzuki Swift and a Ford Taurus. Rather, they would already have chosen a vehicle class -- in this case "subcompact" or "midsize".

While there are significant differences in fuel efficiency among vehicle classes, there is very little variation within class.

The chart below shows that for midsize cars with automatic transmissions and a MSRP of less than $21,000, fuel efficiency varies over only a few miles per gallon, with 90% of the models within a 5 mpg range. To consumers, the fuel efficiency of these models will seem virtually identical, particularly as the window stickers warn that the EPA mileage estimates are only accurate within a few mpg.


Fuel is a Small Share of Total Ownership Costs

Even when gas is more expensive, it only accounts of a small share -- typically about 10% -- of total ownership costs. For example, the 5-year ownership costs of the 1997 Ford Taurus LX 4-door sedan, a midsize "family" car, are estimated by Intellichoice to be:

Depreciation $12,225
Insurance $6,969
Financing $4,706
Maintenance $3,605
Fuel $3,482
State fees $927
Repairs $805
TOTAL $32,719

Selecting the most fuel efficient car does not necessarily minimize ownership costs. For example, while the 1997 Volkswagen Passat TDI was the most fuel efficient car in its class (midsize cars with automatic transmissions and MSRP < $21,000), its total ownership costs were rated by Intellichoice as "worse than average", as the fuel savings are dampened by lower than average resale value (which increases depreciation costs), high insurance costs, and high repair costs.

The chart below shows that in general, there is little if any relationship between fuel efficiency and total costs of ownership.

One of the main reasons overall fuel economy has decreased is the recent shift from cars to larger light trucks and SUVs. It's not that vehicles today are less fuel efficient than their ancestors, it's that a larger percentage of vehicles today have lower mpg ratings than before. I think this change will even out with rising gas prices, and more manufacturers putting emphasis on fuel economy as a selling point. Remember this has happened before and I'd bet it will happen again.

[The Ressurrected One]

As long as they don't lower the Speed Limit to 55 and start producing Dodge K cars again...

[Useruser666]

"I can't drive 55!"

[The Ressurrected One]

"I can't drive 55!"
Heard that!

[MannyIsGod]

I'm not against better fuel efficiency. But who is to say what is acceptable?
The people who pay for it when they start paying the real cost of gasoline. The real cost would include the cost of securing the supplies defense.




So, people who are wellfare are taking other peoples money who won't ever use it. This is a shared cost of society. If people invade Hawaii, I'm not sure I really care, but the costs to defend it are part of my resposibility. The US would still have to have a presence in the Middle East, no matter if we all would drive Insights.
Can you give me one good reason why we are in the middle east to begin with other than oil? Oh, I'd looooooooooooooooooooooooooove to hear the justification for this one.

No, if there was no oil there, there would be no pressence. You can argue this if you want, but I don't know of one credible source who would agree with you. The Persian Gulf is not Hawaii and the people there are not American citizens and are not our responsibility to defend, so that is also a bad comparison.

However, I guess the other comparison isn't so much of a reach. The American subsidizing of oil's defense is a form of welfare, only it's a form of welfare that doesn't provide an essential service for life. It provides it for people and companies who are more than capable of paying for it on their own. Explain to me why I should subsidize oil for a higher user?

If you can proove a society wide benefit from being on an oil based economy, I'd love to hear it. But seeing as it's the root of the wars we're now involved in and is not environmentaly friendly, I don't think you can.


If you would look at the charts I posted again, you will see just how much we are already taxed on gas.
[mQUOTE]

Not high enough. It's only high enough when the money that is brought in pays for the service, which it's not doing. The money brought in by gas taxes are not enough to pay for the military presence in the gulf.

[quote]
The system is already in place to promote more fuel effiecent vehicles, there is just not a lot of choices availible to the consumer at this time.It's not about choices. It's about the price of gas not yet being high enough to warrant an overall savings for most people with a fuel efficent vehicle.



One thing that you over look when you say current vehicles are less fuel efficient than before. Today's vehicles are much less poluting than previous generations. With more and more regulations and new types of fuels, vehicles today pollute much less than before.The reason the American fleet is now less fuel efficent is primarly because of the emergence of the SUV. It is not because of the type of fuel that is used. You said this yourself.

So by your own admission, the SUV has made us even more oil dependent, and forced us to protect the PG as well as risk potential harm to environmentaly fragile areas (ANWAR). Good luck on proving that societal benefit.

[Useruser666]

The people who pay for it when they start paying the real cost of gasoline. The real cost would include the cost of securing the supplies defense.




Can you give me one good reason why we are in the middle east to begin with other than oil? Oh, I'd looooooooooooooooooooooooooove to hear the justification for this one.

No, if there was no oil there, there would be no pressence. You can argue this if you want, but I don't know of one credible source who would agree with you. The Persian Gulf is not Hawaii and the people there are not American citizens and are not our responsibility to defend, so that is also a bad comparison.

However, I guess the other comparison isn't so much of a reach. The American subsidizing of oil's defense is a form of welfare, only it's a form of welfare that doesn't provide an essential service for life. It provides it for people and companies who are more than capable of paying for it on their own. Explain to me why I should subsidize oil for a higher user?

If you can proove a society wide benefit from being on an oil based economy, I'd love to hear it. But seeing as it's the root of the wars we're now involved in and is not environmentaly friendly, I don't think you can.

[QUOTE]If you would look at the charts I posted again, you will see just how much we are already taxed on gas.
[QUOTE]

Not high enough. It's only high enough when the money that is brought in pays for the service, which it's not doing. The money brought in by gas taxes are not enough to pay for the military presence in the gulf.



It's not about choices. It's about the price of gas not yet being high enough to warrant an overall savings for most people with a fuel efficent vehicle.



The reason the American fleet is now less fuel efficent is primarly because of the emergence of the SUV. It is not because of the type of fuel that is used. You said this yourself.

So by your own admission, the SUV has made us even more oil dependent, and forced us to protect the PG as well as risk potential harm to environmentaly fragile areas (ANWAR). Good luck on proving that societal benefit.


Manny, I never said that our presence in the Middle East is not because of oil. But even if we cut the amount of gas that we use by HALF, we will still need to import oil from that area of the world. We will still have to maintain a presence there. So that is really a mute point. Even if every vehicle in the US got 60 mpg, we still would be importing oil.

Sure it's more enviromentally friendly to use less oil. I would love to use less gas. But there is simply not the alternative out there available to me. If there were an option, I'd be certainly open to it. But there isn't.

I did say that the SUV is a major factor in our increase in gas consumption. I also said that history will repeat it self with the coming of more efficient vehicles as demand for them grows. Manufacturers are already changing to meet these strategies as we speak. I also believe that this is a very similar situation as what happened in the '70s with the emergence of forgien cars that had better fuel economy. Things are coming around.

[MannyIsGod]

Manny, I never said that our presence in the Middle East is not because of oil. But even if we cut the amount of gas that we use by HALF, we will still need to import oil from that area of the world. We will still have to maintain a presence there. So that is really a mute point. Even if every vehicle in the US got 60 mpg, we still would be importing oil.

Lets go on the assumption that you're right. For the record, I don't believe your are, and I'm currently looking for the stats to find out what the actual amount of imported oil from the middle east is in order to show you why you are wrong.

But lets say you are right.

Then, the people who use more gas, still deserve to pay more for the that presence there. We're not talking about food stamps. We're talking about people paying for a commidity that is being subsidized by every American regardless of their level of use.



Sure it's more enviromentally friendly to use less oil. I would love to use less gas. But there is simply not the alternative out there available to me. If there were an option, I'd be certainly open to it. But there isn't.

Then by all means, use gas. Most people will have to. But as much bitching as people do about the prices today, the amount of driving in this country is going up. It's far from a hardship to the average American at these prices, and needs to go higher in order for it to become such.



I did say that the SUV is a major factor in our increase in gas consumption. I also said that history will repeat it self with the coming of more efficient vehicles as demand for them grows. Manufacturers are already changing to meet these strategies as we speak. I also believe that this is a very similar situation as what happened in the '70s with the emergence of forgien cars that had better fuel economy. Things are coming around.
Yes, well, it's not happening nearly fast enough. And in the meantime, those of us who don't consume as much oil as people in an H2 are still taxed unevenly. Also, the dependence of on foreign oil simply keeps us in a very bad situation national security wise.

You can debate all of this, but the fact is that it's pretty acknowledged. There are plenty of congressmen and people in the government on both sides of the aisle who love to talk about lowering dependency on foreign oil, but they never act.

The American people don't want a gas tax. And their "leaders" aren't going to stick their elected neck out and call for one, even if it would benefit the country much more in the long run, because it's a political third rail.

I'll post some figures countering what you said above after the game. I'm looking right now but I don't think I'll have them all ready by then.

[Clandestino]

manny, we were in bosnia for 10 years.. and we are still in kosovo.. why are we there? they don't have shit...

[MannyIsGod]

manny, we were in bosnia for 10 years.. and we are still in kosovo.. why are we there? they don't have shit...
Regional security of NATO allies. Continent wide wars have started in the Balkans, it's not known as a powder keg without good reason. Com'on, YOU of all people should know this.

We generaly have strong ties to Europe but....

Also, it's a lot easier to sell involvement in saving white people to the American people when compared to saving poor brown folks. See: Rwanda.

[Clandestino]

Regional security of NATO allies. Continent wide wars have started in the Balkans, it's not known as a powder keg without good reason. Com'on, YOU of all people should know this.

We generaly have strong ties to Europe but....

Also, it's a lot easier to sell involvement in saving white people to the American people when compared to saving poor brown folks. See: Rwanda.

so, it was about saving white people? the people we were saving were muslims...

[Hook Dem]

http://img119.echo.cx/img119/513/whoneedsoil6bf.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us) :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

[Clandestino]

http://img88.echo.cx/img88/1387/who7gq.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

[MannyIsGod]

so, it was about saving white people? the people we were saving were muslims...
You really can't read can you?

Fuck, it's like talking to a brick wall sometimes. Here, I'll copy it for you.

Regional security of NATO allies. Continent wide wars have started in the Balkans, it's not known as a powder keg without good reason. Com'on, YOU of all people should know this.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Riding the bus is exactly what Rumsfeld wants

[Clandestino]

You really can't read can you?

Fuck, it's like talking to a brick wall sometimes. Here, I'll copy it for you.

waaaay back in the day... now, they have no fucking effect on the global scene... we did it to stop the genocide bc europe wouldn't police their own backyard... it took us to take the lead...

[MannyIsGod]

I disagree completely and I see no indication that the United States steps up to stop Genocide anymore than any other country unless there are other security implications.

[Clandestino]

I disagree completely and I see no indication that the United States steps up to stop Genocide anymore than any other country unless there are other security implications.

we stopped it in kosovo... protected all the poor muslims from slobo.. they have nothing and there was no threat of a world war had we not stopped them.. no incentive other than goodwill... same for bosnia

[MannyIsGod]

Dude, if you think there were no incentives other goodwill, I suggest do the following:

Read up on the history of the place; especialy the historical ties the people in taht region have to other places in Europe ie Serbians and Russians.

Speak with some of the Slovenians about the local politics of what was Yugoslavia.

America doesn't do shit unless it has something to gain. Shit, I bet even Yoni and AHF will agree on that one.

[The Big Chicken]

we stopped it in kosovo... protected all the poor muslims from slobo.. they have nothing and there was no threat of a world war had we not stopped them.. no incentive other than goodwill... same for bosnia

Sorry not true, you did it because it was on the NATO door-step and the organization had to show it is worth something. And it didn't do a very good job either.

[Clandestino]

Dude, if you think there were no incentives other goodwill, I suggest do the following:

Read up on the history of the place; especialy the historical ties the people in taht region have to other places in Europe ie Serbians and Russians.

Speak with some of the Slovenians about the local politics of what was Yugoslavia.

America doesn't do shit unless it has something to gain. Shit, I bet even Yoni and AHF will agree on that one.

i have spoken to bosnian serbs, bosnian muslims, bosnian croats, croats, and albanians.. i used to work in that region...

what did we have to gain in that region.. i'm telling you...there isn't shit there except hot women...

[Clandestino]

Sorry not true, you did it because it was on the NATO door-step and the organization had to show it is worth something. And it didn't do a very good job either.

basically the us and britain did... finally the other nato partners stepped in... i remember the un went it and just watched people die.. un sucks...

[The Big Chicken]

... i remember the un went it and just watched people die.. un sucks...

Are we talking about Bosnia ro Kosovo?

And UN does not suck.

[MannyIsGod]

Sorry not true, you did it because it was on the NATO door-step and the organization had to show it is worth something. And it didn't do a very good job either.
Exactly

[Useruser666]

I don't know what else to discuss in the thread since it has been HIJACKED!

Using less gas/oil is good.

Gas prices are primarily effected by oil prices.

Manny wants either higher taxes on gas or just higher taxes on vehicles that use more.(?)

I just want the option of getting better milage for my truck at an even semi-resonable cost.

[MannyIsGod]

I'd actualy rather have a higher tax on gas as opposed to taxing certain vehicles more.

But just an FYI, SUV's actually do get special treatment when it comes to lower standards for fuel economy. I think that's bullshit, and would like to see that changed.

Gas is going to get progressivly more expensive over the longrun, and hopefully that will spur development torwards other fuels such as hyrdogen.

[Useruser666]

I'd actualy rather have a higher tax on gas as opposed to taxing certain vehicles more.

But just an FYI, SUV's actually do get special treatment when it comes to lower standards for fuel economy. I think that's bullshit, and would like to see that changed.

Gas is going to get progressivly more expensive over the longrun, and hopefully that will spur development torwards other fuels such as hyrdogen.

They do, although this is mostly moot, do to the fact that a majority of them have the same engine drive train as other vehicles that do meet the emissions standards.

I think the tax loophole for businesses was totally bogus.

[Clandestino]

Are we talking about Bosnia ro Kosovo?

And UN does not suck.

the UN sucks..period.. they accomplish nothing... in bosnia un peacekeepers were tied up in front of srebrenica... their rules of engagement are so limited they are basically just voyeurs...

[Goliadnative]

In the words of Bruce Robison, "What would Willie do?". Click here to see. (http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,66288,00.html)

[SequSpur]

I am actively looking to trade my Tahoe right now. Possibly a Ford Escape. 25 on the highway.

Right now, I am lucky to get 15.

[Clandestino]

get a motorcycle... suv when weather sucks and when it's not raining i ride my harley... getting around around 55mpg! plus it is cool!

[scott]

You guys give me a headache.

I just wanted to say that a barrel is equal to 42 gallons, not 44.

[The Ressurrected One]

You guys give me a headache.

I just wanted to say that a barrel is equal to 42 gallons, not 44.
Okay, let's re-do the math...from the top everyone.

[Useruser666]

Doesn't matter, I also quoted total barrels.

[The Big Chicken]

the UN sucks..period.. they accomplish nothing... in bosnia un peacekeepers were tied up in front of srebrenica... their rules of engagement are so limited they are basically just voyeurs...


But it was the security council that gave them that order. And the government in Netherland was forced to resign because of Srebrenica because the dutch people war so outraged.

[GoldToe]

I guess I'm going to have to get one of these.

http://www.eastes.net/content/adventure4/transport2.jpg

[MannyIsGod]

Dude! I wish they had Smart Cars here!!!!!!!

We saw one at Hollywood video a while back, but no one knew what they were. It had Mexican plates, I wonder if they sell them there?

[Clandestino]

But it was the security council that gave them that order. And the government in Netherland was forced to resign because of Srebrenica because the dutch people war so outraged.

the un security council.. see, ineffective...

[Clandestino]

Dude! I wish they had Smart Cars here!!!!!!!

We saw one at Hollywood video a while back, but no one knew what they were. It had Mexican plates, I wonder if they sell them there?

i've seen several in sa.. all mexican plates.. they have got to sell them there.. one thing they do sell there that is almost equal is the ford ka... they don't sell them in the us..

[Drachen]

I had never heard of them, but I just checked them out, the roadsters are pretty cool.

http://www.knipoog.com/swing/arjan/SmartRoadster.jpg

[Useruser666]

I hope I can get a propane duel fuel system on my next truck.

[Drachen]

I hope that by the next time I buy a new car, fuel cells will be in full effect.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

I guess I'm going to have to get one of these.

http://www.eastes.net/content/adventure4/transport2.jpg


ROFL

my girlfriend went to england a while back and that was the first time i heard of those...she took pictures of one and thought it was the funniest car she'd ever seen.

i agree.

but it still owns on gas.

[Shelly]

I'd hate to be in an accident in that thing!

[Hook Dem]

I'd hate to be in an accident in that thing!
You had better not get in an accident while riding in one of those unless the playing field is leveled! This happens every time there is a gas crisis. Everyone runs out and buys pregnant roller skates and then after the crisis levels off, the market is saturated with a bunch of those roller skates that no one wants. It's happened no less than three times in the last 30 years. No matter what the situation, America will never get over it's love affair with the monster vehicles. Some in here are just too young to remember or don't know past history.

[GoldToe]

Parking space is not a problem.

http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/n/d/ndc112/100_0278.jpg

[GoldToe]

You had better not get in an accident while riding in one of those unless the playing field is leveled! This happens every time there is a gas crisis. Everyone runs out and buys pregnant roller skates and then after the crisis levels off, the market is saturated with a bunch of those roller skates that no one wants. It's happened no less than three times in the last 30 years. No matter what the situation, America will never get over it's love affair with the monster vehicles. Some in here are just too young to remember or don't know past history.

Lucky for me I've never had a love affair for the monster vehicles.

[Useruser666]

Do they have an ejector seat option?

[SpursWoman]

Wow, that's a "They had to ID her by her dental records" waiting to happen.



So, you're supposed to forego grocery shopping and kids in sports for better fuel economy?

[GoldToe]

I don't think this mode of transportion is meant for grocery shopping or hauling kids around. A get to point A from point B vehicle is all it is.

Just like a motorcycle isn't for grocery shopping or hauling kids around but it has its purpose and great MPG.

[Hook Dem]

I don't think this mode of transportion is meant for grocery shopping or hauling kids around. A get to point A from point B vehicle is all it is.

Just like a motorcycle isn't for grocery shopping or hauling kids around but it has its purpose and great MPG.
Go for it! Just don't get in front of my monster! :lol

[Clandestino]

I don't think this mode of transportion is meant for grocery shopping or hauling kids around. A get to point A from point B vehicle is all it is.

Just like a motorcycle isn't for grocery shopping or hauling kids around but it has its purpose and great MPG.

except you look cool on a motorcycle...

[Nbadan]

Don't look for any relief, prices on gas will continue to increase in the near future...


<snip>

Oil prices have climbed 6.7 percent this week as refinery shutdowns in Texas, Louisiana and Venezuela threatened to curb fuel supplies. U.S. gasoline inventories are down 5.7 percent since the end of February, more than double the five-year average, boosting demand for crude to fill gaps in fuel output.

. . .

A gasoline-making unit at a Lake Charles, Louisiana, refinery owned by ConocoPhillips, the largest U.S. refiner, yesterday failed to start after maintenance, Reuters reported, without naming its source. Conoco spokeswoman Laura Hopkins declined to comment.

San Antonio-based Valero, the third-largest U.S. refiner, on April 18 said a coker at its St. Charles, Louisiana, plant will be shut until at least April 26, halting 336,000 gallons of daily gasoline output and 1.05 million gallons of daily distillate production. Distillates include diesel and heating oil.

Petroleos de Venezuela SA, South America's largest oil producer, last week stopped gasoline and diesel production at its Puerto La Cruz refinery after one of the plant's units was shut, El Nacional reported today, citing unidentified industry officials.


``It looks like problems with refineries in the U.S. are making people nervous about not getting enough gasoline for the summer season,'' said Anette Einarsen, an oil analyst in Oslo for Nordea Bank AB. ``The market is also jumpy because of the uncertainty of how much demand will actually grow compared to production from refineries.''

Bloomberg (http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=affQCPEHQ_fQ&refer=news_index)

I'm sure that W is calling the Saudis and 'jaw-boning them' about now.

[scott]

San Antonio-based Valero, the third-largest U.S. refiner, on April 18 said a coker at its St. Charles, Louisiana, plant will be shut until at least April 26, halting 336,000 gallons of daily gasoline output and 1.05 million gallons of daily distillate production. Distillates include diesel and heating oil.

Bloomberg took some liberty in quote numbers in gallons, as opposed to barrels, the standard unit in refining.

That's only 8 mbpd of gasoline and 25 mbpd of distillate. In the grand scheme of things, not a huge upset to supply in the grand scheme of things.

[Shelly]

Everyone runs out and buys pregnant roller skates and then after the crisis levels off, the market is saturated with a bunch of those roller skates that no one wants

Pregnant rollerskates :lol

Is this the Yugo of today?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

still noone has mentioned how high prices must be for a chode explosion

[mookie2001]

no theyre all d-slapping eachother because it went from 2.19 to 2.09 just like i said

[Cant_Be_Faded]

i thought it went from 2.09 to 2.19


elpimpo4cc wrote: which word is better, baloncesto o basketbol?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

how high do gas prices have to get before peoples chodes explode?

CBF's chode =
EXPLODED

[sa_butta]

Dude! I wish they had Smart Cars here!!!!!!!

We saw one at Hollywood video a while back, but no one knew what they were. It had Mexican plates, I wonder if they sell them there?
http://www.edmunds.com/advice/specialreports/articles/101361/article.html

The smart Invasion
A New smart Line of Cars Is Coming to the U.S.
By Philip Reed (http://www.edmunds.com/advice/specialreports/articles/101361/article.html#)
Date Posted 03-09-2004
Anyone traveling in Europe knows that there is a vast sea of small cars that never seem to make it to America's shores. One car that stands out from the pack is the smart car, a tiny two-seater so adorable that visiting Americans want to put it in their pockets and bring it home. Soon, they won't have to. The smart car is coming.

The smart car model called the fortwo (no capital letters in any of the names) is the eye-catching buzz bomb that seats two, navigates narrow streets, sips gasoline and parks head-in to the curb between two larger cars. But the fortwo won't be the first car to appear in the supersized U.S. market. It won't even be the larger forfour, a four-seat version, just introduced in Europe. Instead, Americans will get a car that will be called the formore, also known as the "smart utility vehicle" or SUV.

Appearing in the U.S. in 2006, the formore, with a four-cylinder Mercedes-Benz engine and all-wheel drive, will pave the way for the smaller smart cars that have made a name for the innovative DaimlerChrysler-owned company. The smart cars will be the next wave of small cars, a trend started by BMW's Mini Cooper in 2002 (http://www.edmunds.com/used/2002/mini/cooper/index.html). The Mini bucked the trend toward heavier, taller and more powerful vehicles and quickly became the hippest car in the American market.

The first question leaping into the mind of any red-blooded American is: can a small car succeed in the U.S. market where the vehicles just keep getting bigger? The Mini certainly has been a hit. Way back in the '60s, during the golden age of chrome and fins, the VW bug (http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/generations/articles/101211/article.html) was a huge success. Other small cars have been successful, including the modern-day New Beetle (http://www.edmunds.com/used/2004/volkswagen/newbeetle/index.html) and the Mazda Miata (http://www.edmunds.com/used/2004/mazda/mx5miata/index.html). The lineup of smart cars — which even includes a roadster — seems positioned to continue this small trend. Besides, people are becoming frustrated by congested metropolitan areas and will appreciate a car that's easy to park and delivers good gas mileage while cutting emissions.

Hoping to generate a buzz well in advance of the 2006 introduction, Edmunds.com was invited to Germany, France and Italy to see firsthand how these cars look in their natural habitat. The first thing we noticed is that the fortwo (formally called the "city coupe") is everywhere. It is so different that when one shoots past, you say, "What the heck was that?" From the outside it seems bite-size, yet it boldly asserts itself among larger vehicles. It can dart through narrow openings in traffic (let's face it, Europeans aren't into lanes) and park just about anywhere.

Scott Keogh, general manager of smart USA, told us that this little fortwo may be coming to the States at a later date. But DaimlerChrysler plans to establish the brand with the larger formore, which will arrive here in the third quarter of 2006. Initially, 30,000 smart formores will be built for the American market each year, but Keogh hopes to see that output climb as high as 60,000 cars a year.

When we asked him if America is ready for small cars like the smart, Keogh replied, "I think smart is a brand that is just not about size. It is about a whole frame of mind in terms of standing out and being unique."

Keogh said that the fortwo is popular in Europe because it can be customized to personal taste. Specifically, the plastic body panels, which help keep the weight-to-power ratio low, are easily changed. If a current smart owner decides he wants different colors, new body panels can be purchased and installed for $800. Voila! You have a brand-new-looking car.

The body panels, made from recyclable plastic, are manufactured by Dynamit Nobel, at "smartville," a manufacturing plant in Hambach, France. Claus Fischinger, head of the plant, said that most of the parts for the smart car are manufactured at smartville. In this way, the parts are made just before they are put into the cars, eliminating the need for storage and long-distance shipping.

On a tour of the plant, our guide told us it only takes eight hours to build a smart car. Some 2,000 people work in smartville, 25 percent of them women. It is a cheerful place where workers listen to contemporary music and watch production figures on a digital display overhead.

In Europe, the smart cars are sold in a different way. Buyers test-drive the car at a dealership and then place an order for the car in their choice of colors and specifications. It takes four to six weeks for the finished car to arrive. This means that buyers get exactly the car they want and that dealers don't have to keep a large inventory on hand.

The formore, the car that will be hitting the U.S. market first, will be unveiled within the next 12 to 18 months, Keogh said. He said it will be a four-door with a tailgate and reconfigurable seats. It will be powered by a Mercedes-Benz engine with a relatively small displacement but with high power and good fuel mileage. The car will be launched with an automatic, but a manual transmission will eventually be offered as well.

Like most small utility vehicles, the formore will be a car-based crossover design rather than a rugged body-on-frame design. "The darker side of the sport-utility vehicle comes from the [questionable] safety side of the equation [where handling dynamics are concerned]," Keogh noted. "Those are the things the smart will be extremely strong on. We will take the good side of SUVs and add smart features to it." Those features, he said, are all-wheel drive and many of the safety features found on Mercedes, including stability and traction control, ABS and BrakeAssist. Additionally, the formore will offer interchangeable body panels like other smarts, a navigation system, an MP3 player and an integrated phone system. The tuner company, BRABUS will be customizing smart cars for styling and increased performance.

For a hint of what the formore will be like, we were given the chance to test-drive the forfour in and around Rome. It is a stylish car with lively performance and sure-footed handling. Three different engine sizes are offered with either an automatic or a five-speed stick shift. Some of the Mercedes features are apparent in the cabin and also in the general driving dynamics of the car.

But what about that cute little fortwo? Keogh said a date had not been chosen for its arrival in America but added, "I feel confident the fortwo will be sold in America at some point." The car now darting around Europe is the first generation of the fortwo. "Right from the start, the second generation will take the American market into account," he said.

On a short test-drive of the fortwo, we were surprised to find that despite its diminutive exterior dimensions, the interior doesn't feel cramped. There is plenty of room for two people to sit comfortably inside, although there is little room to bring more than a briefcase. The fortwo feels stable and peppy (at least on the congested streets of Rome) and once you get used to having a very short hood and no trunk, you can put it just about anywhere you want.

It made us think that this smart car — only eight and a half feet long — would be perfect for Manhattan's tight streets and could squeeze into unimaginably small parking spots. In fact, Keogh said that the fortwo was used to lead the 2003 New York City Marathon. Afterwards, despite pouring rain, there was a strong turnout for an offered test-drive in Central Park.

But what about the safety question? Americans believe the best way to survive an accident is to have a large, heavy car. Will U.S. buyers plunk down money for a car that is small and clad in plastic body panels?

First of all, Keogh said, the car will be built with Mercedes technology, known for its safety innovations. Every car will have stability and traction control, ABS and BrakeAssist. They will also have front and side airbags and a protective seating system. But the core of the car's safety is provided by the smart's "tridion safety cell," an extremely strong steel structure that prevents anything from intruding into the cabin. This safety cell is designed to work in conjunction with the seats, the seatbelts and the airbags.

Although the U.S. launch of the smart car is still two years away, Keogh predicts it will tap into a renaissance of interest in smaller cars. "With smart you will see a small car that provokes emotions as well. It's not just about going from Point A to Point B. This is not the 'fast foodization' of small cars. This is about being personal, different and vibrant."

[Cant_Be_Faded]

gas is two hundred sixty nine cents and nine tenths of a cent in Dallas

exploded?

[mookie2001]

and i still have that 5.7 V8 350 with 191K miles on it

[mookie2001]

anyone have 3 out of 4 greater than that?
liters
cylinders
cubic inches
miles

if so i'll give it up to you

[Cant_Be_Faded]

2.64 here in Austin. It went down a little after Rita. How weird.

I saw on the news the national gas average in January of 2005 was 1.94 give or take a couple cents.

[mookie2001]

I'm amazed at how much Americans get their panties in a wad over gas prices. A 25 cent change per gallon amounts to about 5 bucks' difference per fill up. If you're having to fill up enough for that to break your bank, I would suggest trying public transportation or relocation.

[mookie2001]

http://img88.echo.cx/img88/1387/who7gq.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us/)

[Clandestino]

:lmao dayum mookie.. where'd you find that? was it washed ashore by rita?

[Spurminator]

Notwithstanding the fact that I've since reconsidered that statement, we're no longer talking about a 25 cent per gallon change here anyway.

[MiNuS]

less than two months ago gasoline was @ $2.

Considering my SUV has a 28 gallon tank the differrence is $22.12 per fill up.

Thats $88.48 more per month x 12 months=$1061.76 per year.

[boutons]

Washingtonpost.com

Gas Profit Guzzlers

Refiners Captured The Biggest Part Of the Price Increase

By Justin Blum
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, September 25, 2005; F01

When the average price of a gallon of regular gasoline peaked at $3.07 recently, it was partly because the nation's refineries were getting an estimated 99 cents on each gallon sold. That was more than three times the amount they earned a year ago when regular unleaded was selling for $1.87.

The companies that pump oil from the ground swept in an additional 47 cents on each gallon, a 46 percent jump over the same period.

If motorists are the big losers in the spectacular run-up in gas prices, the companies that produce the oil and turn it into gasoline are the clear winners. By contrast, the truckers who transport gasoline, the companies that operate pipelines and the gas station owners have profited far less.

The spikes caused by Hurricane Katrina -- which heavily damaged oil production and refining in the Gulf region -- accentuated gains the refiners and producers already were enjoying over the past year. Exxon Mobil Corp., the Irving, Tex., behemoththat produces and refines oil, reported in July that its second-quarter profit was up 32 percent, to $7.64 billion. Analysts expect Exxon's profit to soar again this quarter.

The rapid run-up in prices at the pump when Katrina hit -- and their slow decline -- has infuriated drivers, many of whom complain that oil companies used the storm as a pretext for boosting prices and profits. Politicians echoed that sentiment and are calling for investigations of the oil industry.

But interviews with analysts, consumer advocates and participants in the oil markets indicate that typical market forces were at work in the price run-up. Commodities markets that determine prices for gasoline moved dramatically higher after Katrina struck the Gulf region and damaged refineries and oil production. (The effect of Hurricane Rita on refiners' profits remains to be seen.)

Rising pump prices and company profits have caused lawmakers on Capitol Hill to seek legislative changes. Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.) has introduced a measure that would tax some oil company profits that are not devoted to exploration and development of new production.

"They obviously are experiencing windfall or excess profits," Dorgan said of the big oil companies. "They are . . . profiting in an extraordinary way at the expense of the American consumer."

Some environmental and consumer advocates are urging the government to lower oil company profits in another way. They want to reduce demand for gasoline, which has been growing in recent years, by requiring vehicles to get better mileage.

Others have called on the government to set gasoline prices, as it did several decades ago.

Officials representing some oil-importing countries complain that oil companies, including those controlled by foreign governments, have not spent enough money on new exploration and development, leading to tight supplies of oil. Consumer advocates say mergers in the refining business have diminished competition and made it easier for the companies to limit supplies of gasoline and extract higher prices.

Refiners say they are spending heavily to expand and that their industry should not face new taxes or other penalties. "Refinery capacity is being added, but the problem is that demand has outpaced capacity," said Mary Rose Brown, a spokeswoman for Valero Energy Corp., a San Antonio-based refining company.

Hurricane Katrina shocked already-tight markets for crude oil and gasoline. It reduced oil production in the Gulf of Mexico and caused the shutdown of nearby refineries, crimping supplies of crude oil and gasoline. Traders on the New York Mercantile Exchange responded by bidding up prices for both commodities.

That influencedoil sellers and buyers who negotiate prices in an informal spot market conducted by phone and instant computer messaging. Producers cut deals with refiners to sell oil at a higher cost, pegged to the rising prices on the exchange.

For a company like Exxon, producing a barrel of oil from an existing well costs about $20, according to analysts. When the selling price rises above that, the increase is almost all profit, they said. After Katrina bore down on the Gulf Coast, the price of oil set a new high, approaching $70.

Refiners processing the oil into gasoline faced lucrative market conditions. They may have had to pay the producers more for the oil, but they were able to sell their gasoline for higher prices as a result of the short supply and the spike on the mercantile exchange. In their view, the increases were justified because the market dictated that their final product -- gasoline -- had risen in value.

Refiners, particularly those with most of their facilities outside the path of Katrina, cashed in. Analysts predicted a windfall for companies such as Philadelphia-based Sunoco Inc., which continued operating normally during the hurricane.

After gasoline leaves refineries, the profit margin becomes narrower, even when prices are high. Many motorists direct their anger at gas station owners when the higher market prices for oil and gasoline show up at the pump. But the bulk of the increases at the pump typically is not making station owners rich, analysts said.

Who sets the price at the pump depends on who owns the station. At stations owned by big oil companies, prices are based on local supply and demand and what the companies think customers will be willing to pay.

Other stations may bear the name of a big oil company but be owned locally, in which case the owner often pays a non-negotiable price for the gasoline and determines on his own how much to charge customers. Some of these owners in the Washington area say they typically charge 10 cents to 20 cents more than the price they pay for gasoline, though the amount can vary depending on competition. They say they generally do not make more money with high prices.

Station owners complain that credit card companies are benefiting from higher pump prices. Many of those companies charge a percentage fee to the stations based on the customer's total charge. So as customers' bills rise, so do the credit card companies' fees.

Station owners say that as prices have risen, more people are using credit cards.

"It's a huge amount of money to process a transaction," said Eric Schmitz, an Exxon station owner in Tysons Corner. "It's horrible."

In all, the companies that distribute, market and sell gasoline to the public took about 18 cents on each gallon of gas when the average price hit a peak of $3.07 a gallon on Sept. 5 in an Energy Department survey, analysts estimated. A year ago, they took 17 cents of each gallon, according to Energy Department data.

When prices rise quickly, as they did after Katrina, the refineries make a larger share of the profit because they immediately pass along price increases to their buyers. But gasoline suppliers and station owners typically move more slowly in passing along price increases, limiting their profit.

Conversely, as more gasoline supplies came on the market following Katrina, the prices charged by refiners for their gasoline dropped rapidly. But gas suppliers and station owners did not pass those reduced prices along as quickly, a typical pricing pattern that allows them to make up for reduced profit margins when prices were rising, analysts said.

"On the way up, one guy is making money," said Michael Burdette, an analyst with the Energy Department's Energy Information Administration. "On the way down, the other guy is."


© 2005 The Washington Post Company


http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2005/09/25/GR2005092500529.gif

[boutons]

and who are the "refiners" reaping $Bs/qtr in windfall profits?

yep, dubya's and dickhead's buddies in the oilco's, just as intended by the Repubs when they started this bogus Iraq war.

[mookie2001]

great graphic from boutons
these oil companies are making more money than lebron

[Cant_Be_Faded]

I had a dream that I was a blonde little girl who went to a house that belonged to 3 bears. I ended up taking the smallest bears vehicle, which ended up being an H3. What was amazing was that the mother bear owned an H2, and the daddy bear owned a real hummer.

Three Hummers in one garage! That's outlandish though, thank god it was only a dream.

[Nbadan]

Officials representing some oil-importing countries complain that oil companies, including those controlled by foreign governments, have not spent enough money on new exploration and development, leading to tight supplies of oil. Consumer advocates say mergers in the refining business have diminished competition and made it easier for the companies to limit supplies of gasoline and extract higher prices.

Refiners say they are spending heavily to expand and that their industry should not face new taxes or other penalties. "Refinery capacity is being added, but the problem is that demand has outpaced capacity," said Mary Rose Brown, a spokeswoman for Valero Energy Corp., a San Antonio-based refining company.

Now that's a chilling comment by a official spokesperson. If we don't have enough refining capacity now to meet demand, is expanding the capacity of existing refineries, 25% which sit in Hurricane central, ever going to be enough? From a demand-side, I doubt it. I doubt it.

[Nbadan]

http://www.caglecartoons.com/images/preview/%7B842B3EC1-3E49-4583-B9A3-B0A47746AD9B%7D.gif

[Hook Dem]

http://www.caglecartoons.com/images/preview/%7B842B3EC1-3E49-4583-B9A3-B0A47746AD9B%7D.gif
In regards to the devastation Dan, it wasn't long ago that you were saying, "where is Bush"? Now you brush it aside with cartoons!

[scott]

Now that's a chilling comment by a official spokesperson. If we don't have enough refining capacity now to meet demand, is expanding the capacity of existing refineries, 25% which sit in Hurricane central, ever going to be enough? From a demand-side, I doubt it. I doubt it.

That's what they said back in the 70s.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.caglecartoons.com/images/preview/%7B842B3EC1-3E49-4583-B9A3-B0A47746AD9B%7D.gif

If conservation were really important to him, he would have pushed automakers for gains in fuel economy.

GW's priorities are to help his buddies and that is it.

"Good job Brownie..."

"We don't we just let these here energy lobbyists write the policy, I've got a vacation to go to and can't be bothered with it.."

Pfft.

[mookie2001]

http://img169.echo.cx/img169/6782/gasprice8cz.png (http://www.imageshack.us/)

[SpursWoman]

I had a dream that I was a blonde little girl who went to a house that belonged to 3 bears. I ended up taking the smallest bears vehicle, which ended up being an H3. What was amazing was that the mother bear owned an H2, and the daddy bear owned a real hummer.

Three Hummers in one garage! That's outlandish though, thank god it was only a dream.


Beats the one I had last night ... where I went to a Spurs pre-season game wearing nothing but blue fuzzy bunny slippers. :wow :oops

[mookie2001]

I had a dream that a hamburger was eating me!

[Nbadan]

http://news.globalfreepress.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10110/mURI_temp_1227b6f2.jpg

[boutons]

"blue fuzzy bunny slippers"

Why do you feel the need to hide only your feet? :)

[SWC Bonfire]

The fuel prices are nuts.

In a 3-mile stretch here on I-35, diesel is anywhere from $3.29 to $2.65. I don't think that anyone knows what the hell is going on. It seems as though diesel has shot up 60 cents overnight, which sounds like gouging to me - no way the markets have gone up that quickly, I don't care what the demand is.

[Nbadan]

FINALLY some one from this administration is talking truth to power... I wonder what * thinks? (Simmons is also an energy advisor to President Bush.)


Matt Simmons believes the natural disaster may well be remembered as the start of "our great energy war." "We're almost at the verge of having real energy shortages," Simmons said last Friday, when he issued a wake-up call to a standing-room only audience at the Center for the Arts. "We could be looking at $10-a-gallon gas this winter."

In direct opposition to the Bush administration's energy projections earlier this year * which assumes Saudi production, now at 10 mbd, would increase another 12.5 mbd * Simmons said, "The likelihood of Saudi Arabia being able to produce 20 to 25 mbd is so low that it should almost be deemed impossible. The likelihood that they could hit 12 mbd and keep this up for 20 years, let alone 50 years or more, is not very high. "We are in a deep energy hole," he concluded. "We must create a Plan B to ensure the future of energy, or we won't have a future of energy."

Finally, Simmons advocated establishing a conservation plan to determine ways to do more with less. "We need to address the shipment of goods," he said, "which is by far the single worst way we use energy. Public Enemy Number One is ironically not the SUV; it's large trucks going long distances over our highways." To increase efficiency and cost savings, railroads and freight cars are preferred transport modes.

"One final word about Katrina and Rita," Simmons concluded. "They were our Fort Sumpters, but we needed a wake-up call."[/b]

Good Morning America!

From The Wilderness (http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/093005_world_stories.shtml)

It's gonna be a long, long winter.

[Nbadan]

I had an interesting conversation this morning with a Haliburton employee just back from Saudi Arabia. His conversation confirmed what we have been hearing. He said: "people think Saudi Arabia has a lot of oil, but they have been injecting water to increase production for years, and now the production from their giant fields is depleting very rapidly. The Saudis are in panic, pulling in rigs from everywhere, punching more holes in the ground to get quick production to stave off rapid old field production decline, and to keep up appearances. Workers are there from many nations to drill the sites, but the new wells are not very prolific."

Reading between the lines, if Ghawar is still producing at gargantuan rates, why the race to get so many rigs to drill so many wells? And the new well production combined with flowing old well production should be showing huge increases in Saudi production supply. But the monthly reports of Saudi production has not been impressive. For example, last month, the Saudis reported an increase of 50,000bd, mostly sour crude. If Ghawar is depleting rapidly, then the Saudis have a major problem, for not only must they drill more to keep their production stable, but also to make up for the declining production of other OPEC producers. Like a juggler with too many plates in the air, at some point it can all crash down. Simmons stated that once Ghawar starts to go, it will drop very fast.

The old saying about the Saudis is you don’t listen to what they say, but you watch what they do. The account of frantic drilling activity and rig acquisition suggests they are in trouble. My friend’s perception is not just his personal one, he said, but one widely shared by those working the oil fields. FWIW

Yahoo Finance (http://finance.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=FN&action=m&board=7081371&tid=cwei&sid=7081371&mid=123284)

[SWC Bonfire]

"We could be looking at $10-a-gallon gas this winter."

You're quoting this guy as a source? You could buy two $5 loaves of bread for that. :lol

If fuel got to $10/gallon, the US would starve to death, literally. You couldn't afford to buy food.


Dan, stimulation of oil wells is quite common, particularly steam injection. The oil is still there; it just becomes harder to recover. Oilfields in Saudi were so easy to recover back in the day that all they had to do was sink a hole and perforate; now they'll have to pay a little more to get it out of the ground and their disposable take on the energy $ will go down - their costs will come more in line to what it takes to produce a barrell of oil domestically. You should see the wells in California; I have personally logged two different wells 20 feet apart (the oil is highly viscous and does not migrate through the rock well).

[SWC Bonfire]

The account of frantic drilling activity and rig acquisition suggests they are in trouble. My friend’s perception is not just his personal one, he said, but one widely shared by those working the oil fields.

This suggests that they are trying to make a shitload of money while oil prices are through the roof. Or as the old timer's say: "Make hay while the sun's shining".

[SpursWoman]

This suggests that they are trying to make a shitload of money while oil prices are through the roof. Or as the old timer's say: "Make hay while the sun's shining".


Kind of a no-brainer you'd think. :fro

[Extra Stout]

You're quoting this guy as a source? You could buy two $5 loaves of bread for that. :lol

If fuel got to $10/gallon, the US would starve to death, literally. You couldn't afford to buy food.$10/gal is stretching it. We're not facing those kinds of shortages... yet.

But we by no means would starve to death with $10 gas. Britain is around $8 right now, and they look well-fed to me. And Americans on average have significant "energy reserves" anyway.

It will suck, and pretty much will put an end to the suburban American way of life, but it won't kill us.


Dan, stimulation of oil wells is quite common, particularly steam injection. The oil is still there; it just becomes harder to recover. Oilfields in Saudi were so easy to recover back in the day that all they had to do was sink a hole and perforate; now they'll have to pay a little more to get it out of the ground and their disposable take on the energy $ will go down - their costs will come more in line to what it takes to produce a barrell of oil domestically. You should see the wells in California; I have personally logged two different wells 20 feet apart (the oil is highly viscous and does not migrate through the rock well).One reason the Saudis are freaking out is because with oil at $65, many more non-OPEC sources of oil become viable, and the cartel starts to lose control of the market.

[RandomGuy]

$10/gal is stretching it. We're not facing those kinds of shortages... yet.

But we by no means would starve to death with $10 gas. Britain is around $8 right now, and they look well-fed to me. And Americans on average have significant "energy reserves" anyway.

It will suck, and pretty much will put an end to the suburban American way of life, but it won't kill us.

One reason the Saudis are freaking out is because with oil at $65, many more non-OPEC sources of oil become viable, and the cartel starts to lose control of the market.

Yes on all accounts.

[RandomGuy]

Dan, stimulation of oil wells is quite common, particularly steam injection. The oil is still there; it just becomes harder to recover. Oilfields in Saudi were so easy to recover back in the day that all they had to do was sink a hole and perforate; now they'll have to pay a little more to get it out of the ground and their disposable take on the energy $ will go down - their costs will come more in line to what it takes to produce a barrell of oil domestically. You should see the wells in California; I have personally logged two different wells 20 feet apart (the oil is highly viscous and does not migrate through the rock well).


Yup.

The phenomenon is easy to grasp with a couple of easy analogies.


Imagine someone in a hot air balloon dumps a bag of $100 bills over your house and you get to keep all that money.

You would pick up the bills that are nearest to you on the ground as they would require the least amount of effort to get, and then you would work your way around to the stuff on top of your car, then get up on a ladder and get up on the roof and up in any trees. The stuff that takes the least amount of effort gets picked up first, then you will gather the stuff that is harder to reach after you can't find any easy stuff.

The same is true for oil exploration and exploitation on the part of our oil-using civilization. We picked up the cheap, easy to get stuff and it is running out.


Now imagine that you are a person trapped on a deserted island. You need 2000 calories to live and the only food on the island is in the form of some fruit trees in the middle of the island that drop fruit regularly on the ground. You can walk over, pick up and eat a fruit at a cost of say, 10 calories, and get 500 calories from each fruit.

You will need 4 fruits (plus a very small fraction) to survive per day.

Now imagine that the easy fruit on the ground is gone, and you have to climb up the tree, go out onto a branch and laboriously saw the fruit off the tree. This takes 200 calories for EACH fruit.

You will now need 6.67 fruits per day to survive and your total caloric intake has gone from 2040 calories to over 3300. Your body still only needs 2000 calories, but you had to spend 1300 calories to get that.

The same is true for oil energy. The "return" on each new barrel of oil gets slimmer, so even if the world's economy/energy needs weren't growing our energy consumption would.

BUT

The world economy is growing. For each 1 percent of GDP growth, we need 1 percent PLUS X percent with the X percent being determined by the efficiency of our energy sources.

SOOOO....

If supply is constant or shrinking, and overall demand is going up, where does the "price point" go?

You guessed it, UP.

High enough that competing energy sources will eventually become more cost-efficient. I think faster than the oil companies expect.

[RandomGuy]

It will suck, and pretty much will put an end to the suburban American way of life, but it won't kill us.


Low density suburbs are only possible at this point with cheap gasoline.

Imagine the effect on real estate if everybody suddenly figures it is cheaper by a wide margin to live closer to where they actually work.

I think the biggest socio-economic effect of all this is that American Cities will start becoming more and more dense and the crap around the edges will shrivel somewhat.

The economic implications of this are staggering, considering how much capital is tied up in homes, and how deep into debt so many people are. A lot of americans have banked on their homes appreciating and that may well not be the case.